Changing the Subject

It would seem that threats to lawmakers has become a political strategy.

It began with members of the black caucus charging Tea Party demonstrators with shouting threats and racial epithets and spitting on them. In response, others have posted videos of the incident, which show no such things. And none of the caucus members have produced evidence in any form that any of those things happened.

That was followed by Democrats complaining about threats and vandalism from people angry about their votes in favor of the bill. Some released audio. Interestingly, the audio clips I've heard from congresspersons' recorded voicemails were certainly angry and vulgar and insulting. But I didn't hear specific violent threats.

And of course Republicans mentioned that, oh by the way, we've been getting the same stuff, and one congressman got his office window shot out for his opposition to the bill.

So more and more it seems that the whole flap may have been designed by the Democrats in an attempt to silence their critics by labeling them racists and terrorists. The inherent suggestion by the black caucus was that the Tea Party is a racist and unAmerican organization.

That extended to all those who oppose the government healthcare takeover, presumably to frighten "moderates" away from opposition, lest they be called racists or terrorists.

Yes, we are a polarized nation. But are we on the brink of civil war? I don't think so, as long as the opposition has the opportunity to mobilize their own candidates and boot the bums out of office in November.

March Madness

My bracket was destroyed with Kansas losing, but that's what makes it fun.

It's nice to see Butler make the Sweet 16, but any hope they have of reaching the Final 4 requires them to beat Syracuse, which would seem all but impossible.

But again, that's part of the fun of the tournament. If Butler plays a flawless game and stays close, just maybe they steal one from Syracuse and have a shot. Maybe against Xavier, who they've already beaten once.

But Heyward and Howard have to have great games for it to happen. Both weren't themselves in the previous close game against Murray State. But then again, Murray State really played oustanding defense against both, forcing other Butler players to step up for the win.

I'm traveling tomorrow, so I might not get to watch. But I can still catch Purdue - another team that doesn't seem to have much of a chance, going against Duke without Robbie Hummel.

But if they didn't have a chance, there'd be no reason to play the game.

The NBA can't hold a candle to the entertainment value of the college tournament.

This is Fun

Check out this Powerline Post.

I cracked up at the comments about Bob Dylan & Taylor Swift, plus Simon Cowell.

Fascinating perspectives.

Mental Healthcare

It would seem that the Healthcare bill is just about a done deal. Reporting keeps saying there aren't yet enough votes to pass it, but they're within a handful. It's sort of stunning to me that the plurality of Democrat congressmen are willing to sacrifice their jobs to deliver this monstrosity for their President.

Clearly they're not listening to their constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose the bill. They are in many cases rude to the callers who have been flooding their offices with telephone calls pleading for a "No" vote.

My own congressman, Baron Hill, has already demonstrated beyond all doubt that he's more beholden to his party leadership, and presumably the special interests who bankroll them, than his own district. He's almost certain to lose his seat to one of the several Republicans who've lined up for this spring's primary, salivating over the chance to take his job.

It's already been reported that he got promises from Obama to visit the district to help his campaign. He got to sponsor the recent "Pay-Go" bill, which of course was a sham designed to prop him up but really has almost no teeth to actually force goverment to live within its means. He's also been given some earmarks to bring home some bacon, and rumors are also flying that he might even have been promised a job in the Administration if he loses.

Is that integrity? The only congressman I can find who actually seems to be showing courage and integrity through this whole process is Bart Stupak. If there's anybody else standing by principle over party arm-twisting, I'd like to know who.

The bill as I understand it is such a travesty that the only possible theory on why so many Democrats are behind it is this: The bill was specifically designed to exacerbate the healthcare problem and actually turn it into a real crisis, giving them cover to impose their long-desired socialist "single-payer" system for all of us.

I actually am having difficulty conceiving any other outcome.

Affect on Mood

Personal information is taboo for my blog, but this may be as close as I get to sharing personal data, in mentioning the fact that my mood tonight is sour.

What's strange is that there isn't a logical reason for my current bad mood. Just back from vacation, having finished a decent buy unspectacular day, but still I feel angry, frustrated, disappointed, dispirited.

OK, there are a few factors that contributed to the foul mood, from business, personal, and general sources. But nothing I can't handle, and certainly nothing that should have driven me into so deep a funk.

I wonder, is it the post-vacation blues? Something I ate or didn't eat? The weather or phase of the moon? The idiots in Washington with the government healthcare mess? The accumulation of work-related challenges that hit me like a truck the second I got back to work? The personal stuff? Maybe all of the above?

Some might challenge me and advise me to shake it off, make my own luck, meet the challenges head-on. I'm glad none of those people are here telling me that right now, because I might just haul off and punch them in the nose.

Perhaps I need a vacation to recover from my vacation.

Do You Share this Thought Process?

What are the Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing." Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this now how we value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find money in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

Above from Bart Stupak.

Seriously, how can it possibly be true that half the country agrees with the point of view shared by Congressman Stupak above? We have to pass government healthcare to keep extra babies from being born and costing them millions?

Does Anybody Really Get it?

The simple and obvious truth of our current pain and suffering is not evident anywhere I can find, whether from TV talking heads, politicians, or publications. Is this because everyone just takes it for granted and assumes there's no need to state the obvious, or is possible most don't actually understand?

What obvious truth am I talking about?

Simply this: When you lose 17 or 18 percent of the workforce to unemployment, and everybody else who's still working is earning generally less than they would in a healthier economy, revenue to government takes a big hit.

Just like businesses are closing or hanging on by their fingernails, governments at the Federal, State, and Local levels who have always spent every penny of tax revenue inevitably face fiscal disaster when the taxes they collect on their constituents' income falls off a cliff along with that income.

It just puzzles me to read and hear the angst and anger of people who are seeing their favorite government programs cut. Protesters scream about losing funding for everything from schools to road repairs to community social programs. Politicians bend themselves into pretzels trying to figure out ways to raise taxes on everybody without them realizing it and voting them out of office.

