As nearly aspect of American life continues to tumble into the abyss, I've tried to make use of this blog to suggest root causes and point out the only way out. That only way out of course is a return to Christian principles by the plurality of the country, but I realize that I can't make that argument without preaching to the choir. So instead, I must try to make the point from a practical, commen sense approach to make the point to the current plurality of Americans who can be classified as only marginally Christian or non-Christian.
The lessons I was taught as a child came from my parents, grandparents, and sunday school teachers. It's difficult to find people who still teach or even marginally acknowledge these lessons. That's why we're all spiraling into Hell together here on America's earth.
As children, we were taught to aspire to being faithful, hard-working, caring, strong, honest, and responsible. Our careers were important, but only as the means to provide for our families. Life's priorities were clearly defined: God first and foremost, then family, then neighbors, and down ths list until we got the end of the list, where sits self. The definition of a good man is simple and easy to understand, yet anathema to today's American sensibilities.
The lesson that is now called "hate speech" is that the family is the foundation of a good society, the man is the head of the family, and the extended family gathering together in the Church forms the most important and effective institution for peace and happiness.
A man finds a woman with whom he wants to partner to create a family. They participate together in the sacrament of marriage, where each makes a series of solemn promises to each other, to their extended families and friends, and to God Himself that are binding on both for life.
I've never been to a wedding ceremony where caveats were added to the vows of "better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part". Nobody has ever said,
"Unless she nags too much"
"Unless he is a slob who leaves his underwear and socks all over the floor"
"Unless somebody cuter and sexier comes along"
"Unless she keeps maxing out the credit card on clothes and shoes"
"Unless he starts neglecting me to hang out with his buddies every night"
or the one that seems to be the favorite these days,
"Unless we just fall out of love".
A man of character takes his promises seriously and doesn't invent rationalizations to get him off the hook if he wearies of his wife.
But today it's even worse than the appalling divorce rate and tragic level of broken and single-parent families. Today men don't even feel a sense of responsibility to care for their own children. Young men pursue the self-centered lifestyle with multiple partners and convince their girlfriends to cohabitate without a marital commitment, then seem to have no compunction over moving onto the next shack-up while leaving his children to be cared for by the State.
Likewise, young women have taken the feminist message to heart that they "can have it all". Who needs a man other than as a sperm donor. Women now who never married live with their four children by four different sperm donors in a State-subsidized home, eating meals bought with food stamps, and getting free taxi rides to the free medical care for her children. Meanwhile the sperm donors are gone and forgotten, and don't know or care about their illegitimate offspring.
Even those in the older generations still living who taught me these principles have succumbed to the culture of "me first". Ask any senior about Social Security and Medicare going bankrupt, and you're likely to get an angry response something like this:
"I worked my whole life and paid into those programs. Now that I'm retired, I've earned my share."
The attitude can at least partly be attributed to the dishonesty of government when they sold those programs originally, gulling our "greatest generation" into beleiving they were contributing to their own retirement with that lifetime of payroll taxes, when in reality their money was simply being siphoned off to pay other benefits and whatever other government programs needed funding at the time.
But it's not just the abandonment of family values at fault. Business and professional leaders have redefined ethics to be how far they can go without getting punished by the government, rather than what's right or wrong. Profit is king, and if destroying the lives of hundreds or thousands of your employees by moving their jobs overseas can contibute another 10 percent to the bottom line, then get it done today!
Our elected representatives in government increasingly seem to be representing those who fund their expensive campaigns with money they use for advertisements designed to fool enough voters with false promises to buy enough votes to keep them in Washington another term. Many high-level elected officials have demonstrated that they would open the gates to barbarian horde invaders if it benefits them personally to do so, yet they somehow manage to mislead enough folks to hang onto their office the next election cycle.
So today we have passed the tipping point, where government dependents have outstripped private wage earners. Those dependents vote, and they vote for the candidates who make the empty promise to keep and increase their gravy train. So men can continue to impregnate as many women as will have them and let the State raise the children, women can get a life of leisure courtesy of the State, and the shrinking population of faithful and responsible families are called evil by the President of the United States as rich, greedy, and uncaring about the poor, only because they oppose massive tax hikes and continued government excess.
There is no politician who can save us, and no man for that matter. There is no solution to our problems short of a major old-fashioned Christian Revival that shakes everyone up and opens their eyes to the truth. Only when men become real men of faith and character again will we begin to solve our problems.
When accepting charity becomes a stigma, not a "right" to get free stuff just because you're poor. When those who accept charity do so with humility and a determination to use it to become independent and someday pay it back or "pay it forward".
When illegitimate children are scandalous, not a feminist ideal.
When charity returns to communities and churches and is designed to help people get on their feet rather than perpetuate dependency.
When the nuclear family once again becomes the rule, not the exception.
When love and sex are no longer confused as meaning the same thing.
When business leaders treat their employees as people to be treated fairly and with respect.
When employees dedicate themselves to providing a fair day's hard work for a fair day's pay.
When medical professionals put healing first and personal profits last.
When patients act on their responsibility to remit fair compensation for their medical treatments.
When legal professionals dedicate themselves to justice, not trolling for deep pockets to sue.
When men put themselves last instead of first.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Cynical Manipulation
So far the ongoing arguments over federal budgeting and debt ceilings have drawn little interest from me. With Dems in control of the presidency and senate and GOP the house, neither can get their way. So both sides instead are choosing to play the issues for votes.
The GOP likes to talk a lot about a balanced budget amendment as the main thing they want to get in return for agreeing to extend the debt ceiling. Not that such a constitutional amendment wouldn't be desirable - of course it would. But there's no way it will happen. From my perspective it's like negotiating with a mugger, saying "you can have my wallet now if you promise never to rob me again". Completely meaningless.
On the other hand, the outrageous rhetoric from the Democrats is led by none other than the President himself, who never seemed to get the memo that American presidents are supposed to be above such extreme partisan demagoguery as threatening to withhold Social Security checks if he doesn't get is way.
Which reportedly led to seniors flooding the phone lines of congressional republicans, scaring the digested and undigested waste from their bowels by demanding they don't let Obama's threat become a reality.
It seems pretty clear at this stage that those ideas popular on the right will simply not happen in this divided government. There won't be a balanced budget amendment, which can only pass the house. Spending won't be cut to levels that allow the debt limit to be held at current levels. Obamacare won't be repealed to help cut its trillion or two from spending projections. Paul Ryan's proposals won't see the light of day in the senate.
All the GOP can hope to accomplish is a modest package of spending cuts with some so-called "tax reform" that closes some loopholes but doesn't increase anybody's rates. And nothing substantial will take place to fix the underlying problem.
The Democrats on the other hand won't get their tax increases on the evil "rich". They can't lean on their favored dishonest definition of spending cuts, which to them is defined as deciding not to increase expenditures quite as much as they hoped.
Something will get done that will turn out to be mostly meaningless. Then the campaign season will kick off in earnest, with each side's message already set:
Democrats will campaign by saying that if you elect the Republican, seniors will lose their social security and medicare, kids won't be able to pay back their student loans, children will starve and catch terrible diseases because the republicans won't let them see a doctor.
Republicans will campaign on the 9.2% unemployment rate, the horrible Obama economy, oppressive government regulation, and a free-spending Democrat party machine that will bankrupt the country and drive us into anarchy while exposing us to a terrorist invasion.
Whether or not the problem is actually solved and the average American's life has a chance to improve instead of decline in the rest of the decade depends on whether there are enough voters who cut through the bull excrement and vote in the person more likely to help solve the problem instead of make it worse.
Which for me means anybody who is not Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Durbin, or their partisan friends. The recent special election in New York, where the false characterization of Ryan's Medicare proposals actually worked to elect the Democrat doesn't seem to bode well.
The GOP likes to talk a lot about a balanced budget amendment as the main thing they want to get in return for agreeing to extend the debt ceiling. Not that such a constitutional amendment wouldn't be desirable - of course it would. But there's no way it will happen. From my perspective it's like negotiating with a mugger, saying "you can have my wallet now if you promise never to rob me again". Completely meaningless.
On the other hand, the outrageous rhetoric from the Democrats is led by none other than the President himself, who never seemed to get the memo that American presidents are supposed to be above such extreme partisan demagoguery as threatening to withhold Social Security checks if he doesn't get is way.
Which reportedly led to seniors flooding the phone lines of congressional republicans, scaring the digested and undigested waste from their bowels by demanding they don't let Obama's threat become a reality.
It seems pretty clear at this stage that those ideas popular on the right will simply not happen in this divided government. There won't be a balanced budget amendment, which can only pass the house. Spending won't be cut to levels that allow the debt limit to be held at current levels. Obamacare won't be repealed to help cut its trillion or two from spending projections. Paul Ryan's proposals won't see the light of day in the senate.
All the GOP can hope to accomplish is a modest package of spending cuts with some so-called "tax reform" that closes some loopholes but doesn't increase anybody's rates. And nothing substantial will take place to fix the underlying problem.
The Democrats on the other hand won't get their tax increases on the evil "rich". They can't lean on their favored dishonest definition of spending cuts, which to them is defined as deciding not to increase expenditures quite as much as they hoped.
Something will get done that will turn out to be mostly meaningless. Then the campaign season will kick off in earnest, with each side's message already set:
Democrats will campaign by saying that if you elect the Republican, seniors will lose their social security and medicare, kids won't be able to pay back their student loans, children will starve and catch terrible diseases because the republicans won't let them see a doctor.
Republicans will campaign on the 9.2% unemployment rate, the horrible Obama economy, oppressive government regulation, and a free-spending Democrat party machine that will bankrupt the country and drive us into anarchy while exposing us to a terrorist invasion.
Whether or not the problem is actually solved and the average American's life has a chance to improve instead of decline in the rest of the decade depends on whether there are enough voters who cut through the bull excrement and vote in the person more likely to help solve the problem instead of make it worse.
Which for me means anybody who is not Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Durbin, or their partisan friends. The recent special election in New York, where the false characterization of Ryan's Medicare proposals actually worked to elect the Democrat doesn't seem to bode well.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Shallow
I know I'm not brilliant, unusually wise or extremely knowledgable. So why do I increasingly get the feeling most everyone I encounter is incredibly shallow in their ideas and beliefs?
Most current events fall into that category, but a good example today seems to be the arguments over Afghanistan.
Before I get into my illustration, my up-front statement is that I'm personally undecided about my position on the topic. The reason I haven't settled on a specific opinion is that I don't have enough information.
So why does seemingly everybody else think they have all the information they need to hold a strong position either for or against continuing the fight in Afghanistan? Do they somehow know more about it than I do? Or do they make their decisions as simply parrots of whichever prominent political figure they trust and admire?
Here's what I want to know before I make a decision. Tell me if these questions have been answered definitively somewhere, and I've somehow just missed them.
One argument is that we need to stay until we win the war, finish the job, defeat the Taliban, or whatever interchangeable phrase anyone wishes to substitute. Fine, I agree with the sentiment. But I want to know:
What is the job there? How do we know when we're done? How do we define success? After we win, what does Afghanistan look like?
The other argument is that we need to get out now. Declare victory and leave, bring the troops home safely, stop nation-building, take care of our own and stop foreign adventures that are none of our business, or whatever interchangeable phrase anyone wishes to substitute. Sure, that sounds kind of good too. But I want to know:
If we abruptly pull out, what will happen to the Afghans who worked with us? Are they strong enough to protect themselves from the Taliban now, or will the Taliban slaughter them shortly after we leave? How likely is it that Afghanistan will once again become a safe haven from where a fresh 9/11 attack will be planned and carried out? Do we bear any responsibility if the Taliban reassert their power and once again kill, oppress, mistreat, and take away the freedom we helped their women realize for education and freedom?
I also need help understanding how our leaders plan to overcome the incredible obstacles to victory. Guerilla warfare is difficult enough to overcome with conventional military means, let alone when the Taliban can strike our forces from the mountains then simply run across the Pakistan border where they're apparently harbored. If we can't pursue them across the border out of some sort of diplomatic agreement with the Pakistanis, how will we ever defeat them? If the entire region is full of radical muslims who sympathize with or support groups like the Taliban and Al Quaeda, how will we ever succeed at pacifying what seems to be a never-ending stream of enemy combatants?
Everybody else seems to think they already know the answers to these questions, or they don't think beyond the surface to even consider the questions, or they completely trust those from their "side" and attribute evil motives to the other side so the questions don't matter.
If someone wants to argue this question with me, they would first have to prove they have access to inside information. Except for absolute pacifists, who hold that war is never permissible under any circumstances, which at least is a respectable position but leaves no room for debate on any factual information.
The only persons who might qualify to influence me to take a position on this topic would be those who are directly involved in the conflict itself and have the intelligence and strategic knowledge to tell me honestly the answers to all of my questions.
Most current events fall into that category, but a good example today seems to be the arguments over Afghanistan.
Before I get into my illustration, my up-front statement is that I'm personally undecided about my position on the topic. The reason I haven't settled on a specific opinion is that I don't have enough information.
So why does seemingly everybody else think they have all the information they need to hold a strong position either for or against continuing the fight in Afghanistan? Do they somehow know more about it than I do? Or do they make their decisions as simply parrots of whichever prominent political figure they trust and admire?
Here's what I want to know before I make a decision. Tell me if these questions have been answered definitively somewhere, and I've somehow just missed them.
One argument is that we need to stay until we win the war, finish the job, defeat the Taliban, or whatever interchangeable phrase anyone wishes to substitute. Fine, I agree with the sentiment. But I want to know:
What is the job there? How do we know when we're done? How do we define success? After we win, what does Afghanistan look like?
The other argument is that we need to get out now. Declare victory and leave, bring the troops home safely, stop nation-building, take care of our own and stop foreign adventures that are none of our business, or whatever interchangeable phrase anyone wishes to substitute. Sure, that sounds kind of good too. But I want to know:
If we abruptly pull out, what will happen to the Afghans who worked with us? Are they strong enough to protect themselves from the Taliban now, or will the Taliban slaughter them shortly after we leave? How likely is it that Afghanistan will once again become a safe haven from where a fresh 9/11 attack will be planned and carried out? Do we bear any responsibility if the Taliban reassert their power and once again kill, oppress, mistreat, and take away the freedom we helped their women realize for education and freedom?
I also need help understanding how our leaders plan to overcome the incredible obstacles to victory. Guerilla warfare is difficult enough to overcome with conventional military means, let alone when the Taliban can strike our forces from the mountains then simply run across the Pakistan border where they're apparently harbored. If we can't pursue them across the border out of some sort of diplomatic agreement with the Pakistanis, how will we ever defeat them? If the entire region is full of radical muslims who sympathize with or support groups like the Taliban and Al Quaeda, how will we ever succeed at pacifying what seems to be a never-ending stream of enemy combatants?
Everybody else seems to think they already know the answers to these questions, or they don't think beyond the surface to even consider the questions, or they completely trust those from their "side" and attribute evil motives to the other side so the questions don't matter.
If someone wants to argue this question with me, they would first have to prove they have access to inside information. Except for absolute pacifists, who hold that war is never permissible under any circumstances, which at least is a respectable position but leaves no room for debate on any factual information.
The only persons who might qualify to influence me to take a position on this topic would be those who are directly involved in the conflict itself and have the intelligence and strategic knowledge to tell me honestly the answers to all of my questions.
Monday, June 13, 2011
My Candidate's Speech
The speech I need to hear from the presidential candidates would go something like this.
[Intro]
The first question people ask of a presidential candidate is, "Why do you want to be President?"
My answer is this: in any other time, I would never consider applying for the job. I like what I do in the private sector, and would rather stay there than take a relatively low-paying, thankless job that requires full attention 24/7, the responsibility for making difficult decisions that can affect millions on a daily basis, and being hated by half the world seemingly just for holding the title with either an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name.
But over the last 3 years I've seen my country go through a shockingly rapid decline because we chose to hand power to a bunch of naieve and irresponsible adolescents. It's past time for the adults to come back home and clean up after our home has been trashed.
You've heard the old story about the teenage kids who manage to convince their parents to take a nice vacation and leave them at home alone for awhile. "We can handle it", they said. "We promise we'll be responsible and take good care of the house for you while your gone".
So the parents go on the vacation, even with that uneasy feeling they just might be making a decision they will come to regret. And sure enough, Mom and Dad come back home unexpectedly to find their home trashed. The kids threw a huge party, and the gangs of teens that showed up looted everything of value and destroyed everything else in your beautiful property.
So the parents do what any parent would do. They try to use the experience to teach their children a lesson about responsibility. In the meantime, they get to work cleaning up and recovering from the disastrous losses that happened when their naieve children invited people to their party who didn't have good intentions and ended up looting everything.
I am asking the adults of the United States to join with me to clean up the mess created by the adolescent goverment we put in charge over the past few years. I am asking that you help me teach those adolescents the lessons they need to learn, such as
There's no such thing as free healthcare. You can't pass a massive new government-controlled medical plan designed to move us to a mythological "univeral" healthcare program without having it bankrupt the country.
The economy doesn't grow by punishing job creators with high taxes and threats of high taxes combined with oppressive government regulation.
