While I'm Tilting at Windmills

I might as well go ahead and post some other crazy ideas.

What if -

Everybody bought health insurance like they buy car insurance? And the government had nothing to do with it.

We could solve the massive budget and national debt problem by eliminating every federal agency and project that is not specifically and constitutionally their responsibility?

We capped government spending so it can never exceed, say, 20 percent GDP?

We changed welfare programs to cover only those to sick or otherwise disabled to function?

Churches help out their parishioners when in need as a front line of defense instead of government programs?

Those able-bodied persons who don't want to join a church and can't find employment can fall back on the government, but not for cash. Show up anytime you want and you can be given a minimum-wage job, baby sitting for your children if needed, and maybe some referral services for temporary housing and other assistance until you get on your feet?

Social Security was transformed into a personal account, gradually over the next generation. Then when you retire, it's your money. When you die, you can pass it on to your heirs?

Government configured tax policy to favor only the nuclear family and undivorced parents?

Government was friendly to the Church, recognizing it as the most important agent for solving poverty?

Congress is made up of ordinary people from our communities who go to Washington for no more than 4 years, then come home and resume their normal lives?

Government actually enforced important laws, such as AntiTrust and Immigration, for two examples?

The tax code was reduced from the corrupt mutli-thousand-page monstrosity to a simple law no more than 20 pages long?

Tax returns for everyone were 1 page long?

Mega Corporations get no more or less preferential treatment from the government than any other business or individual?

Calling people of the opposition party "Enemies" is an impeachable offense for the President or any other elected official?

I've got lots more, but that's all I feel like posting for tonight.

My Vincennes Debate Adventure

A few weeks ago I caught wind of the Indiana Debate Commission's request for voters to submit questions for the Senate candidates. I happened to be sitting down at the computer at the time, so I dashed off a question.

Last week, I received a phone call from a member of the commission asking if I would present my question at the debate Monday night in Vincennes. I had to do some schedule rearranging, but freed up Monday afternoon and evening to make the long drive to Vincennes University last night.

My question was related to the following information I came across about 2010 H1B Visa Applications in Indiana.

Rank Company H1B Applications Avg Salary
1 Purdue University 548 64,001
2 Cummins 539 69,546
3 Indiana University 455 56,733
4 IUPUI 441 60,037
5 Eli Lilly/Notre Dame 264 92,426
6 Lac 211 58,245
7 Access Therapies 181 52,193
8 Kpit Infosystems 177 54,389
9 Pyramid Consulting 170 49,625
10 Pyramid Technology Solutions 131 48,377
11 LHP Software 105 60,822
12 Ryan Consulting Group 90 51,515
13 Satyam Computer Services 80 61,724
14 Midwest Independent Transmission Sys 61 75,701
15 Workhorse Custom Chassis 58 72,026
16 White Lodging Services 56 39,440
16 Ball State 56 56,381
18 IUPUI 54 59,769
19 SV Technologies 51 49,314
19 Thomson 51 77,296
21 ArcelorMittal USA 50 73,199
22 UST Global 49 56,757
23 Brite Systems 43 59,198
24 Conseco Services 42 71,074
25 Dow Agrosciences 38 90,543
26 Zimmer 37 74,492
27 Bucher and Christian Consulting 36 101,388
28 CVS Pharmacy 35 103,057
29 Q Edge 34 42,839
30 Kindred Rehab Services 32 50,490
30 Depauw University 32 53,310
30 Indiana State University 32 50,583
33 IBM 31 84,785
33 RCR Technology 31 72,669
35 Kindred Technology Nursing Centers 31 62,400
36 Telamon 26 42,987
37 Hill Rom 25 75,174
37 Cook 25 63,862
37 Interactive Intelligence 25 72,282
40 International School of Indiana 24 43,787
40 F1 24 49,875
40 Infosys Technologies 24 60,148
40 Boston Scientific 24 67,186
40 Carrier 24 66,371
40 Sabic Innovative Plastics 24 81,372
46 Redcats USA Management Services 23 89,065
46 MED Institute 23 69,234
46 Delphi 23 73,782
49 TheraCare 22 42,976
50 Novistar 21 69,261
50 Diverse Staffing Services 21 61,650
50 Fujitsu Consulting 21 69,828
54 Cummins Emission Solutions 20 71,656
54 Genesis Business Solutions 20 51,437
56 Intelligence 19 63,126
56 Gyansys 19 57,389
56 Aegis Therapies 19 72,894
56 EagleCare 19 74,453
56 Mphasis 19 60,963
56 University of Southern Indiana 19 56,016
56 Swift Solutions 19 55,326
63 Ospro Systems 18 57,800
63 Cognizant Technology Solutions 18 59,122
63 General Electric 18 81,818
63 Ibiz Group 18 52,070
63 Covance 18 75,541
68 Indiana Math and Science Academy 17 37,243
68 Lincoln National 17 93,548
68 Medical Specialists 17 183,885
71 Creative Health Solutions 16 74,100
71 IU Health Inc 16 137,668
71 Caterpillar 16 71,222
74 Clarian Health Partners 15 53,257
74 Rose Hulman Insititute of Technology 15 61,153
74 Saint Margaret Mary Helthcare Centers 15 156,883
74 Roche Diagnostics 15 75,523
78 Pegatron Technology Service 14 38,909
78 Tata Consultancy Services 14 54,700
78 Indiana Health Centers 14 123,822
78 Hoosier Wheel & Stamping Mfg 14 55,000
78 Adesa 14 77,486
78 Healthcare Therapy Services 14 61,054
84 Butler University 13 59,823
84 ATT 13 73,641
84 Mead Johnson 13 92,208
84 St Vincent Hospital 13 76,408
88 Rolls Royce 12 70,700
88 MedFocus 12 64,385
88 Proficient Business Systems 12 49,790
88 V Soft Consulting Group 12 56,750
88 Atlas Rehabilitation 12 54,080
88 Amatra Technologies 12 59,089
88 Apogee Medical Group Indiana 12 185,000
96 Autocar 11 78,230
96 Hook SupeRx dba CVS Pharmacy 11 50,003
96 Ernst & Young 11 61,189
96 Inventiv Clinical Solutions 11 61,669
96 Niagara Lasalle 11 77,850

The only candidate who gave me a definitive answer to my question was the Libertarian, Rebecca Sink-Burris. She said there's no problem with this, and it's really a positive thing. Strangely, she also cited some study that said for every foreign worker hired under H1B, there are 5 more positions filled in "Support".

I take that to mean Americans can't handle these professional, technical, programming, and scientific jobs anymore? That we're now reduced to "supporting" the foreign professionals brought in to do the jobs we can't do? Does anybody find that the least bit offensive?

Dan Coats verbally patted me on the head and dismissed me. "Go off and play so the adults can talk". H1B is a "side issue", according to Coats, and if we just get the government out of the way there will be plenty of jobs for everybody.

Brad Ellsworth was patronizing. He must have been thinking along the same lines as Ms. Sink-Burris, because he turned his answer into a need to improve education. Again the theme that we Americans are too, what, stupid, lazy, greedy? Importing professors into our colleges who can't speak clear enough English to be understood is helping education?

The guys from the Commission and the moderator, Ann Ryder, couldn't have been nicer. The candidates made no effort at all to meet our small group of 7 questioners after the debate, which I think speaks volumes. Neither did a single member of the press.

I sort of ended the night feeling foolish.

I Get to Ask a Question

I've been invited to ask a question of the Indiana Senate candidates Monday night. It's kind of exciting, and I'm curious to find out how they will answer. I think it's a unique, challenging, and important question nobody's been talking about in this campaign cycle.

Tune in Monday night to hear my question and the debate.

I'll post the question, the more detailed reasons for the question, and a paraphrase of the candidates' responses after the debate.

It should be an interesting evening in Vincennes.

Uncivil War

The wierd story of the two liberal ladies on the View walking off the set in a huff during a discussion with O'Reilly combines with a couple of big debates this week to illustrate that there's a chasm between conservative and liberal philosophies that cannot be bridged.

The two debates I noticed were senatorial debates in Nevada and Delaware. I caught a bit of both, and both highlighted the stark differences in left and right philosophies. Harry Reid and Chris Coons espoused govenment-centric control to restore "fairness", which they claim will eventually help the economy recover. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell espoused freedom and smaller government to allow the private sector to restore prosperity through business activity.

On economic, social, environmental, national defense, and foreign relations issues, conservatives and liberals are diametrically opposed. Which makes me wonder about self-identified "moderates", because there is no real middle ground in most of these topics.