We have an encapsulation of the problem in the healthcare battle. Left-wing Democrats, led by the President, are using every tool at their disposal to exploit this best opportunity in several generations to implement the one socialist program they've lusted after for generations: Nationalized healthcare.

Imagine the economy were to rebound, returning to full employment. How many people would be worried about our health insurance system when virtually all of them are employed and most employers offer insurance? Not many. And nobody but the most committed Socialists would support the current healthcare bills.

But the rhetoric of the Left side of the political spectrum is predictable. We all know about their goals and aspirations, and there's no surprise that they might choose to ignore this simple truth to push their agenda.

It's the Right side that is puzzling me. How simple is it to build an appealing campaign message that easily shuts down the other side's healthcare and soak-the-rich demagogery?

"Vote for me if you would rather have a good job than a government handout."

Unless you're a permanent ward of the State, wouldn't that simple campaign message resonate?

So why isn't anyone using it?

They've been set up

I watched the "healthcare summit" for awhile this morning, and boy, did the Republicans fall into a trap.

It didn't take long to figure out the strategy. Get the Republicans to talk about specific things they think should be done, then answer by saying, "That's already in the bill".

Aside from mental midget Harry Reid's over-the-top partisan rants, Obama and his minions have been trying to present a picture of reasonableness and agreeability. The strategy seems to be working wonderfully well. Get a Republican to say something, then respond with agreement with the statement, then emphasize that it's either already in the bill or they'd be happy to find a way to inculde it.

From a purely political perspective, the Republicans were stupid to agree to this meeting. The old law, "never play another man's game" holds especially true here. Obama is in control of the meeting and as such controls the agenda and message, which is obviously designed to make the Repubs look like partisan obstructionists to what is otherwise both a necessary and reasonable healthcare bill.

Another Interesting Argument - Credit Cards

I was reading stories about the new laws that went into effect stiffening regulations on banks regarding how they treat their credit card customers.

Credit cards have of course long been hugely profitable for banks. If they weren't we wouldn't all be getting "offers" in the mail every day for the latest new card, offering airline miles or "points" or cash back "rewards". (Side note, I stupidly signed up for one of the "cash rewards" cards once. Just before it was time to collect on that cash reward, the bank rescinded the program. Learned my lesson.)

So basically the legislation was a Democrat-backed plan to "protect" consumers from predatory bank practices. Absurdly high interest rates, fees, etc.

But according to the stories, it seems to be hurting more people than it helps. Banks have responded with several actions that have been detrimental to their customers as a whole. Even I got a notice about 6 months ago that my interest rate was getting hiked on my card. The notice was actually pretty honest in letting me know the interest rate hike was being imposed to try to maintain profitability in the credit card business.

But let's get to the basic argument.

The reason Democrats wanted to pass these regulations on the banks was because the banks were unreasonably charging exhorbitant rates and unjustified fees to many of their customers. Who could argue with that, right? It does seem that banks are rather predatory and greedy when it comes to their credit card policies.

On the other side, a conservative would generally suggest that banks hike rates and fees in an attempt to insulate them from default by their higher-risk customers. Charging 23% interest is just protection against the highly possible event that the cardholder will stop making payments altogether, and the bank will lose all of the credit card balance. Otherwise, anyone who is credit-worthy and holding a balance on a 23% interest rate credit card only has himself to blame, because in 5 minutes he or she could find a great deal on another credit card out in the marketplace, cut up the old card, and problem solved.

All arguments basically valid, as far as they go.

I'm personally not opposed to usury laws, and tend to believe it's not in the country's best interest to be laissez-faire on all bank practices. I do happen to believe that a legitimate role of government is protection of citizens from theft. Just because it's legal to charge somebody loan-shark rates on loans doesn't mean it's not theft to do so.

Where my beef lies with the whole topic is more in line with the mega banks. I think the biggest fault of government was in allowing consolidation of banking institutions into a small number of mega banks that were "too big to fail", resulting in the economic disaster we're experiencing now.

It's OK to pass basic usury laws, capping the interest rate banks can charge their customers at some multiple of Prime. That will result in banks basically cutting off lots of marginal customers from access to credit; but don't those folks need the wake-up call anyway? Those who suffer the most from the highest abuse from bankers are, in fact, those who are least responsible in terms of their debts. No laws can change their behavior, so maybe having a change in behavior forced on them by losing their credit lines is a positive thing.

That reminds me, I should shop for a new card to replace this one. If there's another bank out there that wants my business, they'll offer me a more attractive rate. (I just won't mention they'll never collect any interest from me anyway, because I pay off the balance every month.)

Recovery or Disaster?

I haven't posted in awhile, for a couple of reasons: Mainly I've been too busy, but also I haven't had a lot to write about.

Currently we've got two lines of rhetoric coming at us, once again divided by party affiliation.

The Dems are trying to tell us things really are getting better. They're "Stimulus" is really working, really!! And the only reason things aren't getting better faster is because the Republicans are obstructing and stalling their reform agenda.

The GOP tells us things are really bad, and are set to get much worse. The Democrat "Stimulus" was nothing but a boondoggle of historic proportions, and did much more to hurt the recovery than to help. Now we face unsustainable debt levels that are guaranteed to lead to runaway inflation, made even worse by the massive tax increases planned by the Democrat power base.

As for the obstruction charge, the GOP says we'd be much worse off today than we already are if they hadn't done everything in their power to stop the destructive Democrat/Obama agenda. Besides, they point out, Dems have huge majorities in congress that meant nothing they wanted to do could be obstructed by Republicans; it's the American people that spoke loudly to their centrist representative to keep the agenda from passing.

Rather than get into the politics of the argument, I'll try to approach it with a bit of common sense and economics.