Energy independence doesn't happen by shutting down all untapped sources of domestic energy reserves while promoting expensive government boondoggles and pipe dreams euphemistically called "clean, renewable energy".
Effective foreign policy and National Security are not achieved through the force of any president's personality.
I can promise one thing above all others. That I will be honest with you. And this basic honest truth is that I can't clean up this mess by myself. You all need to join me. We all need to work together to help America remember how great we once were, and how we can become even greater as soon as we realize those things that make us great.
First and foremost, we all must participate and contribute to the success of our country. We literally can't afford to continue the trend where more folks of able bodies and minds sit at home collecting government checks funded by the labor of the rest of us supplemented by loans from China.
We must move our social safety net closer to those most in need instead of administered by high-paid bureaucrats ruling from the comfort of their Washington stone and marble palaces.
When government gets involved in helping the poor and sick among us, shouldn't the goal be to help them become self-sufficient and healthy? It seems that government agencies are incentivized to keep their clients on the rolls rather than getting them off the rolls. Why not change all of our social programs to reward success by defining success as reducing the number of sick and needy that must be served?
In my experience, people with good jobs don't need public assistance. So why can't government focus on helping everyone find a good job instead of handing out homes and food and medical care to create and maintain a huge and growing dependent class?
Tax rates don't have to go up to solve the budget crisis. When people get good jobs, we won't need to spend as much taxpayer money taking care of them. When those same people get good jobs, they not only no longer need government assistance, they become taxpayers themselves. Government should spend no more than is required and tax no more than is required. Government must spend only what it brings in. These are not difficult ideas for anybody, except apparently so many who live within the beltway.
I'm a supporter of all Americans. My constituency as president isn't designed to favor big business over labor unions, trial lawyers over physicians and drug companies, blacks or latinos or asians over whites, women over men, or any group over any other group. Such political games are horribly devisive and must stop.
My administration will be a friend to all Americans, period. I don't care what economic level, race, creed, or association - every American citizen is a friend of my administration. That doesn't mean everybody gets whatever they want - in fact, pretty much everybody will find they no longer can get benefits for their special interest group that elevates them at the expense of anybody else.
All policy is about lifting all Americans and what's best for America. Nobody gets special priviledges. Crony Capitalism will go into the history books. Equal opportunity and a color-blind society without preferences to anyone will be the rule of the day. Integrity, honesty, fairness, and civility will be a quality of America at which the world will marvel.
This vision for the re-emergence of the America we all know and believe in will not happen because I'm elected President. Instead, it will happen because each and every citizen buys into the ideals of America. We all do our part, we all strive to pull ourselves up and give others a hand up along the way.
All of us men can and must take responsibility for ourselves and our families. No more making our girlfriends pregnant and walking away to leave our families to be cared for by the government. Women can and must take the same responsibilty by never choosing to have sex with men with whom they would not have children. When we both make those marriage promises to each other, "till death do us part", we have the integrity to consider that a promise worth keeping, "for better or worse, in sickness and in health", instead of casting each other aside the moment we spot a little greener patch of grass somewhere.
Liberal or conservative, we all want the same thing in the end - a better life for ourselves and our families. Join me and let's work together to solve our problems and I guarantee we will all find that better life.
[Intro]
The first question people ask of a presidential candidate is, "Why do you want to be President?"
My answer is this: in any other time, I would never consider applying for the job. I like what I do in the private sector, and would rather stay there than take a relatively low-paying, thankless job that requires full attention 24/7, the responsibility for making difficult decisions that can affect millions on a daily basis, and being hated by half the world seemingly just for holding the title with either an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name.
But over the last 3 years I've seen my country go through a shockingly rapid decline because we chose to hand power to a bunch of naieve and irresponsible adolescents. It's past time for the adults to come back home and clean up after our home has been trashed.
You've heard the old story about the teenage kids who manage to convince their parents to take a nice vacation and leave them at home alone for awhile. "We can handle it", they said. "We promise we'll be responsible and take good care of the house for you while your gone".
So the parents go on the vacation, even with that uneasy feeling they just might be making a decision they will come to regret. And sure enough, Mom and Dad come back home unexpectedly to find their home trashed. The kids threw a huge party, and the gangs of teens that showed up looted everything of value and destroyed everything else in your beautiful property.
So the parents do what any parent would do. They try to use the experience to teach their children a lesson about responsibility. In the meantime, they get to work cleaning up and recovering from the disastrous losses that happened when their naieve children invited people to their party who didn't have good intentions and ended up looting everything.
I am asking the adults of the United States to join with me to clean up the mess created by the adolescent goverment we put in charge over the past few years. I am asking that you help me teach those adolescents the lessons they need to learn, such as
There's no such thing as free healthcare. You can't pass a massive new government-controlled medical plan designed to move us to a mythological "univeral" healthcare program without having it bankrupt the country.
The economy doesn't grow by punishing job creators with high taxes and threats of high taxes combined with oppressive government regulation.
Energy independence doesn't happen by shutting down all untapped sources of domestic energy reserves while promoting expensive government boondoggles and pipe dreams euphemistically called "clean, renewable energy".
Effective foreign policy and National Security are not achieved through the force of any president's personality.
I can promise one thing above all others. That I will be honest with you. And this basic honest truth is that I can't clean up this mess by myself. You all need to join me. We all need to work together to help America remember how great we once were, and how we can become even greater as soon as we realize those things that make us great.
First and foremost, we all must participate and contribute to the success of our country. We literally can't afford to continue the trend where more folks of able bodies and minds sit at home collecting government checks funded by the labor of the rest of us supplemented by loans from China.
We must move our social safety net closer to those most in need instead of administered by high-paid bureaucrats ruling from the comfort of their Washington stone and marble palaces.
When government gets involved in helping the poor and sick among us, shouldn't the goal be to help them become self-sufficient and healthy? It seems that government agencies are incentivized to keep their clients on the rolls rather than getting them off the rolls. Why not change all of our social programs to reward success by defining success as reducing the number of sick and needy that must be served?
In my experience, people with good jobs don't need public assistance. So why can't government focus on helping everyone find a good job instead of handing out homes and food and medical care to create and maintain a huge and growing dependent class?
Tax rates don't have to go up to solve the budget crisis. When people get good jobs, we won't need to spend as much taxpayer money taking care of them. When those same people get good jobs, they not only no longer need government assistance, they become taxpayers themselves. Government should spend no more than is required and tax no more than is required. Government must spend only what it brings in. These are not difficult ideas for anybody, except apparently so many who live within the beltway.
I'm a supporter of all Americans. My constituency as president isn't designed to favor big business over labor unions, trial lawyers over physicians and drug companies, blacks or latinos or asians over whites, women over men, or any group over any other group. Such political games are horribly devisive and must stop.
My administration will be a friend to all Americans, period. I don't care what economic level, race, creed, or association - every American citizen is a friend of my administration. That doesn't mean everybody gets whatever they want - in fact, pretty much everybody will find they no longer can get benefits for their special interest group that elevates them at the expense of anybody else.
All policy is about lifting all Americans and what's best for America. Nobody gets special priviledges. Crony Capitalism will go into the history books. Equal opportunity and a color-blind society without preferences to anyone will be the rule of the day. Integrity, honesty, fairness, and civility will be a quality of America at which the world will marvel.
This vision for the re-emergence of the America we all know and believe in will not happen because I'm elected President. Instead, it will happen because each and every citizen buys into the ideals of America. We all do our part, we all strive to pull ourselves up and give others a hand up along the way.
All of us men can and must take responsibility for ourselves and our families. No more making our girlfriends pregnant and walking away to leave our families to be cared for by the government. Women can and must take the same responsibilty by never choosing to have sex with men with whom they would not have children. When we both make those marriage promises to each other, "till death do us part", we have the integrity to consider that a promise worth keeping, "for better or worse, in sickness and in health", instead of casting each other aside the moment we spot a little greener patch of grass somewhere.
Liberal or conservative, we all want the same thing in the end - a better life for ourselves and our families. Join me and let's work together to solve our problems and I guarantee we will all find that better life.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Another Sign of the Apocalypse
The disgusting case of Anthony Wiener isn't something I care to get into, but the poll that got reported this week is at least equally disturbing as his depraved behavior.
The poll seemed to suggest that a plurality of his constituents don't think he should resign.
The New Yorkers that elected him don't care. It seems that as long as he remains a crusader for the cause of progressivism, they'll overlook any depravity. Which since he's also a lying sociopath, means they'll also overlook any issues of corruption that are reasonably predictable from his obvious lack of character.
The Republicans who got caught falling down morally resigned immediately, including Wiener's own colleague from upstate, who quit even before his story hit the media. And as far as I can tell, all he was doing was trolling for love online with a picture of himself shirtless. Gone.
The guy from Fort Wayne, Sauder, was discovered to have had an affair with a staffer. He quit. It made me wonder at the time how many other congressmen, if they were honest, have been or are currently guilty of the exact same offense?
The Democrat twisted logic is that somehow when Republicans do this stuff they deserve whatever they get because their sin isn't the sin, but hypocrisy. Since Democrats don't really have any moral standards, there's no reason for them to face any consequences (remember Bill Clinton?).
The sign of the apocalypse? That Wiener's still in congress, and his constituents don't care.
The poll seemed to suggest that a plurality of his constituents don't think he should resign.
The New Yorkers that elected him don't care. It seems that as long as he remains a crusader for the cause of progressivism, they'll overlook any depravity. Which since he's also a lying sociopath, means they'll also overlook any issues of corruption that are reasonably predictable from his obvious lack of character.
The Republicans who got caught falling down morally resigned immediately, including Wiener's own colleague from upstate, who quit even before his story hit the media. And as far as I can tell, all he was doing was trolling for love online with a picture of himself shirtless. Gone.
The guy from Fort Wayne, Sauder, was discovered to have had an affair with a staffer. He quit. It made me wonder at the time how many other congressmen, if they were honest, have been or are currently guilty of the exact same offense?
The Democrat twisted logic is that somehow when Republicans do this stuff they deserve whatever they get because their sin isn't the sin, but hypocrisy. Since Democrats don't really have any moral standards, there's no reason for them to face any consequences (remember Bill Clinton?).
The sign of the apocalypse? That Wiener's still in congress, and his constituents don't care.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Random
Just a few random thoughts for a Tuesday.
Caught Netanyahu's speech to Congress. It made me wish there was a candidate for the American Presidency with his bearing and forthrightness. Still hoping somebody like that steps up, but haven't seen him (or her) yet.
Tornado season is pretty awful this time around. Barely catching our breath from Joplin, there seem to be a rash of new tornados running through Oklahoma.
Which somehow brings me to the end-time subject. I sort of feel sorry for the guy who predicted the "Rapture" this past Saturday, but can't really figure out what motivated him.
Just walking through some basic stuff in that area: The Bible's pretty explicit that we won't know the day or hour, thief in the night, and all that stuff. So if he is a committed evangelical, why did he overlook that?
Then, just suppose for a moment that he had some sort of divine inspiration that it was happening on Saturday. Think about it, whether he was right or not, his widely publicized predictions were widely and pretty much universally mocked and ridiculed, as was he. So even if he did predict it correctly and all the worthy followers of Christ disappeared from the earth Saturday. The only possible motivation he could have had for warning everyone about it in advance would have been the hope that one or two people out there would have taken him seriously and got right with God in time for the event. But from what I hear, he sort of seemed to expect to just be vindicated, sort of like "ha, ha, nya, nya, I was right and you're left behind to suffer the Great Tribulation!" That's not really very Christian either.
Then there's the little problem that as I understand it, most theologians think the whole "Rapture" concept is sort of bunk, just made up by misreading and out-of-context interpretations of various passages in the Bible. Oh well.
It's intriguing to see those sensationalist programs on the History and Discovery channels about end times prophecy, tying apocalyptic prophecies together to conclude they all have similar end of the world stories and all seem to point to it happening by next year.
Intriguing, but not important. As a believer, I'm looking for Christ's return like anybody, and understand I should try to be a solid citizen of the faith regardless of whether it happens in my lifetime. But it doesn't make sense to get all absorbed in the whole thing - we all need to live our lives as best we can and let what happens happen.
Looking around the world, it's still easy to be a bit concerned with all the stuff going on. We're in the middle of the disintegration of America, Iran seems likely to have nuclear weapons very soon that they can't wait to lob into Israel, the so-called "Arab Spring" seems more likely to turn the rest of the region into little Irans with the same goals, the little Communist Chavez in Venezuela is reportedly setting up missiles he's aiming at the United States. Tornados and earthquakes and volcanos, Oh My! The country is broke, gas costs 4 bucks a gallon, food prices are skyrocketing, our kids graduate from high school without being able to read a newspaper or balance a checkbook, more people now live off the government than by private means, and half the country is more interested in arguing about whether gay people should get married.
Put them all together, and the end of the world seems inevitable. Maybe the Rapture would be a good thing, but then again only if I qualify and can somehow get my loved ones to jump the line and come with me.
Maybe that's it - the guy was right about the Rapture happening on Saturday! It just turned out that Jesus arrived but couldn't find anybody worthy enough to take to Heaven, so he just called the whole thing off.
Caught Netanyahu's speech to Congress. It made me wish there was a candidate for the American Presidency with his bearing and forthrightness. Still hoping somebody like that steps up, but haven't seen him (or her) yet.
Tornado season is pretty awful this time around. Barely catching our breath from Joplin, there seem to be a rash of new tornados running through Oklahoma.
Which somehow brings me to the end-time subject. I sort of feel sorry for the guy who predicted the "Rapture" this past Saturday, but can't really figure out what motivated him.
Just walking through some basic stuff in that area: The Bible's pretty explicit that we won't know the day or hour, thief in the night, and all that stuff. So if he is a committed evangelical, why did he overlook that?
Then, just suppose for a moment that he had some sort of divine inspiration that it was happening on Saturday. Think about it, whether he was right or not, his widely publicized predictions were widely and pretty much universally mocked and ridiculed, as was he. So even if he did predict it correctly and all the worthy followers of Christ disappeared from the earth Saturday. The only possible motivation he could have had for warning everyone about it in advance would have been the hope that one or two people out there would have taken him seriously and got right with God in time for the event. But from what I hear, he sort of seemed to expect to just be vindicated, sort of like "ha, ha, nya, nya, I was right and you're left behind to suffer the Great Tribulation!" That's not really very Christian either.
Then there's the little problem that as I understand it, most theologians think the whole "Rapture" concept is sort of bunk, just made up by misreading and out-of-context interpretations of various passages in the Bible. Oh well.
It's intriguing to see those sensationalist programs on the History and Discovery channels about end times prophecy, tying apocalyptic prophecies together to conclude they all have similar end of the world stories and all seem to point to it happening by next year.
Intriguing, but not important. As a believer, I'm looking for Christ's return like anybody, and understand I should try to be a solid citizen of the faith regardless of whether it happens in my lifetime. But it doesn't make sense to get all absorbed in the whole thing - we all need to live our lives as best we can and let what happens happen.
Looking around the world, it's still easy to be a bit concerned with all the stuff going on. We're in the middle of the disintegration of America, Iran seems likely to have nuclear weapons very soon that they can't wait to lob into Israel, the so-called "Arab Spring" seems more likely to turn the rest of the region into little Irans with the same goals, the little Communist Chavez in Venezuela is reportedly setting up missiles he's aiming at the United States. Tornados and earthquakes and volcanos, Oh My! The country is broke, gas costs 4 bucks a gallon, food prices are skyrocketing, our kids graduate from high school without being able to read a newspaper or balance a checkbook, more people now live off the government than by private means, and half the country is more interested in arguing about whether gay people should get married.
Put them all together, and the end of the world seems inevitable. Maybe the Rapture would be a good thing, but then again only if I qualify and can somehow get my loved ones to jump the line and come with me.
Maybe that's it - the guy was right about the Rapture happening on Saturday! It just turned out that Jesus arrived but couldn't find anybody worthy enough to take to Heaven, so he just called the whole thing off.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Obama All In
The fitting analogy comes from the ubiquitous televised poker tournaments, where a player about to lose decides to go "All In", betting everything he has left on the current hand, knowing he'll either lose and be out of the tournament or win and have a chance to keep playing.
Even though it seems a bit early, Obama seems to be going All In right now, presumably as part of his re-election campaign. In only the last couple of weeks, he's taken stunning leftism to new and unprecedented levels.
He's been demagoguing the immigration and energy issues, shamelessly lying and distorting both issues in the apparent belief that you can fool just enough of the people to get re-elected. Claiming to be championing expanded domestic energy production and declaring the borders secure when everyone knows the opposite is true would have the media screaming "liar!" if he were a Republican.
We're all (except perhaps the most hard-line Leftists) happy he allowed the Seals to take out bin Laden, but he seems to have used that PR victory as impetus for pushing boldly ahead with his incomprehensible foreign policies. This guy the Left holds up as the smartest President decides on his own that Israel should unilaterally pull back to pre-1967 borders to appease the Arab world, as if that will magically pacify Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other groups bent on wiping them off the map.
That's either naive in the extreme or he's playing for the other team. I'm rapidly coming to conclude that it's the latter.
