Maybe not based on this week. Here's my story:
The client site is down south in a place that's hard to get to. I've been there a few times, but this time they said they wanted to make all my travel arrangements. That's usually a red flag, and this was no different.
After they made those arrangements, I did make it to the arriving airport Sunday evening. I had to stay in that city overnight, because their local hotel was full - in fact, they couldn't get me in their hotel at all this week, so they put me up in a lesser hotel located about a half mile away.
But that started Monday night. They sent a driver in a van to pick me up early Monday morning and take me to their office, about an hour and a half away from the airport city. That worked OK, and I was in their office by 8AM, tired but ready to get to work.
A side note about the tired comment - I'd been feeling really run-down over the busy weekend leading up to the trip. It was a sign of things to come.
Anyway, at the office on Monday morning, they weren't ready for me. My main contact offered a somewhat lame apology, parked me in an open office, and left me alone all morning. I signed onto their system to check progress since my last visit, and discovered there had been none. You might be surprised how often that happens. I figured I was going to have to zap their folks with some jumper cables to get the project back on track.
Predictably, when they actually got the gang together to meet with me, things started off with lots of finger-pointing. Yeah, nothing I laid out for them to do since my last visit had been done, and the fault was his! No, hers! No, that other person I haven't met!
Calm down folks, let's just get this thing back on the rails.
So Monday night I settled into the second-class hotel room after my half-mile hike with my bags in tow, really feeling pretty rotten. But I'd promised to take care of some things for another client that night, so I went online and went to work for a couple of hours. Then I crashed for the night, going to sleep at halftime of the Monday Night game that right now I don't remember even what teams were playing.
Tuesday it was back to work and back to pushing the gang to move the project along. If they don't make up for that lost time, they won't make their project deadline. So I pitched in, showed them what to do, and did quite a bit myself. We divided up the work between about 5 people, including myself. I finished. Nobody else did. One of them actually didn't accomplish a single thing I could detect, making me wonder what he'd been doing all day on that computer - he'd actually seemed to be bent over something right there in the same room with me, but at the end of the day, nothing I'd given him to do had been done.
Turned out he was clueless but too proud to admit it. So somehow he managed to pretend to look busy all day without accomplishing a single thing, but never actually giving the slightest clue that he was lost.
Then there were the two ladies who spent a lot of time fighting with each other instead of doing the work they were assigned. I found out at the end of the day that they had a disagreement on how to structure some code values in the system, which bogged them down for most of the afternoon.
All the while I'm getting a headache and a sore throat, feel the sinuses draining down the back of my throat, and was wondering if I could find some strong medicine that would knock me out and let me get a good night's sleep. But I conculded that wouldn't be possible for several reasons.
First, I had promised other clients that I would take care of some things for them on Tuesday evening. So as soon as I got back to the hotel, I booted up and worked another 4 hours.
Second, since the local client was in control of my travel, I had no way to get to a drugstore. So medicine wasn't going to happen.
So when I finally shut down the laptop and went to bed that night around 10, I was sick. The congestion wouldn't let me sleep more than an hour at a time, and I wondered how I was going to survive the week.
Next morning, something interesting happened. I got into the office and kicked off the day with the fueding gang, and they noticed I wasn't feeling well. I was losing my voice, and may have looked a bit peaked. Somehow they stopped fueding and became cooperative, and we got quite a bit accomplished that day. I can't figure out whether some sort of compassion for my miserableness played a role, but I simply showed up resolved to do my absolute best to fight through another day and help them get the work done.
They decided to wrap up about an hour early, I think for my sake. It gave me an hour to rest before my Wednesday night conference call. After the conference call, I was supposed to be doing other things for other clients, but simply couldn't. I fell into bed and spent another uncomfortable night, but got a bit more sleep than the night before.
Thursday morning my voice was all but gone. I could barely croak out words, but I actually felt better. Back to work, I again found a somewhat more cooperative crew, and we had a reasonably productive day. That afternoon their Benefits Administrator actually walked me over to their clinic (this company actually has their own on-campus health clinic for their employees). I got examined by the clinic's doctor and tested for the flu. Diagnosis was respiratory infection, not viral. That's a good thing.
They hit me with a steroid shot, which if I've had before it must have been a long time ago. It had an amazing effect on me, giving me a boost of energy that I carried through the evening to finish the rest of that night-time work for the other clients. I wrapped up the day's work at 10 that night but couldn't sleep. It must have been the steroid that kept me awake all night.
So Friday, we finished up our work for the week, met with the executive sponsor to discuss the team's decision to ask me to take over a bigger role in the project. He didn't blink an eye, told me to just put together the time estimates and he'll approve it. I was pleased to find out the guy knew a lot about what had been going on this week, and was well aware of the, umm, staff issues.
Headed to the airport and home, so relieved and anxious to get a restful weekend to try to kick the infection before heading out on next week's adventure.
But the worst wasn't over yet.
It had been raining hard Thursday night and all day Friday, with flooding and high winds. My flight out of the little airport was delayed 2 hours, because it's a VFR airport and the plane was flying around waiting for enough of a break in the cloud cover that would allow it to land.
So of course, I got to the stopover point that night with no hope of catching my connection to Indy. Delta falls back on the weather-related excuse, so I'm on my own for a hotel room. I call the hotel and request the shuttle pickup. They tell me it will be there in 15 minutes. 45 minutes later I got on the shuttle and rode to the hotel.
I got to spend about 5 hours in the hotel bed, my cough denying me any serious sleep. Caught a cab to the airport at 4AM for my 6AM flight this morning. Instead of riding the 8AM direct flight to Indy, I had to take the 6 through Minneapolis because the direct flight was oversold, I assume partly with other people who didn't make it on last night's flight.
The flight finally arrives in Indy about 1:30 Saturday afternoon.
Without my bag.
So how was your week?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Will Freedom be Saved?
Aside from my constant state of scrambling to keep up the last few weeks, I haven't posted lately because it's been difficult to gather thoughts concise enough for a meaningful contribution to the conversation.
This morning my thoughts came around to the fundamental problem, which is the fact that our very freedom is under attack by this radical new government. The only question is whether we will be smart enough or strong enough to stop them.
The news only gets more disturbing as time goes on.
I really don't care one way or the other whether Rush Limbaugh buys a minority share in the St. Louis Rams. But the chilling part of the story was that he could be unceremoniously dumped from the group that is bidding for the team based in large part on fabrications by Limbaugh detractors and repeated without any attempted confirmation by so-called "news" networks and amplified by axe-grinders like Sharpton and Jackson.
The chilling impact of this story is the implication that anybody can now be denied freedom to participate in commerce based on a political affiliation.
Next came the series of stories about the White House attacking Fox News, with David Axelrod basically telling the networks that Fox is not a "legitimate" news organization, and implicitly suggesting that any of them that report stories that reflect negatively on the President will be marginalized by the political machine.
It got worse when Mao-admiring Communications Director Anita Dunn continued the campaign to marginalize the network, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs singled out Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as specific examples of Fox commentators who should no be permitted on the air.
A sideshow to the new era in government happened this week, when the Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee skipped out on the hearing in which the Republicans on the committee planned to force a vote on whether to investigate the preferred mortgage loans received by members of congress from Countrywide. Later the Democrat committee chairman locked the doors to keep the Republicans from causing any more trouble.
It would be comical if it weren't so damaging.
If this government succeeds in their agenda, the freedom that made this the beacon of light to the world for 200 years will be gone forever. Prosperity will be a distant memory we'll describe to our grandchildren. America will no longer be the America we grew up in, but will more closely resemble China.
Unless the citizens wake up and stop them.
This morning my thoughts came around to the fundamental problem, which is the fact that our very freedom is under attack by this radical new government. The only question is whether we will be smart enough or strong enough to stop them.
The news only gets more disturbing as time goes on.
I really don't care one way or the other whether Rush Limbaugh buys a minority share in the St. Louis Rams. But the chilling part of the story was that he could be unceremoniously dumped from the group that is bidding for the team based in large part on fabrications by Limbaugh detractors and repeated without any attempted confirmation by so-called "news" networks and amplified by axe-grinders like Sharpton and Jackson.
The chilling impact of this story is the implication that anybody can now be denied freedom to participate in commerce based on a political affiliation.
Next came the series of stories about the White House attacking Fox News, with David Axelrod basically telling the networks that Fox is not a "legitimate" news organization, and implicitly suggesting that any of them that report stories that reflect negatively on the President will be marginalized by the political machine.