The Democrat government is indeed spending almost twice what they're taking in in taxes. They have no desire to cut back any part of their spending, and would rather increase tax rates. The problem is, even if they raised taxes to 100 percent, it won't be enough to satisfy their voracious appetite.

So they sell bonds to China, and print money to pay for what they can't raise any other way. China's already pulling back and expressing frustration with the devaluation of the dollar caused by running the printing presses around the clock. That's going to raise the cost of debt, because the weaker the dollar the higher the interest rate that will be demanded by those who invest in it.

What also happens, as I can directly attest through just listening to the executives in the companies I consult with, is business is running scared right now. Even businesses that are doing well aren't expanding, because they have a well-founded fear that the Democrats will succeed with their agenda.

Whether Healthcare Reform, Cap & Trade, or simply tax increases, executives believe the regulatory and tax burdens either already imposed or on the way next year will hammer their profitability. So they choose not to invest in expansion. They choose not to hire employees, and make do with their existing staff or use temporary and part-time workers to guard against likely future layoffs.

Sounds like a dilemma. We can't spend our way out of the recession with money we don't have. Besides, I'm convinced the very Keynesian ideas the presidents' policies use are a fiction.

The only way out is to reintroduce sanity to government. Unfortunately, I hold little hope of that happening, and am not even sure this fall's elections will truly change the game.

Pick off the "low-hanging fruit" first. These are easy:
No earmarks, period. Cancel the ones passed earlier this year that haven't already been completed.
Close the Department of Education
Close the Endowment for the Arts, or make it solely privately funded
Scale back the Department of Agriculture significantly
Cancel the rest of the "Stimulus" and pull back the funds
Drop Cap & Trade
Drop Healthcare Reform but start incrementally on only those things that will save taxpayers money
Pass a Constitutional Amendment that basically says, Any taxes or tax breaks passed by the government must be open to all. If there's a tax, everybody pays. If there's a credit or reduction, everybody gets it. In other words, no more "targeted" taxes and no more political favors in the tax code.
Make taxes simpler and flatter. Everybody pays something - no more allowing 50% of the population to pay nothing.
Eliminate all non-essential projects, departments, etc. (Boy are there lots of them)

Yes, healthcare has become the government's biggest expense, primarily because of Medicare and Medicaid. Something needs to be done about that problem. But the Democrat solution of just putting everybody in them isn't the answer. There will never be bipartisan agreement on that point, thus the incremental approach of only common-sense tax saving reforms.

I know, pipe dream.

Who's Playing Politics?

Obama or Congressional Republicans?

Interesting how Obama decided on a strategy to triangulate the healthcare issue in what Republicans consider a trap, offering a half-day meeting with Republicans to "listen" to their ideas on healthcare reform. He's apparently trying to build on what he likely considered a big win in his talk with the GOP lawmakers at their retreat, where he had his supporters salivating over his "masterful" rhetoric designed to make them look like partisan obstructionists.

The GOP leaders have set preconditions on his proposed follow-up meeting, namely that the president throw away the bills already created by his fellow democrats and start over. He of course refused.

Which party is playing politics? Mostly Obama, mostly the GOP, or both equally?

Seems rather apparent to me.

It's interesting that the problem is structural. Having created an entitlement mentality among the citizenry, we clearly now have a situation where the largest demographic consumers of expensive healthcare are those already on the government plans - Medicare and Medicaid. That demographic consisting, of course, of the poor and the elderly. Those folks now account for more than half of all heath insurance payments in the country as a whole, and it's only going to get worse.

The argument isn't about whether or not that is a problem. It's about what should be done about it.

Obama and his left wing of the Democrat party believe the answer is to simply put everybody into a universal version of Medicare. The socialist ideal is at play, which says "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Simply take much more from the productive segment of the population and give it to the unproductive.

The GOP believe the answer is to drive the best possible economic conditions, which might at least help address the poor part of the demographic by getting them back to work for business where presumably they will get into their employer's health plans. They realize that doesn't address the exploding senior population consuming the rest of those resources, but why should they stick their necks out talking about solutions to that problem and anger one of their most potent constituencies that seems likely to return them to power; perhaps as soon as next year.

It would of course be very nice if somebody, say even the president, would catch wind of the ideas I've developed and began talking about them.

But I don't believe it's ever really been about the actual healthcare problem for many of the political class. It's about getting and holding onto power.

So unless that changes, beginning this coming November with new leaders elected to represent us, nothing good will happen. Something still might happen, but it's pretty much guaranteed to make the problem worse than doing nothing.

More Evidence Suggesting Climate Change is Politics, not Science

One of my favorite blogs is Powerline, which has this great post about what scientists who don't have a political dog in the fight are saying about the whole Climate Change myth.

I about fell out of my chair when I heard the president call for more drilling and development of American oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources during the State of the Union speech. Until he got around to the end of that part of the speech, where he strongly suggested an offer of "compromise" with conservatives on those issues if they would only get on board with his Cap & Trade bill. Of course, he gave a not-so-subtle suggestion that conservative resistance to the idea of "climate change" was borne of ignorance or conscious choices to ignore the scientific "consensus".

I found it interesting that the president followed up his SOTU with a visit with Republican legislators, where he harangued them for 90 minutes with a message that they need to stop opposing him and using "divisive" rhetoric to stop progress.

It certainly was a well-crafted message, where he steadfastly refused to engage them on policy details, focusing instead on his pleas that they stop spreading unfair characterizations about his policies. For example, he affably suggested that Republicans were telling their constituents that his healthcare bill was "some kind of Bolshevik plot".

Besides the fact I never heard any GOP lawmaker ever call it "Bolshevik", their characterizations of the healthcare plan was consistently "Socialist". Which of course is accurate.

It seems that he was successful from a PR perspective in presenting himself as a reasonable person who is willing to compromise and meet Republicans halfway for the benefit of the country. Avoiding details was an absolute requirement for this message, because whenever the details of his policies leak out, Americans resoundingly reject them. This is a president who is determined to push through his agenda at all costs, apparently believing that fooling enough of the populace to allow the bills to pass is OK, because in the end it's going to be somehow good for us who oppose them.