Then there's the healthcare mess and the government spending mess and the explosion of regulation, crises he and his party refuse to even acknowledge. Take a look at this article for the latest on the disaster that is Obamacare.
What is most difficult to understand is how polls still seem to show that half the country still supports the narcissist-in-chief. I realize there isn't a clear and strong leader out there yet, and it will be next summer before one emerges. Still, if you're not to the point yet of supporting anybody but Obama, you're either a card-carrying socialist/communist revolutionary or you're just not paying attention.
Even though it seems a bit early, Obama seems to be going All In right now, presumably as part of his re-election campaign. In only the last couple of weeks, he's taken stunning leftism to new and unprecedented levels.
He's been demagoguing the immigration and energy issues, shamelessly lying and distorting both issues in the apparent belief that you can fool just enough of the people to get re-elected. Claiming to be championing expanded domestic energy production and declaring the borders secure when everyone knows the opposite is true would have the media screaming "liar!" if he were a Republican.
We're all (except perhaps the most hard-line Leftists) happy he allowed the Seals to take out bin Laden, but he seems to have used that PR victory as impetus for pushing boldly ahead with his incomprehensible foreign policies. This guy the Left holds up as the smartest President decides on his own that Israel should unilaterally pull back to pre-1967 borders to appease the Arab world, as if that will magically pacify Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other groups bent on wiping them off the map.
That's either naive in the extreme or he's playing for the other team. I'm rapidly coming to conclude that it's the latter.
Then there's the healthcare mess and the government spending mess and the explosion of regulation, crises he and his party refuse to even acknowledge. Take a look at this article for the latest on the disaster that is Obamacare.
What is most difficult to understand is how polls still seem to show that half the country still supports the narcissist-in-chief. I realize there isn't a clear and strong leader out there yet, and it will be next summer before one emerges. Still, if you're not to the point yet of supporting anybody but Obama, you're either a card-carrying socialist/communist revolutionary or you're just not paying attention.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Book Review
Actually, this post might more accurately be described as a commentary more than a review of the autobiography by Dick Van Dyke called My Lucky Life in and Out of Show Business.
I picked up the book on my Kindle because I'd always sort of admired Van Dyke as an immensely talented entertainer, mainly through his original TV show with Mary Tyler Moore and his amazing performance in Mary Poppins. I wanted to find out whether he really was as nice a guy as he seemed to project on screen, and just to get an idea of who the man was away from the camera.
My conclusions are mainly these: Yes, he apparently is a very nice and appealing person in real life, but sadly is also another one of those cliche'd Hollywood narcissists. While if I ever had the chance to meet him, I'm certain that I would find him likeable and engaging, I'm disappointed in how little he's seemed to learn over his long and blessed life.
Dick was a very well-grounded man of integrity through much of his life, until he fell victim to Hollywood. He was a devoted man of God, an elder in his church until the day his developing liberal sensibilities were insulted by one or two of his fellow elders. Their offense was in opposing an idea he proposed for some kind of racial church exchange program between his upscale Brentwood congregation and a black church from Watts.
Rather than being patient and understanding of what obviously was an expression of fear by his colleagues in the church, Dick stormed out of the meeting and never darkened the door of that or any other church again.
What happened in his life after that major turning point is interesting.
He became an alcoholic, even though previously he had never even touched alcohol.
The man who admitted having a crush on Mary Tyler Moore made a point of doing nothing about it because of his commitment to his marriage. But by severing that anchor that was his Christian faith, he changed that particular principle when he became attracted to the younger woman during his inevitable mid-life crisis. He left the wife with whom he had raised four children and broke his solemn vows to her, God, and everyone else so he could live out an adulterous affair with the younger woman, Michelle Triola of "Palimony" fame.
His clumsy rationalizations for his adultery used every cheap Hollywood line you'd expect to hear. They'd just grown apart, they both changed, they both wanted different things from life, he was experiencing a new chapter of self-discovery, the new girl (Michelle) understood him so well, blah, blah, blah. Megan Fox could invent more intelligent rationalizations. I would have appreciated him more if he'd just been honest; pure and simple, he got bored with his aging wife and hooked up with an exciting younger model.
Dick's religion these days appears to be Liberalism, although I don't get the sense that he's obnoxious about it like many of his colleagues. Instead of gaining wisdom with age, he seems instead to have regressed. He comes across as the typical shallow California liberal; as long as he supports liberal candidates and causes, he can assuage his guilt over his wealth and success.
I had hoped to find someone in this book I could admire as a man who overcame his mistakes and personal failures to emerge as a great example to the rest of us of wisdom and integrity. Instead, I just found a likeable and very talented entertainer that is sadly just as narcissistic and self-absorbed as seemingly every other talented entertainer. That's disappointing.
This post didn't start out with the intention of being as hard on Dick as it turned out. I still think I'd like him a lot if I ever got to meet him. It is striking to me that he never seems to have made the connection that's so obvious from his own book; every one of his life's biggest problems, except for the tragic loss of his teenage granddaughter, happened as a direct consequence of his abandoning God and the Church. My prayer is that God finds a way to hold up that mirror for him someday before he passes.
I picked up the book on my Kindle because I'd always sort of admired Van Dyke as an immensely talented entertainer, mainly through his original TV show with Mary Tyler Moore and his amazing performance in Mary Poppins. I wanted to find out whether he really was as nice a guy as he seemed to project on screen, and just to get an idea of who the man was away from the camera.
My conclusions are mainly these: Yes, he apparently is a very nice and appealing person in real life, but sadly is also another one of those cliche'd Hollywood narcissists. While if I ever had the chance to meet him, I'm certain that I would find him likeable and engaging, I'm disappointed in how little he's seemed to learn over his long and blessed life.
Dick was a very well-grounded man of integrity through much of his life, until he fell victim to Hollywood. He was a devoted man of God, an elder in his church until the day his developing liberal sensibilities were insulted by one or two of his fellow elders. Their offense was in opposing an idea he proposed for some kind of racial church exchange program between his upscale Brentwood congregation and a black church from Watts.
Rather than being patient and understanding of what obviously was an expression of fear by his colleagues in the church, Dick stormed out of the meeting and never darkened the door of that or any other church again.
What happened in his life after that major turning point is interesting.
He became an alcoholic, even though previously he had never even touched alcohol.
The man who admitted having a crush on Mary Tyler Moore made a point of doing nothing about it because of his commitment to his marriage. But by severing that anchor that was his Christian faith, he changed that particular principle when he became attracted to the younger woman during his inevitable mid-life crisis. He left the wife with whom he had raised four children and broke his solemn vows to her, God, and everyone else so he could live out an adulterous affair with the younger woman, Michelle Triola of "Palimony" fame.
His clumsy rationalizations for his adultery used every cheap Hollywood line you'd expect to hear. They'd just grown apart, they both changed, they both wanted different things from life, he was experiencing a new chapter of self-discovery, the new girl (Michelle) understood him so well, blah, blah, blah. Megan Fox could invent more intelligent rationalizations. I would have appreciated him more if he'd just been honest; pure and simple, he got bored with his aging wife and hooked up with an exciting younger model.
Dick's religion these days appears to be Liberalism, although I don't get the sense that he's obnoxious about it like many of his colleagues. Instead of gaining wisdom with age, he seems instead to have regressed. He comes across as the typical shallow California liberal; as long as he supports liberal candidates and causes, he can assuage his guilt over his wealth and success.
I had hoped to find someone in this book I could admire as a man who overcame his mistakes and personal failures to emerge as a great example to the rest of us of wisdom and integrity. Instead, I just found a likeable and very talented entertainer that is sadly just as narcissistic and self-absorbed as seemingly every other talented entertainer. That's disappointing.
This post didn't start out with the intention of being as hard on Dick as it turned out. I still think I'd like him a lot if I ever got to meet him. It is striking to me that he never seems to have made the connection that's so obvious from his own book; every one of his life's biggest problems, except for the tragic loss of his teenage granddaughter, happened as a direct consequence of his abandoning God and the Church. My prayer is that God finds a way to hold up that mirror for him someday before he passes.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Handicapping Early Debate
I checked out the too-early debate last night with five of the GOP presidential hopefuls. It seems to have been an opportunity for the lesser-known candidates to get exposure, and because the top contenders didn't show up, it was also a chance for top-tier candidate Tim Pawlenty to test his debate chops.
From my perspective, Pawlenty succeeded. He seemed poised and confident, and provided plenty of red meat for the Republican audience in South Carolina. His performance ranked him first on my scorecard.
The sneering Left will accuse Fox News as being too cozy with the candidates, but the panel did a great job feeding tough questions. This was no softball MSNBC-hosted Democrat debate, nor was it Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann throwing 'when did you stop beating your wife' spitballs. The Fox panel asked pertinent and challenging questions, sparing no one and following up to demand substantive answers from the candidates.
Ron Paul is certainly consistent, reprising his role in the debate as the maverick libertarian in the race. I know he excites a certain segment of young libertarians, but he's still a little too far out there for my tastes.
Herman Cain is an interesting candidate, and I thought he did well in the debate. He's the exact sort of black conservative we'd love to see running against Obama to put the lie to the constant drumbeat over the course of Obama's presidency that conservatives who oppose his policies do so only because of racism.
Rick Santorum tried to convey strong convictions and the mythical "fire in the belly" as the social conservative champion. But I thought he seemed nervous, and had some difficulty putting the right words together; I felt like I could see him fighting an internal losing battle with himself to suppress those nerves. I've heard him speak before and like him, so I could tell he wasn't totally on his game on this important stage.
Gary Johnson turned in the worst performance of the night, to the degree that he's the one candidate of the five I've already scratched off the list. Besides my disagreement with many of his ideas, I wasn't impressed with him in the way he looked or talked, and was irritated at his carping over not getting enough attention from the panel.
When the rest of the field gets in, I don't look forward to the cattle-call debates. When you get much beyond last night's 5 candidates, debates don't really work, because there's no way anyone can have enough time to give people a true sense of who they are and what they believe. I wonder how future debate organizers will address that problem, or if they will even try.
At least there will be something for everyone in the Republican field. Ron Paul the libertarian, Santorum, Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann the social conservatives, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels joining Romney as the fiscal conservatives downplaying the social angle to court moderates, Herman Cain the anti-Obama, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump the celebrity candidates.
I'm not ready to support anybody yet, willing to let things play out. Although I do profess a strong leaning in favor of Daniels just because I know him as my home state's governor.
Polling suggests it's Romney's to lose, in a race with Huckabee, Trump and Palin. But I think those polls are more about name recognition than anything else at this point, and don't really believe those are the main contenders. Not to mention I'm not all that comfortable with any of those top-polling candidates.
My prediction is that the race will eventually come down to the establishment candidates, who will have the party machinery solidly behind them. Romney, Daniels, and Pawlenty are the three most likely to win the nomination in my opinion, with Huckabee the dark horse. Despite all the buzz around folks like Trump and Palin, I don't see them appealing to a broad enough base of GOP voters to succeed.
Now we'll see who proves me wrong.
From my perspective, Pawlenty succeeded. He seemed poised and confident, and provided plenty of red meat for the Republican audience in South Carolina. His performance ranked him first on my scorecard.
The sneering Left will accuse Fox News as being too cozy with the candidates, but the panel did a great job feeding tough questions. This was no softball MSNBC-hosted Democrat debate, nor was it Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann throwing 'when did you stop beating your wife' spitballs. The Fox panel asked pertinent and challenging questions, sparing no one and following up to demand substantive answers from the candidates.
Ron Paul is certainly consistent, reprising his role in the debate as the maverick libertarian in the race. I know he excites a certain segment of young libertarians, but he's still a little too far out there for my tastes.
Herman Cain is an interesting candidate, and I thought he did well in the debate. He's the exact sort of black conservative we'd love to see running against Obama to put the lie to the constant drumbeat over the course of Obama's presidency that conservatives who oppose his policies do so only because of racism.
Rick Santorum tried to convey strong convictions and the mythical "fire in the belly" as the social conservative champion. But I thought he seemed nervous, and had some difficulty putting the right words together; I felt like I could see him fighting an internal losing battle with himself to suppress those nerves. I've heard him speak before and like him, so I could tell he wasn't totally on his game on this important stage.
Gary Johnson turned in the worst performance of the night, to the degree that he's the one candidate of the five I've already scratched off the list. Besides my disagreement with many of his ideas, I wasn't impressed with him in the way he looked or talked, and was irritated at his carping over not getting enough attention from the panel.
When the rest of the field gets in, I don't look forward to the cattle-call debates. When you get much beyond last night's 5 candidates, debates don't really work, because there's no way anyone can have enough time to give people a true sense of who they are and what they believe. I wonder how future debate organizers will address that problem, or if they will even try.
At least there will be something for everyone in the Republican field. Ron Paul the libertarian, Santorum, Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann the social conservatives, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels joining Romney as the fiscal conservatives downplaying the social angle to court moderates, Herman Cain the anti-Obama, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump the celebrity candidates.
I'm not ready to support anybody yet, willing to let things play out. Although I do profess a strong leaning in favor of Daniels just because I know him as my home state's governor.
Polling suggests it's Romney's to lose, in a race with Huckabee, Trump and Palin. But I think those polls are more about name recognition than anything else at this point, and don't really believe those are the main contenders. Not to mention I'm not all that comfortable with any of those top-polling candidates.
My prediction is that the race will eventually come down to the establishment candidates, who will have the party machinery solidly behind them. Romney, Daniels, and Pawlenty are the three most likely to win the nomination in my opinion, with Huckabee the dark horse. Despite all the buzz around folks like Trump and Palin, I don't see them appealing to a broad enough base of GOP voters to succeed.
Now we'll see who proves me wrong.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Seeing Both Sides of an Argument
When an argument takes place between two people, I've mostly felt that if I can understand each position well, in the end I can understand and empathize with both sides. The exception to this rule is when one side is not dealing honestly, which I find frustrating and disappointing when I learn that one side of the argument is distorting and lying about their position in a dishonest attempt to wring personal benefit.
Which brings me to my search for cogent arguments from the Democrat side of the budget arguments.
Reading several left-wing articles, I was unable to find an honest argument in favor of continuing annual trillion-and-a-half dollar deficits. The only cuts they are willing to embrace are in military spending, while the only other solution to deficit cutting is increasing taxes on "millionaires and billionaires".
Neither will succeed in solving the problem, and the so often repeated line about "millionaires and billionaires" is fundamentally dishonest. Obama's tax increases target everyone making over $200K, so last time I looked, 200 thousand is only 20 percent of a million. And if they really wanted to close tax loopholes so that companies such as General Electric would actually pay something other than zero on their multi-billion dollar profits, wouldn't they have already closed them in the tax code they themselves wrote the last 4 years? Meanwhile, GE is the poster child for the modern phenomenon called "Crony Capitalism".
The ideological position of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats is otherwise pretty clear. Socialism is the easiest way to summarize the ideology. It includes high tax rates designed to "level the playing field" by transferring wealth and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. It means shutting down "dirty" energy no matter how much it hurts average people. It means forcing people to cluster in the cities and give up their cars to ride government-subsidized mass transit to and from work (or the welfare office).
The only conclusion I can reach is that their ideology trumps everything else. Their sacred cows are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare, which must be protected at all costs. Even if those costs mean bankruptcy.
There is no middle ground in this argument. Either we adhere to founding principles of liberty or give in and become a fiefdom of Red China.
For me, that means there can be no compromise on these issues. If we fail to stop the outrageous spending and regulation of Obama and company, we lose everything. I'm not worried for myself so much as for my children and future grandchildren, who will never know the faith, freedom, and prosperity of America that I got to experience.
Which brings me to my search for cogent arguments from the Democrat side of the budget arguments.
Reading several left-wing articles, I was unable to find an honest argument in favor of continuing annual trillion-and-a-half dollar deficits. The only cuts they are willing to embrace are in military spending, while the only other solution to deficit cutting is increasing taxes on "millionaires and billionaires".
Neither will succeed in solving the problem, and the so often repeated line about "millionaires and billionaires" is fundamentally dishonest. Obama's tax increases target everyone making over $200K, so last time I looked, 200 thousand is only 20 percent of a million. And if they really wanted to close tax loopholes so that companies such as General Electric would actually pay something other than zero on their multi-billion dollar profits, wouldn't they have already closed them in the tax code they themselves wrote the last 4 years? Meanwhile, GE is the poster child for the modern phenomenon called "Crony Capitalism".
The ideological position of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats is otherwise pretty clear. Socialism is the easiest way to summarize the ideology. It includes high tax rates designed to "level the playing field" by transferring wealth and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. It means shutting down "dirty" energy no matter how much it hurts average people. It means forcing people to cluster in the cities and give up their cars to ride government-subsidized mass transit to and from work (or the welfare office).
The only conclusion I can reach is that their ideology trumps everything else. Their sacred cows are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare, which must be protected at all costs. Even if those costs mean bankruptcy.
There is no middle ground in this argument. Either we adhere to founding principles of liberty or give in and become a fiefdom of Red China.