It got worse when Mao-admiring Communications Director Anita Dunn continued the campaign to marginalize the network, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs singled out Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as specific examples of Fox commentators who should no be permitted on the air.
A sideshow to the new era in government happened this week, when the Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee skipped out on the hearing in which the Republicans on the committee planned to force a vote on whether to investigate the preferred mortgage loans received by members of congress from Countrywide. Later the Democrat committee chairman locked the doors to keep the Republicans from causing any more trouble.
It would be comical if it weren't so damaging.
If this government succeeds in their agenda, the freedom that made this the beacon of light to the world for 200 years will be gone forever. Prosperity will be a distant memory we'll describe to our grandchildren. America will no longer be the America we grew up in, but will more closely resemble China.
Unless the citizens wake up and stop them.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
National Insecurity
As is my habit, I have been studying the approaches and philosophies Obama has been phasing in in the first year of his presidency. Although he deserves some credit in his support of the Patriot Act, a successful albeit indecisive outcome with the Somali pirate escapade, and bucking his constituency on terrorist surveillance, much of his other initiatives are troubling at best.
His premature announcement of a deadline for closure of Guantanamo without a clear plan for how to deal with the prisoners was his first rookie mistake. I know his left-wing worshippers loved the announcement, but like them, he fails to understand the consequences of such shallow and reckless decisions.
His consistent anti-American rhetoric, in an emerging pattern that clearly shows the world that he isn't a fan of his own country, may delight his left-wing consituency as well, but effectively projects weakness to the rest of the world. His recent speech at the United Nations clearly emboldened the rogue dictators in attendance, who went so far as to publicly state their wish that he could be installed as the permanent American president. When ruthless dictators such as Chavez, Qadaffi, and Ahmadinejad offer praise, it certainly isn't because they've suddenly decided to get their acts together and behave.
Obama has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of taking meaninful steps to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. The announced agreement, with Iran agreeing to have their fissle material processed by Russia, is certainly a PR move by Iran with Russia's covert support to fool the naieve new American president.
In the meantime, Obama searches for an elegant rationale for abandoning Afghanistan. He was reportedly seriously angry with his commanding general there, with whom he had spoken with a grand total of one time before being shamed into meeting with him briefly when that fact escaped the control of his sychophant media. General McCrystal had the temerity to participate in public interviews and gave a speech, in which he stated the simple fact that if America hopes to salvage the effort in Afghanistan, he'll need at least 40K more troops. Otherwise, the mission will fail.
Obama knows he'll get strung up by his liberal constituents, and probably doesn't believe he would get much conservative credit for making such a decision as long as he continues pushing his socialist domestic agenda. Thus the floating of a variety of Afghanistan "alternatives" through his loyal media outlets. He seems to be moving toward a strategy of abandoning Afghanistan and focusing instead on neighboring Pakistan, where the Taliban find support, rest, and resupply between attacks on Americans and Afghans trying to establish some semblance of order.
Illustrative of Obama's inability to understand and implement the right strategies in national security matters is his trip to Denmark to pitch Chicago to host the 2012 Olympic Games. It seems clear now that Chicago's bid was hanging by a thread, so Obama's buddies from the Windy City asked him for help.
The glimpse into Obama's stunning narcissism was on full display, as both he and his wife spoke to the Olympic committee about ... themselves. The president had clearly decided that Chicago should be awarded the Olympic Games simply because of his own awesomeness.
How is that relevant to the foreign policy and national security issue?
It may be the most important factor in explaining Obama's seeming lack of serious understanding of the threats facing our country. His narcissistic self-importance actually makes him believe that he can win over our enemies through the force of his personality. And a dose of pacifism.
Thus the unilateral and sudden cancellation of the missile defense systems in Poland and the Czeck Republic. He apparently felt that by giving Russia such a gesture, thus proving he's a stand-up guy, Putin would reciprocate. Perhaps in the form of joining Obama in isolating Iran and stopping their nuclear arms program.
Did Russia reciprocate? Not as far as anyone can tell. Instead, they thanked him and continued their march toward reunification of the old Soviet bloc.
Clearly, Americans won't take this seriously until the next 9/11. I don't say that as a partisan who sort of hopes that will happen; instead, I am looking in sadness at what seems inevitable.
Will it happen before or after a nuke explodes over Israel? Will it be a nuke in one of our own cities? I still hope not, but if so, what a costly lesson we will be forced to learn.
His premature announcement of a deadline for closure of Guantanamo without a clear plan for how to deal with the prisoners was his first rookie mistake. I know his left-wing worshippers loved the announcement, but like them, he fails to understand the consequences of such shallow and reckless decisions.
His consistent anti-American rhetoric, in an emerging pattern that clearly shows the world that he isn't a fan of his own country, may delight his left-wing consituency as well, but effectively projects weakness to the rest of the world. His recent speech at the United Nations clearly emboldened the rogue dictators in attendance, who went so far as to publicly state their wish that he could be installed as the permanent American president. When ruthless dictators such as Chavez, Qadaffi, and Ahmadinejad offer praise, it certainly isn't because they've suddenly decided to get their acts together and behave.
Obama has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of taking meaninful steps to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. The announced agreement, with Iran agreeing to have their fissle material processed by Russia, is certainly a PR move by Iran with Russia's covert support to fool the naieve new American president.
In the meantime, Obama searches for an elegant rationale for abandoning Afghanistan. He was reportedly seriously angry with his commanding general there, with whom he had spoken with a grand total of one time before being shamed into meeting with him briefly when that fact escaped the control of his sychophant media. General McCrystal had the temerity to participate in public interviews and gave a speech, in which he stated the simple fact that if America hopes to salvage the effort in Afghanistan, he'll need at least 40K more troops. Otherwise, the mission will fail.
Obama knows he'll get strung up by his liberal constituents, and probably doesn't believe he would get much conservative credit for making such a decision as long as he continues pushing his socialist domestic agenda. Thus the floating of a variety of Afghanistan "alternatives" through his loyal media outlets. He seems to be moving toward a strategy of abandoning Afghanistan and focusing instead on neighboring Pakistan, where the Taliban find support, rest, and resupply between attacks on Americans and Afghans trying to establish some semblance of order.
Illustrative of Obama's inability to understand and implement the right strategies in national security matters is his trip to Denmark to pitch Chicago to host the 2012 Olympic Games. It seems clear now that Chicago's bid was hanging by a thread, so Obama's buddies from the Windy City asked him for help.
The glimpse into Obama's stunning narcissism was on full display, as both he and his wife spoke to the Olympic committee about ... themselves. The president had clearly decided that Chicago should be awarded the Olympic Games simply because of his own awesomeness.
How is that relevant to the foreign policy and national security issue?
It may be the most important factor in explaining Obama's seeming lack of serious understanding of the threats facing our country. His narcissistic self-importance actually makes him believe that he can win over our enemies through the force of his personality. And a dose of pacifism.
Thus the unilateral and sudden cancellation of the missile defense systems in Poland and the Czeck Republic. He apparently felt that by giving Russia such a gesture, thus proving he's a stand-up guy, Putin would reciprocate. Perhaps in the form of joining Obama in isolating Iran and stopping their nuclear arms program.
Did Russia reciprocate? Not as far as anyone can tell. Instead, they thanked him and continued their march toward reunification of the old Soviet bloc.
Clearly, Americans won't take this seriously until the next 9/11. I don't say that as a partisan who sort of hopes that will happen; instead, I am looking in sadness at what seems inevitable.
Will it happen before or after a nuke explodes over Israel? Will it be a nuke in one of our own cities? I still hope not, but if so, what a costly lesson we will be forced to learn.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Explaining Myself
Whether a political strategy to further polarize people or a heartfelt opinion, I for one find all the charges of racism from prominent Democrats and homophobia from local "progressives" personally offensive.
The left-wing big shots came out firing at the Tea Party folks, led by Jimmy Carter, who has decided those who object to the overreaching centralized socialism being enacted in Washington as ignorant, red-necked racists. As one that is happy to see so many people energized in a united effort to stop the madness in Washington, I reject Carter and company's characterization and am personally offended by it.
The local newspaper published an announcement in the weddings section of a pair of gay men who apparently were married in California. It stirred up outrage among many in the community, who wrote to the paper to excoriate them for publishing such an announcement and cancelled or threatened to cancel their subscriptions.
Again, the supporters of same-sex marriage wrote in to accuse those who expressed their anger over the newspaper's decision to publish the announcement of being the worst sort of knuckle-dragging bigots. Once again, as one who happens to agree that it's inappropriate to publish wedding announcements for same-sex couples, I'm personally offended by the accusation.