This might be an interesting year, in which I think conservatives may be able to recover enough seats in congress to slow down Obama's hard left turn.

For Colts Fans

Real Analysis

Something the networks refuse to do is analyze the fundamentals of the so-called healthcare reform bills that went down in flames last week. So I'm going to take my own shot here.

The question to ask is, why were the Democrats willing to bribe their way into this massive bill that they came so close to pushing through, even though it was beyond flawed?

They say that their objective was to make health insurance more affordable and accessible to those who don't currently have it. Their widely reported justifications were based on the accusation that insurance companies will not sell to individuals with pre-existing conditions, then will routinely cancel the policies of individuals who are unfortunate enough to get sick. They go on to be outraged that insurance company executives are fat cats who siphon profits into their own pockets, partly on the backs of those customers they so callously reject.

All that is followed up with an emotionally-charged declaration that healthcare is a right, not a privilege!

Let me start with that last statement. The Bill of Rights doesn't say a word about healthcare. That declaration may sound noble to many, but if it's correct, then would it not follow that people of America also have a right to a decent home and 3 square meals a day? I'm guessing the same Democrats making this statement would answer that question "yes!"

But how can such things be rights? How can it be a right of any person to receive a house, plenty of food, and medical care, all of which presumably had to be provided by someone else, without compensating that provider in some form?

For any right to exist in a just society, how is it just to declare a right that essentially requires confiscating that good or service from someone else?

The essence of the Democrats' end goal of universal healthcare is just that; a system that confiscates goods and services from one citizen to pass on to another, while skimming a healthy percentage off the top for the government who oversees and enforces that transfer.

So to the other justifications for health insurance reform, let's deal with them individually:

Insurance companies should not make a profit from people's suffering. Sounds nice, until you consider the alternative. The Democrat alternative, as defined in their barely disguised incremental approach to ending private insurance in favor of government insurance, is certain to shift those profits into the pockets of the class of bureaucrats they put in place to administer this newer, "fairer" healthcare insurance plan.

They argue Medicare is very popular, so what's wrong with simply extending Medicare to everyone? At face value, I sort of like that idea too. If I could get insurance coverage through Medicare that allowed me to drop my outrageously expensive private health insurance plan, I'd be very happy to participate.

But I have to be realistic. Medicare's already bankrupt. They already collect about 3 percent of every dollar earned by every American, and it's not enough to cover the seniors already in the plan. They have already cut the Medicare reimbursement rates to the point where doctors and hospitals are treating seniors covered by the plan at a loss, which they must pass on to the rest of their private patients who are paying for those treatments.

So let's say everybody says, "Great, sign us all up for Medicare!". First, how much would the tax rate have to increase to cover all of us? Double? Triple? Quadruple? Would even that be enough? Then, when the doctors can no longer pay their bills because everyone's on Medicare and they can't pass costs on to other paying patients, they've already promised they will simply retire. Ultimately, we'll all have Medicare, but won't be able to find any health providers to treat us when we get sick. Because they will all have shut down from the system making it no longer economically feasible to continue.

So what about these evil insurance company practices? Yes, I have heard the stories of companies canceling policies as soon as their customer checks into the cancer treatment center. But I don't actually know anybody personally that has experienced this - do you?

And the little bit I know about contract law says that if you contract with an insurance company to reimburse medical costs, they must abide by the terms of that contract. So as a consumer, our first responsibility is to make sure there are no clauses in the fine print that allow the insurance company to dump you if you get sick. Then, if they try to do that, you have a case to sue them in court.

So maybe government can play a small role in this problem, to whatever extent it may exist, by simply passing a law that says insurance companies may not put such clauses into the fine print of their contracts, or at least that they must disclose those conditions to their customers before issuing a policy. Whatever this legislation might become, it is a far cry from what the Democrats tried to implement.

Fundamentally, I believe each of us has a responsibility to see to our own needs, whether housing, food, education, healthcare, etc. I also believe the healthcare system is in trouble today precisely because of government interference and an out-of-control tort system.

These days if you are employed, you most likely have a decent health insurance plan through your employer. The problem is the unemployed and the self-employed. The unemployed can't afford insurance, and the self-employed generally choose not to pay oppressive insurance rates for plans that don't pay until you exceed the high deductibles & co-pays.

If the government wants to reform the healthcare system, they should prioritize and create conditions that allow the citizens to force reform, rather than the big-brother approach so favored by our leftist Democrats.

1. Reform the Tort system. I have what I think is a pretty good idea for how to do this without abandoning protection for those who have truly been injured by malpractice.
2. Change the payment system. Change the system to have the citizens themselves pay for their services as rendered. We all should see and have to process the invoices, which will automatically make us more informed consumers. Insurance should be geared toward reimbursing us, not the providers.
3. Detach insurance from Employers. Make health insurance more like car insurance. We should be able to shop for and buy the policy we want in an open, competitive market. That way we don't lose our coverage after we leave an employer, and the self-employed are buying insurance the same way everyone else does.
4. Regulate, but open the market. The government can place reasonable regulations on insurance companies to make sure they act responsibly, but should also encourage companies to offer a wide range of policy options that fit individual customers' needs, and of course a pre-existing condition should affect an insurance purchaser no differently than an accident would affect a car insurance purchaser.

Too bad there isn't a single politician out there with anything close to these ideas.

Glimmers of Hope

Interesting in the wake of our freshman president's campaign promising "hope" and "change", recent events actually have provided the first glimmers of hope for me since he took office.

To have a Scott Brown come out of nowhere to beat the Democrat establishment candidate in the deepest of blue states means there seem to actually be enough people with enough sense even there to turn out to kick out the establishment.