You prefer socialism or capitalism. You're for or against gay marriage and abortion. You think a strong national defense and secure borders are vital, or you believe we need to open the borders and show our enemies that we're really nice people. You want to develop all available energy options or drive the cost of carbon-based energy beyond affordability in the hope that "clean" energy will come along to replace oil and coal.

I suppose a moderate agrees with conservatives on some issues and with liberals on others.

The difference between the two camps is in their approach. My observation is that the conservative candidates are focused on policy. Liberal candidates are focused on slinging mud.

Points of proof: The View walkout, Jerry Brown's unapologetic defense of his staffer calling Meg Whitman a "whore". Everybody on the Left and their willing "journalist" friends going on TV to deride Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin (who isn't running for anything) as idiots.

The country is reaping exactly what it sowed. The question is whether or not the citizenry can figure that out in time to make a correction.

Weary of Arguments

Up to this point, most of the arguing has been about the economy. The party of corporate fat cats versus the party of government fat cats.

As if that wasn't getting tired enough, along comes New York's gubernatorial candidate, Palladino, saying he didn't want children indoctrinated to regard gay relationships in a moral equivalency with traditional nuclear families.

I don't find the statement all that controversial, but it's got the gay community screaming. I saw Ron Reagan briefly on CNN so angry he seemed to be about to cry. You would have thought Palladino called for having Ron and his gay friends hanged in Times Square.

Another divisive issue is immigration and the Arizona law. Again, what Arizona did I don't consider controversial at all. They merely passed a law permitting local law enforcement to assist in identifying and holding people here illegally and holding them for ICE processing.

I saw a panel of regular folks arguing about that, and as with the gay issue, those on the pro-illegal side of the argument were extremely angry and hostile to Arizona and the others in the room on the other side.

Is it really necessary for me to go into the simple truth of each issue?

Gay rights are not about the "right" for gay people to love whomever they choose, which is a silly statement clearly designed to obscure the issue. It's about benefits. The basic question here is whether I should be forced to submit my tax dollars to provide government benefits to homosexual partners.

Since my moral equivalence is not between gay couples and married couples, but between the gay lifestyle and Tiger Woods' skirt-chasing lifestyle, my answer is no.

Supporters of rights for illegal aliens contend that they're hard workers, and are only here illegally because it's too hard to obtain legal immigration approval. The basic question isn't whether illegals work hard or want a better life; it's about whether or not we choose to uphold our country's laws and secure the border.

Our choice is to either open up the borders for everyone and stop trying to enforce the law, or to seal the border and solve the problem once and for all. My answer is solve the problem.

Palladino apparently has a reputation for being very non-PC. Will this anti-PC comment lose him the election? In deep blue New York, perhaps. Politically, he probably shouldn't have said it. But his honesty is sort of refreshing for a politician.

I just heard Palladino was apologizing for his comments. That's too bad. Apologizing would seem to mean he's had a change of heart on the matter. It won't win over anybody he's apologizing to - they will reject the apology as politically expedient. So it doesn't seem like a productive response.

Defining Evil

Channel surfing in the hotel room, I picked up on the current political story about campaign funding. The Democrats, led by the President and Vice President, have gone after Carl Rove and the Chamber of Commerce, suggesting that they have raised millions to support Republican candidates from questionable sources.

I've noticed that when a party or candidate is having trouble attracting enough support to keep their office, they will typically turn to demonization of their opponent. I suppose if they can make everyone think the other guy is worse, the people will either reluctantly vote their way once more, or just stay home.

It's rather unseemly for the President and Vice President to drop down into the mud. I don't recall this degree of raw partisanship from any President, at least as long as I've been paying attention.

It's also more than a little dishonest for the President to decry the big money going to Republicans from oil companies and Wall Street, when he was elected with big money from George Soros, trial lawyers, unions, and quite possibly Chinese "bundlers" (they caught one spreading Chinese cash around for Hillary in 2008, but we never heard much about that case).

From my side of the political spectrum, I have to admit at least a suspicion of evil about certain characters. My jailhouse lineup would be headlined by Barney Frank, and include Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Alan Grayson.

Although I would quietly celebrate if Nancy Pelosi loses her gavel, I don't actually put her in the murderer's row above. Not because she's not guilty - she certainly is; but my impression is that she really believes in what she's been doing. From my perspective, she is terribly dangerous not because she's corrupt per se (although she certainly may be corrupt); but because she's clueless and immensely powerful.

I also don't necessarily consider the President evil. I'm appalled by his callous attitudes toward abortion, including partial-birth abortion. And I am suspicious that he may have a supremely corrupt motive in pushing Cap & Trade. But I also think he truly believes in a socialist/communist utopia. Simply reading his biography makes that abundantly clear; his parents, his education, his Chicago cronies, his mentors, all are far-left socialist/communists. I'm not convinced he even knows or understands the perspective of anyone right of center.

Evil or not, we should begin right now as a country holding our politicians to the highest standards. We should not overlook corruption simply because the corrupt politician happens to belong to the correct party. We must never again permit our representatives to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

All that requires paying attention. Many more folks are starting to pay attention now, because they're feeling the pain of government malfeasance. The only way we can avoid the next meltdown is to shut down any possibility that such malfeasance can ever happen again.

Choices

In less than a month to the elections, it seems likely that most folks are already settled on their candidates. As far as I can tell from everything I've read, the difference is likely to come down to turnout.

The energized conservative base can't wait to vote against all that's happened over the last two years. Many independents didn't get what they thought they were voting for two years ago. The core liberal base will turn out for their candidates even though they're unhappy for different reasons.

Even though it typically makes me nauseous, I've been checking out the left-wing messages to try to find out what they're thinking. Like conservatives, they're upset with the Democrats who have been in charge for two years. Unlike conservatives, their unhappiness isn't about what the Democrats have done, but what they have failed to do over that time.

CNN likes to have left-wing commentators on to speculate about those weird Tea Party folks, as if they're some sort of isolated tribe. Following their tradition, I've set out to try to understand who these Democrat activists are, and what it is they want.

Here's what I think I've learned.

The Left Wing has a vision of their ideal America that looks something like this:

They don't like ObamaCare, but want Medicare for everybody. Basically nationalize the system and insure everybody under Medicare. (Interestingly, in some ways I actually think that would have been better than the awful boondoggle of ObamaCare)

They believe the rich became so at the expense of the poor. In their world, a rich person in some way stole their money from poor people. Strangely, they generally seem to exempt politicians, pro athletes, trial lawyers, union bosses, entertainers, and George Soros.

Their definition of freedom is abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, legal weed, and government benefits for gay couples. At the same time they have no problem with banning firearms, dictating what we are allowed to eat or drive, and banning Christianity completely.

They think national security is irrelevant. If we're just nice to our enemies, they'll be our friends. The military is evil, but maybe if they repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", maybe they'll be just a little less evil. As long as they recruit plenty of openly gay folks and illegal immigrants then never send them anywhere they might possibly come under fire.

They don't understand why we can't just open up the borders and let everyone in who wants to come. And those who are already here illegally are just ordinary people looking for a better life, right? So we should just let them become citizens, and just make sure they are registered to vote, as long as they promise to pull the Democrat lever.

Their definition of fairness is that if somebody (other than the exempt groups I mentioned earlier) makes more than they do, the government must confiscate it and give it to them.

More simply stated, the average Democrat votes for whomever they believe will deliver the most goodies. It's all about them, and (insert expletive of your choice) everybody else. (By the way, have you ever noticed that Democrats have filthy mouths?)

That's why this election is so important. I just haven't figured out whether there are enough folks left who understand that and will show up to vote accordingly.

What Makes a Good Year?

Going into October, I did a quick projection for 2010. And it would appear this may be the best year since I became an independent businessman. At least in terms of gross revenue.

It got me thinking, was this a good year?

The earnings haven't made a difference in my life in any way I can identify. I suppose it's helped me cover the spiking healthcare expenses and some home repairs, which were all just things that were needed regardless.

I haven't spent anything on myself. Actually, I've been hoarding cash like a miser because it's scary to watch the overall economy tank.

There hasn't been much free time, because of course I can't have a great earnings year without working. And I've been working much harder than normal this year. Summer went past and I barely noticed.

That hoard of cash (don't get any ideas that it's such a big hoard, because it's not) is going to have to take a really big hit, because I also just realized I'm going to have to send a major percentage of it to the government this month or they'll be coming after me. So even that's not such a great thing.

It seems I should feel great about my successful business year.

Instead I feel guilty.

Guilty for failing to appreciate being busy when so many are out of work.

Guilty for being absent.

Guilty for losing track of what's really important.

