The purpose of this post has no particular point or statement to make, but instead is just to share some observations about race and diversity in the workplace.
In my capacity as a software consultant, I have the opportunity to visit lots of companies. While no substitute for a scientific study, my observations over the years do tend to indicate some general conclusions.
If I walk through a lunchroom in a plant, I can observe plenty of interesting social trends. In some places men tend to sit with men, women with women. But that's not consistently true - I've seen lunchrooms where there's no discernable division in the associations of men and women.
But there's certainly an observable racial trend. Here's what I've observed:
Where hispanics are mostly first-generation immigrants who may not have fully developed English language skills, they tend to self-segregate. But those folks of hispanic origin who may be native to the US are much more likely to be sitting with the white workers.
I notice that Asians are also not completely predictable in their associations, unless you separate them by country of origin. I observe that, say, Vietnamese are more likely to self-segregate in the lunchroom than those from Japan or Korea.
Black people often self-segregate, but not consistently. It's very common to see some black people mixing comfortably with the white and hispanic groups, while others continue to self-segregate. My working theory that's somewhat backed up by observation when I know a bit about the backgrounds of individuals is that the best identifiable factor in this trend is education level. It seems that college-educated black persons are more likely to feel comfortable interacting with the white and hispanic employees than those with less education.
I haven't observed any self-segregation by Indian immigrants; they generally seem to be making an effort to integrate with their co-workers. Although the Sikh immigrants may be an exception; but I haven't observed enough of that group to draw any specific conclusions.
White groups I don't find exclusive to their own race. In fact, they seem quite open and welcoming to anyone who would like to join them, regardless of race or national origin. Certainly there are exceptions with specific white cliques, but they seem to be exclusive more from a resistance to shuffling long-established relationships than from a racial bias.
Of course, I have never observed any open conflict or hostility between groups. People tend to hang out with other people with whom they feel comfortable. It's hard to be comfortable when there's a language barrier and cultural differences, which seems a good explanation for the self-segregation I see with Southeast Asians and first-generation hispanic immigrants.
Certainly the main trend I have noticed over the years is the significant increase in the population of immigrants in nearly all workplaces. It's fascinating to see the number of employees born in America, regardless of race, shrinking significantly while the population of immigrant employees has exploded. That trend is commonly celebrated as a virtue by most companies - but I struggle to identify exactly what's virtuous about importing folks from outside the country to fill your open positions while millions of American citizens can't find work.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
What More Evidence Do People Need?
Every single year on the 9/11 anniversary the Islamists have tried to hit us with terrorist strikes. This year they succeeded. President Obama and his State Department were asleep, and Americans were killed or nearly killed by Islamists in Egypt and Libya.
There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works. But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings. We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East.
Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond. So others responded. Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration. Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.
Or maybe a little of both. Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence. Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.
This is what they call the Arab Spring?
What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?
There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works. But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings. We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East.
Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond. So others responded. Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration. Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.
Or maybe a little of both. Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence. Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.
This is what they call the Arab Spring?
What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?
Chuck Norris Told Me to
Go see the movie, 'Last Ounce of Courage'. Who am I to ignore Chuck Norris?
So I saw it last night. Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie. It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects. It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.
Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region. In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith. The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.
The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.
The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing. The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.
Do I endorse this film? Sure. Everybody should see it. Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it. But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.
So I saw it last night. Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie. It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects. It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.
Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region. In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith. The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.
The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.
The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing. The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.
Do I endorse this film? Sure. Everybody should see it. Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it. But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Conspiracy Theories
I've been hearing lots of conspiracy theories from people I know who are completely turned off by the political scene. It's hard to blame them, and occasionally their theories even seem plausible. Here are a few recent theories I've been hearing.
The presidential election is meaningless. The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show. The fix is in. Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory. With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.
Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything. Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding. I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.
Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs. They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted. The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats. He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.
I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers. The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians. But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.