Flipping channels the morning after that election, I happened across Meredith Viera on the Today show interviewing the new Massachusetts senator. She has always seemed to me a sweet lady, but I saw a completely opposite side of her in this interview. She was angry and combative, and pummeled Brown with a litany of accusations more than questions.

The gist of her grilling of the new Senator, as far as what I heard, was

"How dare you take over Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate with the intention of stopping passage of the health reform he dedicated his entire political career to making a reality!"

I couldn't help but once again wonder, while listening to her line of questioning, whether she really is that ignorant about why people across America oppose the healthcare bill. But of course, I also can't imagine anybody who has paid even minimal attention to the contents of the bill and the shady deals made to buy votes for it still believing it's a good idea.

I see a lot of the same on CNN, and forget about MSNBC. These talking heads are so incredibly partisan that they can't even identify a turkey when it's right in front of them in broad daylight.

There may be hope for us yet.

See Why I Don't Gamble

1 for 4 in my picks this weekend.

That's why I don't gamble. I'm a bookmaker's dream.

The NFC results didn't really surprise me, as I did pick the underdogs in both games. Although I was mildly surprised that both games were blowouts.

The biggest surprise of the weekend was the Jets beating the Chargers. Is it possible that San Diego took them for granted and looked ahead to the Colts just a bit?

Or is the Jet defense that good?

We'll get to find out.

The important thing is I had the right pick for the most important game of the weekend.

It was fun to be there Saturday night.

Football Diversions

Just for fun, a post about this weekend's NFL playoff games.

This is the weekend that pretty much anything can happen. Past history indicates that seedings are unreliable predictors of the outcome, as each division's final four teams square off.

The NFC has two interesting matchups -

Arizona will try to steal the chance to play for the Super Bowl at New Orleans, where the Saints have had perhaps their best season ever. But the Saints stumled late in the regular season, looking very average against some average opponents. Meanwhile, the Cardinals won an overtime shootout last week against Green Bay, where until the Cardinal defense sacked and forced a Rogers fumble for the winning touchdown, it seemed that neither team could stop the other.

Did New Orleans use their bye week to rejuvenate their lagging team? Or will their dream season come to an anticlimactic end against Kurt Warner's passing game?

The Cowboys go to Minnesota to try to keep their late-season surge alive. This is an interesting game, with both teams looking strong late in the year. The Vikings' running game with Ardrian Peterson seemed to tail off a bit late, but it doesn't seem to translate into predictions of doom against the hot Cowboy defense.

This game is a tough one to pick. Of the four weekend games, this seems the most likely to stay even to the end. I think the winner will be decided by a late official's call or non-call, a dropped pass, or a lucky (or unlucky) bounce of the ball.

The AFC would seem to be more predictable in theory, but I'm not ready to predict either game as a sure thing.

It would seem that the underdog Jets have no shot against the talented Chargers, playing on the opposite coast. The Jets needed the gift they received from the Colts in the second-to-last game just to qualify for the playoffs.

But the Jets also beat Cincinnati convincingly, have a very good defense, and are one of the best rushing teams in the league.

I think the Chargers will likely win, but only if they play their best and don't take the underdog Jets for granted.

Finally, in the game that has my biggest interest, the Colts host the Ravens.

Ravens fans, and apparently the entire city of Baltimore, hate Indianapolis with every fiber of their being. They feel the Colts were stolen from them, when Bob Irsay packed up the team in the middle of the night and sneaked out of the city to relocate to the Hoosier state.

So more than anything, Ravens fans want the sweet revenge of taking down the Colts in one of their finest regular-season years in history.

In theory, the Ravens team shouldn't have a prayer. They don't have much of a passing game, and must win behind a strong running game and outstanding defense.

But that approach worked amazingly well last week against the Patriots on a cold day in Massachusetts. That Ravens defense rattled Tom Brady so badly that he almost looked like some rookie quarterback, rather than one of the best at this position (outside of Peyton Manning, of course).

The Colts will try to stuff the Ravens run and ask Peyton and the gang to put up a 2 or 3 touchdown lead as early in the game as possible. Then the Ravens will have to change their game plan and start passing to get back into the game. That's when the Colts will turn loose their all-pro defensive ends, Freeney and Mathis, to terrorize Joe Flacco.

I think the Colts should win this one, but they're not likely to put up a lot of points against that Ravens defense. The game will be close because the Raven's won't allow Peyton too much room, but the Ravens offense still won't be able to keep up.

My predictions for the divisional championship games?

Chargers - Colts
Cowboys - Cardinals

I'm picking the favorites to win in the AFC, and the underdogs to win in the NFC.

Than again, my track record for picking winners isn't great.

But it will be fun to see how things actually play out.

Living on the Road

When opportunities come around for grabbing solid paying consulting work, I feel I have to take advantage of them. Even when it means living on the road and having little to no time to take a breath, let alone take care of my myriad administrative duties as a small business entrepreneur of sorts.

The weekend seemed to be short to the degree of barely existing. Saturday was about 70% planned, and of course Sunday afternoon meant another flight. So I was able to barely squeeze in the most vital of paperwork in the gaps of a short and busy weekend.

I have to admit to being a bit grumpy this weekend. The commodity I value highly but seem to suffer a lack of lately is sleep. Chris' Saturday evening basketball game, where several unfortunate factors led to his team losing a game they had well in hand in the fourth quarter, made a contribution to my foul mood.

As did getting pulled over for expired license plates. And being unable to squeeze in any time to try figuring out how to recover from losing my office in the Christmas fire at the United Way building. Even experiencing the bizarre disappearance of my socks from the laundry added to my pain.

Then there was the Sunday trip. TSA must not have planned on the number of travelers they would be screening this afternoon, because the lines were long and slow. Then a gray-haired executive type, who happened to show up across from me on my flight, tried to cut the line. I was pleased to see the deft maneuvering of the guy he tried to cut in front of, who managed to position himself in such a way as to deny the jerk his sought-after spot without overtly seeming to be confrontational.