For me, that means there can be no compromise on these issues. If we fail to stop the outrageous spending and regulation of Obama and company, we lose everything. I'm not worried for myself so much as for my children and future grandchildren, who will never know the faith, freedom, and prosperity of America that I got to experience.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Religion is Based on Understanding Human Behavior
Something I always understood at a basic level, but has become increasingly apparent in what many are now calling the Post-Christian Era, is that Judeo-Christian Religious rules are solidly based on a clear understanding of human behavior.
The story of Moses is a great example. Moses obviously recognized the need to establish laws to manage his very large contingent of former Egyptian slaves. I don't dismiss the biblical account of God writing the law on stone tablets on top of Mount Sinai, but what better way to introduce laws to an unruly mob of thousands of ex-slaves suddenly set free than to obtain them directly from God on the mountain-top?
A recurring theme used by modern gay rights advocates is that we wouldn't stone them for their sexual behavior today, therefore why would we place any credence in the old Mosaic laws condemning that behavior? It's a specious argument that could be applied to any illegal behavior; if their contention about gay activity is accepted, then wouldn't it also apply equally to adultery, polygamy, even murder?
Harsh punishment was deemed necessary for the nomadic Hebrew tribes to keep them from destroying themselves from within. Adultery in that infant society might lead to inter-tribal wars, therefore a strict law was imposed to make it clear that the leadership would handle violations so the tribes would not be tempted to seek revenge themselves.
Homosexual behavior, not to mention heterosexual promiscuity, has always come with an extremely high risk of disease. Therefore as a practical matter, strict rules favoring monogamy and punishing risky behavior make a lot of sense.
In the Exodus accounts, the Israelites were constantly losing faith and falling back on their old, bad habits. And they always suffered the consequences.
Just listen to "Doctor Laura" on the radio for ten minutes, and you'll get a modern real-life example of what happens universally to those of us that make bad choices. How often are the bad things that happen to us today directly traceable to our own poor judgement? Sure, it's possible to be victimized by unscrupulous business people, and there are many diseases that are not tied to our behavior. But the vast majority of people's problems these days are self-inflicted by a simple abandonment of commonsense morality.
The fundamental point is about the value of morality coming from God. Those who seem to have succeeded in removing God from America bear the greatest blame for our country's decline. Because without God, there's no reason to behave.
Apply the most obvious example, smoking. The health risks of tobacco use are well known, so why do so many people choose to smoke? Because they attach no moral stigma to the behavior.
Isn't the same true of illegal drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, reckless driving, insurance scams, welfare fraud, theft, murder? If there's no God, no heaven, no hell, and no severe punishment for behavior that's destructive to ourselves and others, then why not do whatever makes us feel good?
This is the place America has arrived. I am certain that a horrible catastrophe is near, which was the only way to bring the ancient Israelites back to God, is the only way to bring America back to God.
The story of Moses is a great example. Moses obviously recognized the need to establish laws to manage his very large contingent of former Egyptian slaves. I don't dismiss the biblical account of God writing the law on stone tablets on top of Mount Sinai, but what better way to introduce laws to an unruly mob of thousands of ex-slaves suddenly set free than to obtain them directly from God on the mountain-top?
A recurring theme used by modern gay rights advocates is that we wouldn't stone them for their sexual behavior today, therefore why would we place any credence in the old Mosaic laws condemning that behavior? It's a specious argument that could be applied to any illegal behavior; if their contention about gay activity is accepted, then wouldn't it also apply equally to adultery, polygamy, even murder?
Harsh punishment was deemed necessary for the nomadic Hebrew tribes to keep them from destroying themselves from within. Adultery in that infant society might lead to inter-tribal wars, therefore a strict law was imposed to make it clear that the leadership would handle violations so the tribes would not be tempted to seek revenge themselves.
Homosexual behavior, not to mention heterosexual promiscuity, has always come with an extremely high risk of disease. Therefore as a practical matter, strict rules favoring monogamy and punishing risky behavior make a lot of sense.
In the Exodus accounts, the Israelites were constantly losing faith and falling back on their old, bad habits. And they always suffered the consequences.
Just listen to "Doctor Laura" on the radio for ten minutes, and you'll get a modern real-life example of what happens universally to those of us that make bad choices. How often are the bad things that happen to us today directly traceable to our own poor judgement? Sure, it's possible to be victimized by unscrupulous business people, and there are many diseases that are not tied to our behavior. But the vast majority of people's problems these days are self-inflicted by a simple abandonment of commonsense morality.
The fundamental point is about the value of morality coming from God. Those who seem to have succeeded in removing God from America bear the greatest blame for our country's decline. Because without God, there's no reason to behave.
Apply the most obvious example, smoking. The health risks of tobacco use are well known, so why do so many people choose to smoke? Because they attach no moral stigma to the behavior.
Isn't the same true of illegal drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, reckless driving, insurance scams, welfare fraud, theft, murder? If there's no God, no heaven, no hell, and no severe punishment for behavior that's destructive to ourselves and others, then why not do whatever makes us feel good?
This is the place America has arrived. I am certain that a horrible catastrophe is near, which was the only way to bring the ancient Israelites back to God, is the only way to bring America back to God.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Budget Cutting for Dummies
It's stunningly easy if those who write the tax law aren't influenced by the obvious quid-pro-quo.
Going back to the law I feel most strongly about, but will never happen because it takes away their job security. It probably has to be a constitutional amendment. The law is simply this: No tax, and likewise no tax credit, deferral, deduction, or any other adjustment may be passed without every citizen being eligible. No tax exemptions for specific corporations, members of congress, or individuals. No targeted tax credits, exemptions, deferrals or deductions.
Taxes apply to everyone equally, likewise tax reductions are available to everyone who chooses to take advantage of them.
That takes care of the revenue side.
On the spending side, again it's easy.
Either shut down or reorganize these agencies into a small shadow of what they are today:
Education
Arts
Agrigulture
EPA
Reorganize and consolidate duplicative agencies.
Convert Commerce into a trade association with federal support, fully funded by its members' dues. Members of course would be any company that wants to export products and services.
Cancel anything called "Corporate Welfare". This is most easily accomplished by the first solution.
Stop funding Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting and all other unnecessary organizations that can continue to operate on their own as NFP's.
Cut federal salaries by 5 percent across the board. Maybe exempt those earning less than $40K, if there are such folks out there.
Convert all Federal Defined Benefit Pensions into 401Ks.
Restructure Medicare into a simple health insurance program with affordable premiums for seniors.
Take Medicaid away from the Federal Government entirely, because it's duplicative with State programs.
Repeal Obamacare, of course.
Open American oil and natural gas resources to American energy companies through auctions. Use tax incentives to help make sure most of those resources stay at home to meet domestic demand instead of being sold on the world market.
Remove all the uncertainty in government tax and regulatory policy, giving American companies the confidence to move forward with their plans without holding back for fear of unpredictable costs of Obamacare, taxes, and arbitrary federal regulation.
Gradually move Social Security from a welfare program to an actual retirement and insurance program, where every citizen has an individual cash-value account. Those who live their working lives on welfare won't have a retirement account, and can either rely on family or care in a modest group home or nursing home subsidized by the State, not the Feds.
Put some teeth into trade policies. Any country that wants to sell their goods in America must give equal access to their own market to American goods in return and must demonstrate reasonable control over theft of American inventions, art, and intellectual property.
Going back to the law I feel most strongly about, but will never happen because it takes away their job security. It probably has to be a constitutional amendment. The law is simply this: No tax, and likewise no tax credit, deferral, deduction, or any other adjustment may be passed without every citizen being eligible. No tax exemptions for specific corporations, members of congress, or individuals. No targeted tax credits, exemptions, deferrals or deductions.
Taxes apply to everyone equally, likewise tax reductions are available to everyone who chooses to take advantage of them.
That takes care of the revenue side.
On the spending side, again it's easy.
Either shut down or reorganize these agencies into a small shadow of what they are today:
Education
Arts
Agrigulture
EPA
Reorganize and consolidate duplicative agencies.
Convert Commerce into a trade association with federal support, fully funded by its members' dues. Members of course would be any company that wants to export products and services.
Cancel anything called "Corporate Welfare". This is most easily accomplished by the first solution.
Stop funding Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting and all other unnecessary organizations that can continue to operate on their own as NFP's.
Cut federal salaries by 5 percent across the board. Maybe exempt those earning less than $40K, if there are such folks out there.
Convert all Federal Defined Benefit Pensions into 401Ks.
Restructure Medicare into a simple health insurance program with affordable premiums for seniors.
Take Medicaid away from the Federal Government entirely, because it's duplicative with State programs.
Repeal Obamacare, of course.
Open American oil and natural gas resources to American energy companies through auctions. Use tax incentives to help make sure most of those resources stay at home to meet domestic demand instead of being sold on the world market.
Remove all the uncertainty in government tax and regulatory policy, giving American companies the confidence to move forward with their plans without holding back for fear of unpredictable costs of Obamacare, taxes, and arbitrary federal regulation.
Gradually move Social Security from a welfare program to an actual retirement and insurance program, where every citizen has an individual cash-value account. Those who live their working lives on welfare won't have a retirement account, and can either rely on family or care in a modest group home or nursing home subsidized by the State, not the Feds.
Put some teeth into trade policies. Any country that wants to sell their goods in America must give equal access to their own market to American goods in return and must demonstrate reasonable control over theft of American inventions, art, and intellectual property.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Washington Theatre
The most disappointing thing about the theatrics in Washington about the battle over the budget and possible shutdown of the Federal government was the realization that hit me while it was underway.
The so-called "leaders" in Washington think we're all a bunch of ignorant fools.
Pretending like 38 billion dollars in budget cuts is a big deal. Sure to all of us, that's an awful lot of money. But compared to just the amount of the budget deficit for this year, it's barely noticable.
Democrats screaming outrageous nonsense about mean Republicans, from the mildest accusation of taking away "women's health services" to the most strident "killing women".
I was hoping somehow that Planned Parenthood would be defunded. But calling abortion "women's health" is like Animal Control claiming that putting down stray dogs and cats is "pet care".
The GOP side is telling its conservative base to be happy that Boehner got Obama and Reid to compromize from a budget cut of zero to 38. At least he got something done in the right direction.
Do both sides really think we're all drooling idiots? Balancing the budget may not be easy to do all at once, but it can be easily done in only a few years. Send me to Washington and I'll have that budget balanced without breaking a sweat. All it requires is an emptying of the featherbeds and revamping of the tax code.
The so-called "leaders" in Washington think we're all a bunch of ignorant fools.
Pretending like 38 billion dollars in budget cuts is a big deal. Sure to all of us, that's an awful lot of money. But compared to just the amount of the budget deficit for this year, it's barely noticable.
Democrats screaming outrageous nonsense about mean Republicans, from the mildest accusation of taking away "women's health services" to the most strident "killing women".
I was hoping somehow that Planned Parenthood would be defunded. But calling abortion "women's health" is like Animal Control claiming that putting down stray dogs and cats is "pet care".
The GOP side is telling its conservative base to be happy that Boehner got Obama and Reid to compromize from a budget cut of zero to 38. At least he got something done in the right direction.
Do both sides really think we're all drooling idiots? Balancing the budget may not be easy to do all at once, but it can be easily done in only a few years. Send me to Washington and I'll have that budget balanced without breaking a sweat. All it requires is an emptying of the featherbeds and revamping of the tax code.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Serious Analysis of Education
Indiana's in the midst of a bitter dispute about education vouchers. Teachers unions are fighting tooth and nail, and the Democrats fled to Illinois for over a month to deny a quorum in a failed attempt to halt the legislation.
In the 32 years since I was a public school teacher, I've watched as schools have received massive increases in funding to solve the problem of declining student performance. Now at least our failing schools look terrific on the outside and teachers get a pretty sweet deal financially.
None of that has resulted in improving the outcomes for kids.
There are basically two solutions being put forward by the two political ideological sides. Democrats and the teacher unions suggest we just haven't given them enough money yet, or pretend there is no problem. Republicans push for voucher programs that let lower-income families escape the dysfunctional public school in favor of a quality education in a private or parochial school.
While clearly the teachers unions simply have a goal of keeping the status quo for their members - tenure, high salaries, free health insurance, and generous pensions - Republicans at least sincerely want to find a solution.
But are vouchers the right solution?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like the idea of government handing out money to private institutions of any kind. What the government subsidizes they also control. And I don't want any hint of government control in Catholic or Christian schools.
It's very easy to imagine the next step after vouchers are instituted, which will be couched under "educational standards". The government can and I think will impose strings to those voucher payments, beginning with a "tolerance" curriculum that glorifies immoral sexual behavior to elementary school children.
Another concern I have with this idea is in the area of capacity. Vouchers are nearly certain to create an overwhelming demand of families applying to get their children out of the unsafe and failing public school, but there's not enough capacity in the local private schools to accomodate them all.
So what criteria are used to select students that will get the priviledge of escaping the bad school? A lottery? Some sort of merit or need-based formula set by the state? Let the private school choose?
No matter what the method, there are two bad outcomes to this process: Government dictates which students are to be considered for enrollment at the private school, and deserving students will inevitably be left behind in the failing school.
And those failing public schools won't get better - they'll get even worse. Because the first students they lose will be those whose parents care enough to fight to get their children a better education. And that means the best students will be the first to take advantage of vouchers to escape the failing school.
As the private schools add capacity, they'll seek out the best teachers for their added classrooms. The best teachers are likely to accept a slightly smaller compensation package in return for better working conditions, which can be assumed to include better school administrators and better motivated, better behaved students.
Republicans suggest this will force the failing public school to change its ways or shut its doors. I agree that a failing school should be shuttered, but am having difficulty understanding what happens to the students during the school's waning days, and where the students go after it closes.
So the question becomes, what is the solution? Everything that's been done over the past 30 years has cost taxpayers too much and produced no apparent improvements, so if vouchers aren't the answer, what is?
Thinking through every conceivable option, I keep settling on this one:
Privatize.
Sounds kind of radical, I know. But if it's done right, it can be great for everyone.
Let private companies bid for the existing school facilities and a per-student rate. Let them advertise and attract students based on their individualized programs. Parents choose the school they think is best for their child based on location, curriculum, and results. Companies compete for students by offering great programs, whether in the sciences, arts, athletics, or whatever. The companies are licensed by the state based solely on fundamental academic curricula - no social, religious, or political agendas (except perhaps teaching violent jihad) will be considered in granting of licensing. Of course, these schools have to be open to any and all applicants, except violent offenders.
Put antitrust safeguards in place to make sure there is plenty of competition among education companies, and any company can open a school in the area as long as it meets licensing standards.
In the 32 years since I was a public school teacher, I've watched as schools have received massive increases in funding to solve the problem of declining student performance. Now at least our failing schools look terrific on the outside and teachers get a pretty sweet deal financially.
None of that has resulted in improving the outcomes for kids.
There are basically two solutions being put forward by the two political ideological sides. Democrats and the teacher unions suggest we just haven't given them enough money yet, or pretend there is no problem. Republicans push for voucher programs that let lower-income families escape the dysfunctional public school in favor of a quality education in a private or parochial school.
While clearly the teachers unions simply have a goal of keeping the status quo for their members - tenure, high salaries, free health insurance, and generous pensions - Republicans at least sincerely want to find a solution.
But are vouchers the right solution?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like the idea of government handing out money to private institutions of any kind. What the government subsidizes they also control. And I don't want any hint of government control in Catholic or Christian schools.
It's very easy to imagine the next step after vouchers are instituted, which will be couched under "educational standards". The government can and I think will impose strings to those voucher payments, beginning with a "tolerance" curriculum that glorifies immoral sexual behavior to elementary school children.
Another concern I have with this idea is in the area of capacity. Vouchers are nearly certain to create an overwhelming demand of families applying to get their children out of the unsafe and failing public school, but there's not enough capacity in the local private schools to accomodate them all.
So what criteria are used to select students that will get the priviledge of escaping the bad school? A lottery? Some sort of merit or need-based formula set by the state? Let the private school choose?
No matter what the method, there are two bad outcomes to this process: Government dictates which students are to be considered for enrollment at the private school, and deserving students will inevitably be left behind in the failing school.
And those failing public schools won't get better - they'll get even worse. Because the first students they lose will be those whose parents care enough to fight to get their children a better education. And that means the best students will be the first to take advantage of vouchers to escape the failing school.
As the private schools add capacity, they'll seek out the best teachers for their added classrooms. The best teachers are likely to accept a slightly smaller compensation package in return for better working conditions, which can be assumed to include better school administrators and better motivated, better behaved students.
Republicans suggest this will force the failing public school to change its ways or shut its doors. I agree that a failing school should be shuttered, but am having difficulty understanding what happens to the students during the school's waning days, and where the students go after it closes.
So the question becomes, what is the solution? Everything that's been done over the past 30 years has cost taxpayers too much and produced no apparent improvements, so if vouchers aren't the answer, what is?
Thinking through every conceivable option, I keep settling on this one:
Privatize.
Sounds kind of radical, I know. But if it's done right, it can be great for everyone.