Maybe I need to force a break in my work schedule to re-evaluate. Or should I just toughen up, keep making hay while the sun shines, and put enough back to relax when the tough times hit?

Balanced News

On a rare occasion, I took in the Fox News Sunday program this weekend. For those who would claim Fox News is merely the conservative opposite of MSNBC, Chris Wallace proved that false; at least when it comes to Sunday shows.

Wallace had Boehner on to talk about their newly released outline of promises if the GOP gets returned to power. He was tough on Boehner, asking good questions that Boehner mostly ducked.

Then he had on the Democrat Hoyer, and proceeded to ask him equally tough questions. And of course got Democrat talking points in return.

So neither really answered the questions; Boehner ducked them and Hoyer prevaricated.

The panel discussion was balanced with representatives of both sides of the political divide, which was actually fairly interesting.

It's simply wrong to suggest Fox is the same as MSNBC, just the other side of the same coin. MSNBC is populated with certifiable crazies and offers little to no balance. Every Fox program, except maybe Beck, brings on people to express both sides of most every issue. (And Beck's program is really not comparable to anything anywhere else)

Wallace should have a higher profile. I want someone who doesn't take sides, and asks tough questions that need to be asked no matter who comes in.

We can learn from that.

Missing the Point

It seems like most everybody's missing the point. It's sort of disappointing, because those missing the point are the ones who are being hurt most by everything that's happening.

What point am I talking about?

Well, primarily it's morality. But it's also common sense.

What's better for everyone -

Being sensitive to gay people's feelings or securing the country against its enemies?

Rewarding and honoring those who behave irresponsibly and neglect the next generation, or rewarding the nuclear family, from which come the most responsible and productive citizens?

Confiscating hard-earned dollars from people who work to give it to people who dont?

Disrespecting Christians and making sure all our students are converted to the religion of Atheism, or honoring our First Amendment freedoms that built the foundation of solid families and honorable citizens?

Trying to impose goverment control over every aspect of our lives, including what we can eat, drive, where we live, and what we can do with our own property; or giving us the freedom to live our lives as we choose without bureaucratic interference?

Are business people to be regarded as greedy money-grubbers who abuse the poor, or the engine of a vibrant economy who need to be encouraged to innovate and expand?

Hasn't anybody these days read anything about the fall of the Roman Empire? History is indeed repeating itself.

Poison Pills in Politics

Harry Reid used a cynical and obvious ploy his position as Senate Majority Leader permits to stuff unrelated poison pills into the Defense Authorization Bill. The DREAM Act and repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

Harry knows he's going to lose if he can't figure out a way to energize the Democrat base. So his desperate attempt to prod gays and hispanics to the Nevada polls is an example of why people across the country are sick of the process.

Unfortunately, Indiana's own Dick Lugar is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which serves as further evidence that Lugar is out of touch. It seems he's either been in Washington so long that he doesn't even know how folks in Indiana think anymore, or he's old and senile and his office is being run by insider Washington staffers who couldn't find Indiana on a map.

The DREAM Act is merely a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants combined with financial benefits for their offspring. An aspect that would seem to be unpalatable to Liberals and Conservatives alike is the promise it makes to illegals who sign up for the military.

"Hey, illegal immigrant, want a chance to become an American citizen? Go fight in Afghanistan for a few years, and you've got it!"

Then of course it forces the dwindling numbers of us who still pay taxes to cover college tuition for illegals.

Who supports this law actually? Maybe just those who don't know about it?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a Clinton-era policy that represented a compromise. Prior to that policy, the military simply would not allow homosexuals to serve. It's perhaps a simple way of avoiding the obvious problems that can happen with a bunch of guys in close quarters and in combat.

Gays have been pushing in the years since to repeal the policy, because they want to be allowed to serve in the military and be open about their orientation. I don't really understand why, since acting out sexually in the military, no matter what your orientation, will get you busted and dishonorably discharged if it continues.

My reading of the current military practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is pretty loose. The military won't discharge those they know are homosexual unless the individual happens to be flamboyantly or militantly so. Which seems practical to me in an organization where teamwork and unit cohesiveness is life-and-death.

What disappoints me about both of these issues is that there were Republicans who would have supported them, and all but two Democrats went on record for them. That's abusive to the general public.

Popularity Double Standard

In the wake of the political earthquake of the Delaware Senate Primary, I've been noticing a pretty amazing double-standard when it comes to female politicians.

We all know how much the Left despises Sarah Palin. The list of hated conservative women is growing to include Sharon Angle in Nevada and now Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. What's somewhat new is the anger being shown by GOP establishment types who have openly derided the young lady who knocked the old man from Washington out of the race.

O'Donnell isn't the first insurgent Tea Party candidate to unseat a party favorite. We only need to look at the very recent result in Alaska, where a new guy named Joe Miller dumped the incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Miller hasn't received the vitriol from the party leaders.

OK, so Miller's going to win the Alaska seat unless something truly horrible surfaces about him. O'Donnell will supposedly need a miracle to get Joe Biden's old seat in deep blue Delaware. Point made.

But what's beginning to show is a sort of sexism. What is the biggest complaint of those who don't like O'Donnell, Palin, and Angle? They're all painted as airheads. Dumb blondes (even though as far as I can tell, only Angle is actually guilty of being blonde). Unserious thinkers.

Why is it that the stupid charge only applies to conservative female candidates?

When's the last time you heard the Speaker of the House say anything remotely intelligent? And to be fair to both sexes, might I also place into evidence the Vice President?

I didn't really know the name Christine O'Donnell until a couple of weeks ago, and it would be unfair to offer any opinion on her mental capacity. Same holds for Angle.

Palin is an undeniable force in this political season, something you have to credit, which seems to give at least some lie to the stupid charge.

Here's my working theory on how O'Donnell might actually pull out a win and give the party establishment their wish, making Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader:

O'Donnell's campaign reportedly got over a million dollars immediately after she won the primary. She's energized not only Tea Party folks, but also people across the country who find it refreshing that a regular person was able to break through the wall for a nomination in spite of the establishment.

She's running against a guy who calls himself "The Bearded Marxist". Even in Delaware, I would be surprised if even the blue Democrats would be comfortable pulling a lever from an avowed Marxist.

First, the energized conservative base in Delaware, plus "moderates" who sort of like the idea of an insurgent candidate, turn out big on election day.

Second, the soft and disgruntled Left and the left-leaning folks who don't like O'Donnell, but aren't enamored with the bearded Marxist either, just stay home.

Not only in Delaware can this happen, but also in Nevada, and California, and Washington, and in many other races that currently are polling somewhere between "Toss-Up" and "Leans Democrat".

Which means that if O'Donnell wins that seat, I think every other federal congressional office within shouting distance also tips Republican.

We'll see.

Debating Ideological Purity

The biggest arguments Republicans are having with each other these days is focused on the Delaware Senate Primary. It happens to be the race to choose a senator that will take Joe Biden's place.

The argument is about ideological purity, and I find it fascinating.

Should conservatives go ahead and vote through the veteran lawmaker Mike Castle, who most believe would win Biden't seat easily, or vote for the "true conservative" and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, who the Republican establishment in Delaware have been trying to discredit ostensibly because she can't win?

It would seem that Castle would idealogically fall somewhere between the two ladies from Maine and Alen Specter, which naturally causes conservatives lots of heartburn. Castle might sink a hoped-for Republican ascendancy to the majority in the Senate by aligning himself with the Democrats on key legislative issues such as national healthcare and cap & trade.

Republican muckety-mucks say it's better to have a "moderate" Castle in the Senate as perhaps the seat that tips the scale for the GOP than to lose the seat, and thus the majority, by nominating O'Donnell.

O'Donnell supporters insist she is eminently electable, and decry the smears against her from her own party establishment as sexist and perhaps even driven a bit by corrupt motives. Delaware may be a Blue State, but the voters already know the Democrat candidate as a big-time tax & spend guy, and are ready to choose a new direction, they claim.

I'm not from Delaware, nor can I say I even know anybody from Delaware. So I can't make any judgements at all about the character, ideology, or electability of either candidate versus the Democrat. But given a choice between a RINO that hands the Senate Majority over to the GOP and a True-Blue Conservative that may end up losing to the Democrat, I'd say it's a tough call.

But I expect if I were voting in Delaware's primary, I'd probably go for the fresh blood and let the chips fall where they may.

Delusion as Policy

The irony of today's headlines side-by-side is striking. One is about Obama's pleading with everyone to separate Islamic terrorism from the Islamic faith, while the other is about the number of people who died in violent protests over the cancelled Quran-burning event in Florida.