Finally, the woman that sat next to me had to lather up with an extra-pungent hand lotion as we were making our approach. I was only just able to avoid unloading my mostly-digested breakfast into her lap. Seriously, do these people have any clue whatsoever that somebody might not appreciate their fragrant lotions and perfumes? I suspect they might, but simply don't care.

Oh yeah, and the hotel's wi-fi is down. So I just finished emailing my weekend reports using the hotel's "Business Center", which is a wired connection.

A week here in one of the nation's coldest places, then a week back down south, then finally I will get a Monday & Tuesday at home (but with at least a week's worth of work to try to fit into those days).

Yeah, I'm a bit grumpy.

Unexpected Events

My office turned into a smoldering void due to a Christmas fire. Not sure the cause yet, but the newspaper says arson is not suspected. Very old building, I suppose in hindsight it may have been inevitable.

The office supplies, equipment, and furniture are all replaceable. Not cheap, but I'll survive.

Files and my backup hard drive are gone forever. I suppose those things I'm missing will become evident over the next few months, as something comes up and I come to realize, "Oh, that was in my office." Gone forever.

Some personal items are also lost, but I can't think of anything in the office of extremely high sentimental value.

It's still a bit hard to wrap my head around the idea that my office is gone.

Fundamental Issues

I've probably laid out most of what I have to say about the silly healthcare "reform" and dishonest "Cap and Trade" legislation the Democrats and their president are so intent on ramming through. So perhaps a better approach today is to discuss the fundamentals underlying their determination to achieve a much bigger goal than simply helping folks get health insurance or improving the environment.

Because, you see, if they were telling the truth about their intentions of bringing healthcare costs down and getting everybody insured, they could do that with a simple bill that would cost far less than the trillion dollars they're bent on spending.

If they were telling the truth about "Global Warming" being such a threat to the planet, there are many things they could do to entice everyone to use more "green" habits, rather than promising to shut down or tax into submission our energy companies.

The fundamental issue is our very system of government. They don't like our free republic. They want something that falls somewhere in between Soviet or Chinese-style communism and European-style social democracy.

Lately I'm wondering whether there's a plurality of citizens who agree with them. I suppose it's either that or they just don't have a clue what communism or socialism is. It is apparent that many have bought into the Democrat lie that they can get something for nothing simply by voting for the Democrat candidate.

I was in Communist Russia & Poland in the 70's. Sure, it equalizes most of the population. But they are equally poor and repressed. The "Party Members" in communism keep the best stuff for themselves - in Russia, they had cars when their fellow non-member citizens rode public transportation. They had houses while the rest were assigned to government-built apartments.

We had a socialist tax system for decades, when the US Government essentially confiscated everything people earned above a certain limit. That stopped when Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

I suppose another alternative to the two governmental systems vying for power in our country is a monarchy. A year ago I would have suspected some would like to crown Obama king, but that ship seems to have sailed.

The basic question we face today is very simple. Do we want to remain a free republic, or throw out the constitution and rewrite it to become a social democracy or full-blown communist partner with China?

I no longer think the answer is clear. I don't think we'll know for sure until next November.

Timely but Unfortunate

My recent post about heroes was even more timely than I suspected at the time, as it occurred just before the sordid details of Tiger Woods' tomcat lifestyle came to light. So many have had their bubble burst with that fallen hero. I just feel sad and would rather not hear anything more about the story.

On another sports note, now that the Colts have secured pretty much everything they wanted this season except the Super Bowl, now the debate has started about whether they should go for the perfect season or rest their starters for the playoffs.

I understand the argument on both sides of the issue. It might be sort of moot, given the number of defensive backs that are hurt on the team right now. They might have to recruit a few fans out of the stands to cover the Jaguars' receivers this week.

But the coaches must be able to glean something from history, one would think. The Colts had two recent seasons with stellar regular-season records, when they rested the starters, then looked obviously rusty in dropping their first playoff game.

It seems to me that the thing to do is keep your guys sharp and competitive. Let the healthy guys play in the last 3 games, but rest the guys who are hurt. Maybe if the Jaguars start sacking Peyton with some frequency this week, you go ahead and pull him to save injury. But otherwise, I think you let everybody who is healthy go out and play. Inspire the rookies and backups who presumably have been itching for playing time to go out and prove their value.

But don't sit back and let everybody take the rest of the season off. A month later in that first playoff game, they'll be playing as if it's the preseason. And they'll get beat.

We will soon see what happens. Then those who have opinions on the matter will be proven right or wrong. But we'll all have fun following the Colts to the end of this year's run.

True Intentions

Part of the political discourse these days includes attempts by each side to convince the regular folks that the other side holds some sort of evil intent in promoting their particular position on an issue.

Take healthcare, for example.

The Left accuses the Right of somehow wanting people to die for lack of medical care. Surely only the most partisan or ignorant sycophants on the Left actually believe that. But even the President has joined in the rhetorical suggestion that Right opposition to the Left's healthcare "reform" proposals are nothing more than a big sellout to the health insurance industry.

Conversely, the Right suggests that the Left's main goal is a Socialist/Communist model where the government controls every aspect of the citizens' lives. That their version of healthcare reform is not at all about improving the access and quality of healthcare for all citizens, but is merely a power grab that is part of a much larger objective of destroying free enterprise.

I can say for certain that most opponents to the healthcare "reform" proposals oppose them because of the massive and inefficient bureaucracy it promises to create, the extremely high costs that promise to raise punitive taxes on all of the citizenry while exploding an already out-of-control budget, and the inevitable rationing of care that will result in a system that will be immediately overwhelmed by massively increased demand coupled with reduced supply of healthcare providers.