Let private companies bid for the existing school facilities and a per-student rate. Let them advertise and attract students based on their individualized programs. Parents choose the school they think is best for their child based on location, curriculum, and results. Companies compete for students by offering great programs, whether in the sciences, arts, athletics, or whatever. The companies are licensed by the state based solely on fundamental academic curricula - no social, religious, or political agendas (except perhaps teaching violent jihad) will be considered in granting of licensing. Of course, these schools have to be open to any and all applicants, except violent offenders.
Put antitrust safeguards in place to make sure there is plenty of competition among education companies, and any company can open a school in the area as long as it meets licensing standards.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Source of Polarization
Whether it's the frightening battle for dominance in Wisconsin or the budget showdown in Washington, I believe the country has never been more politically polarized in my lifetime. It seems likely we haven't seen this level of polarization since the Civil War, aka The War Between the States, aka The War of Northern Aggression, aka The War to End Slavery, all depending on the polarized points of view of those on either side back then.
From an historical perspective, I'd have been completely on the side of the North in that war if it were about ending the evil of slavery. But take out the slavery issue, and I have plenty of sympathy for the perspective of many in the south, who viewed the war in terms of freedom. Abe Lincoln was determined to use the Federal government to bigfoot the states, imposing the will of Washington on all of the states whether that will was appropriate for a given state or the citizens of a state wanted that Federal control.
These days, the states have seen most of their power to govern themselves confiscated by Washington. In many cases, Washington has accomplished this by addicting states to federal money. In other cases, Washington has used the courts to discover new rights and grant unfettered extraconstitutional authority to itself. In still other cases, the US Congress has simply taken that authority for themselves.
It was just a matter of time, and now that time has come. We're polarized once again in a fight that threatens to become violent.
The moral issue of slavery is replaced by today's fights over abortion and gay marriage.
The states' rights issue has resurfaced in today's fights over the size and scope of the federal government.
It's the Socialists against the Constitutionalists.
It's Trial Lawyers against Business.
It's women against men.
It's non-white races against white races.
It's atheism and Islam against Christianity and Judaism.
It's wage earners against welfare and social security dependents.
It's homosexuals against Christians.
It's abortionists against Hypocratic Oath physicians and pharmacists.
It's Socialists against Business.
It's Mega Corporations against Entrepreneurs.
It's Environmentalists against Manufacturing Business.
It's city against country.
It's the coasts against the heartland.
It's illegal immigrants against citizens.
It's revolutionary change against rediscovered founding principles.
It's pacifists against homeland defense.
It's government is the answer against government is the problem.
It's guns kill people versus people kill people.
The Left is in charge and has run the country off the cliff. They want us to give them more time to achieve their vision for utopian society.
The Right is on the ascendancy and wants us to accept them as our saviors. But last time they were in charge they became drunk on their power and were irresponsible - therefore the country ran them out.
The Republicans holding office cover a specturm of political beliefs, ranging from left of some Democrats to Conservative Purists.
Democrats claim to cover a similar spectrum, but the so-called "blue dogs" voted in lockstep with their party while they bankrupted the country to funnel money to constituencies that they hoped would keep them perpetually in power.
Votes on important issues in congress illustrate the polarized divide. Democrats passed the destructive healthcare law without a single Republican vote. The Republican budget bill passed the House without any help from even the Blue Dogs, who are supposed to care about spending and debt.
It's time to find principled lawmakers who vote for what's right, not what their party leaders demand. I fear that ship has sailed.
From an historical perspective, I'd have been completely on the side of the North in that war if it were about ending the evil of slavery. But take out the slavery issue, and I have plenty of sympathy for the perspective of many in the south, who viewed the war in terms of freedom. Abe Lincoln was determined to use the Federal government to bigfoot the states, imposing the will of Washington on all of the states whether that will was appropriate for a given state or the citizens of a state wanted that Federal control.
These days, the states have seen most of their power to govern themselves confiscated by Washington. In many cases, Washington has accomplished this by addicting states to federal money. In other cases, Washington has used the courts to discover new rights and grant unfettered extraconstitutional authority to itself. In still other cases, the US Congress has simply taken that authority for themselves.
It was just a matter of time, and now that time has come. We're polarized once again in a fight that threatens to become violent.
The moral issue of slavery is replaced by today's fights over abortion and gay marriage.
The states' rights issue has resurfaced in today's fights over the size and scope of the federal government.
It's the Socialists against the Constitutionalists.
It's Trial Lawyers against Business.
It's women against men.
It's non-white races against white races.
It's atheism and Islam against Christianity and Judaism.
It's wage earners against welfare and social security dependents.
It's homosexuals against Christians.
It's abortionists against Hypocratic Oath physicians and pharmacists.
It's Socialists against Business.
It's Mega Corporations against Entrepreneurs.
It's Environmentalists against Manufacturing Business.
It's city against country.
It's the coasts against the heartland.
It's illegal immigrants against citizens.
It's revolutionary change against rediscovered founding principles.
It's pacifists against homeland defense.
It's government is the answer against government is the problem.
It's guns kill people versus people kill people.
The Left is in charge and has run the country off the cliff. They want us to give them more time to achieve their vision for utopian society.
The Right is on the ascendancy and wants us to accept them as our saviors. But last time they were in charge they became drunk on their power and were irresponsible - therefore the country ran them out.
The Republicans holding office cover a specturm of political beliefs, ranging from left of some Democrats to Conservative Purists.
Democrats claim to cover a similar spectrum, but the so-called "blue dogs" voted in lockstep with their party while they bankrupted the country to funnel money to constituencies that they hoped would keep them perpetually in power.
Votes on important issues in congress illustrate the polarized divide. Democrats passed the destructive healthcare law without a single Republican vote. The Republican budget bill passed the House without any help from even the Blue Dogs, who are supposed to care about spending and debt.
It's time to find principled lawmakers who vote for what's right, not what their party leaders demand. I fear that ship has sailed.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Real Problem-Solving or Grandstanding?
Awaiting what now seems to be an inevitable "government shutdown", it's interesting to take a step back and look at the whole fight from a distance.
The current argument is about setting the budget for the remainder of the year. Republicans proposed cutting either 61 or 71 billion through the end of the year, but so far I'm not completely clear on which number is right. Democrats countered with a reported cut of $33 billion, but in typical Washington sleight-of-hand, they count their cuts against Obama's proposed budget instead of the current spending levels. Which some say is no cut at all in comparison to this year's reality.
The fight is over more than the numbers themselves. The Republican plan targets liberal sacred cows long hated on the right, specifically Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting. Democrats have promised to fight to the bitter end to protect those two pillars of liberalism.
Then there's the EPA. The GOP proposal rolls back Obama's unilateral imposition of suffocating fossil fuel restrictions enforced by the EPA through the concept that they now have the right to control CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Yes, that's the gas we all emit when we exhale. The bill strips the ability of the EPA to restrict, shut down, deny permits, and otherwise harrass energy companies in the pretense of saving the planet from global climate change (formerly known as global warming).
Obama's publicly dead set against having his EPA restrictions rolled back. The usual suspects, led by Reid and Pelosi, are already predicting widespread deaths from disease and starvation because the evil GOP somehow desires to shift money from the
"safety net" into the pockets of fat cat corporate types.
When in the end, the current fight is between an actual drop in the water bucket versus an imaginary one.
And the debate has barely started over the next budget, just unveiled by Paul Ryan and his GOP budget committee colleagues. Think fighting over CO2 regulation, Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting is tough? Just wait to see the fight that breaks out over the dismantling of Obamacare, shifting of Medicaid to the States, gradual increases in the retirement age, and pay freezes for Federal Employees.
Which of those will make Democrats angriest? I think it's close, but I'd pick a narrow victory of the Federal Pay Freeze over killing Obamacare. Because they'll always put their personal interests above their ideology - ergo the biggest fight will be to keep their own pay and benefits rolling in.
It's quite ironic to hear Obama blast the Republicans for being ideological in what he characterizes are their unwillingness to compromise. Does he really expect us to believe that he's the non-ideological, practical problem-solver adult in the room? Wow.
The current argument is about setting the budget for the remainder of the year. Republicans proposed cutting either 61 or 71 billion through the end of the year, but so far I'm not completely clear on which number is right. Democrats countered with a reported cut of $33 billion, but in typical Washington sleight-of-hand, they count their cuts against Obama's proposed budget instead of the current spending levels. Which some say is no cut at all in comparison to this year's reality.
The fight is over more than the numbers themselves. The Republican plan targets liberal sacred cows long hated on the right, specifically Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting. Democrats have promised to fight to the bitter end to protect those two pillars of liberalism.
Then there's the EPA. The GOP proposal rolls back Obama's unilateral imposition of suffocating fossil fuel restrictions enforced by the EPA through the concept that they now have the right to control CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Yes, that's the gas we all emit when we exhale. The bill strips the ability of the EPA to restrict, shut down, deny permits, and otherwise harrass energy companies in the pretense of saving the planet from global climate change (formerly known as global warming).
Obama's publicly dead set against having his EPA restrictions rolled back. The usual suspects, led by Reid and Pelosi, are already predicting widespread deaths from disease and starvation because the evil GOP somehow desires to shift money from the
"safety net" into the pockets of fat cat corporate types.
When in the end, the current fight is between an actual drop in the water bucket versus an imaginary one.
And the debate has barely started over the next budget, just unveiled by Paul Ryan and his GOP budget committee colleagues. Think fighting over CO2 regulation, Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting is tough? Just wait to see the fight that breaks out over the dismantling of Obamacare, shifting of Medicaid to the States, gradual increases in the retirement age, and pay freezes for Federal Employees.
Which of those will make Democrats angriest? I think it's close, but I'd pick a narrow victory of the Federal Pay Freeze over killing Obamacare. Because they'll always put their personal interests above their ideology - ergo the biggest fight will be to keep their own pay and benefits rolling in.
It's quite ironic to hear Obama blast the Republicans for being ideological in what he characterizes are their unwillingness to compromise. Does he really expect us to believe that he's the non-ideological, practical problem-solver adult in the room? Wow.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Falling Back into Recession
I'm not a researcher, and I don't have macro-level information to back me up, but I'm fairly convinced that we're already slipping back into another recession.
Plenty of folks probably think we never left the last one, and it certainly feels that way. High unemployment and even higher underemployment, a disastrous housing market, rising prices and our Federal, State and Local governments teetering on bankruptcy sure doesn't feel like a recovery.
I remember during the Bush years when the unemployment rate was in the 4's, some Bush-hating Democrats I know used to claim that the country was in dire financial straits. Their logic was based on a trumpeted Democrat talking point that said, sure, it may seem like there are plenty of people with jobs, but those jobs stink. The logic said that the average worker's effective wages were declining while the captains of big business were rolling in it. You know, the old rich-get-richer while poor-get-poorer theme.
So we put Democrats in charge. They celebrated a decline in the unemployment rate to 8.8 percent this week. While job losses have slowed, and some folks are returning to work, the underlying statistics suggest that 8.8 is a misleading number. Because so many have simply given up on their job search, so they get dropped from the statistics. Others take part-time minimum-wage jobs even though they obviously prefer a full-time job but can't find one, and they're also dropped from the statistics.
All of these statistics lag behind what's happening today. My personal feeling, based on the companies I work with around the country pulling back again and gas getting back around $4, tells me we're entering another recession period.
I am familiar with companies that will soon be going through layoffs. I know of companies that are cancelling capital projects because orders are slowing down. I know of companies that are scaling back because they can't get financing in a very tight loan market.
Executives openly talk about the only thing they think can get the economy back on track; an Obama defeat next year. And these guys aren't necessarily hyper-partisan types. They are very clear about the reasons they believe it's so critical to replace the president with someone to roll back the specific policies that are destroying their businesses.
The health care law, the suffocating regulations affecting many of my clients' businesses directly, the shutdown of all energy development in the country, the investment-killing budget deficits and debts being piled up, and the willful destruction of the dollar are all specific reasons behind their strongly held belief that removing this president is the only way to reverse this economic disaster.
It seems to me that people voted for Democrats thinking that somehow they'd make their employers pay them better. Instead, they destroyed their jobs by destroying the companies that used to employ them.
I tend to agree that the only real hope for better days lies in electing a new president next year, but I'd add to that the need to replace enough left-wing Senators to roll back the Obama agenda. Even then, recovery is only possible if we find and elect the right people to lead, with common sense, intelligence, and the integrity to put the country first; especially above their contributors and benefactors who hope to gain personal benefits by getting their guy (or gal) to Washington.
Plenty of folks probably think we never left the last one, and it certainly feels that way. High unemployment and even higher underemployment, a disastrous housing market, rising prices and our Federal, State and Local governments teetering on bankruptcy sure doesn't feel like a recovery.
I remember during the Bush years when the unemployment rate was in the 4's, some Bush-hating Democrats I know used to claim that the country was in dire financial straits. Their logic was based on a trumpeted Democrat talking point that said, sure, it may seem like there are plenty of people with jobs, but those jobs stink. The logic said that the average worker's effective wages were declining while the captains of big business were rolling in it. You know, the old rich-get-richer while poor-get-poorer theme.
So we put Democrats in charge. They celebrated a decline in the unemployment rate to 8.8 percent this week. While job losses have slowed, and some folks are returning to work, the underlying statistics suggest that 8.8 is a misleading number. Because so many have simply given up on their job search, so they get dropped from the statistics. Others take part-time minimum-wage jobs even though they obviously prefer a full-time job but can't find one, and they're also dropped from the statistics.
All of these statistics lag behind what's happening today. My personal feeling, based on the companies I work with around the country pulling back again and gas getting back around $4, tells me we're entering another recession period.
I am familiar with companies that will soon be going through layoffs. I know of companies that are cancelling capital projects because orders are slowing down. I know of companies that are scaling back because they can't get financing in a very tight loan market.
Executives openly talk about the only thing they think can get the economy back on track; an Obama defeat next year. And these guys aren't necessarily hyper-partisan types. They are very clear about the reasons they believe it's so critical to replace the president with someone to roll back the specific policies that are destroying their businesses.
The health care law, the suffocating regulations affecting many of my clients' businesses directly, the shutdown of all energy development in the country, the investment-killing budget deficits and debts being piled up, and the willful destruction of the dollar are all specific reasons behind their strongly held belief that removing this president is the only way to reverse this economic disaster.
It seems to me that people voted for Democrats thinking that somehow they'd make their employers pay them better. Instead, they destroyed their jobs by destroying the companies that used to employ them.
I tend to agree that the only real hope for better days lies in electing a new president next year, but I'd add to that the need to replace enough left-wing Senators to roll back the Obama agenda. Even then, recovery is only possible if we find and elect the right people to lead, with common sense, intelligence, and the integrity to put the country first; especially above their contributors and benefactors who hope to gain personal benefits by getting their guy (or gal) to Washington.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Chiming in on Education Vouchers
One of the reasons Indiana's Democrats ran away to Illinois for over a month to deny a quorum at the statehouse was their close ties to the Teachers' union, which was strongly demanding they do whatever it takes to stop the school voucher program being pushed by the newly minted GOP majority.
The basic concept is that those who want to escape a terrible public school and actually go somewhere else to get an actual education, but don't have the means to pay private school tuition, will now be able to apply for the State of Indiana to contribute a defined amount of cash to whatever school they choose to attend.
The teachers are scared to death by this initiative, and are convinced it will eventually lead to the collapse of the public school systems. The opposite side of the argument is that it will provide competition and incentive for school administrators and teachers to step up their game and improve the quality of education in their schools to keep those students from bolting to a private school.
The fundamental question comes down to whether or not the idea will work. Ultimately the only way we can find out is if we try it, which I'm willing to do. Because there's no question that public schools in general, and the big city schools in particular, are an unmitigated disaster. Why must we continue to throw money at the schools and teachers until we're almost bankrupt, only to see the quality of education decline year after year?
Look at the Indianapolis Public Schools. They have wonderful football stadia and fantastic basketball arenas. But their students can't manage an SAT score good enough to qualify them for any of the state universities (unless they're a blue-chip athlete, which is different).
We hear more and more frightening tales about the dangers and outrages taking place in the hallways and restrooms of these taj mahal buildings. Bullies assault kids for not being cool enough. Underage couples have sex in the alcoves and bathrooms, and we can't be sure how often it should be classified as rape or assault. Illicit drugs and gangs selling them in the stairwells are a serious problem. Teachers hide in their classrooms or the lounge because they're afraid of being assaulted themselves if they take the chance to roam the halls alone during the school day.
Do you want your kid to go to these schools? I can't imagine any sane parent who would.
Yes, there's a pretty good chance that the schools in IPS might lose enough of their funding and students with this program that they'll have to be closed. But unless the administrators and teachers are willing to step up and demand standards of discipline and behavior in their schools and take back the hallways and restrooms, perhaps they deserve to close.
I'm not insensitive to some of the challenges these public schools are facing. They tremble in fear that a parent will sue them if they dare to discipline an unruly student. They fear that their best students will be the first to take the vouchers and escape to the private schools, but who can blame them?
Only boldness, dedication, and determination by the teams of principals, deans, counselors, and teachers can turn the disastrous schools around. Students in the cities come from poor, broken and disfunctional homes where there is little to no caring adult supervision are the most difficult to reach and inspire.