Is Obama practicing an official policy of delusion, when he proclaims all followers of the Prophet Mohammed to be peaceful in the face of such extreme reactions over a non-protest by a hayseed in Florida?

His delusion seems evident in all of his related policies. Iran is moving their nuclear weapons program forward at an accelerated pace while they perceive the weak American president will do nothing to stop them. While the President begs them to negotiate, they proclaim their peaceful intentions while the nuclear bombs are being constructed in plain sight. And for all the President's rhetoric, they must be stunned at his naivete.

He badgers Netanyahu and Abbas to agree to talk, even though there is no way either can or will be able to achieve even minimal progress on Israeli/Palestinian peace. Abbas is a weak leader over a people who are largely committed to the utter and complete destruction of the State of Israel, even if Israel gives them all of Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel's last unilateral concession toward peace, when they abandoned much of Gaza to the Palestinians, was repaid by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border.

The official delusion is that anything at all can be accomplished through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The only available solution to the problem is an imposed solution. It would require cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of Israel's neighbors. It would require an end to the arming and financing of Hamas from Iran and the Saudis. It would require a permanent multinational force protecting Israel from Palestinian terrorism with an iron fist.

That won't happen.

If the President has any desire at all to put substance ahead of style, he should be working hard to win the support of as many countries as possible toward forcing the Palestinians into negotiations that include guarantees backed by the military might of the world that will protect Israel from attack in exchange for granting a permanent Palestinian State with clearly defined borders and no chance of ever attacking their Israeli neighbors.

Otherwise, the only thing America can do, or maybe should do, is continue to support Israel with the means to defend itself. And keep working on Israel's neighbors, using America's markets as the carrot and allies as the implied stick, to achieve the cooperation needed to move the region toward a hoped-for future peace.

But a delusional President may be incapable of practical solutions to problems.

I didn't want to comment on this, but ...

Once again I find myself with a completely different take on the Quran (Koran) burning preacher than all the silly pundits who have so badly overexposed the story.

First of all, why did the pastor from Florida with a congregation reported to be around 50 even make the local news? He represents pretty much nobody outside his little congregation, and if the 50 number was ever accurate, I can't help but wonder if all the negative publicity has trimmed it down to 5.

On the other hand, if his point was to expose the silliness of the arguments about the Ground Zero Mosque, just maybe he might be brilliant. The whole mosque argument is about the perception that the Muslims behind it's intention is to rub 9/11 in the faces of the country by building a big place named after the Cordoba Mosque (see my earlier post on the history of the Cordoba Mosque). The Left, who are notorious for blocking anything Christians want to do, suddenly find an opportunity to demonstrate their tolerance and peaceful intentions by campaigning in favor of the mosque and wagging their fingers at those who find the act of building the mosque and opening it on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 provocative and disrespectful.

Now the same folks are challenged by this little hayseed pastor from Florida to step up and show their boundless tolerance and understanding when he decides to perform his own public spectacle with the Quran burning event this 9/11. Am I the only one who sees this stunning inconsistency? It doesn't take too much of a brain to see the hypocrisy.

I have to wonder if the pastor has something surprising in mind. Maybe when Saturday rolls around and all the cameras gather to record his symbolic event to return insult for insult, he will suddenly pull a switch and find a great way to convey a different message. Something that expresses to the world the fact that Muslims can wreak all the murder and mayhem they like, but Christians will continue to pray for them and demonstrate the contrast between radical Muslims' interpretation of Mohammed's teachings and the incontrovertable teachings of Jesus the Christ.

I suspect such a changeup will enrage the media who show up to cover the event even more than the Muslims who don't need any help being enraged.

Football Season

Just in time for the first games in the NFL, it's time to do my annual prognostication.

Will the Colts find their way back to the Super Bowl this year, fall short once again, or just be an also-ran?

First of all, we know Peyton Manning simply won't allow them to be a bad team. But neither can he win a Super Bowl all by himself.

Peyton has some pretty good depth around him at wide receiver and tight end, and even injuries to the starters at those positions shouldn't hurt the team much. Of course, a season-ending injury to Peyton would be disastrous.

Preseason games seemed to suggest to me that Brandstater might be a slightly better backup QB than Curtis Painter, but Painter held on to the clipboard-toting job. Past history has shown Peyton's perhaps the most durable QB in the game, so the odds are pretty good that he'll be there for the season.

The question on offense is the O-Line. Even without the injury bug to linemen in the preseason, there are lots of questions about whether the line is good enough. None of the injuries appear to be serious, and although Jeff Saturday may not make the first game against the Texans, he should be around for most of the season.

If we see the O-Line springing Addai and Brown for lots of rushing yards, I think that's the measuring stick we can use to determine whether they're good enough. The preseason didn't give me a good feel for that question one way or the other. The Texans game this Sunday will.

Defense is supposed to be better. Again, with the Colts, it's almost impossible to judge that fact, because the Colts use preseason to evaluate players, not to polish the starters. But they would seem to be in good shape for this season, with healthy ends Freeney and Mathis and Bob Sanders back to join an already solid group of Safeties.

I haven't been sold on the linebackers the last couple of years. They have seemed susceptible to getting pancaked by blockers from teams with solid running games. The rookie linebacker from Iowa shows some promise, and we will see if the unit is stronger this year.

The interesting thing about the new season is that nobody really knows what's going to happen. A win against the Texans might have been a pretty good bet in previous years, but this year the Texans look like a better team. I can't say I would be surprised if the Texans were able to beat the Colts in game 1. Disappointed, sure, but not surprised.

That's why we watch.

Let Me Explain

Just in my own way of trying another angle to somehow help more people understand what's wrong and why it's so wrong, how about an explanation?

Morality: I'm not always harping on morality because I want America to become a "Theocracy". Here's why morality is a good thing, regardless of whether you accept my brand of Religious philosophy or not:
Committed, "till death do us part" marriage between one man and one woman, produces children who are more responsible, better educated, better adjusted, and overall better contributors to American society. Promiscuity, "Alternative Lifestyles", multiple marriage and divorce, having children out of wedlock, etc., lead to children who are either killed before they even get a chance at life or are abandoned to the world while their amoral and self-absorbed parents seek their own "fulfillment".

Government: The government exists to keep invading marauders from killing us, make sure we don't kill or cheat each other, and maybe build some roads. Whenever they do more than that, they consume far more resources than they return in value, and they chip away at our personal liberty. The founding fathers had it right - the Federal Government needs to stay out of what is clearly the business of the States and Individuals.

Welfare: Charity has always done the best job of helping provide the basic necessities for the neediest among us. Government institutionalizes neediness by giving people enough to live on, so they don't have to use their own initiative to take responsibility for their own lives. The only government welfare program I could get behind is locally administered, and is strictly measured on their achievement of a primary mission: getting their clients off Welfare and into self-sufficiency.

Economy: The President and his fellow travelers have been lamenting, why are all the companies just sitting on their money? Why won't they hire some people, invest in new projects, generally help the economy get back on track?
Seriously, our super-smart President can't understand this? What business is going to make major investments in hiring new employees when they're about to get hammered with major new taxes, skyrocketing healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs (via Cap & Trade), and a significant increase in their marginal personal income tax rates? What, they're willing to risk bankruptcy just to help out the President?
Want to reinvigorate the economy? Just roll back everything you passed the last 2 years and cut federal spending by a trillion dollars. There ya' go.

Healthcare: Inserting the government at the top of the existing healthcare system does nothing but drive up cost and lower quality. Really want to fix healthcare? Stop trying to insure everybody for everything. Let us all pay out of pocket for everything except hospitalization, major illnesses or injuries. We can all buy our Major Medical plans in the open market, which is open to every insurance company that meets certain minimum standards and wants to compete for our business. Otherwise, we'll pay the doctor, the pharmacist, the lab with money from our own pockets - with tax-free money would be nice. For the poor and elderly who really can't afford it, they can apply for financial assistance locally, but the money goes to them and not the medical provider - even they are responsible for paying their own bills.

Immigration: Simply shut down the border. Enforce the laws and don't be so lax on people overstaying their visas. Stop letting companies import workers from abroad, whether legally or illegally, just because they think they will work harder for less money than their American-born workforce. If companies managed better, set their standards, and rewarded excellence, they will have no problem. When America returns to full employment, then we can talk about how many foreign workers we need to fill open jobs. People here illegally, first of all shouldn't have a job, because employers should have a strong disincentive to hire and keep them on the payroll. Secondly, rather than doing some massive nationwide round-up, once we've solved the border issue and the employer issue, all we have to do is send them home as we find them. Pulled over for speeding - deported. Caught selling weed - deported. Driving without a license or insurance - deported. Those that don't leave on their own will understand what's happening and mostly will go home on their own.