Getting past the name-calling, all I can do is try to explain my position on these issues.
Having followed the Tea Party movement, I know they're a large and growing group of ordinary Americans who are appalled at the path being pursued by the leadership in Washington. They are protesting outrageous government spending and corruption, for which both parties have long been guilty, but the Democrats seem to have turned into an art form immediately upon gaining control over the executive and legislative branches.
The simple fact that President Obama is leading and/or supporting these policies, including massively expensive and liberty-destroying nationalization of healthcare, energy, banking and automotive industries, simply includes him as a focus of the protest. However, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrat leadership in Washington are equally targeted in this protest. The protest is aimed at the policies, not the people.
I find it hypocritical that the same party that chuckled or looked the other way as a large proportion of their constituency engaged in a daily slander of the previous President and Vice President, going as far as hoping for assassination or disease to remove them if Congress couldn't or wouldn't remove and imprison them.
Nothing even close has been evident in the Tea Party protests.
On the same-sex marriage issue, my objection is simply this: Marriage is defined by Judeo-Christian tradition as a union between a man and a woman as the foundation for a family. Although I believe homosexual behavior is a choice, no more than adultery or polygamy or even deviant sexual practices, I don't believe a free society should be in the business of punishing individuals who choose the homosexual "lifestyle".
But neither do the homosexuals have the right to force me to give up my own morality and celebrate their chosen lifestyle. If you want to call me homophobic, then what word would you use to characterize my "intolerance" toward adultery? Or my moral disagreement with couples who choose to co-habitate without the institution of marriage? Do I hate them all? If that were true, these days I'd be left with very few people I didn't hate.
There is objective right and wrong. I am guilty of things that are wrong, but I don't run around demanding other people respect or celebrate those behaviors. Instead, I try to do reform and do better.
How about this: I'll agree not to call you horrible names if you agree to the same.
The left-wing big shots came out firing at the Tea Party folks, led by Jimmy Carter, who has decided those who object to the overreaching centralized socialism being enacted in Washington as ignorant, red-necked racists. As one that is happy to see so many people energized in a united effort to stop the madness in Washington, I reject Carter and company's characterization and am personally offended by it.
The local newspaper published an announcement in the weddings section of a pair of gay men who apparently were married in California. It stirred up outrage among many in the community, who wrote to the paper to excoriate them for publishing such an announcement and cancelled or threatened to cancel their subscriptions.
Again, the supporters of same-sex marriage wrote in to accuse those who expressed their anger over the newspaper's decision to publish the announcement of being the worst sort of knuckle-dragging bigots. Once again, as one who happens to agree that it's inappropriate to publish wedding announcements for same-sex couples, I'm personally offended by the accusation.
Getting past the name-calling, all I can do is try to explain my position on these issues.
Having followed the Tea Party movement, I know they're a large and growing group of ordinary Americans who are appalled at the path being pursued by the leadership in Washington. They are protesting outrageous government spending and corruption, for which both parties have long been guilty, but the Democrats seem to have turned into an art form immediately upon gaining control over the executive and legislative branches.
The simple fact that President Obama is leading and/or supporting these policies, including massively expensive and liberty-destroying nationalization of healthcare, energy, banking and automotive industries, simply includes him as a focus of the protest. However, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrat leadership in Washington are equally targeted in this protest. The protest is aimed at the policies, not the people.
I find it hypocritical that the same party that chuckled or looked the other way as a large proportion of their constituency engaged in a daily slander of the previous President and Vice President, going as far as hoping for assassination or disease to remove them if Congress couldn't or wouldn't remove and imprison them.
Nothing even close has been evident in the Tea Party protests.
On the same-sex marriage issue, my objection is simply this: Marriage is defined by Judeo-Christian tradition as a union between a man and a woman as the foundation for a family. Although I believe homosexual behavior is a choice, no more than adultery or polygamy or even deviant sexual practices, I don't believe a free society should be in the business of punishing individuals who choose the homosexual "lifestyle".
But neither do the homosexuals have the right to force me to give up my own morality and celebrate their chosen lifestyle. If you want to call me homophobic, then what word would you use to characterize my "intolerance" toward adultery? Or my moral disagreement with couples who choose to co-habitate without the institution of marriage? Do I hate them all? If that were true, these days I'd be left with very few people I didn't hate.
There is objective right and wrong. I am guilty of things that are wrong, but I don't run around demanding other people respect or celebrate those behaviors. Instead, I try to do reform and do better.
How about this: I'll agree not to call you horrible names if you agree to the same.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Getting a Unique Rental Car
When I arrived at my destination this week, the Avis agent had a paniced expression when I approached the counter. She informed me that they'd run out of cars. If I would be a bit patient and wait an hour or so, more cars were on their way from another city.
Fortunately I didn't have to be anywhere immediately, and actually wasn't too upset about having to wait in the airport for a car. Now that airports have finally put in free wi-fi, I was able to find a seat and fire up the laptop to get some work done while I waited.
The bonus for being the inconvenienced high-volume "Preferred" customer was getting an unusual vehicle - a new red Camaro.
OK, I must admit to those who are true car aficionados that the significance of lucking into a new Camaro might be a bit wasted on me. Certainly I thought it was a sporty-looking car and noticed it has a bit more power than the run of the mill Avis rental. But in general, as long as it gets me from point A to point B in reasonable comfort, I don't care too much what sort of car I am given.
But the significance of driving around in this car has become clear over the past few days. People at my client were buzzing about the red Camaro in the parking lot. When the folks I'm working with there figured out it was mine, I found myself needing to explain that, no, it's not my car, and no, they're not getting charged for a premium rental vehicle when I send my expense bill.
When I go to lunch, the server can't resist asking me about the car. When I walk to the parking lot in the client lot, the hotel lot, a restaurant lot, etc., I sometimes find some folks lingering by the Camaro, looking it over. I even got a bold question from somebody who just wanted to know what I paid for the car (I had to disappoint her with the fact it isn't mine).
So I don't think I would seek to own a Camaro, which has a pretty significant blind spot that makes me nervous whenever I get on the interstate. But all the attention it draws is certainly turning into an interesting experience, as I have the car for another week.
Fortunately I didn't have to be anywhere immediately, and actually wasn't too upset about having to wait in the airport for a car. Now that airports have finally put in free wi-fi, I was able to find a seat and fire up the laptop to get some work done while I waited.
The bonus for being the inconvenienced high-volume "Preferred" customer was getting an unusual vehicle - a new red Camaro.
OK, I must admit to those who are true car aficionados that the significance of lucking into a new Camaro might be a bit wasted on me. Certainly I thought it was a sporty-looking car and noticed it has a bit more power than the run of the mill Avis rental. But in general, as long as it gets me from point A to point B in reasonable comfort, I don't care too much what sort of car I am given.
But the significance of driving around in this car has become clear over the past few days. People at my client were buzzing about the red Camaro in the parking lot. When the folks I'm working with there figured out it was mine, I found myself needing to explain that, no, it's not my car, and no, they're not getting charged for a premium rental vehicle when I send my expense bill.
When I go to lunch, the server can't resist asking me about the car. When I walk to the parking lot in the client lot, the hotel lot, a restaurant lot, etc., I sometimes find some folks lingering by the Camaro, looking it over. I even got a bold question from somebody who just wanted to know what I paid for the car (I had to disappoint her with the fact it isn't mine).
So I don't think I would seek to own a Camaro, which has a pretty significant blind spot that makes me nervous whenever I get on the interstate. But all the attention it draws is certainly turning into an interesting experience, as I have the car for another week.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Did I Miss Something?
On the road this week I was doing a bit of channel surfing in the hotel room. At home with the satellite television service I generally just scan the channel guide and pick something, but in the hotel there is no channel guide. So I found myself flipping from channel to channel in search of something distracting.
Whether I've missed it, my perceptions are different, or I'm just getting older, I was actually shocked at the state of television in general. See, I mostly watch sports, news, a lot of History Channel, and a few selected ongoing television shows. I don't ever stop on channels like MTV or VH1, and generally only catch movie channels like HBO when I'm in hotels - and then only if they're playing a movie that interests me.
But my surfing resulted in this discovery about those channels that admittedly shocked me. Many channels have "Reality" programming that seemingly sets up ordinary people in situations that provide a sort of voyeuristic interest for viewers. My first shock is at the astounding ignorance, narcissism, amorality, and general lack of any identifiable standards exhibited by the people in those programs. I'm not sure whether that's the point of the programs themselves, or if these people exemplify the typical 21st century American. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.