But our country's future depends on someone finding a way to do it, and if our public schools can't, maybe the private schools can.
The basic concept is that those who want to escape a terrible public school and actually go somewhere else to get an actual education, but don't have the means to pay private school tuition, will now be able to apply for the State of Indiana to contribute a defined amount of cash to whatever school they choose to attend.
The teachers are scared to death by this initiative, and are convinced it will eventually lead to the collapse of the public school systems. The opposite side of the argument is that it will provide competition and incentive for school administrators and teachers to step up their game and improve the quality of education in their schools to keep those students from bolting to a private school.
The fundamental question comes down to whether or not the idea will work. Ultimately the only way we can find out is if we try it, which I'm willing to do. Because there's no question that public schools in general, and the big city schools in particular, are an unmitigated disaster. Why must we continue to throw money at the schools and teachers until we're almost bankrupt, only to see the quality of education decline year after year?
Look at the Indianapolis Public Schools. They have wonderful football stadia and fantastic basketball arenas. But their students can't manage an SAT score good enough to qualify them for any of the state universities (unless they're a blue-chip athlete, which is different).
We hear more and more frightening tales about the dangers and outrages taking place in the hallways and restrooms of these taj mahal buildings. Bullies assault kids for not being cool enough. Underage couples have sex in the alcoves and bathrooms, and we can't be sure how often it should be classified as rape or assault. Illicit drugs and gangs selling them in the stairwells are a serious problem. Teachers hide in their classrooms or the lounge because they're afraid of being assaulted themselves if they take the chance to roam the halls alone during the school day.
Do you want your kid to go to these schools? I can't imagine any sane parent who would.
Yes, there's a pretty good chance that the schools in IPS might lose enough of their funding and students with this program that they'll have to be closed. But unless the administrators and teachers are willing to step up and demand standards of discipline and behavior in their schools and take back the hallways and restrooms, perhaps they deserve to close.
I'm not insensitive to some of the challenges these public schools are facing. They tremble in fear that a parent will sue them if they dare to discipline an unruly student. They fear that their best students will be the first to take the vouchers and escape to the private schools, but who can blame them?
Only boldness, dedication, and determination by the teams of principals, deans, counselors, and teachers can turn the disastrous schools around. Students in the cities come from poor, broken and disfunctional homes where there is little to no caring adult supervision are the most difficult to reach and inspire.
But our country's future depends on someone finding a way to do it, and if our public schools can't, maybe the private schools can.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Is My Perception Accurate?
I didn't really want to, but somehow ended up watching Obama's speech on Libya last night. What has me thinking this morning isn't about what he said, but how I perceived his speech.
Unless I've missed it, I don't see others (at least on the Web) who share my perception of Obama's speech. Has my perception of the speech been influenced by a deep mistrust and ingrained negative perception of Obama himself, or is my analysis of his speech accurate?
Time to describe the speech and my interpretation: Obama was the angry stepfather scolding all of us for being too stupid to understand his greatness.
Throughout the speech, it seemed his attitude and bearing came across as angry, defensive, condescending, and superior. His main point was that Gaddafi was a bad guy who was killing his own people, therefore we have a moral responsibility to step in to protect those innocent victims. The point was delivered with an air that said, you're all such idiots for not understanding this and forcing me to be here to explain.
Then lest anyone have the temerity to point out his naked hypocrisy based on the similar case made by Bush for Iraq, he made sure to petulantly point out that unlike (the evil) Bush, he successfully convinced the United Nations to sanction the effort and created a coalition with NATO and a couple of Arab countries.
The natural follow-up question to his attempt at moral superiority over his predecessor is, what if you failed to get the UN to go along? (Actually, his success was in getting the dissenting members of the security council like Russia and China to abstain rather than vote no). Would that make the mission still morally imperative, even if the United States had to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people by ourselves?
But asking silly questions like that of the Narcissist-in-Chief is beside the point. He failed to even try answering the main complaint about Libya, which is that he's bound by law to ask Congress for their approval before beginning such a foreign military adventure.
Please tell me, does the perception I get from this President as a spoiled brat narcissist whining at his detractors on National Television instead of making a sober and reasoned case for his Libyan war accurate? Does anyone else perceive him the same way, or have I somehow been blinded by my opposition to his other policies?
My own conclusion is that yes, I am sometimes influenced by my strongly negative opinions of Obama's policy priorities, nearly all of which I couldn't be stronger in my opposition. On the other hand, I have to believe that any honest and unbiased analysis of the speech would have to agree with my own assessment.
Unless I've missed it, I don't see others (at least on the Web) who share my perception of Obama's speech. Has my perception of the speech been influenced by a deep mistrust and ingrained negative perception of Obama himself, or is my analysis of his speech accurate?
Time to describe the speech and my interpretation: Obama was the angry stepfather scolding all of us for being too stupid to understand his greatness.
Throughout the speech, it seemed his attitude and bearing came across as angry, defensive, condescending, and superior. His main point was that Gaddafi was a bad guy who was killing his own people, therefore we have a moral responsibility to step in to protect those innocent victims. The point was delivered with an air that said, you're all such idiots for not understanding this and forcing me to be here to explain.
Then lest anyone have the temerity to point out his naked hypocrisy based on the similar case made by Bush for Iraq, he made sure to petulantly point out that unlike (the evil) Bush, he successfully convinced the United Nations to sanction the effort and created a coalition with NATO and a couple of Arab countries.
The natural follow-up question to his attempt at moral superiority over his predecessor is, what if you failed to get the UN to go along? (Actually, his success was in getting the dissenting members of the security council like Russia and China to abstain rather than vote no). Would that make the mission still morally imperative, even if the United States had to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people by ourselves?
But asking silly questions like that of the Narcissist-in-Chief is beside the point. He failed to even try answering the main complaint about Libya, which is that he's bound by law to ask Congress for their approval before beginning such a foreign military adventure.
Please tell me, does the perception I get from this President as a spoiled brat narcissist whining at his detractors on National Television instead of making a sober and reasoned case for his Libyan war accurate? Does anyone else perceive him the same way, or have I somehow been blinded by my opposition to his other policies?
My own conclusion is that yes, I am sometimes influenced by my strongly negative opinions of Obama's policy priorities, nearly all of which I couldn't be stronger in my opposition. On the other hand, I have to believe that any honest and unbiased analysis of the speech would have to agree with my own assessment.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Final Four is Set
This is an historic final four in many ways, most of the firsts due to Butler and VCU. That's just part of what makes it fun. Saturday's Butler regional final game against Florida had to be put on hold (via DVR) while we went to church. Florida looked like they were poised to blow the game wide open, but somehow Butler was able to recover and catch up within a point at halftime. So I felt somewhat hopeful as I set the DVR and headed out.
Then I came back home, had a bit of dinner, then headed back to watch the second half. I was able to avoid any news on the game, and could pretend I was watching the second half live - except for the ability to blow past commercials.
Once again, things looked grim midway through the second half, as Florida once again seemed to be taking over the game. But out of the blue, Brad Stevens sent in Crishawn Hopkins, a freshman who I don't recall having played in any of the previous games. Hopkins contributed energy to help his team, as well as a steal, a great assist, and a 3 pointer. He also turned the ball over on a bad pass and was taken out of the game, but the boost he gave the team was evident.
Matt Howard probably would have sealed the victory by winning his second free throw at the end of the game, and it surprised me that Florida chose not to try feeding one of their big men under the basket for the win where they'd been so dominant most of the game.
Instead, the semi-desperate 3-point shot at the buzzer bounced off and the game went to overtime. Butler looked fresh and feisty in overtime, and played like they sensed a victory. The clock was winding down within 30 seconds with a 1-point Bulldog lead when my DVR recording ended. Of course! Overtime went well past the scheduled end time for the game, so I wasn't going to see the last half minute.
Dad called at that precise moment when the recording stopped, asking what I thought about the Butler game. I told him I thought the game was very exciting, but I just wish I knew what happened in the last 30 seconds of overtime. He threatened to leave me in the dark, but then sort of filled me in on the Butler win, sealed by Mack.
I didn't mean to be disrepectful of Virginia Commonwealth in the previous post, and now they're Butler's opponent in the national semifinal game next weekend after shutting down Kansas. I saw that game, and my overall impressions were these: VCU clearly played with more energy and desire than Kansas, they shot the lights out from the 3-point arc, they played fast and didn't allow Kansas' shooters good looks from outside.
Kansas looked sluggish and bewildered as VCU ran out to a huge first-half lead, but seemed to right themselves early in the second half as they closed the gap to 2 points. I thought VCU would fold once Kansas caught them, but they managed to recover enough to stay ahead, fending off every Jayhawk run until they were in position to shoot free throws to seal their Final Four berth with a 10-point final margin.
It seemed that Kansas may have taken the game for granted, and just didn't have enough gas in the tank to fight back from that stunning first half.
It seems to me that Butler can and should beat VCU. My first hope is that VCU gets a case of nerves as they experience the awe of actually playing in the national semifinal game, while Butler's already been there and should know better how to deal with the situation.
VCU is a team that lives on an emotional energy, and the way to beat that energy is to play tight defense and frustrate them into turnovers early. If Butler can get ahead of VCU early, turn them over a few times and beat them on the boards, I think they can get VCU to begin giving into the pressure with more turnovers and bad shots. That could allow Butler to gain a runaway win.
But that also might be wishful thinking.
Based on what I've seen of the teams on the other side of the bracket, my pick for the final game from that other semifinal is Kentucky. If we get Butler and Kentucky into the championship game, anything can happen. Everything could also go exactly opposite of my predictions.
It's part of the fun of this tournament.
Then I came back home, had a bit of dinner, then headed back to watch the second half. I was able to avoid any news on the game, and could pretend I was watching the second half live - except for the ability to blow past commercials.
Once again, things looked grim midway through the second half, as Florida once again seemed to be taking over the game. But out of the blue, Brad Stevens sent in Crishawn Hopkins, a freshman who I don't recall having played in any of the previous games. Hopkins contributed energy to help his team, as well as a steal, a great assist, and a 3 pointer. He also turned the ball over on a bad pass and was taken out of the game, but the boost he gave the team was evident.
Matt Howard probably would have sealed the victory by winning his second free throw at the end of the game, and it surprised me that Florida chose not to try feeding one of their big men under the basket for the win where they'd been so dominant most of the game.
Instead, the semi-desperate 3-point shot at the buzzer bounced off and the game went to overtime. Butler looked fresh and feisty in overtime, and played like they sensed a victory. The clock was winding down within 30 seconds with a 1-point Bulldog lead when my DVR recording ended. Of course! Overtime went well past the scheduled end time for the game, so I wasn't going to see the last half minute.
Dad called at that precise moment when the recording stopped, asking what I thought about the Butler game. I told him I thought the game was very exciting, but I just wish I knew what happened in the last 30 seconds of overtime. He threatened to leave me in the dark, but then sort of filled me in on the Butler win, sealed by Mack.
I didn't mean to be disrepectful of Virginia Commonwealth in the previous post, and now they're Butler's opponent in the national semifinal game next weekend after shutting down Kansas. I saw that game, and my overall impressions were these: VCU clearly played with more energy and desire than Kansas, they shot the lights out from the 3-point arc, they played fast and didn't allow Kansas' shooters good looks from outside.
Kansas looked sluggish and bewildered as VCU ran out to a huge first-half lead, but seemed to right themselves early in the second half as they closed the gap to 2 points. I thought VCU would fold once Kansas caught them, but they managed to recover enough to stay ahead, fending off every Jayhawk run until they were in position to shoot free throws to seal their Final Four berth with a 10-point final margin.
It seemed that Kansas may have taken the game for granted, and just didn't have enough gas in the tank to fight back from that stunning first half.
It seems to me that Butler can and should beat VCU. My first hope is that VCU gets a case of nerves as they experience the awe of actually playing in the national semifinal game, while Butler's already been there and should know better how to deal with the situation.
VCU is a team that lives on an emotional energy, and the way to beat that energy is to play tight defense and frustrate them into turnovers early. If Butler can get ahead of VCU early, turn them over a few times and beat them on the boards, I think they can get VCU to begin giving into the pressure with more turnovers and bad shots. That could allow Butler to gain a runaway win.
But that also might be wishful thinking.
Based on what I've seen of the teams on the other side of the bracket, my pick for the final game from that other semifinal is Kentucky. If we get Butler and Kentucky into the championship game, anything can happen. Everything could also go exactly opposite of my predictions.
It's part of the fun of this tournament.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
NCAA Basketball Update
My bracket's busted, and I suspect those who seem to be winning right now must have cheated. Who except Kentucky fans had them beating Ohio State? That was a surprise to me.
Who figured Duke would get shot down so convincingly by Arizona?
The only teams still alive for me are Butler, Kansas and UConn. At least I picked one upset right, but only because I'm a Butler fan.
Today Butler's going to have to beat Florida if they want to get back to the Final Four. It would seem to me that they're going to need a healthy Andrew Smith to have a chance. If he's hobbled by the ankle sprain he picked up against Wisconsin, it's going to be very tough for the Dogs to contain the Florida bigs.
Even if Smith is hobbled, it would be a mistake to write them off. I think Donovan knows that as much as anybody, and he won't let his team take them for granted. My pick was BYU to beat Florida, and it would have been fun to see a Butler-BYU matchup because I think they're similar teams. But so far Butler's been able to find a way to win, and my hope is they can do it again, whether or not Smith's ankle cooperates.
Since Ohio State's gone, I'm not even going to try to pick the national champ. Most everybody in the Elite 8 seems capable, although I'm not completely sold on VCU yet.
It's been a fun tournament. I've been missing the Hoosiers, though, and am still a little upset with them for all the bad decisions they've made in the years since the sham firing of Bob Knight that turned them from one of the top basketball schools in the country to a mediocre also-ran.
Who figured Duke would get shot down so convincingly by Arizona?
The only teams still alive for me are Butler, Kansas and UConn. At least I picked one upset right, but only because I'm a Butler fan.
Today Butler's going to have to beat Florida if they want to get back to the Final Four. It would seem to me that they're going to need a healthy Andrew Smith to have a chance. If he's hobbled by the ankle sprain he picked up against Wisconsin, it's going to be very tough for the Dogs to contain the Florida bigs.
Even if Smith is hobbled, it would be a mistake to write them off. I think Donovan knows that as much as anybody, and he won't let his team take them for granted. My pick was BYU to beat Florida, and it would have been fun to see a Butler-BYU matchup because I think they're similar teams. But so far Butler's been able to find a way to win, and my hope is they can do it again, whether or not Smith's ankle cooperates.
Since Ohio State's gone, I'm not even going to try to pick the national champ. Most everybody in the Elite 8 seems capable, although I'm not completely sold on VCU yet.
It's been a fun tournament. I've been missing the Hoosiers, though, and am still a little upset with them for all the bad decisions they've made in the years since the sham firing of Bob Knight that turned them from one of the top basketball schools in the country to a mediocre also-ran.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Final Four
This year's NCAA tournament has been fun to follow, mainly because of Butler's second straight bracket-busting run.
Even without my kid who's now a Butler alum, I still would be a fan. Partly because they're from Indiana, but mostly because it's the sort of team I can admire. These guys aren't the types who went to college for only one year and only pretended to be students while they auditioned for the NBA (see Kentucky).
They're solid students and solid citizens who just happen to play basketball really well. Look at guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard and Ron Nored, who seem to be both great basketball players and great guys. Look at their coach, Brad Stevens, and you'll understand the truth about how great teams are a reflection of their leaders.
Can they make it back to the Final Four? Sure.
Will they make it back? Who knows.
But to get this far the second year in a row when everyone still wrote them off as a fluke has been really fun to watch. If they lose to Wisconsin tonight it won't take away from what a terrific achievement it's been for them. I believe they've overachieved this year to an even greater degree than last year, because this year everyone they played knew better than to take them for granted.
But they still win every game by a whisker. I'll have to stay up late to catch every minute of the game, and hope they dispose of Wisconsin and move on to meet BYU (my pick) for the opportunity to play in another Final Four.
Even without my kid who's now a Butler alum, I still would be a fan. Partly because they're from Indiana, but mostly because it's the sort of team I can admire. These guys aren't the types who went to college for only one year and only pretended to be students while they auditioned for the NBA (see Kentucky).
They're solid students and solid citizens who just happen to play basketball really well. Look at guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard and Ron Nored, who seem to be both great basketball players and great guys. Look at their coach, Brad Stevens, and you'll understand the truth about how great teams are a reflection of their leaders.
Can they make it back to the Final Four? Sure.
Will they make it back? Who knows.
But to get this far the second year in a row when everyone still wrote them off as a fluke has been really fun to watch. If they lose to Wisconsin tonight it won't take away from what a terrific achievement it's been for them. I believe they've overachieved this year to an even greater degree than last year, because this year everyone they played knew better than to take them for granted.
But they still win every game by a whisker. I'll have to stay up late to catch every minute of the game, and hope they dispose of Wisconsin and move on to meet BYU (my pick) for the opportunity to play in another Final Four.