I can guess that the supporters of this proposal do not believe there's any sort of sinister plot for the government to destroy free enterprise. The supporters more likely hear the stories of people having their insurance cancelled as soon as they receive a bad diagnosis, others facing bankruptcy because they acquire an illness or injury for which they have no or inadequate insurance coverage.

Most supporters I know don't actually lack insurance, and don't even know anybody who lost their insurance when they got sick. They are fearful that it might happen to them someday. And they hear the stories so eagerly spread by supporters of the "reform" about insurance executives taking millions in bonuses, and believe it's not right for anyone to make a profit from other people's misery.

I think that among opponents to the healthcare reform movement are probably insurance company interests who will do whatever they can to keep the money train on the track. I also believe there are those on the Left that are pushing this legislation as part of a larger agenda designed to someday end with an entirely government run and controlled healthcare system.

I also believe that supporters of these "reforms" are either uninterested or dismissive of the negative details and consequences these new laws will have on either their own lives. I wonder how many of these folks will wake up a couple of years from now to realize they made a terrible mistake.

The bottom line is the same for me as with most current political issues. Our government is counting on our ignorance and gullibility as they push through an agenda none of us (except their own bureaucratic class) will appreciate once it comes to fruition.

Clueless or Dishonest

Turned on CNN when I got in tonight. First thing on was Obama, saying:

"We are trying to figure out how to get companies hiring again."

My jaw dropped, because everybody with half a brain knows the answer to that is very simple. The companies I consult with every day can't be more clear about the simple solution. Want to get them hiring again?

Announce that "Healthcare Reform" is going to be pulled back, at least temporarily until the economy gets back on it's feet.

Drop Cap & Trade altogether.

Extend the Bush tax cuts a couple more years.

Only a fool or a dishonest politician would try to sell "green jobs" and healthcare reform and cap & trade and across-the-board tax increases and stifling regulation and new restrictions on energy development and cash for clunkers and cash for caulkers and stimulus for ACORN and printing billions of new dollars and selling the country to China and unprecedented boondoggling and out-of-control pork-barrel spending and all the rest as good for the economy.

I've gotta assume it's dishonesty and not cluelessness. But either is not good for any of us "regular" folks.

Hey, Barry: We "regular" folks don't want a government healthcare program or massive taxes to solve a fake global climate change crisis. We just want good jobs so we can take care of ourselves and our families without your big-brother government butting in.

But you know all that, don't you.

How to Stave off the Cold

No, I don't think I know exactly.

Here I am trying to hold one off again, only about a month after recovering from the last sinus infection. This morning I was sneezing, thinking, "where did these sneezes come from?"

By this evening the sinuses are raging. I'm chugging Emergen-C, which seems my only hope to keep this one at bay.

How do these happen? I'm pretty careful - I try to keep to clean habits as much as possible.

But I can't avoid the specific things I suspect contribute to these viral infections.

Like flying. The person directly behind me on this week's flight was coughing frequently. I was tempted, but stopped myself from looking at him for fear of seeming rude. But I wondered if he was coughing on me, and suspected he was.

Then there was the flight delay, which very nearly caused me to miss my connection. I had to hustle from the far end of Atlanta's Concourse A to the far end of Concourse D in about 15 minutes. They'd actually posted "Closed" on the monitor when I walked up, but fortunately the agent let me on. They closed the door behind me.

So I arrived at my destination after midnight, so I got maybe 5 hours of sleep, but maybe not really because I'm staying in a mini-mobile home they have the nerve to call a "Chalet". And it has a furnace that I think produces more decibels than degrees of heat.

My suspicion is that the furnace in my little "Chalet" hasn't been operated yet this year. So by me being the first to turn the thing on, it probably blew out all sorts of accumulated molds and other nasty allergens.

Perhaps I should consider myself fortunate that I don't get sick more often, given my unusual itinerant lifestyle.

I only pray this time I can duck the sinus infection or cold or flu or whatever is trying to knock me off my feet. There's nothing worse than getting sick on the road.

Tracking the Climate Change Fraud

Every day there seems to be a new layer peeled back on what is looking very much like a political fraud that's been perpetrated on the world by people claiming to be scientists.

The hacked emails showing the concern of the leaders of the movement that their data doesn't support the theory, thus plotting ways to keep the ball rolling; the newer claim of a software engineer that the code underneath the climate change models was written to guarantee the desired outcome; the evidence of collusion in the influential climate change advocate (self-described scientist) community to suppress all refuting studies and trash those with the temerity to bring them forward - all point to the compelling likelihood that the whole "global warming" agenda now renamed "climate change" agenda is about left-wing politics and grant money, not science.

It is interesting to see all the members of Gore's Church of Climate Change scrambling to save the socialist ideal they believed they were on the cusp of installing upon the foundation of their alarmist climate message. Their main messages seem to boil down to what the Wizard of Oz so famously told Dorothy and her friends:

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

They are saying, "Pay no attention to those emails, the code behind the model, and the suppression of contrary studies: Climate change is irrefutable!"

I would think anybody out there who calls themselves scientists should be appalled and angry at the way their profession has been besmirched in the pursuit of a political outcome. Unfortunately I can't seem to find much evidence of anybody in the scientific community expressing such outrage or suggesting the climate data be made available for independent study to find out the real truth without regard to political agendas.

Have we universally lost all capability to think rationally, outside of the Left-Right paradigm?

It would seem so. Where have the intelligent people gone?

Heroes

Some say one of today's problems is a lack of heroes. In some ways, I tend to agree that a seeming dearth of exemplary individuals to serve as models for us and our children isn't a good sign for our country as a whole.

I find it rather strange that, in the midst of two foreign wars, stories of heroes are almost completely missing. Even more disturbing is a phenomena I've noticed, where when a story of heroism in Iraq or Afghanistan does bubble to the surface, the media immediately commence an initiative to either squash the story or find a negative light in which to cast the story to make it appear that the heroic actions were somehow much less so.