National Security: I like old Teddy's famous quote - "Walk softly and carry a big stick". That's a pretty good foreign policy. We simply let everybody know how great it is for them when they're our friend. And how horrible it is if they choose to be our enemy. Our friends help us and we help them in return, while our enemies find themselves surrounded by our friends and us, all carrying extremely big sticks, until they realize the error of their ways.

Get it yet?

The Gathering of a Quarter Million Subversives

The fascinating result of an event in Washington that was organized by Glenn Beck caught my attention. The event was called "Restoring Honor", and was a gathering of a huge crowd in the Mall, led from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Checking out the theme of the event, I found it studiously avoided overt political rhetoric, but rather was about returning to the values upon which our country was founded and became great. As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin was the only speaker who flirted with the political line, with some unsubtle references to the current anti-constitutional government attitudes.

The Left is apoplectic. To them, it was nothing but a large gathering of angry white racists converging on Washington to express a shared hatred of the President.

The only problem is that nobody on the stage ever even mentioned the President, aside from Sarah's indirect references.

The event seemed mostly like a Christian Revival Meeting, exhorting everyone to rediscover their roots of faith, honor, family, responsibility. To find fault with that message and use name-calling against those who attended is pretty absurd and insulting. Not to mention the horrible aspersions being cast on Martin Luther King's niece, who was a prominent speaker at the event and has been shunned and destroyed by those who consider her a traitor to her race.

The President himself showed utter disdain for these folks and everyone else who shares their values. He dismissed us all by calling us a bunch of folks ginned up by Beck, then went further in his attempt to discredit a major segment of the population with a bad joke about walking around with his birth certificate plastered to his forehead.

The event itself gives me hope that perhaps enough folks have been awakened to the the left-wing agenda enough to undo that damage in November. But it also disappoints me to see the President so clearly dismissing and attempting to marginalize so many people for simply standing up and exhorting Americans to restore the greatness through reviving our own sense of honor and morality.

It was an opportunity for him to show leadership, but he failed miserably. What if he had said, "I completely agree with those who came to Washington this weekend, that faith, family, honor, and integrity are the most important qualities of Americans. I'm all for those who would remind us of those American qualities."

But his hatred for Beck and the conservative Christian Right he is helping to awaken trumps any ability to reach out to them.

So my hope is that change happens in November, that repudiates the Obama government and gives our country at least a chance to pull ourselves out of the terrible hole we're in.

A Different Perspective on Cordoba

The big flap over the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" has seemingly become a political fight between the oh-so-tolerant liberals and the islamophobic conservatives.

My preference is to bypass the Red/Blue civil war and get down to what I find much more interesting. And that's the fundamental questions of:

Why exactly do they want to build it there?

Why do they want to name it the "Cordoba Mosque"?

So checking out my history, it would seem that the Cordoba Mosque in the city of the same name in Spain was build in 784, after the Muslim Berbers from north Africa invaded and conquered most of the Iberian peninsula from the Christian Visigoths.

The Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of what was previously a Visigoth Christian Church in part to celebrate the victory and dominance of the Islamic kingdom and it's victory over the infidels. The mosque was an elaborate piece of architecture, expanded on over the years of Islamic domination.

The Spanish Reconquista eventually recaptured the city more than 4 centuries later, and sort of remodeled the mosque back into a beautiful cathedral.

Which has me wondering, what's the significance of naming the NYC version the "Cordoba Mosque"? It seems no explanation makes more sense than the obvious one: The Cordoba Mosque is a celebration of an Islamic victory and dominance over an infidel kingdom.

Islamists around the world would seem to agree. The Cordoba Mosque to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero is to be a symbol of their great victory on 9-11 over the infidel American empire. It's been reported that Islamic folks everywhere are referring to it openly as a "Victory Mosque".

I wonder whether the hyper-tolerant elites who would suggest those who find this particular project offensive are, let's see, bigoted, intolerant, racist, or anti-American, are ignorant of this easily discovered historical information? Are they choosing to ignore these inconvenient facts, or denying their veracity? Or are they simply bending over backwards to accomodate those Islamists who celebrate 9-11 and are happily using their tolerance and naive pacifism against them?

I also find it rather interesting that the same folks who pride themselves so much on their tolerance toward Islam can be found campaigning to remove every vestige of Christianity from public view. I can't wait to hear that particular contradiction explained, but so far the explanation has eluded me.

Isn't it also rather strange that this Islam-embracing crowd has nothing to say about the intolerance and even violence that accompanies Sharia, while they loudly decry Christians for, say, mildly suggesting that adultery and homosexuality might be morally ill-advised? Let me get this straight - Christians are evil people for wanting to help folks find the joys of moral clarity through simple persuasion, while Islamists who will execute the same folks for the same sins are just observing a cultural practice we need to respect?

The contradictions are dizzying.

A World I Don't Recognize

I don't have occasion to listen to Public Radio very often. Having it on for awhile this morning turned into an astounding shock for me, giving me the idea I really have lost touch with the world.

NPR was doing a story about birth control. The focus of their story was on a product called Yaz (if I'm spelling it right). A birth control pill that I never heard of before the story, which I guess is my out of touch strike one.

So apparently it has really messed up some of the women who were taking it, and its producer was supposedly guilty of misleading their customers on its properties and benefits. Key among them a claim that it can not only help avoid pregnancy, but also clear up acne.

Then came the major shock. They brought in a subject of their story, a young woman who developed serious blood clots and claims to have nearly lost her life because of taking Yaz. But that's not the shocking part.

I was shocked when the young woman explained that she was 16 when she went to her Gynecologist and cajoled her into prescribing Yaz, because she believed the advertising that it would help clear up her acne.

Later, the woman's mother appeared in the interview to express her notion that the company misled her daughter about the acne and failed to properly communicate that those who have a high clotting factor shouldn't use it.

The program never once mentioned anything about the appropriateness of a sexually active 16 year old who goes to her gynecologist to demand the hip new birth control pill. Or why the mother seemed to support her daughter's behavior, which can reasonably be claimed to have proven dangerous to her health.

It felt like an episode of The Twilight Zone.

How to Tell Who is Corrupt and Who Isn't

There was a very small and mostly unnoticed announcement that Tom Delay will not be charged with any violations stemming from the Jack Abramoff scandal of a few years back.

Apparently, Delay is still waiting for resolution on charges brought against him in Texas.

Apparently, he's been fighting these things for six years. The combination of them drove him from office and I would imagine has cost him a fortune on legal aid.

So the Justice Department, after six years, apparently just quietly said, "never mind".

And there's no progress on the Texas case in sight. That one brought by a Democrat activist named Ronnie Earle, who boasted to a group at a Democrat event that he was going to bring Delay down.

I never really did catch onto what that case was all about. Something about DeLay raising money and spreading it out to various Republican candidates. I remember being puzzled about the charge at the time, thinking, "haven't pols in both parties been doing that for years?".

So was DeLay corrupt, or was he victimized by unethical persecution by Democrats in positions of power? How can we find out? Does the announcement by the Justice Department give us a hint?

So I was thinking about other cases. Blago for example - all that fuss about him trying to sell Obama's Senate seat, and he gets convicted on one count of lying to prosecutors. I'm confused - did he try to sell the seat or not? What was he offered for it, and by whom? If all he did was crudely complain to people on wiretapped phone calls that he should get something for the seat, does that by itself qualify as a crime?

Most of all, the deal-making obviously involved some people I would like to have heard from, including the current President, his Chief of Staff, and the person he wanted to take over that seat, Ms. Jarrett. Then there was Jesse Jackson Junior, who was supposedly trying to make his own deal to snag the appointment. Blago made a big fuss about calling them as witnesses, but somehow changed his mind when the trial actually came about.

Then he didn't even get on the stand himself, because he didn't need to.

Did Blago break the law or didn't he? If he didn't, why did the government spend all that time and money to prosecute him? If he did, why didn't the government uncover the evidence of who offered how much and when?

So was a deal cut to protect the President? Will we ever find out?

Then there's Rangel and Waters, and apparently more to come. Rangel and Waters sound pretty guilty, based on the information made public so far, but both are fighting to the end. Will they make a deal and go free, or will they face the music?

There are supposed to be several others on the list. Will we find out their names and what they did? Will they face justice? Will whether or not they face justice depend on their party affiliation?