Notes on NFL
Those who know me also know I'm a pretty big sports nut. I've been a Colts fan since before they moved from Baltimore (when Ted Marchibroda coached them the first time around), and even kept tabs on them during their horrible years in Indy.
So you might be surprised to find out my attitude on the current contract dispute between the NFL and the players. I don't really care.
Not that I won't miss the NFL if they don't play in the fall, of course that would be disappointing. But I don't expect that to happen. There's too much money at stake for both sides, so it seems silly and stupid for them to lose a season arguing over their respective slices of the pie.
If you've been reading my posts about the union fights happening in various states, I hope you didn't make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-union, and therefore somehow favoring the NFL owners over the NFLPA. Not at all.
The players are certainly free to form a union to bargain for the best possible deal for their members. Since nobody forces me to pay for their salaries and benefits, I don't care how rich their contracts get. Forces of basic economics will be applied if the package is too rich - people will simply quit buying tickets and merchandise if the prices get too high, and if the NFL network charges too much in subscription fees, even big fans like me will simply choose not to subscribe.
Owners want to set specific terms for the contract that have nothing to do with actual revenues. In other words, they want to fix the costs they must pay out to their players rather than have to share a percentage of revenues. That's understandable, and they have every right to make such demands.
Players want to guarantee a baseline of compensation, then get a cut of revenues on top of that. They want the owners to assume all the downside risk, but make sure they share in the upside. That sounds like a pretty good deal for them if they can get it, and they did get it in the previous contract. They have every right to make such demands.
What makes it harder to get an agreement in the NFL as opposed to pretty much any other private business concern is the fact that the NFL is a monopoly. Players have a short shelf life, and the NFL's the only game in town. So if there's any leverage in these negotiations, it would seem to rest with the owners.
If the stalemate gets really bad, I suppose the players could all chip in and start a pro league of their own. Wouldn't that be interesting?
If the two sides refuse to budge and there isn't a 2011 season, it will turn off the fans. People will get disgusted with both sides, seeing billionaires arguing with millionaires over a game. They'll find other sources of entertainment for the lost NFL season, and may not come back when the league finally opens for business next year.
Sure, I'll miss the NFL if the lockout stretches through this coming season. But all I have to do is switch my attention to other things, like high school and college football, which are much more deserving of my attention anyway.
So you might be surprised to find out my attitude on the current contract dispute between the NFL and the players. I don't really care.
Not that I won't miss the NFL if they don't play in the fall, of course that would be disappointing. But I don't expect that to happen. There's too much money at stake for both sides, so it seems silly and stupid for them to lose a season arguing over their respective slices of the pie.
If you've been reading my posts about the union fights happening in various states, I hope you didn't make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-union, and therefore somehow favoring the NFL owners over the NFLPA. Not at all.
The players are certainly free to form a union to bargain for the best possible deal for their members. Since nobody forces me to pay for their salaries and benefits, I don't care how rich their contracts get. Forces of basic economics will be applied if the package is too rich - people will simply quit buying tickets and merchandise if the prices get too high, and if the NFL network charges too much in subscription fees, even big fans like me will simply choose not to subscribe.
Owners want to set specific terms for the contract that have nothing to do with actual revenues. In other words, they want to fix the costs they must pay out to their players rather than have to share a percentage of revenues. That's understandable, and they have every right to make such demands.
Players want to guarantee a baseline of compensation, then get a cut of revenues on top of that. They want the owners to assume all the downside risk, but make sure they share in the upside. That sounds like a pretty good deal for them if they can get it, and they did get it in the previous contract. They have every right to make such demands.
What makes it harder to get an agreement in the NFL as opposed to pretty much any other private business concern is the fact that the NFL is a monopoly. Players have a short shelf life, and the NFL's the only game in town. So if there's any leverage in these negotiations, it would seem to rest with the owners.
If the stalemate gets really bad, I suppose the players could all chip in and start a pro league of their own. Wouldn't that be interesting?
If the two sides refuse to budge and there isn't a 2011 season, it will turn off the fans. People will get disgusted with both sides, seeing billionaires arguing with millionaires over a game. They'll find other sources of entertainment for the lost NFL season, and may not come back when the league finally opens for business next year.
Sure, I'll miss the NFL if the lockout stretches through this coming season. But all I have to do is switch my attention to other things, like high school and college football, which are much more deserving of my attention anyway.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
If I Were Liberal
I'd be extremely upset with my president right now.
He failed to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison.
He failed to raise taxes on the rich.
He passed a disastrous healthcare bill that failed to deliver universal, medicare-style healthcare for every citizen.
He took his sweet time winding down the Iraq war with policies undistinguishable from the evil Bush.
He failed to push through Card Check, and now newly elected Republican state governors and legislators are moving to destroy what's left of our labor unions.
He failed to pass meaningful environmental laws, especially Cap & Trade, and with $4 gas returning it may be too late.
He failed to naturalize the 12 million or so illegal immigrants and open the border, and now there might not be enough votes out there to keep Republicans from taking over completely next year.
He failed to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Now the economy is destroyed and he's being blamed, but things would be getting much better if only he'd just been bolder with our agenda.
Now the Republicans just might succeed in defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and maybe even much of the EPA, which will be a horrible disaster for us.
Worst of all, he just committed us to war against Libya without even asking Congress for their opinion. At least Bush went to Congress for permission before he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (even though as a liberal I would still believe he lied to them to get that permission).
Must be tough to be a liberal these days.
He failed to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison.
He failed to raise taxes on the rich.
He passed a disastrous healthcare bill that failed to deliver universal, medicare-style healthcare for every citizen.
He took his sweet time winding down the Iraq war with policies undistinguishable from the evil Bush.
He failed to push through Card Check, and now newly elected Republican state governors and legislators are moving to destroy what's left of our labor unions.
He failed to pass meaningful environmental laws, especially Cap & Trade, and with $4 gas returning it may be too late.
He failed to naturalize the 12 million or so illegal immigrants and open the border, and now there might not be enough votes out there to keep Republicans from taking over completely next year.
He failed to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Now the economy is destroyed and he's being blamed, but things would be getting much better if only he'd just been bolder with our agenda.
Now the Republicans just might succeed in defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and maybe even much of the EPA, which will be a horrible disaster for us.
Worst of all, he just committed us to war against Libya without even asking Congress for their opinion. At least Bush went to Congress for permission before he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (even though as a liberal I would still believe he lied to them to get that permission).
Must be tough to be a liberal these days.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Redistricting
Some recent stories have helped explain why the Indiana Democrats still won't return to the statehouse. Apparently their tactic is focused on more than union issues; they also are seeking a way to stop the Indiana assembly from completing their once-a-decade job of redistricting the state's congressional seats.
The last decade's redistricting task was completed with the Democrats in charge. All it takes is a glance at the map to understand the degree of gerrymandering that took place last time around.
Districts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were designed to be "safe" Democrat districts. But the backlash election in 2010 had the effect of moving the more moderate 8th and 9th districts back into the Republican column.
What are the Republicans promising to do this time around? Eliminate gerrymandering and keep communities together, stopping the practice of splitting cities by drawing lines in the same town to maximize the possibility of creating a "safe" Democrat congressional seat.
Republicans announced a series of open meetings across the state to get people's input on the new district lines. They've hired outside consultants to help them draw the lines with the stated purpose of eliminating partisan advantage and keeping communities together in the same district.
On its face, it sounds completely reasonable, and it's certainly transparent. But Democrats are going to fight to the bitter end to stop it from happening. Apparently because they believe this approach puts them at a disadvantage.
They will argue that their gerrymandering gives their constituencies (presumably poor, minorities, and urbanites) a better chance to be represented in congress, because a partisan-blind district boundary subjects Indiana to what they see as a tyranny of the majority. In making this argument, they seem to be admitting that the majority of Hoosiers live on the Center-Right side of the political spectrum.
It's a very simple and fundamental question: Is it fair to draw districts without any attempt to engineer a desired political outcome, or is it fair to "protect" minorities by drawing districts that allow them to send one of "their own" to congress?
I'm sort of offended by the idea that anyone needs to be "protected", and especially that any group of citizens would look at things in terms of being represented by "one of their own". How paternalistic and condescending can some folks get?
Would the Democrats currently hiding out in plain sight in Illinois prefer the Republicans create their own gerrymandered districts to cut the Democrat advantage down from, say, 5 to 3 "safe Democrat" districts? Either way, they should be making their arguments from Indianapolis instead of continuing their game of hide and seek in Illinois.
The last decade's redistricting task was completed with the Democrats in charge. All it takes is a glance at the map to understand the degree of gerrymandering that took place last time around.
Districts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were designed to be "safe" Democrat districts. But the backlash election in 2010 had the effect of moving the more moderate 8th and 9th districts back into the Republican column.
What are the Republicans promising to do this time around? Eliminate gerrymandering and keep communities together, stopping the practice of splitting cities by drawing lines in the same town to maximize the possibility of creating a "safe" Democrat congressional seat.
Republicans announced a series of open meetings across the state to get people's input on the new district lines. They've hired outside consultants to help them draw the lines with the stated purpose of eliminating partisan advantage and keeping communities together in the same district.
On its face, it sounds completely reasonable, and it's certainly transparent. But Democrats are going to fight to the bitter end to stop it from happening. Apparently because they believe this approach puts them at a disadvantage.
They will argue that their gerrymandering gives their constituencies (presumably poor, minorities, and urbanites) a better chance to be represented in congress, because a partisan-blind district boundary subjects Indiana to what they see as a tyranny of the majority. In making this argument, they seem to be admitting that the majority of Hoosiers live on the Center-Right side of the political spectrum.
It's a very simple and fundamental question: Is it fair to draw districts without any attempt to engineer a desired political outcome, or is it fair to "protect" minorities by drawing districts that allow them to send one of "their own" to congress?
I'm sort of offended by the idea that anyone needs to be "protected", and especially that any group of citizens would look at things in terms of being represented by "one of their own". How paternalistic and condescending can some folks get?
Would the Democrats currently hiding out in plain sight in Illinois prefer the Republicans create their own gerrymandered districts to cut the Democrat advantage down from, say, 5 to 3 "safe Democrat" districts? Either way, they should be making their arguments from Indianapolis instead of continuing their game of hide and seek in Illinois.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
When the Leader Can't Lead
There's an undercurrent surrounding the meltdowns around the world, from the literal one in Japan to the figurative ones in the Middle East and a growing number of states here at home. The underlying theme is the palpable lack of leadership from the one person we normally expect to step forward - our country's President.
In Japan, while the historic earthquake and accompanying tsunami devastated their island, our President was playing golf and thinking about his NCAA brackets. His traditional Saturday radio address was phoned in from before the disaster so he could take the weekend off, and was just about one of the Left's favorite topics - equal pay for women.
The pattern is more important than the appearance that he cares more about his tee time, getting on ESPN to share his basketball tournament picks, vacationing in Rio, and throwing bones to the left-wing base than about stepping up to help solve the world's problems. The pattern is clear and undeniable.
Egypt and Syria: He cheered the ouster of Mubarak in Eqypt, but did nothing about it other than express his support after it became apparent that the protesters would succeed. Likewise, he's stated that Gaddafi must go, but has done nothing to help make it happen. Regardless whether it was a good idea to support the rebels in Libya, he failed miserably in even the simple expression of a comprehendable policy on the matter.
Japan's Nuclear Problem: He sent the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. He promised to help with shipping relief and nuclear engineers. He expressed condolences. But Japan desperately needs help with those melting reactor cores, while the President's actions implicitly communicate that it's not his problem. A true leader would have recruited and appointed the best nuclear scientist to head up a team to go help Japan solve the problem, backed up by every piece of technology they require. He would have started building this team as soon as the disaster happened (giving up his tee time to do so), and immediately met with Japan's Prime Minister and the Power Company to pave the way for his team of experts to hit the ground running.
Growing Strife at Home: From the budget fight to the individual state battles, one might call what he's done leadership. That is, if you consider fanning the flames of protest by directing his PAC, Organizing for America, and affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org to load up busloads of folks and pay them minimum wage to go protest in what's now something like 8 states and growing. A true leader would put his partisanship aside and travel to each of these states to invite the statehouse Republican and Democrat combatants and attempt to serve as a peacemaker, trying to help find the middle ground that helps them solve their problems. A true leader would have put out a federal budget proposal that takes deficit reduction seriously, but he chose instead to send a budget that makes it far worse. Then he has been conspicuously absent from the debate, basically telling congress to give him what he wants or he'll use the veto pen.
Energy: The alarming run-up in energy cost seems to fit his agenda, as he strongly suggests $4 gas is a good thing, because it somehow will help us accelerate our transition to "clean and renewable energy". Only the far left would consider his action (or inaction) on this problem leadership. He arguably has worked hard to make sure abundant North American energy sources including oil, coal, and natural gas are shut down. It would seem he's immune or uncaring about the economic disaster these rising energy costs and associated food costs is already taking form.
We desperately need a leader. 2012 may be too late to find one.
In Japan, while the historic earthquake and accompanying tsunami devastated their island, our President was playing golf and thinking about his NCAA brackets. His traditional Saturday radio address was phoned in from before the disaster so he could take the weekend off, and was just about one of the Left's favorite topics - equal pay for women.
The pattern is more important than the appearance that he cares more about his tee time, getting on ESPN to share his basketball tournament picks, vacationing in Rio, and throwing bones to the left-wing base than about stepping up to help solve the world's problems. The pattern is clear and undeniable.
Egypt and Syria: He cheered the ouster of Mubarak in Eqypt, but did nothing about it other than express his support after it became apparent that the protesters would succeed. Likewise, he's stated that Gaddafi must go, but has done nothing to help make it happen. Regardless whether it was a good idea to support the rebels in Libya, he failed miserably in even the simple expression of a comprehendable policy on the matter.
Japan's Nuclear Problem: He sent the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. He promised to help with shipping relief and nuclear engineers. He expressed condolences. But Japan desperately needs help with those melting reactor cores, while the President's actions implicitly communicate that it's not his problem. A true leader would have recruited and appointed the best nuclear scientist to head up a team to go help Japan solve the problem, backed up by every piece of technology they require. He would have started building this team as soon as the disaster happened (giving up his tee time to do so), and immediately met with Japan's Prime Minister and the Power Company to pave the way for his team of experts to hit the ground running.
Growing Strife at Home: From the budget fight to the individual state battles, one might call what he's done leadership. That is, if you consider fanning the flames of protest by directing his PAC, Organizing for America, and affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org to load up busloads of folks and pay them minimum wage to go protest in what's now something like 8 states and growing. A true leader would put his partisanship aside and travel to each of these states to invite the statehouse Republican and Democrat combatants and attempt to serve as a peacemaker, trying to help find the middle ground that helps them solve their problems. A true leader would have put out a federal budget proposal that takes deficit reduction seriously, but he chose instead to send a budget that makes it far worse. Then he has been conspicuously absent from the debate, basically telling congress to give him what he wants or he'll use the veto pen.
Energy: The alarming run-up in energy cost seems to fit his agenda, as he strongly suggests $4 gas is a good thing, because it somehow will help us accelerate our transition to "clean and renewable energy". Only the far left would consider his action (or inaction) on this problem leadership. He arguably has worked hard to make sure abundant North American energy sources including oil, coal, and natural gas are shut down. It would seem he's immune or uncaring about the economic disaster these rising energy costs and associated food costs is already taking form.
We desperately need a leader. 2012 may be too late to find one.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Purpose of Polls
We can't watch a news program or ready an article without being fed poll results. Polls turn out not to be so much about gauging people's attitudes and opinions and more about influencing those attitudes and opinions.
It's all in the questions asked. Just look at the recent fight in Wisconsin. At issue, should government employees have the "right" to collective bargaining?
So the "pro" side on collective bargaining (read Democrats) run out and poll everyone, asking the generic question something along the lines of "Do you support a right of workers to form a union for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits, and working conditions?"
Most people, something around 80 percent if I caught the poll results right, said yes. To the specific question above, I'm part of the 80 percent as well. But when the Democrats trumpet the 80 percent as proof of universal approval on the side of the public employee unions, they're wrong. Because after careful consideration and study of the underlying facts, I concluded that Wisconsin is doing the right thing.
The other side cites similar numbers when asking the public questions about whether it's reasonable for government to ask their employees to contribute something from their own paychecks to their pensions and health insurance.
Polls are used as sort of a bludgeon to convince average people that they must support the teachers' union because if they don't, they must belong to the 20 percent of idiots who don't support a right to collective bargaining. Or the flip side will tell average people that if they support collective bargaining for teachers, their government will go bankrupt while teachers live like leeches in a cushy Florida retirement condo.
The polls themselves are highly effective tools used by both parties to influence public sentiment, ultimately so those behind the polls can gain and keep power. It leads me to think that maybe it's time for the general public to end the manipulation.
A suggestion for a new movement - the anti-manipulative pollster movement. Whenever you get called by a pollster and given a question that's obviously crafted to elicit a response that can be used to support a political agenda, just say no. Refuse to participate unless asked a relevant question.
At least it will skew the results enough that it might discourage irresponsible polling.