But it's not just the "Reality" genre that I found shocking. Spending a few minutes on current versions of what I'd generally consider Situation Comedies, I discovered that fictional situations presented on those programs portray even more shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, and amoral protagonists. As far as I can tell, these programs have no point other than trying to figure out new and (they think) funny ways to get the characters "hooked up".
Fortunately I'd discovered the King of the Narcissists, Bill Maher, on HBO some time ago and learned to avoid his inane program. Just the idea that he gets enough viewers to keep his insulting political show on the air for more than a month is enough to lose respect for the American public.
It occurred to me that Maher's program is the very political show that would draw the same people who find the "Reality" show characters and shallow actors in the other programs relevant.
Everything's beginning to make sense, but in a demoralizing way that tells me the ills of our country are absolutely traceable to the behavior, attitudes, and ignorance of the bulk of the population.
If TV truly reflects the mainstream of America, then it's already too late to save her.
Whether I've missed it, my perceptions are different, or I'm just getting older, I was actually shocked at the state of television in general. See, I mostly watch sports, news, a lot of History Channel, and a few selected ongoing television shows. I don't ever stop on channels like MTV or VH1, and generally only catch movie channels like HBO when I'm in hotels - and then only if they're playing a movie that interests me.
But my surfing resulted in this discovery about those channels that admittedly shocked me. Many channels have "Reality" programming that seemingly sets up ordinary people in situations that provide a sort of voyeuristic interest for viewers. My first shock is at the astounding ignorance, narcissism, amorality, and general lack of any identifiable standards exhibited by the people in those programs. I'm not sure whether that's the point of the programs themselves, or if these people exemplify the typical 21st century American. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.
But it's not just the "Reality" genre that I found shocking. Spending a few minutes on current versions of what I'd generally consider Situation Comedies, I discovered that fictional situations presented on those programs portray even more shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, and amoral protagonists. As far as I can tell, these programs have no point other than trying to figure out new and (they think) funny ways to get the characters "hooked up".
Fortunately I'd discovered the King of the Narcissists, Bill Maher, on HBO some time ago and learned to avoid his inane program. Just the idea that he gets enough viewers to keep his insulting political show on the air for more than a month is enough to lose respect for the American public.
It occurred to me that Maher's program is the very political show that would draw the same people who find the "Reality" show characters and shallow actors in the other programs relevant.
Everything's beginning to make sense, but in a demoralizing way that tells me the ills of our country are absolutely traceable to the behavior, attitudes, and ignorance of the bulk of the population.
If TV truly reflects the mainstream of America, then it's already too late to save her.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Somebody Please Explain
This entry is my personal appeal to a big-L Liberal to please explain your thought process. Once upon a time I felt like I was a pretty (small-l) liberal-minded person. I thought I was compassionate and tolerant and so forth. Actually, I still believe that, although I've learned to define and differentiate between compassion and practicality, and between tolerance and permissiveness.
So in the off chance you are a (big-L) Liberal and happen to be reading this blog, please explain some things to me.
1. If you're poor or concerned about the poor, what outcome do you prefer for helping them out of poverty? Helping them find a decent job, or confiscating money from me to give them? Since the policies of your leaders seem to favor the latter, please explain why this is a reasonable or desirable outcome, and how you expect it to solve the problem of poverty?
2. I know you believe mankind is the cause of global warming, so rather than argue that point, let me ask the questions about what you seem to believe is the best solution to the problem. Your leaders say that burning fossil fuels is the main contributor to the environmental problems related to global warming, so those fuels need to be replaced by clean, renewable sources of energy. But the only truly clean and renewable sources of energy are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Maybe hydrogen will become a viable option someday, but so far nobody's really solved that one to the point where we will see it in this generation.
But you've ruled out nuclear and hydro. Given this, my question: Do you really believe that we can furnish all the energy needs of the nation with only windmills and solar panels? Please explain how that's going to happen.
Your leaders are working to pass a bill called "Cap and Trade", which is designed to add huge costs to energy producers and users who exceed a defined level of CO2 emissions. The idea is that driving costs up will force them to seek cleaner alternatives, because the punitive taxes imposed will make the cost of alternative energy more attractive.
My question is, does the idea that this bill is also designed to enrich and empower a cabal of government bureaucrats and well-connected individuals (like Al Gore) at the expense of every person in the country give you pause?
3. Your leaders believe that if we are more friendly, less threatening, and willing to negotiate with our enemies that we'll be safer in the long run. Here my question is simple.
How exactly does it make us safer to pretend there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism?
If Bush was evil for pursuing and killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why is it fine with you that Obama so far continues both campaigns?
I know we'll never agree on the definition of torture. But allow me to present a simple scenario for your consideration: Suppose a criminal gang has kidnapped your daughter, and one of the leaders of the gang has been captured. If you don't find your daughter very soon, she will certainly be killed, and most likely she's already being subjected to unspeakable abuse.
If you were permitted 20 minutes alone with the gang leader, what would you be willing to do to extract the information from him that will give you a chance to save her?
4. Your leaders have given no indication that massive national debt levels climbing toward 10 Trillion dollars give them little or no cause for concern. Do you have any conception of how much a trillion is? Have you calculated how much debt that is per citizen? How exactly do you think that debt can be paid? Do you think it's possible or fair to pay all of it through huge tax increases? How much tax, as a percentage of your own annual income, are you willing to pay to help fund the programs your leaders plan to create?
5. Are you indeed comfortable with giving a Federal bureaucracy of political appointees power to dictate what medical treatments you may receive? How much in increased taxes are you willing to pay to support a national health insurance program? How exactly do you think adding a layer of government bureaucracy without any attempt to address root causes of high healthcare costs is going to save money or improve quality, as promised by the president?
6. One more topic. Your leaders are moving rapidly to assume control over the private sector. Banking, Automotive, Energy and Healthcare industries are already substantially government owned and operated or the president is moving rapidly to acquire control.
If that is not de-facto socialist/communist, then how would you define them?
In what way do you believe government has either the right or the ability to run these industries?
The larger question that encompasses all of the above is this: How do you define freedom? Would you say that you're willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for a government that promises to meet your needs?
I look forward to answers to my questions. Although it's highly unlikely those answers will change my attitudes toward government in general or Liberal government in particular, I hope at least to understand.
So in the off chance you are a (big-L) Liberal and happen to be reading this blog, please explain some things to me.
1. If you're poor or concerned about the poor, what outcome do you prefer for helping them out of poverty? Helping them find a decent job, or confiscating money from me to give them? Since the policies of your leaders seem to favor the latter, please explain why this is a reasonable or desirable outcome, and how you expect it to solve the problem of poverty?
2. I know you believe mankind is the cause of global warming, so rather than argue that point, let me ask the questions about what you seem to believe is the best solution to the problem. Your leaders say that burning fossil fuels is the main contributor to the environmental problems related to global warming, so those fuels need to be replaced by clean, renewable sources of energy. But the only truly clean and renewable sources of energy are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Maybe hydrogen will become a viable option someday, but so far nobody's really solved that one to the point where we will see it in this generation.
But you've ruled out nuclear and hydro. Given this, my question: Do you really believe that we can furnish all the energy needs of the nation with only windmills and solar panels? Please explain how that's going to happen.
Your leaders are working to pass a bill called "Cap and Trade", which is designed to add huge costs to energy producers and users who exceed a defined level of CO2 emissions. The idea is that driving costs up will force them to seek cleaner alternatives, because the punitive taxes imposed will make the cost of alternative energy more attractive.
My question is, does the idea that this bill is also designed to enrich and empower a cabal of government bureaucrats and well-connected individuals (like Al Gore) at the expense of every person in the country give you pause?
3. Your leaders believe that if we are more friendly, less threatening, and willing to negotiate with our enemies that we'll be safer in the long run. Here my question is simple.
How exactly does it make us safer to pretend there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism?
If Bush was evil for pursuing and killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why is it fine with you that Obama so far continues both campaigns?
I know we'll never agree on the definition of torture. But allow me to present a simple scenario for your consideration: Suppose a criminal gang has kidnapped your daughter, and one of the leaders of the gang has been captured. If you don't find your daughter very soon, she will certainly be killed, and most likely she's already being subjected to unspeakable abuse.
If you were permitted 20 minutes alone with the gang leader, what would you be willing to do to extract the information from him that will give you a chance to save her?
4. Your leaders have given no indication that massive national debt levels climbing toward 10 Trillion dollars give them little or no cause for concern. Do you have any conception of how much a trillion is? Have you calculated how much debt that is per citizen? How exactly do you think that debt can be paid? Do you think it's possible or fair to pay all of it through huge tax increases? How much tax, as a percentage of your own annual income, are you willing to pay to help fund the programs your leaders plan to create?