The reason Sarah Palin cited for quitting her job as Alaska Governor early was the lawsuit and investigation mania that surrounded her during and after the presidential campaign. Nothing stuck, so they all seemed pretty obviously politically motivated.

How can we ever know whether a corruption charge and investigation is legitimate or a political vendetta? How many innocent politicians can be destroyed by false charges, versus how many corrupt politicians skate because they happen to belong to the party in power?

Washington, do you have any clue yet why all of us folks out in the countryside have lost faith in you?

This is Pretty Close

This article is pretty close to my views on the solutions to our economic problems.

Where I would tend to differ a bit from this economist are in two fundamental areas:

First, although I support the idea that we should end our foreign adventures and the whole nation-building nonsense, I would not support an abrupt withdrawal of forces. That's a humanitarian position, as it seems more than apparent that abrupt withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan will be a death sentence for untold thousands of Afghanis that supported or cooperated with us during our occupation. I also believe it would signal to our jihadist enemies that we've tucked our tails and run away, emboldening them to ratchet up their attacks on us.

Second, none of it works unless we rediscover the basic foundational values that made America great in the first place. Without self-reliance, work ethic, morality, strong families, and honest government, nothing will help us return to our traditions of exceptionalism, innovation, and prosperity.

It's all up to the new generation, in my view. The young people have to drive this revolution, or it simply won't happen. Because it will take a generation to reverse the course we've spent over a generation traveling.

I know they can do it, but I don't know whether they will want to.

Stunning Facts about ICE

You have to track back from this PowerLine post to the original article to learn the extent of government malfeasance in the illegal immigration (non) enforcement issue.

It's stunning.

A Curious Report

In the airport this weekend, I caught a bit of Wolf Blitzer on CNN. They were covering a Court-Martial case against a Lt. Colonel who refused his deployment orders on the grounds that the President has not proven his eligibility to hold the post of Commander-in-Chief.

His one-man protest is either very brave or very stupid, depending on your point of view of his particular line of reasoning.

But my post isn't so much about the defendant as it is about the reporting.

Based on the apparent fact that Lou Dobbs lost his job at CNN for covering the "Birther" story, it would seem to be dangerous for the Wolf's career to do any story at all that touched on the topic.

But the report actually delved into the story enough to get into why this guy, who doesn't seem the least bit crazy, would be making such an outrageous stand against the President. They interviewed his lawyer, asking why his client was taking this stand, given that the Birth Certificate has been posted online since the Obama campaign?

His answer was that the birth certificate posted online is not the "long form" version, and actually does not qualify as the official certificate required for things like joining the US Military, getting a drivers' license, or applying for a US Passport.

I was pretty amazed that Wolf dared to go that far with the story. But then he failed to ask the obvious question of the reporter:

"So why won't the President simply put this controversy to rest once and for all by permitting the release of the official, long-form birth certificate?"

Even though I am not all that engaged in this particular crusade against the President, I do think that is a legitimate question. I wonder why Wolf couldn't come up with that question himself? Isn't that what a "real" journalist would do?

Will we ever see anybody actually work to get an answer to that question? It would appear there are either no journalists left with the courage to ask the question, or perhaps they're all too invested in this President to allow anything that might harm him to come to light.

Time to Recap

My posts tend to be topical. But I don't do much in the way of outlining my overall worldview. So, if anybody's interested in what little ol' me thinks about today's hottest arguments, here's a recap.

Economy:
I believe that business and free enterprise are the engine that drives prosperity. To the extent they are given the freedom to innovate and compete with the goal of making a profit by attracting enough customers, everyone wins.

I think the current government is made up of leftist idealists who hold a disdain for business and free enterprise. They believe it is unfair for anyone to profit and become wealthier than everybody else. They think it is fair to take those profits from business to "spread the wealth" to those who have not been able to reach their success.

Basically I believe that in our current environment, the best possible economic stimulus plan would be to lock in current tax rates across the board, repeal the healthcare law, drop "Cap & Trade", and scale back the bureaucracy.

Not that I think business should be completely unfettered. I believe firmly in trade agreements that require trading partners' markets to be equally open to US goods & services as our market is to theirs. I believe government policies should incentivize US companies to keep their operations here, rather than moving them offshore. I believe workers are entitled to basic protections in commonsense regulations of wages & hours and workplace safety.

Healthcare
I remain strongly opposed to "ObamaCare". Socialized medicine is not the right answer to spiraling healthcare costs.

I believe the problem can be solved with a commonsense, long=term plan with these principles: Insurance is for serious illness or injury only.

Routine medical care and prescription drugs should be paid out-of-pocket by the patient.

Employers should not be the primary source of Health Insurance. Everyone should purchase their Health plans on the open market, just like they purchase their auto, life, real estate, and other policies.

Closing the borders and solving the illegal immigration problem is part of the solution, as is
Reforming the Tort system to work for those who were truly harmed by negligence, while punishing abulance-chasers who bring frivolous suits against good physicians.

Social Policy
I'm opposed to Gay Marriage, on the grounds that it actively seeks to destroy one of the most important of God's institutions. But I'm not singling out homosexuals. I am equally opposed to affording special recognition and benefits to any sexual partnerships, whether common-law marriage and cohabitation or bigamy.

I fear I will soon be treated as a criminal for holding the simple moral viewpoint that any kind of sexual promiscuity is wrong. Not for solely religious reasons, but practical reasons as well.

No, I'm not advocating laws that require those breaking these moral laws be arrested or prosecuted, or even fined. But I strongly object to the campaign by those who engage in such behaviors to marginalize and possibly even criminalize me for my beliefs on the subject.

Obviously I'm strongly Pro Life. Not that I don't understand how difficult it certainly is for young unwed mothers, especially teens, who have learned too soon one of the consequences of that promiscuous behavior I discussed previously.

I believe strongly that the first and foremost solution to the abortion problem is better parenting by the adult generation. Besides the media glorification and obsession with promiscuity, parents have too often abdicated their most basic responsibilities. If parents simply taught their children right and wrong, monitored and restricted their activities in a reasonable way, and stayed engaged with their children instead of abdicating control to an amoral secular educational institution, perhaps we wouldn't be in quite this mess.

Then again, the real education that has to take place from coast-to-coast is all about the facts of child development. Instead of teaching kids how to use condoms and that it's fine otherwise to do whatever you want with whomever you want, how about teaching them about the development of a baby in the womb? And tied it in with the simple fact that, if you're an average female having intercourse with an average male, you're almost guaranteed to get a baby out of the process.

We need to wake up as a society to a very simple truth. The truth of the abortion argument, when you get past all the overwrought rhetoric, is that the so-called "woman's right to choose" is about a sort of sexual license. Proponents of abortion must admit, if they choose to be truthful, that they're support for infanticide is based on the fact that they want the option open to themselves because of their own irresponsible lifestyle.

Immigration
I believe it is far overdue to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
For those who want to argue about how many poor folks from south of the border should be permitted into the country to "do the jobs American's won't do", that's an argument we can have later.
First we need to build a dam and stop the flood that is drowning us. Once the flooding is stopped, then we can talk about how many folks from foreign lands can and should be allowed to come to our country to work.
My solution has been posted before in this blog. The simple recap is this: January 1st of 2011, the media airwaves are flooded with the message, "if you are in this country illegally, regardless of where you're from or your circumstances, you have 6 months to return to your home country."

"During this 6 month period, you may make application for a legal temporary work visa. If you demonstrate that you have an Employer sponsor or independent means of support for you and your family, you may acquire your work visa and re-enter the country."

In the meantime, the borders are secure. Employers are required to use e-Verify for all hires, and will be subject to severe fines on the first and second offense, and imprisonment on the third offense of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Foreign Relations
The Iraq war was either a good idea or it was not. We're almost beyond the point of arguing any more. It happened, the majority of Americans supported it initially, then many of them forgot that fact. Now it would appear it was successful, with a semi-stable government in place and our gradual draw-down in forces.

We face many existential challenges from outside our borders, and some now within our borders. Our current President would seem to prefer a pacifist approach, offering unilateral peace to enemies that revile us and our way of life.

I strongly disagree. I've always believed that our country is the only hope for peace and security for not only our own citizens, but the rest of the world as well.

My foreign policy would be based on a very simple message, extended to every country on the planet:

"We want to be your friend. If you accept our friendship, you will find us to be the best friend you could ever have imagined. We can offer you unlimited markets for your products, protection from those who may want to do you harm, and our technology and knowledge to help your country grow."

"However, if you choose to be our enemy, we will be your worst nightmare. We and our friends will make sure you are isolated, and you lose access to those things you cannot acquire inside your own borders. If you strike at us militarily or through terrorism, we will annihilate you. That is, if your own citizens don't revolt and remove you from power first."