In the media's world, broadcasting a story of selfless heroism on the battlefield is tantamount to supporting or glorifying a war they detest. Because their choices are now in charge of the wars, the irony is palpable, as the same anti-war media creatures twist themselves into pretzels as they try to find ways to justify their favored Commander-in-Chief's continuation of the hated conflicts.

While they play politics, we all suffer, continuing to miss the stories of heroism and self-sacrifice that very will might be taking place every day in remote Afghanistan, or in the city markets in Iraq.

I wonder whether heroes today purposely hide in the shadows, are besmirched because of political considerations, or are truly rare.

Sadly, the only evidence of hero-worship I can detect seem to be misdirected. The new President is certainly worshipped by certain segments of the population, even though there are no noble, selfless, or courageous acts of heroism in evidence. He seems to attract worship solely on the merits of smooth speechmaking and left-wing idealism.

Some hold up sports stars as their heroes. While sports stars are certainly worthy of admiration for their outstanding athletic prowess, simply being good at a game hardly qualifies one for hero status.

As a Colts fan, I certainly admire Peyton Manning, who seems to be one of the best quarterbacks ever to play in the NFL. But my admiration for the quarterback is limited to his football skills. I don't know him personally, and for all I know, he could be the most insufferable jerk imaginable off the field. Winning Super Bowls and bringing his team back from big deficits to win close games is great, but for Peyton Manning to actually be a hero, I would need to see evidence of him showing great courage and self-sacrifice to save and help others.

The most puzzling hero worship I observe is in the form of worship of celebrities and entertainers. For some, it seems the only qualification for their adoration is fame.

I certainly can admire the vocal entertainment skill of someone like Barbra Streisand. But how is it that her singing prowess translates into any credibility for political activism? Whether choosing activism from the Left or the Right, don't celebrities realize that choosing sides does nothing but alienate half of their fan base?

Is a conservative-leaning person going to suddenly abandon all their political beliefs and attitudes just because a Barbra Streisand tells him he's a brainwashed idiot for holding those beliefs? If she thinks so, she really does live in a fantasy world.

Celebrities are not heroes, nor is the reverse. It seems to me that most people who qualify for the hero designation are unknown beyond their sphere of relatives, friends, and acquaintances.

The greatest heroes are unknown to the world. That's fine with them, but I think maybe these heroes deserve some attention, so the rest of us can learn from their example.

Eloquent and Succinct

This is from Paul Rahe of Hillsdale College. It sums up our current government situation better than anything else I've seen.

The Tea-Party movement lacks institutional support. Back in the early 1990's, when Hillary Clinton announced her proposal for a federal takeover of healthcare, the insurance companies mounted a campaign against it.

This time, the Democrats have squared everything with the special interests. The National Association of Manufacturers quickly climbed on board, eager to free its members from having to provide health insurance for their members' employees. The pharmaceutical companies did a deal with Obama aimed at protecting their short-term interests, as did the American Medical Association. The American Association of Retired Persons -- which purports to represent the interests of the elderly, but which has business interests of its own -- was bought outright, and the same thing can be said with regard to the health insurance companies. The industrial labor unions are similarly on board.

Indeed, everyone appears to have been taken care of ... except, of course, for the ordinary citizens who will be subject to the new regime. There is no one to stand up for them. The Republican Party lacks the requisite votes, and everyone else has been bought.

Hangin' in LA

Ha, fooled you. LA as in Louisiana.

Since I had to be here two weeks back-to-back, it didn't make sense to take the trip home Saturday, only to turn right around and come back Sunday. So I stayed over.

Since I'm located in sort of the middle of Nowhere, LA, my client provided wheels for the weekend and I took a day trip to Red Stick. Umm, I mean Baton Rouge.

Spent more time driving than anything else, but saw the Louisiana countryside and the big ports on the Mississippi. Also had the minor adventure of doing laundry at what must be the only coin laundry in the state, downtown Baton Rouge. Sort of a rough part of town, but I survived OK.

Followed by a rather dull Sunday afternoon, after checking out Mass at the local church. Colts vs. Patriots tonight will be a bit more interesting, but I'm sort of expecting the horseshoes to get handed their first loss of the season. For some strange reason, I even have this idea that the Pats might just blow them off their brand new stadium field.

Sure hope I'm wrong about that.

The fortunate thing is that I convinced two clients to sign up for additional projects, which lets me relax a bit about being busy at least through Q1 of next year. Relaxing about things like that is always nice.

I seem to be unfocused here, so I suppose this will do it until I have something more interesting to write about.

Free Advice

Is worth what you paid for it, I know. But just a few pieces of fatherly advice anyway.

Attitude is everything. I find my ability to deal with the tough times life dishes out is directly related to my attitude. I believe that if you take two individuals side-by-side with the exact same life experiences, the one with the better attitude will be the more content.

Don't waste time worrying. It's a corollary to the first statement. Most of the stuff we worry about never happens. So why waste time stewing about it?

If you love doing something, put all you've got into it. If you like something, you probably have some talent for it. One of the biggest satisfactions we can find in life is in doing something we love superbly. (Caveat: I'm not talking about time-wasting activities like video games)

Spend your life in search of God. This is where you will find truth, beauty, peace, love, and wisdom. Not to mention salvation.

Focus outward. Don't worry so much about yourself, but learn to know and appreciate those around you. Doing the right thing is never about you, but about what you can do to help others.

Overcome fear. Most of us limit ourselves only because of fear. We fear the unknown. We fear failure, but in some strange way, we find a way to fear success. When you know what you want to do, don't let fear stop you.

Learn from others. Seek out people who can teach you what you need to learn. Listen critically. Compare different philosophies. Never stop learning.

One interesting thing I need to share about these little pieces of advice: I don't necessarily follow them all that well myself. But I try.

Think You'd Like My Job?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Something I Stumbled Across

A very interesting speaker. Worth the time investment.

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.

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.

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.

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?