5. Are you indeed comfortable with giving a Federal bureaucracy of political appointees power to dictate what medical treatments you may receive? How much in increased taxes are you willing to pay to support a national health insurance program? How exactly do you think adding a layer of government bureaucracy without any attempt to address root causes of high healthcare costs is going to save money or improve quality, as promised by the president?
6. One more topic. Your leaders are moving rapidly to assume control over the private sector. Banking, Automotive, Energy and Healthcare industries are already substantially government owned and operated or the president is moving rapidly to acquire control.
If that is not de-facto socialist/communist, then how would you define them?
In what way do you believe government has either the right or the ability to run these industries?
The larger question that encompasses all of the above is this: How do you define freedom? Would you say that you're willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for a government that promises to meet your needs?
I look forward to answers to my questions. Although it's highly unlikely those answers will change my attitudes toward government in general or Liberal government in particular, I hope at least to understand.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Spin or Denial?
The only way to know for sure is to get into the minds of the Democrat power base.
Is it merely desperate spin or simple denial for Obama and his minions to dismiss the massive 9/12 march in Washington as of little consequence?
Do they actually believe it's some sort of white racist movement that's more about personal animus toward Obama than serious opposition to his socialist policy?
One piece of evidence that seems to support the denial theory is the fact that Obama seems to believe if he talks up his healthcare programs enough, getting on TV every single day to push the healthcare "reform" legislation and trash those who oppose it, somehow he can change people's minds.
There seems to be a mindset at work among the Left that no rational person will oppose their socialist healthcare agenda if they can just be made to understand that their motives are compassion for people who can't afford insurance. Obama can't imagine that anyone might oppose socialism because of its inevitable effect of draining a society of its wealth and benefiting nobody outside the government bureaucratic monster it creates and feeds.
The historic march on Washington this weekend wasn't about ignorant mobs of people who were ginned up by insurance companies with misinformation about the intent of Democrat "reforms". Instead, they see an accelerated effort to change America into something resembling socialist Europe. Where government intrudes into the daily lives of the people, dictating limits on what they can earn, taxing them into poverty, and taking away their freedom to choose what they do with their property, what sort of car they can drive, what doctor they can see and what treatments and prescription drugs they are permitted.
The president thinks those millions of people who oppose him just oppose him on his healthcare reform. But it's much more than that - they oppose the extreme and irresponsible spending that is creating a national debt that may never be repaid. They oppose policies designed to favor poor minorities other other poor folks. They oppose policies that favor illegal immigrants over citizens. They oppose policies that force businesses to accept union labor. The oppose policies that weaken our national security and seek to appease our enemies. They oppose government theft from the productive to line the pockets of bureaucrats, then distribute what's left to the non-productive.
President Obama thinks these Americans don't get it. These Americans wonder whether the president gets it.
I think he does, but believes his elevation to benevolent dictator is what's best for America. That the ends justify the means. Therefore, the answer leans heavily toward spin, although there's also a healthy dose of denial.
Is it merely desperate spin or simple denial for Obama and his minions to dismiss the massive 9/12 march in Washington as of little consequence?
Do they actually believe it's some sort of white racist movement that's more about personal animus toward Obama than serious opposition to his socialist policy?
One piece of evidence that seems to support the denial theory is the fact that Obama seems to believe if he talks up his healthcare programs enough, getting on TV every single day to push the healthcare "reform" legislation and trash those who oppose it, somehow he can change people's minds.
There seems to be a mindset at work among the Left that no rational person will oppose their socialist healthcare agenda if they can just be made to understand that their motives are compassion for people who can't afford insurance. Obama can't imagine that anyone might oppose socialism because of its inevitable effect of draining a society of its wealth and benefiting nobody outside the government bureaucratic monster it creates and feeds.
The historic march on Washington this weekend wasn't about ignorant mobs of people who were ginned up by insurance companies with misinformation about the intent of Democrat "reforms". Instead, they see an accelerated effort to change America into something resembling socialist Europe. Where government intrudes into the daily lives of the people, dictating limits on what they can earn, taxing them into poverty, and taking away their freedom to choose what they do with their property, what sort of car they can drive, what doctor they can see and what treatments and prescription drugs they are permitted.
The president thinks those millions of people who oppose him just oppose him on his healthcare reform. But it's much more than that - they oppose the extreme and irresponsible spending that is creating a national debt that may never be repaid. They oppose policies designed to favor poor minorities other other poor folks. They oppose policies that favor illegal immigrants over citizens. They oppose policies that force businesses to accept union labor. The oppose policies that weaken our national security and seek to appease our enemies. They oppose government theft from the productive to line the pockets of bureaucrats, then distribute what's left to the non-productive.
President Obama thinks these Americans don't get it. These Americans wonder whether the president gets it.
I think he does, but believes his elevation to benevolent dictator is what's best for America. That the ends justify the means. Therefore, the answer leans heavily toward spin, although there's also a healthy dose of denial.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Best Review of Obama's Healthcare Speech
Saving time over writing something of my own, I found an article at Powerlineblog that pretty much sums it up.
I don't think you'll find a better or more reasoned analysis.
I don't think you'll find a better or more reasoned analysis.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Taking Virginia's Temperature
Apparently the leading candidate in Virginia's governor race is a conservative named Bob McDonnell. Polling has had him way ahead of his Democrat opponent, so the Washington Post jumped in to do their best to destroy him.
So disregarding the more obvious problem of one of the most celebrated newspapers in America showing an unvarnished partisanship and abandoning even the appearance of balanced reporting, what is it exactly that they are finding so reprehensible about Bob?
He's a conservative and a Christian. At WaPo, that's pretty much like being Satan's right hand demon.
He actually wrote a graduate thesis 20 years ago suggesting extremist radical ideas, such as committed lifelong marriages between a man and a woman are best for society. (Gasp!)
That "fornicators" break down society mores, harm children, and therefore damage society. (Blasphemy!)
That men and women are best raising family in their natural roles. (Crucify Him!)
As if that wasn't enough to lock the crazy guy in prison for life, they found out he strongly supported the firing of a judge who happened to be incompetent and homosexual. Although WaPo conveniently left out the incompetent part and the part about her sexual harrassment (or was it assault?) of a female staffer as the objective reasons for her dismissal, apparently this story just proved for them that Bob McDonnell should be imprisoned for the sin of gross intolerance, not elected Governor.
The core question comes down to this: If WaPo's efforts pay off and help catapult Terry McAuliffe (an old Clinton crony) into office, the message to all of us about the sort of country America has become will be crystal clear.
And I for one will grieve for the America that was.
So disregarding the more obvious problem of one of the most celebrated newspapers in America showing an unvarnished partisanship and abandoning even the appearance of balanced reporting, what is it exactly that they are finding so reprehensible about Bob?
He's a conservative and a Christian. At WaPo, that's pretty much like being Satan's right hand demon.
He actually wrote a graduate thesis 20 years ago suggesting extremist radical ideas, such as committed lifelong marriages between a man and a woman are best for society. (Gasp!)
That "fornicators" break down society mores, harm children, and therefore damage society. (Blasphemy!)
That men and women are best raising family in their natural roles. (Crucify Him!)
As if that wasn't enough to lock the crazy guy in prison for life, they found out he strongly supported the firing of a judge who happened to be incompetent and homosexual. Although WaPo conveniently left out the incompetent part and the part about her sexual harrassment (or was it assault?) of a female staffer as the objective reasons for her dismissal, apparently this story just proved for them that Bob McDonnell should be imprisoned for the sin of gross intolerance, not elected Governor.
The core question comes down to this: If WaPo's efforts pay off and help catapult Terry McAuliffe (an old Clinton crony) into office, the message to all of us about the sort of country America has become will be crystal clear.
And I for one will grieve for the America that was.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Heaven & Hell
I've noticed a lot of discussion floating around recently about Hell, basically arguing whether it's an actual place of torment for the damned or just a story made up to scare people who might be tempted to depart from the faith.
Is Hell eternal torture for unrepentant sinners? Is it just a state of separation from God for those who choose rebellion, and the torture is emotional rather than physical because of that separation? Or is it nothing but a myth created by men?
Rather than get involved in a theological discussion on the nature of Hell, I thought instead I'd ruminate on some of my thoughts about Heaven.
I've heard comments before from folks that heaven must be a rather tedious and boring place, if all everyone does is sit around on clouds praising God and learning to play the harp. It's a rather funny image, but is the root of my own thoughts about heaven.