The current policy that seems to offer friendship to our enemies (Iran, Russia, Venezuela) while slapping away the hands of our real friends (Britian, Israel) only makes us more vulnerable and destroys our coalition.

However, we must ask our friends to step up and partner with us. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman, with our mighty and overpowering military allowing places like Europe and Canada to disarm and trust us to protect them with our own money and resources. It's time those partners began taking on more of their own responsibilities for self-defense.

Overall, some might find my opinions a bit tough. They may sound strong, but really they aren't. I feel a great deal of compassion for the plight of people. But then again, I believe their plight is fundamentally self-inflicted. From the bad decisions that lead to abortions and welfare mothers to the bad decisions that put Marxist idealogues in office who grasp at their personal power over the well-being of their citizens, we as a nation are in a well-deserved fix.

And only we can get ourselves out of it. By overcoming governments that would oppress, by taking responsibility for our actions and behaviors, and by rediscovering our own abilities and pride in work, family, and faith.

Black-Robed Tyrants

The Senate confirmed an unqualified nominee to the Supreme Court today. It was disappointing to see that Dick Lugar from my own home state joined the Democrats to vote 'Yes'. Apparently his argument is something along the lines that if Republican presidents want the Dems to allow their nominees to take the bench, somehow Dick's willingness to allow Obama's picks confirmation is enough goodwill to get Dems to vote for the next Roberts or Alito.

I considered it a priviledge to be able to see much of John Roberts' confirmation hearings. I learned more than I ever had about constitutional law in that session. Especially enjoyable was the way he made the Senators on the committee reveal themselves for the incompetent and ignorant fools they really are. The funniest part was they didn't even know how incredily clueless they were proving themselves to be with their inane questions.

I don't really get Dick's argument at all. I certainly see no evidence that Democrat Senators will use Dick's example to vote for a future Republican president's nominee.

Should Kagan have been voted down on the basis of her political views? No.

She should have been voted down based on her (lack of) qualifications. She's never been a judge, she's reported to have never written anything of substance about the law, and she has no apparent experience that would qualify her to sit in judgement of cases brought to the highest court in the land.

Then there's her attitudes and knowable beliefs about the US Constitution and the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It's pretty clear that her judgements on the court will reflect her personal preferences and ideas, and not any interpretation of the Law or the Constitution.

To Kagan and her compatriots, the Constitution is irrelevant. It's how she feels about the issue before the court that matters most. How much she identifies with the principals on one side or the other will hold more sway in her decision than what the Law says.

Just like the recent Arizona Immigration decision. And the California Proposition 8 decision. Neither decision seemed to even make an attempt to understand or apply legal principles, precedent, or Consititutional frameworks. The excerpts I've read from both decisions read more like a Democrat candidate speech.

When the courts become run by these agenda-driven political hacks, our very freedoms and protections are destroyed.

And Dick Lugar is an enabler.

Weekend Quick Thoughts

A prayer offered in Church this weekend was "for the more equitable distribution of wealth". I'm very uncomfortable with the wording of that one, and wonder who wrote it, and what he/she was thinking. I think there's a sort of dangerous movement that's co-opting churches to think Christianity is called to socialism, when clearly we're called as individuals to be charitable - not to encourage our government to take money from other people to give to the poor.

Was reminded of something from the days of the crumbling Roman Empire. They successfully kept their citizens' minds off the corruption and abuses of their government by feeding and entertaining them. Bread and Circuses. Isn't that sort of what our own government is doing to keep us pacified right now?

Left the cellphone at home. Must have been half-asleep going out the door to the airport at 5AM, and didn't notice it was gone until I was almost to the airport. Gonna be a difficult week.

Reading interesting books by Lee Strobel, making pretty good arguments about the evidence for real existence of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, resurrection, and why the Christian faith has endured for over 2,000 years. I don't need such evidence to bolster my own faith, but find it helpful to learn more about the positive arguments in favor of Christ being real and tangible, and more likely than not to have pretty much done what the gospels report.

Admittedly not a legal scholar, it still seems painfully obvious to me that the judge that stopped Arizona's immigration law did so for political, not legal reasons. And of course the 9th circuit rejected the appeal for the same reasons. Is the Supreme Court the only hope left for States' ability to protect themselves when the Feds refuse to do so? Or has the Left successfully packed the courts with judges who will reliably put leftist politics above the Law?

I noticed the President was touting GM (Government Motors?) and the new Volt electric car. If I get this straight, it's a car that goes 40 miles on a charge, costs something like $41,000, and when the battery wears out, you have to replace it and it's hazardous waste. And to charge it, you have to plug it in for four hours to be charged by your electrical service that comes from coal-powered plants, which Obama has promised to put out of business as soon as he gets his energy bills passed.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who wonders if there are any sane people left.

My Generation

Back in the 2009 Butler commencement, Mitch Daniels punched all of us parents in the nose with the declaration that it's all our fault.

His point was that we're the generation that basically caused all of today's problems. It was a strange speech for a graduation ceremony, but he was telling the truth.

It is pretty much our fault.

I'm not only a member of the guilty generation, I happen to be part of the year that happened to be the peak of the baby boom. I read somewhere a long time ago that there were more people born in America in 1957 than any other year on record.

Take the trip with me down memory lane, and I'll give you my perspective of what life is like for the peak of the baby boomers.

We grew up with intact families. Our fathers tended to hold principles like honor, faith, hard work, honesty, thrift, and responsibility. Our mothers tended to stay home with the kids, teach us those values they shared with our fathers and grandparents, make sure we did our homework, made sure we ate right and got plenty of exercise, and did their best to keep us out of trouble.

Where I grew up, we never locked the house or car, and even left the keys in the car not only in our own driveway, but even in the grocery store or school parking lot.

We went to church every Sunday and every Wednesday night, and the schools made sure not to schedule anything on Wednesday evenings to accomodate that schedule for everyone.

We had close friendships with other families who had children close in age to ours. It was common to have a house full of friends on the spur of the moment, enjoying games or even doing dorky stuff like singing and playing guitar.

Then we started to rebel. The older kids in High School and College were growing out their hair, dressing in ways intended to shock our staid parents, expressing anger and opposition to the war in Viet Nam, playing around with illegal drugs and experimenting with promiscuity.

High School expected criminally little of us. I had maybe two classes in my entire high school experience that asked anything the least bit challenging of me. Even so, I contented myself with a mixture of A's and B's, when all I needed to do to turn the B's into A's was crack a book now and then.

We went to college, where professors told us things like we were just more highly evolved forms of animals, God is a superstitious invention, white males are the root of all evil, communism is really a great idea but just hasn't been implemented right by the Soviets, we Americans are unfairly rich and selfishly taking all the earth's resources by force away from poor victims of other races and nations.

College offered a bit more of a challenge, where on average one class per term required my focused attention. On the other extreme, one class per term was so worthless as to provide no positive results other than pad the coffers of the bursar's office.

We entered the workforce having invented today's most popular form of godless, self-centered, narcissistic, amoral attitudes that tolerate pretty much anything as long as it feels good.

Even though we felt unlucky. I left my overcrowded and run-down "Junior High" school shortly before it got a major facelift. My sports teams in the "Junior High" didn't even have enough locker room space, so we had to dress on the stage in the gym with the curtain drawn until we achieved the seniority to move into the real locker room. I left my decrepit, falling-apart high school shortly before it got remodeled.

I started driving just as we hit the OPEC embargo, seeing gas prices double.

I entered the workforce in the worst economy since the great depression. I'm trying to figure out how it aligns with today's repeat of eerily similar conditions.

We're in charge now. Our president it the king of self-centered narcissism, evident in everything he says and does. We don't care, as long as we get ours. They can take away freedoms from other people, as long as they don't take away ours. They can tax "rich" people as much as they want, because they're just greedy b$^&*s who deserve it. We "deserve" things like free healthcare, tax credits for everything from computers to homes to cars, and even cash handouts from the government. Who cares who is paying for it. Who cares if it bankrupts the country and throws us all into multi-generational poverty.

We don't make anything anymore. GM and Chrysler only exist because the government has absorbed them and props them up with money they don't have. The rest of us don't want to work in dirty, noisy factories anyway. We want to do creative "service" businesses that aren't dirty or noisy or physically hard.

We don't take responsibility for our children. Let the government raise them so we can go out and do what we want to do.

Our last best hope is that our children will figure it out in time to reverse course on this disaster we created.

They will blame us.

We deserve it.

Controlling Others

Something I'm not very good at is getting control over the behavior of people when they aren't meeting requirements.