It's all in the questions asked. Just look at the recent fight in Wisconsin. At issue, should government employees have the "right" to collective bargaining?
So the "pro" side on collective bargaining (read Democrats) run out and poll everyone, asking the generic question something along the lines of "Do you support a right of workers to form a union for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits, and working conditions?"
Most people, something around 80 percent if I caught the poll results right, said yes. To the specific question above, I'm part of the 80 percent as well. But when the Democrats trumpet the 80 percent as proof of universal approval on the side of the public employee unions, they're wrong. Because after careful consideration and study of the underlying facts, I concluded that Wisconsin is doing the right thing.
The other side cites similar numbers when asking the public questions about whether it's reasonable for government to ask their employees to contribute something from their own paychecks to their pensions and health insurance.
Polls are used as sort of a bludgeon to convince average people that they must support the teachers' union because if they don't, they must belong to the 20 percent of idiots who don't support a right to collective bargaining. Or the flip side will tell average people that if they support collective bargaining for teachers, their government will go bankrupt while teachers live like leeches in a cushy Florida retirement condo.
The polls themselves are highly effective tools used by both parties to influence public sentiment, ultimately so those behind the polls can gain and keep power. It leads me to think that maybe it's time for the general public to end the manipulation.
A suggestion for a new movement - the anti-manipulative pollster movement. Whenever you get called by a pollster and given a question that's obviously crafted to elicit a response that can be used to support a political agenda, just say no. Refuse to participate unless asked a relevant question.
At least it will skew the results enough that it might discourage irresponsible polling.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Arguing with a Democrat
Its rare when I actually have a discussion of politics with a Democrat, but did so over the weekend. The experience was enlightening, if painful. Enlightening not in the sense I was won over - far from it, but painful in the sense that if you want to maintain a pleasant relationship with someone who lives on Democrat Island, it's probably best to avoid the subject of politics.
First and foremost, a Democrat lives on their feelings and perceptions, and perhaps most surprising to me is fiercely loyal to their party. Democrats feel things deeply, and it seems that's the primary reason they choose to be Democrats. They believe with near-religious fervor that their party is the only hope for the poor and middle class, and Republicans are evil Barons bent on acquiring obscene levels of wealth without the slightest regard to and at the expense of their fellow man.
If I believed all that, I suppose I'd be a Democrat too. But I don't because I'm intensely curious, analytical, and my life is ruled by studying the facts and making what I believe to be reasoned conclusions. And I'm not at all loyal to Republicans, which seems to be something a Democrat can't understand about me.
Some of the things my Democrat friend tried very hard to convince me:
Why we had $4 gas a few years ago? Bush taking care of his cronies in the oil companies. Why is it back to $4 now? Same greedy evil oil companies. The GOP is just making it hard for Obama to break up the oil barons' club.
What was the Iraq war all about? Bush's gift to his oil industry buddies, especially Halliburton.
Opinion of the Democrats fleeing to Illinois from Wisconsin and Indiana? Enthusiastic support. If the evil Republicans get their way, we'll be back to 80 hour workweeks in unsafe sweatshops for only a few bucks a day, maybe even child labor.
What caused the financial collapse? Greedy bankers. And Republican government giving incentives to industries to move their operations offshore.
How to solve the budget crisis? Tax the greedy bankers and greedy oil companies.
Bill Clinton's impeachment? A trumped-up vendetta orchestrated by evil Republicans who wanted payback for Nixon. (That one really blew my mind).
When I tried to suggest that these simplistic and fantastic theories were not supported by the facts, unfortunately I offended my Democrat friend. Even though this friend had just finished informing me that I have been brainwashed by some right-wing propaganda machine and there are two sides to every story, my response attempting to offer some factual evidence to refute or leaven some of these opinions was taken as condescension.
My biggest revelations in the conversation were two:
A Democrat has a self image that says something like, "I'm right, you're evil". Notice in the litany above that every belief included a reference to an evil, greedy Republican, or Oil Company, or Banker. There's this sort of black and white, us versus them mentality. I'm sure there is some of this mentality on the Right, but I haven't encountered it nearly to the level of this Democrat or those on TV.
A Democrat finds facts irritating and irrelevant. Introducing factual information as an attempt to introduce some reason to the argument was the point that induced offense. Facts are discarded as mere right-wing propaganda.
Something that is consistent nearly every time I hear a Democrat speak about an issue is that they are more likely to demonize the proponents of the other side of the issue than to present strong arguments for their side. My failure to engage any discussion of a specific issue without having my friend move immediately off the topic to demonize someone on their hit list seems to have proven the point.
The thing that concerns me after my conversation is the use of offense to shut off the conversation. Like Democrats did in Wisconsin and Indiana, when they stop communicating and charge the others with being offensive, it's impossible to arrive at common ground.
You see, this Democrat might be surprised to find we agree far more than we disagree. Is there corruption and greed in the world? Of course there is. Does that make all conservatives corrupt and greedy? Does that suggest that Democrats are never greedy or corrupt? That's ridiculous.
What I prefer is to talk about solutions. I don't want to argue about Whether Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon, or Obama more than Bush. A Democrat will defend Obama to the end, while I don't care to defend Bush except when the charge is false or unfair. I took issue with many Bush policies, but take issue with nearly all Obama policies. Those differences aren't because of party affiliation or the slant by the media, and certainly not race. They're based solely on my study of those policies which led to a sincere belief that those policies do terrible harm to our country.
The Democrat thinks it's the job of the Federal government to take care of people. I think it's the job of government to protect people from fraud and harm, but that it's the responsibility of people to take care of each other.
Such is the essence of the difference between the Democrat and me.
First and foremost, a Democrat lives on their feelings and perceptions, and perhaps most surprising to me is fiercely loyal to their party. Democrats feel things deeply, and it seems that's the primary reason they choose to be Democrats. They believe with near-religious fervor that their party is the only hope for the poor and middle class, and Republicans are evil Barons bent on acquiring obscene levels of wealth without the slightest regard to and at the expense of their fellow man.
If I believed all that, I suppose I'd be a Democrat too. But I don't because I'm intensely curious, analytical, and my life is ruled by studying the facts and making what I believe to be reasoned conclusions. And I'm not at all loyal to Republicans, which seems to be something a Democrat can't understand about me.
Some of the things my Democrat friend tried very hard to convince me:
Why we had $4 gas a few years ago? Bush taking care of his cronies in the oil companies. Why is it back to $4 now? Same greedy evil oil companies. The GOP is just making it hard for Obama to break up the oil barons' club.
What was the Iraq war all about? Bush's gift to his oil industry buddies, especially Halliburton.
Opinion of the Democrats fleeing to Illinois from Wisconsin and Indiana? Enthusiastic support. If the evil Republicans get their way, we'll be back to 80 hour workweeks in unsafe sweatshops for only a few bucks a day, maybe even child labor.
What caused the financial collapse? Greedy bankers. And Republican government giving incentives to industries to move their operations offshore.
How to solve the budget crisis? Tax the greedy bankers and greedy oil companies.
Bill Clinton's impeachment? A trumped-up vendetta orchestrated by evil Republicans who wanted payback for Nixon. (That one really blew my mind).
When I tried to suggest that these simplistic and fantastic theories were not supported by the facts, unfortunately I offended my Democrat friend. Even though this friend had just finished informing me that I have been brainwashed by some right-wing propaganda machine and there are two sides to every story, my response attempting to offer some factual evidence to refute or leaven some of these opinions was taken as condescension.
My biggest revelations in the conversation were two:
A Democrat has a self image that says something like, "I'm right, you're evil". Notice in the litany above that every belief included a reference to an evil, greedy Republican, or Oil Company, or Banker. There's this sort of black and white, us versus them mentality. I'm sure there is some of this mentality on the Right, but I haven't encountered it nearly to the level of this Democrat or those on TV.
A Democrat finds facts irritating and irrelevant. Introducing factual information as an attempt to introduce some reason to the argument was the point that induced offense. Facts are discarded as mere right-wing propaganda.
Something that is consistent nearly every time I hear a Democrat speak about an issue is that they are more likely to demonize the proponents of the other side of the issue than to present strong arguments for their side. My failure to engage any discussion of a specific issue without having my friend move immediately off the topic to demonize someone on their hit list seems to have proven the point.
The thing that concerns me after my conversation is the use of offense to shut off the conversation. Like Democrats did in Wisconsin and Indiana, when they stop communicating and charge the others with being offensive, it's impossible to arrive at common ground.
You see, this Democrat might be surprised to find we agree far more than we disagree. Is there corruption and greed in the world? Of course there is. Does that make all conservatives corrupt and greedy? Does that suggest that Democrats are never greedy or corrupt? That's ridiculous.
What I prefer is to talk about solutions. I don't want to argue about Whether Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon, or Obama more than Bush. A Democrat will defend Obama to the end, while I don't care to defend Bush except when the charge is false or unfair. I took issue with many Bush policies, but take issue with nearly all Obama policies. Those differences aren't because of party affiliation or the slant by the media, and certainly not race. They're based solely on my study of those policies which led to a sincere belief that those policies do terrible harm to our country.
The Democrat thinks it's the job of the Federal government to take care of people. I think it's the job of government to protect people from fraud and harm, but that it's the responsibility of people to take care of each other.
Such is the essence of the difference between the Democrat and me.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Rational Conclusions
Indiana Democrats decided to follow Wisconsin's example and fled to Illinois in protest of the Republican's introduction of a Right to Work law. Indiana's issue isn't the same as Wisconsin's, even though both involve unions.
There's been plenty of time and plenty of available information for the rest of us to understand the nature of the conflict. My own evolution of understanding has followed a path which started with some agreement with both sides, but ended with solid support of the right (or Right) side.
Allow me to share my analysis of some of the arguments.
Wisconsin's budget bill features a change in the relationship between the state and the teachers union. That's why the Democrats fled to Illinois, and that's why the Wisconsin state house has looked more like Eqypt than America the last couple of weeks.
The teachers union argues that they've already agreed to the governor's proposed increases in their contribution levels to their health insurance and pension. Therefore, they argue, there's no need to "take away their collective bargaining rights".
On its face, the argument seems reasonable. If they union will agree to adjustments in their contracts to help solve the state's budget crisis, then why take the extra step of cutting back on their bargaining power?
First of all, contrary to the message most of us get from the nightly news, the governor isn't disbanding the teacher's union. Nor is it accurate to characterize the bill as "taking away collective bargaining rights". What the bill actually proposes is to limit collective bargaining to wages only, letting the state set benefits. It also allows each teacher a choice whether or not they wish to be represented by the union.
That second change, shared with Indiana and generally called "Right to Work", is anathema to unions everywhere, both public and private sector. Because the unions believe that if rank and file employees are permitted to make their own choices on union membership, many of them will say "no thanks".
According to one of the articles I've read on the subject, unions grab between $800 and $1200 per year from their members, through direct payroll deductions. Young teachers especially have a hard time parting with that much in dues, which could be 4 or 5 percent of their income. So whether or not Governor Walker and the Indiana GOP are targeting closed shops out of a clear end-game objective of killing the unions altogether, it is fair to assume such a law will make it much more difficult for union leaders to keep their organization intact.
I have never begrudged the idea that people could get together as a group to negotiate better pay and working conditions with their employer. That fundamental principle has seemed to be a positive development for folks in the past, helping make workplaces safer, wages better, and helped establish the 40-hour workweek.
But today's unions don't seem to be in business for those basic purposes. The mob moved in to make unions their own personal piggy banks, and it seems that may not have changed much. Today's major unions are the primary source of funds and political action for the Democrat party, to the point where an entire political party stands as the government representative of the union and bureaucrat class.
Why does Walker want to cut back on teacher's union power in his state? Because despite the union claims that they're willing to accept changes to their contracts to go along with his fiscal plans, their contracts aren't with the State. Their contracts are with their individual school districts. Walker's point is that the effect of the inextricable partnership between the Teacher's Union and the Democrat Party is that the school boards negotiating the contracts were put in place by the union, therefore the contract negotiation ends up the functional equivalent of the teachers union sitting down and writing the contract to fulfill its own desires.
If Walker and his GOP legislators back down and drop the union provisions from the bill, there's a high likelihood that many of the school boards still holding majorities of teachers union cronies will ignore the budgetary revisions and may keep or expand the existing contracts.
There's another way he might be able to accomplish his goals without the union bargaining provisions - just tie state education funding to local school districts to those school districts meeting the state's budgetary standards. But I understand and now basically support his goals.
Then there's the Right to Work issue in Indiana. What I suspect lots of Hoosiers don't know is the fact that that particular bill has already been pulled off the table, and apparently the governor has tried to appease the missing Democrat legislators by promising it won't be brought back this session.
So why are the Democrats still hiding out in Illinois? Because they want more. They are now demanding that 11 bills be taken down, some of which have already passed both houses. They're no longer using this tactic over the Right to Work issue, but have decided to make it a standard tactic to try to kill any and all bills they don't like. That's not good.
On Right to Work in general, my take is that closed union shops are unconstitutional. States like Indiana that permit closed union shops are in violation of Freedom of Association. I believe that if you talk about rights, there is no right for unions to force all workers in a company to join their organization as a prerequisite to holding a job with the company. Every worker should have the choice whether or not to belong to the union, and every union member should vote on their level of dues and how those dues are spent.
Those are the real freedom issues.
There's been plenty of time and plenty of available information for the rest of us to understand the nature of the conflict. My own evolution of understanding has followed a path which started with some agreement with both sides, but ended with solid support of the right (or Right) side.
Allow me to share my analysis of some of the arguments.
Wisconsin's budget bill features a change in the relationship between the state and the teachers union. That's why the Democrats fled to Illinois, and that's why the Wisconsin state house has looked more like Eqypt than America the last couple of weeks.
The teachers union argues that they've already agreed to the governor's proposed increases in their contribution levels to their health insurance and pension. Therefore, they argue, there's no need to "take away their collective bargaining rights".
On its face, the argument seems reasonable. If they union will agree to adjustments in their contracts to help solve the state's budget crisis, then why take the extra step of cutting back on their bargaining power?
First of all, contrary to the message most of us get from the nightly news, the governor isn't disbanding the teacher's union. Nor is it accurate to characterize the bill as "taking away collective bargaining rights". What the bill actually proposes is to limit collective bargaining to wages only, letting the state set benefits. It also allows each teacher a choice whether or not they wish to be represented by the union.
That second change, shared with Indiana and generally called "Right to Work", is anathema to unions everywhere, both public and private sector. Because the unions believe that if rank and file employees are permitted to make their own choices on union membership, many of them will say "no thanks".
According to one of the articles I've read on the subject, unions grab between $800 and $1200 per year from their members, through direct payroll deductions. Young teachers especially have a hard time parting with that much in dues, which could be 4 or 5 percent of their income. So whether or not Governor Walker and the Indiana GOP are targeting closed shops out of a clear end-game objective of killing the unions altogether, it is fair to assume such a law will make it much more difficult for union leaders to keep their organization intact.
I have never begrudged the idea that people could get together as a group to negotiate better pay and working conditions with their employer. That fundamental principle has seemed to be a positive development for folks in the past, helping make workplaces safer, wages better, and helped establish the 40-hour workweek.
But today's unions don't seem to be in business for those basic purposes. The mob moved in to make unions their own personal piggy banks, and it seems that may not have changed much. Today's major unions are the primary source of funds and political action for the Democrat party, to the point where an entire political party stands as the government representative of the union and bureaucrat class.
Why does Walker want to cut back on teacher's union power in his state? Because despite the union claims that they're willing to accept changes to their contracts to go along with his fiscal plans, their contracts aren't with the State. Their contracts are with their individual school districts. Walker's point is that the effect of the inextricable partnership between the Teacher's Union and the Democrat Party is that the school boards negotiating the contracts were put in place by the union, therefore the contract negotiation ends up the functional equivalent of the teachers union sitting down and writing the contract to fulfill its own desires.
If Walker and his GOP legislators back down and drop the union provisions from the bill, there's a high likelihood that many of the school boards still holding majorities of teachers union cronies will ignore the budgetary revisions and may keep or expand the existing contracts.
There's another way he might be able to accomplish his goals without the union bargaining provisions - just tie state education funding to local school districts to those school districts meeting the state's budgetary standards. But I understand and now basically support his goals.
Then there's the Right to Work issue in Indiana. What I suspect lots of Hoosiers don't know is the fact that that particular bill has already been pulled off the table, and apparently the governor has tried to appease the missing Democrat legislators by promising it won't be brought back this session.
So why are the Democrats still hiding out in Illinois? Because they want more. They are now demanding that 11 bills be taken down, some of which have already passed both houses. They're no longer using this tactic over the Right to Work issue, but have decided to make it a standard tactic to try to kill any and all bills they don't like. That's not good.
On Right to Work in general, my take is that closed union shops are unconstitutional. States like Indiana that permit closed union shops are in violation of Freedom of Association. I believe that if you talk about rights, there is no right for unions to force all workers in a company to join their organization as a prerequisite to holding a job with the company. Every worker should have the choice whether or not to belong to the union, and every union member should vote on their level of dues and how those dues are spent.
Those are the real freedom issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)