If heaven is a place where we can eternally experience peace and love and happiness, I naturally would relate that to human experience on earth. What are the greatest, most heavenly experiences we can have on earth?
Of course, most would list things like love and friendship, fun, great food, sex, beauty, wealth and achievement. I suppose those things are more important to us in our worldly experiences, but perhaps not so important in the afterlife.
But even though those experiences may seem to us to be the most heavenly, none of them are all that terrific without some struggle, pain or conflict.
Isn't friendship rather shallow without shared experiences? It seems to me that the best friends come from people who go through great challenges or difficulties together, which is what bonds their friendship for life.
Love is very much like friendship, but these days people seem to confuse it with sex. In addition to shared trials, isn't the most heavenly bond of love found by a young newlywed couple who both begin their first night together as virgins?
The best gourmet food is nothing compared to a simple meal of rice and beans for someone who is starving. The best wine can't hold a candle to a drink of water for someone who is extremely thirsty.
Achievement isn't fully appreciated unless it came at great cost. Think of a sports team that wins a championship; when their victory comes against all odds and with extraordinary sacrifice and practice and physical conditioning, it means much more than if it were achieved against inferior competition.
Wealth doesn't mean much without loved ones to share it with, which seems to be a truth discovered by many who sacrifice love and friendship to achieve it.
So the paradox of heaven for me is, how is it that heaven can be such a wonderful place if it removes the pain, suffering, and hard labor we must experience on earth in order to find our glimpses of heaven?
Is Hell eternal torture for unrepentant sinners? Is it just a state of separation from God for those who choose rebellion, and the torture is emotional rather than physical because of that separation? Or is it nothing but a myth created by men?
Rather than get involved in a theological discussion on the nature of Hell, I thought instead I'd ruminate on some of my thoughts about Heaven.
I've heard comments before from folks that heaven must be a rather tedious and boring place, if all everyone does is sit around on clouds praising God and learning to play the harp. It's a rather funny image, but is the root of my own thoughts about heaven.
If heaven is a place where we can eternally experience peace and love and happiness, I naturally would relate that to human experience on earth. What are the greatest, most heavenly experiences we can have on earth?
Of course, most would list things like love and friendship, fun, great food, sex, beauty, wealth and achievement. I suppose those things are more important to us in our worldly experiences, but perhaps not so important in the afterlife.
But even though those experiences may seem to us to be the most heavenly, none of them are all that terrific without some struggle, pain or conflict.
Isn't friendship rather shallow without shared experiences? It seems to me that the best friends come from people who go through great challenges or difficulties together, which is what bonds their friendship for life.
Love is very much like friendship, but these days people seem to confuse it with sex. In addition to shared trials, isn't the most heavenly bond of love found by a young newlywed couple who both begin their first night together as virgins?
The best gourmet food is nothing compared to a simple meal of rice and beans for someone who is starving. The best wine can't hold a candle to a drink of water for someone who is extremely thirsty.
Achievement isn't fully appreciated unless it came at great cost. Think of a sports team that wins a championship; when their victory comes against all odds and with extraordinary sacrifice and practice and physical conditioning, it means much more than if it were achieved against inferior competition.
Wealth doesn't mean much without loved ones to share it with, which seems to be a truth discovered by many who sacrifice love and friendship to achieve it.
So the paradox of heaven for me is, how is it that heaven can be such a wonderful place if it removes the pain, suffering, and hard labor we must experience on earth in order to find our glimpses of heaven?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Pravda Recognizes the US Government's True Objective
I think I'll reproduce the Pravda post here in its entirety:
Sobering perspective
SNOPES confirms the article as Legit....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp
The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian State Newspaper) defies description. American capitalism gone with a whimper It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.
Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.
Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them? These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.
Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper. So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?
Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.. The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin© 1999-2009.. «PRAVDA.Ru».
When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
What a fascinating article, containing an awful lot of truth. Truth that people who oppose this "hope and change" do not seem to have the courage to voice.
The conclusion I'm beginning to reach is that this is a pivotal time in our young republic. The main question today is whether there are enough people in the voting population with enough wisdom and understanding about the choices we must make; will we permit our national leaders to complete their fundamental change of our government into a Marxist/Socialist model, or will we stop them before it is too late?
Supporters of the direction Obama is rushing us toward are either committed socialists themselves or want to believe they will get better wages, "free" healthcare, and an easier life because somehow Obama and the Democrats will force the greedy corporations to be more just, and the selfish rich to share more of their wealth.
The only way to stop this Obama-led juggernaut is a transformation of the Congress next year. That transformation cannot happen without public education. Somehow a strong, consistent message must be presented in a new way that doesn't appear partisan, but uses common sense to awaken those with enough critical thinking ability to understand to the destruction that is and will be wreaked on our country if we don't replace every congressman and senator that's part of the problem with citizen representatives committed to what's best for the country and upholding the Consititution.
I'm concerned about the apparent lack of strong leadership to create a narrative that translates conservative alternatives into easily understood, common sense ideas. People need to be informed about what life was like in the old Soviet Union, what life is like today in places like Cuba, Venezuela, and China. And why allowing the Obama Democrats to continue down their current path will result in suffering, oppression and loss of freedom, not a better life.
Sobering perspective
SNOPES confirms the article as Legit....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp
The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian State Newspaper) defies description. American capitalism gone with a whimper It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.
Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.
Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them? These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.
Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper. So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?
Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.. The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin© 1999-2009.. «PRAVDA.Ru».
When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
What a fascinating article, containing an awful lot of truth. Truth that people who oppose this "hope and change" do not seem to have the courage to voice.
The conclusion I'm beginning to reach is that this is a pivotal time in our young republic. The main question today is whether there are enough people in the voting population with enough wisdom and understanding about the choices we must make; will we permit our national leaders to complete their fundamental change of our government into a Marxist/Socialist model, or will we stop them before it is too late?
Supporters of the direction Obama is rushing us toward are either committed socialists themselves or want to believe they will get better wages, "free" healthcare, and an easier life because somehow Obama and the Democrats will force the greedy corporations to be more just, and the selfish rich to share more of their wealth.
The only way to stop this Obama-led juggernaut is a transformation of the Congress next year. That transformation cannot happen without public education. Somehow a strong, consistent message must be presented in a new way that doesn't appear partisan, but uses common sense to awaken those with enough critical thinking ability to understand to the destruction that is and will be wreaked on our country if we don't replace every congressman and senator that's part of the problem with citizen representatives committed to what's best for the country and upholding the Consititution.
I'm concerned about the apparent lack of strong leadership to create a narrative that translates conservative alternatives into easily understood, common sense ideas. People need to be informed about what life was like in the old Soviet Union, what life is like today in places like Cuba, Venezuela, and China. And why allowing the Obama Democrats to continue down their current path will result in suffering, oppression and loss of freedom, not a better life.
Monday, August 24, 2009
We Deserve This
Since I've been outrageously busy, I haven't really had time for posts. Truth be told, I don't have time to do this post either, but I'm taking a few minutes anyway that I'll have to make up.
The big revelation that's hit me in the past couple of weeks is that we deserve everything that's happening. It turns out that most folks who pay the slightest attention to government and politics are blind partisans. They're not interested so much in what the government's actually doing to them, but just that their side is in charge.
That's why those who screamed bloody murder every day when Bush was in office suddenly don't really care that Obama's continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and doubling down on domestic surveillance programs.
The healthcare issue represents the most stark illustration of the diametrically opposed points of view between conservatives and liberals. Liberals trust the government as long as their comrades are running it, therefore the Big Brother details of the actuall health "reform" bills give them no pause. What I can't tell for certain is whether they know about the centralized control over everyone's treatment decisions, or if they simply choose to ignore that man behind the curtain simply because the Wizard of Ob tells them.
I caught Howard Dean decrying the ignorance of the opposition to the current healthcare legislation. Why, it's nothing more than offering the ability for people to buy into Medicare if they can't get acceptable coverage elsewhere. Wow, if that's all the bill is about, even I might be tempted to support it.
Problem is, the bill isn't even close to his characterization. Is that because he was putting forth his own idea as what the bill should do? Or is it that he's simply lying? I suppose you'd have to ask him; something his obsequious interviewer didn't have the temerity to do.
If you're a Democrat, you have no problem with a national healthcare panel deciding your fate if you get sick, presumably because you trust the person appointing the members of the panel. If you're not a Democrat, the very idea of some politically appointed panel of hacks deciding whether you deserve a surgery or cancer treatment or even a prescription drug sounds exactly like, well, a "death panel".