I think I'm pretty good at setting expectations and communicating requirements. When those who receive such information are motivated and able to complete the tasks, things go very well.

I'm currently experiencing stress over a project with a single resource who does not seem to be interested in accepting those requirements and expectations. Which has caused problems with the project and reflected on me.

So I brought in additional resources - I actually tried to replace the problem child completely, but the company wouldn't go along with that. The additional resources took the requirements and instructions, rolled up their sleeves and got it done.

Meanwhile the original person remained uncommunicative and non-productive. Today I presented for the fourth time the same issue that's been outstanding for 3 weeks. As with the previous three times, I have been promised a fix by morning. It seems I have a daily task of reviewing the "fix", saying "nope, that didn't work", and repeating.

Trying to do my best to understand, I figure there are only a few possible causes of these problems:

1. The person isn't really qualified to do the work, but doesn't want to admit it.
2. There is some sort of negative opinion of me and the result is either conscious or unconscious sabotage.
3. The person just doesn't care whether it gets done right or on time, and just tries to get paid as much as possible.

In this case, my working theory is #1. But it could just as easily be #2 or #3, or maybe a combination of all 3.

What can I do to avoid this problem in the future?

Well, I can guarantee I won't accept this particular person on any project I'm managing in the future.

But every project is a roll of the dice. I know some folks who do an excellent job and I would use them in a hearbeat. But of course, they're also the ones who are most in demand and may not be available when I need them.

So they give me the folks who aren't so busy.

Its a dilemma.

Thought for the Day

Heard this today. I think I've heard it before, but it's especially appropriate in these times.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you receive the enthusiastic support of Paul.

The Pattern

Taken as a whole, does a pattern emerge from our current government that could be interpreted as even more disastrous than simply an acceleration of the slide into federally-mandated socialism?

Let's take some of the current stories to find out.

Remember Obama's angry insistence that the individual mandates of Healthcare Reform were not taxes? Well, I guess he was lying, because his administration's defense against the lawsuit brought to challenge those mandates is that it's indeed a tax.

Remember his promise to Bart Stupak that Abortion would not be covered by Healthcare Reform to purchase that badly needed vote? That would also seem to be a lie. Indeed, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Mexico have already moved forward to cover abortions under the new bills. Pennsylvania has backed off after their plans were revealed, earning the ire of the left-wing abortion rights crowd.

By the way, remember the whole promise that the plan would be deficit neutral? Did you happen to notice that was repudiated immediately after the bill passed? Besides the massive new taxes and mandates it attaches to the economy, it apparently is still likely to cost Americans another trillion dollars over the decade. And that's before reality sets in, as history proves that every similar entitlement program in the past has busted its projections in short order.

Remember the time when Obama and his fellow angry liberals railed against Bush's program of warrantless wiretaps? Shadowy charges that they engaged in horrible torture of terror suspects? Suggestions that a program called "Redition" sent suspected terrorist sympathizers secretly to other countries for torture? It seems Obama's taken it to the next level with something called the Presidential Assassination Program.

What about the Financial Reform bill? Did you fall for the line that it would fix the problems that caused the financial meltdown? That is another lie. Not only does it permanently entrench the policy of "too big to fail", it also favors the mega banks and disadvantages smaller regional banks. And it does nothing about the true root cause of the meltdown, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

In the meantime, the massive FinRef bill imposes burdensome regulations on non-financial businesses, with oppressive regulations on small business. And for dessert, it dictates that the army of new bureaucrats created by the bill will be discriminatory in its staffing, requiring quotas of minorities and women.

Have you noticed where the Obama government stands on illegal immigration? They like sanctuary cities, who thumb their noses at Federal immigration laws to obstruct enforcement, but bring a lawsuit against Arizona for simply trying to solve the problem the feds refuse to address.

Irony of ironies, the argument of the administration in the Arizona suit is that it's the Fed's "job" to enforce immigration laws, not Arizona's. Apparently from that we may infer that they're also saying that it's also their priviledge to choose not to enforce federal law at their own discretion. If a judge actually finds in favor of that ridiculous argument, that judge has no business holding so much as a Justice of the Peace position.

The big push continues for "Cap & Trade" legislation. Have you taken a moment to consider who benefits from this other massive new redistributionist program? Certainly not the climate - that's admitted by even those who support it. Not the poor - they won't be able to afford gas for their cars or heat for their homes when this program goes into effect.

Have you guessed yet? That's right, the beneficiaries of "Cap & Trade" are the partnerships between the political class, wall street, and some well-connected corporations like GE (who happens to own NBC; isn't that interesting?).

Combine this with Obama's campaign promise to create a massive new "Civilian Security Force" that is bigger than the military, and does a pattern begin to emerge?

Notice that I went with left-wing links, just in case you think I'm being taken in by righties. All you have to do is read and understand what the articles are saying, and you can figure out the truth.

Frightened yet?

Defining Racism

Racism could be an ongoing issue in America, and it also would seem to be a bludgeon wielded by those who would silence critics of the President.

This week's news that the NAACP is determined to produce a resolution branding the Tea Party as a racist organization would appear to me to be the latter.

Ongoing charges of Tea Party racism are based on questionably marginal signs that those with hair-trigger race sensibilities might interpret as racist, while others like myself fail to connect them with any overtly racist messages.

Perhaps the only truthful statement about the racism charges leveled at the Tea Party was apparently given recently by a guest on MSNBC. The essential message she shared was that those who oppose liberal policies are inherently racist, because in her alternate universe, black folks are disproportionally benefitted by socialist redistrubution and harmed by capitalism. Ergo, conservatives are racist simply because their philosophies of limited government, low taxes, and free market capitalism harm the black community.

Perhaps the most prominent "proof" being offered by the Tea Party accusers is the outrageous and manufactured charge of black congressmen who accused protesters of spitting at them and using the "N" word as they walked through.

The problem with that widely reported event is that it's an overt lie. There were hundreds of witnesses, plus many video recordings of the event. None of the witnesses actually observed anything resembling what the congressmen charged, nor does a single video confirm it.

The entire incident was staged by a group of black congressmen, who purposely decided to walk through the Tea Party protest crowd after passing the Healthcare bill. The logical assumption behind the reason they chose to take a stroll through the crowd is that they hoped to receive some sort of racial abuse they could exploit.

The fact that the demonstrators certainly were vocal in expressing their opposition to the passage of the bill, but never hurled racial invectives in any way, failed to provide the evidence of Tea Party racism the congressmen hoped for.

So they decided to make it up. And the media has no interest in following up to find out whether or not their charges are true.

Power Line has a whole series of articles on that incident which is the root of the NAACP's resolution. The $100K reward for evidence proving the congressmen's charges remains unclaimed.

Recharge or Overload?

Getting time off without specific vacation plans is not something I'm looking forward to repeating anytime soon.

While there is no question I needed a break; I was on the road about 6 weeks straight, and have been fighting through a particularly troublesome project. But a vacation without specific plans only works for a couple of days, before I get restless.

Getting away to recharge was definitely the right prescription for the week of Independence Day. Even though folks tried their best to pull me back in while I was "away", I studiously worked to avoid or hold them off until my return to work.

One downside to the free time is my natural tendency to pay more attention to the news. Nearly every news item, by which I mean actual serious news, and not what team LeBron will pick or how long Lindsay Lohan is going to be in jail, affects my mood in a most negative manner.

Only one of many stories that cause blood boiling is the one about the New Black Panthers and the Attorney General of the United States. I suppose many people would do no more than raise an eyebrow when they heard (if they heard at all) that the Obama "Justice" department dropped all charges on the voter intimidation case, after the case was already won.

But now it dribbles out that the case is the tip of a frighteningly large iceberg, where the politically-driven law enforcement agency is pursuing an agenda designed to insure that Democrat-friendly voter fraud and intimidation activities are given free rein.

The whistle-blower Christian Adams testified that the DOJ officially goes much farther than simply dismissing an already-won suit against the criminal charges of voter intimidation with threats of violence. The official DOJ policy is to encourage maximum voter turnout by discouraging States from following laws related to purging voter rolls of the deceased, those who have moved way from a precinct, convicted felons, and other registered voters who are no longer qualified.

That's the scandal that is being studiously avoided by everybody but the conservative media. I don't know what's the bigger outrage - the scandal itself or the failure of the journalist fraternity to perform their public duty to expose such corruption as goes to the heart of the continued viability of our democratic republic.

Oops.

See what I mean about the double-edged sword that is too much free time?

Could it possibly be that I'm looking forward to getting back to work on Monday?