If Americans allow Healthcare and Cap & Trade to pass, then fail to remove everyone who voted for them from office, then without question, we deserve everything that happens to us as a consequence. If we lose our freedoms to a tyrannical socialist/communist government, we have noone to blame but our stupid selves.
The big revelation that's hit me in the past couple of weeks is that we deserve everything that's happening. It turns out that most folks who pay the slightest attention to government and politics are blind partisans. They're not interested so much in what the government's actually doing to them, but just that their side is in charge.
That's why those who screamed bloody murder every day when Bush was in office suddenly don't really care that Obama's continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and doubling down on domestic surveillance programs.
The healthcare issue represents the most stark illustration of the diametrically opposed points of view between conservatives and liberals. Liberals trust the government as long as their comrades are running it, therefore the Big Brother details of the actuall health "reform" bills give them no pause. What I can't tell for certain is whether they know about the centralized control over everyone's treatment decisions, or if they simply choose to ignore that man behind the curtain simply because the Wizard of Ob tells them.
I caught Howard Dean decrying the ignorance of the opposition to the current healthcare legislation. Why, it's nothing more than offering the ability for people to buy into Medicare if they can't get acceptable coverage elsewhere. Wow, if that's all the bill is about, even I might be tempted to support it.
Problem is, the bill isn't even close to his characterization. Is that because he was putting forth his own idea as what the bill should do? Or is it that he's simply lying? I suppose you'd have to ask him; something his obsequious interviewer didn't have the temerity to do.
If you're a Democrat, you have no problem with a national healthcare panel deciding your fate if you get sick, presumably because you trust the person appointing the members of the panel. If you're not a Democrat, the very idea of some politically appointed panel of hacks deciding whether you deserve a surgery or cancer treatment or even a prescription drug sounds exactly like, well, a "death panel".
If Americans allow Healthcare and Cap & Trade to pass, then fail to remove everyone who voted for them from office, then without question, we deserve everything that happens to us as a consequence. If we lose our freedoms to a tyrannical socialist/communist government, we have noone to blame but our stupid selves.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Birthers
There's an internet-generated controversy over Obama's birthplace that has mostly come from Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily. Lou Dobbs at CNN did some stories on the controversy and the people behind it, and even though he's been very clear that he believes there's nothing to it, there's an outraged group of CNN'ers and other "journalists" calling for his head for simply airing the story.
There's so much obfuscation surrounding the story itself and Lou's audacious decision to give it airtime that I had to satisfy my curiosity and try to find out what all the fuss is about.
Obama of course hails from Hawaii, with a Kenyan father and hippie mother from Kansas. What the so-called "birthers" suggest is that he may indeed have been born in Kenya instead. There are apparently lots of folks in Kenya and relatives on his father's side who are saying that yes, indeed, Barry was born in Kenya.
So the question put forth by the "birthers" is simply this: If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii as he claims, why not produce the official birth certificate, hospital records, the name of the Obstetrician who delivered him, etc.? Instead, all that he has allowed to make public is an unofficial souvenier birth certificate.
The "birthers" have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for his college transcripts, copies of his writings while in college, and other related documents, which for some reason have been blocked by Obama's administration from public release. The "birthers" think that he may have obtained admission as un undergraduate under a foreign student policy, which they think may support their theory that he may at least hold dual citizenship.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter much whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. It might result in some political advantage for Obama's opponents to find a lie over his place of birth, but I'm not sure there's any particular constitutional issue. He's a citizen simply by virtue of being the son of an American citizen, and it would seem unlikely that his election would be overturned based on whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.
On the other hand, I find it curious that he has so steadfastly refused to release the official birth certificate and other details of his birth. Why not put the whole thing to rest by simply authorizing the Hawaiian officials to release whatever the press wants to see? Fighting so hard to keep such records private does seem to suggest he has something to hide. Others have suggested it's simple arrogance - he just won't let his detractors have even the small victory of forcing him to release records if he doesn't want to.
Fighting the release of his College records makes more sense to me. It doesn't take much imagination to think of the mountains of ammunition such a release would give his opponents. There very easily could be information in those records that would reflect negatively on him, from grades to radical writings.
Why attack Lou Dobbs for simply airing the debate that many Americans are at least curious to hear? If the mission of the "birthers" is indeed a fool's errand, why does the story so enrage the monolithic journalist fraternity?
Might it be that they fear there may be a flame underneath all that smoke, and have made it their mission to snuff it out before the country catches a whiff?
How is this different than Dan Rather's reporting on the fake National Guard story about George W Bush? Even when the letter was proven to be produced on a word processor, Rather stuck with the story and claimed even though the actual letter might be a fake, that he believed the essence of the story was true in spite of absence of supporting evidence. Lou isn't even supporting the "birthers" claims, but merely airing them along with refuting claims from the other side.
Is this freedom of the press?
There's so much obfuscation surrounding the story itself and Lou's audacious decision to give it airtime that I had to satisfy my curiosity and try to find out what all the fuss is about.
Obama of course hails from Hawaii, with a Kenyan father and hippie mother from Kansas. What the so-called "birthers" suggest is that he may indeed have been born in Kenya instead. There are apparently lots of folks in Kenya and relatives on his father's side who are saying that yes, indeed, Barry was born in Kenya.
So the question put forth by the "birthers" is simply this: If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii as he claims, why not produce the official birth certificate, hospital records, the name of the Obstetrician who delivered him, etc.? Instead, all that he has allowed to make public is an unofficial souvenier birth certificate.
The "birthers" have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for his college transcripts, copies of his writings while in college, and other related documents, which for some reason have been blocked by Obama's administration from public release. The "birthers" think that he may have obtained admission as un undergraduate under a foreign student policy, which they think may support their theory that he may at least hold dual citizenship.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter much whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. It might result in some political advantage for Obama's opponents to find a lie over his place of birth, but I'm not sure there's any particular constitutional issue. He's a citizen simply by virtue of being the son of an American citizen, and it would seem unlikely that his election would be overturned based on whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.
On the other hand, I find it curious that he has so steadfastly refused to release the official birth certificate and other details of his birth. Why not put the whole thing to rest by simply authorizing the Hawaiian officials to release whatever the press wants to see? Fighting so hard to keep such records private does seem to suggest he has something to hide. Others have suggested it's simple arrogance - he just won't let his detractors have even the small victory of forcing him to release records if he doesn't want to.
Fighting the release of his College records makes more sense to me. It doesn't take much imagination to think of the mountains of ammunition such a release would give his opponents. There very easily could be information in those records that would reflect negatively on him, from grades to radical writings.
Why attack Lou Dobbs for simply airing the debate that many Americans are at least curious to hear? If the mission of the "birthers" is indeed a fool's errand, why does the story so enrage the monolithic journalist fraternity?
Might it be that they fear there may be a flame underneath all that smoke, and have made it their mission to snuff it out before the country catches a whiff?
How is this different than Dan Rather's reporting on the fake National Guard story about George W Bush? Even when the letter was proven to be produced on a word processor, Rather stuck with the story and claimed even though the actual letter might be a fake, that he believed the essence of the story was true in spite of absence of supporting evidence. Lou isn't even supporting the "birthers" claims, but merely airing them along with refuting claims from the other side.
Is this freedom of the press?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Environmentalism
The innocuous-sounding "Cap and Trade" bill wending its way through congress presents a timely opportunity for a discussion of the larger topic of environmentalism.
Cap and Trade is designed to inflict so much pain on consumers that, according to the liberal theology, they will respond with energy conservation and demand their power companies provide cheaper energy from government-endorsed "clean and renewable" sources.
The party in power, led by the recently crowned President, have declared a global crisis, which was first trumpeted by their former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, as "Global Warming". Due to recent inconvenient climate cooling trends, the crisis has been re-labeled "Global Climate Change".
The message to all of is goes something like this: We Americans are living too high on the hog. We use too much energy, in fact way more than our share. We live in houses that are too big, drive vehicles that guzzle too much petroleum, buy too much unnecessary stuff from industries that spew pollution into the atmosphere. Our spoiled behavior is wrecking the planet, and it's far past time for the government to step in and force us to be good stewards of the environment.
Shrinking polar ice caps will raise the sea level and cause whole coastal states to slip beneath the waves. Catastrophic storms, failed crops, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, and other unspoken consequences will make the planet uninhabitable.
Anyone with the temerity to argue with these self-righteous "greens" is a member of the flat-earth society. They're called "ignorant", "oil company toadies", and "Climate Change Deniers". The science on this subject is "settled", and no competent climate scientist would dare challenge the tenets of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The topic holds some interest for me, so I've tried to learn whatever I can. I'm certainly no climate scientist, and am willing to approach the whole environmental topic with an open mind. I certainly think it's a good idea to do what we can to protect our natural resources, keep our water and air clean, and protect wildlife.
But the more I delve into the "science" behind the whole climate change question, the more I question the true motives of its proponents. Since a main conclusion I've reached is that those pushing hardest on the Cap and Trade bill are doing so based on a fervor that more resembles a cultish religion than science, I will refer to their crusade as part of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The High Priest of this movement is Al Gore, the former liberal Vice-President who has long carried the environmentalist banner, writing a couple of decades ago something about the most evil invention ever created by the human race being the internal combustion engine.
Now Gore has positioned himself to make billions of dollars when congress passes the Cap and Trade bill, which will make him one of the most powerful individuals in the world. Which seems to be his alternative strategy for achieving such power after losing the Presidency to George W Bush in 2000. While he jets around the world on his private plane and lives it up on his country estate, dwarfing the so-called "carbon footprint" created by about 99.9% of the rest of us, I can't help but suspect he may be more of a false prophet than a High Priest of Global Climate Change.
The other way I evaluate this whole topic is by simply listen to its most ardent disciples. They are appalled at American prosperity, believing it's somehow unfair to the rest of the world. They think it's wrong that Americans can live in nice houses with manicured lawns and raise children in suburbia, ferrying them to soccer matches in the family Suburban.
My conclusion is that while many of these folks may indeed be true believers in the Church of Global Climate Change, they have a larger agenda in mind. They think there are too many people crowding the planet, and want to force the rest of us to limit our families to 1 child. It seems to fit nicely with their equally ardent support of abortion, and many (like Hillary, for example) have admitted an admiration for China's government-enforced one child policy.
They think we all should live in small apartments in the city and ride the train and/or ride a bicycle to and from work every day. They think everyone should make about the same salary, except for their leaders, who somehow deserve special perks and priviledges like those enjoyed by their High Priest because they're such awesome protectors of the environment.
They want the government to provide cradle-to-grave matermalistic oversight in every aspect of our lives, from where we live to where we work to what we eat to what we drive (if we must drive) to what medical care we may or may not receive.
I visited the Soviet Union in the 70's, and interestingly the above describes that society pretty accurately. Rather than go into the human misery and hopelessness I witnessed there, I'll summarize the trip in this manner: It made me appreciate my American way of life in a way I'd never considered before making that trip.
So it's becoming obvious to me that Cap and Trade, along with Healthcare Reform, are not working their way through congress to improve the environment or increase access of Americans to medical care. They are about transforming America from the Land of the Free to the Socialist States of America.
Cap and Trade is designed to inflict so much pain on consumers that, according to the liberal theology, they will respond with energy conservation and demand their power companies provide cheaper energy from government-endorsed "clean and renewable" sources.
The party in power, led by the recently crowned President, have declared a global crisis, which was first trumpeted by their former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, as "Global Warming". Due to recent inconvenient climate cooling trends, the crisis has been re-labeled "Global Climate Change".
The message to all of is goes something like this: We Americans are living too high on the hog. We use too much energy, in fact way more than our share. We live in houses that are too big, drive vehicles that guzzle too much petroleum, buy too much unnecessary stuff from industries that spew pollution into the atmosphere. Our spoiled behavior is wrecking the planet, and it's far past time for the government to step in and force us to be good stewards of the environment.
Shrinking polar ice caps will raise the sea level and cause whole coastal states to slip beneath the waves. Catastrophic storms, failed crops, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, and other unspoken consequences will make the planet uninhabitable.
Anyone with the temerity to argue with these self-righteous "greens" is a member of the flat-earth society. They're called "ignorant", "oil company toadies", and "Climate Change Deniers". The science on this subject is "settled", and no competent climate scientist would dare challenge the tenets of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The topic holds some interest for me, so I've tried to learn whatever I can. I'm certainly no climate scientist, and am willing to approach the whole environmental topic with an open mind. I certainly think it's a good idea to do what we can to protect our natural resources, keep our water and air clean, and protect wildlife.
But the more I delve into the "science" behind the whole climate change question, the more I question the true motives of its proponents. Since a main conclusion I've reached is that those pushing hardest on the Cap and Trade bill are doing so based on a fervor that more resembles a cultish religion than science, I will refer to their crusade as part of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The High Priest of this movement is Al Gore, the former liberal Vice-President who has long carried the environmentalist banner, writing a couple of decades ago something about the most evil invention ever created by the human race being the internal combustion engine.
Now Gore has positioned himself to make billions of dollars when congress passes the Cap and Trade bill, which will make him one of the most powerful individuals in the world. Which seems to be his alternative strategy for achieving such power after losing the Presidency to George W Bush in 2000. While he jets around the world on his private plane and lives it up on his country estate, dwarfing the so-called "carbon footprint" created by about 99.9% of the rest of us, I can't help but suspect he may be more of a false prophet than a High Priest of Global Climate Change.
The other way I evaluate this whole topic is by simply listen to its most ardent disciples. They are appalled at American prosperity, believing it's somehow unfair to the rest of the world. They think it's wrong that Americans can live in nice houses with manicured lawns and raise children in suburbia, ferrying them to soccer matches in the family Suburban.
My conclusion is that while many of these folks may indeed be true believers in the Church of Global Climate Change, they have a larger agenda in mind. They think there are too many people crowding the planet, and want to force the rest of us to limit our families to 1 child. It seems to fit nicely with their equally ardent support of abortion, and many (like Hillary, for example) have admitted an admiration for China's government-enforced one child policy.
They think we all should live in small apartments in the city and ride the train and/or ride a bicycle to and from work every day. They think everyone should make about the same salary, except for their leaders, who somehow deserve special perks and priviledges like those enjoyed by their High Priest because they're such awesome protectors of the environment.
They want the government to provide cradle-to-grave matermalistic oversight in every aspect of our lives, from where we live to where we work to what we eat to what we drive (if we must drive) to what medical care we may or may not receive.
I visited the Soviet Union in the 70's, and interestingly the above describes that society pretty accurately. Rather than go into the human misery and hopelessness I witnessed there, I'll summarize the trip in this manner: It made me appreciate my American way of life in a way I'd never considered before making that trip.
So it's becoming obvious to me that Cap and Trade, along with Healthcare Reform, are not working their way through congress to improve the environment or increase access of Americans to medical care. They are about transforming America from the Land of the Free to the Socialist States of America.
Friday, July 24, 2009
My Most Popular Postings
If you've stumbled across the blog recently, I got the idea to create this post with the most popular articles to date.
Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.
Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.
Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close
Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.
Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.
The best of the rest go something like this:
Musings on Fiddler on the Roof
A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.
My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.
Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.
Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.
Thanks for reading!
Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.
Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.
Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close
Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.
Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.
The best of the rest go something like this:
Musings on Fiddler on the Roof
A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.
My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.
Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.
Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.
Thanks for reading!
Prisms
The story of the Massachusetts cop who arrested the black professor gave us an interesting example of the different prisms people use to look out on the world. What should have been a routine check on a homeowner to make sure his home had not been burglarized became an ugly incident because of the distortion of a predisposed racial prism.
For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".
What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.
Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.
The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.
I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.
Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.
What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".
Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.
For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".
What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.
Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.
The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.
I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.
Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.
What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".
Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Core Values and Healthcare
So the big fuss is about the push led by Obama and his minions to impose a massive government bureaucracy on us all in the name of providing everyone with healthcare.
If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:
Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.
Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.
Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.
Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.
Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.
From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.
Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.
May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?
1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.
When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!
These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.
There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.
If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:
Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.
Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.
Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.
Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.
Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.
From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.
Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.
May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?
1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.
When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!
These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.
There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Questioning Motives
I just saw this article about Jimmy Carter, who has left his Southern Baptist church. For me, it just adds fuel to my increasing speculation about the motives of the broader group of Leftist America in which he values his membership over that of the Baptists.
Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.
So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?
It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.
The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?
The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?
It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.
Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.
So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?
It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.
The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?
The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?
It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Simple Solutions
The proposition: Nearly every major issue in America would be solved if only a plurality of the population found a basic moral code.
Healthcare could be solved if
Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.
The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if
People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.
Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if
People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.
The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.
But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.
So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.
Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.
What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.
The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.
Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.
Healthcare could be solved if
Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.
The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if
People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.
Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if
People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.
The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.
But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.
So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.
Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.
What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.
The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.
Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, June 29, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, June 26, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)