A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela. All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate. Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?
Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America! Why not? If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?
Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory). But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.
So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:
1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised
I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.
The presidential election is meaningless. The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show. The fix is in. Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory. With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.
Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything. Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding. I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.
Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs. They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted. The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats. He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.
I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers. The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians. But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.
A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela. All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate. Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?
Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America! Why not? If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?
Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory). But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.
So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:
1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised
I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Our Choice is For or Against God
The disgusting DNC spectacle that took place when they decided to push through the re-insertion of God and Jerusalem into their platform hit me with the realization that this year our country decides whether we're for or against God.
Republicans represent the "pro" side.
Democrats represent the "anti" side.
There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.
Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.
Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.
The choice has never been more stark. Certainly in my lifetime. Most likely in the history of this republic.
And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win. If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?
Republicans represent the "pro" side.
Democrats represent the "anti" side.
There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.
Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.
Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.
The choice has never been more stark. Certainly in my lifetime. Most likely in the history of this republic.
And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win. If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Brilliant
This brilliant comment about Sandra Fluke at the Democrat Convention comes from Mark Steyn:
"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."
The emperor has no clothes.
"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."
The emperor has no clothes.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Here's to Ignoring the DNC
I haven't heard a single speech. I haven't watched any network or cable convention coverage. So how did I still manage to pick up on these little tidbits?
The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform. They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform. This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.
Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents. But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram. Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will. If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.
The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers. I wonder who's teaching their classes back home? Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention. I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate? Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare? How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"
Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech. Apparently it was so moving they cried. This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion. All heart and no brains.
Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?
The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform. They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform. This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.
Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents. But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram. Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will. If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.
The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers. I wonder who's teaching their classes back home? Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention. I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate? Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare? How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"
Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech. Apparently it was so moving they cried. This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion. All heart and no brains.
Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Hiding from the News this Week
For the sake of my blood pressure, I'm going to avoid the news this week. The DNC agenda appears to be packed with speakers who will extol modern Democrat party values, which nearly all inspire only nausea for this Christian Conservative.
It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.
I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents. I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie. I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush". Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".
For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails. Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride. I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me. Soon there will be no safe place left to go.
It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.
I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents. I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie. I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush". Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".
For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails. Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride. I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me. Soon there will be no safe place left to go.
Friday, August 31, 2012
RNC Observations
It was encouraging and uplifting to hear people like Mia Love, Ann Romney, Rick Santorum, Artur Davis, Condoleeza Rice, Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, and some others speak this week. It was disappointing and discouraging to observe the media as they experienced a desperate meltdown and scrambled to demand that their viewers ignore all those lying people.
Paul Ryan is my superstar among the leading characters in the GOP. The proof that his speech was pitch-perfect was found in the media attempts to attack him as a liar. Only the Left-Wing media's manufactured "fact-checkers" turned out to be lying themselves about Ryan's reported whopper about the GM plan closing in Janesville.
MSNBC's "dog whistle" theme was proved to be merely a desperate ploy to paint the entire party as racist, based on ... nothing. I spent a short time looking in on MSNBC after the speeches just out of curiosity to observe their "analysis". Rather than analysis, I saw the Obama Campaign volunteer staff members who masquerade as journalists try to stop themselves from screaming in frustration and desperation, because they knew Obama's presidency was being systematically destroyed and they were powerless to stop it.
The MSNBC themes that accused republicans of racism and sexism were soundly refuted simply by the outstanding messages delivered by Love, Martinez, Rice, and Martinez, and Davis. The party members proved the snarky commentators from Obama's House Network to be fools. It was so silly and juvenile that the network chose not to televise any of the speeches given by those folks so they could pretend they didn't exist. As if people wouldn't catch on.
Clint Eastwood's appearance as the convention's mystery guest was interesting. He was funny and modestly entertaining, but I thought his presentation seemed off-the-cuff and unrehearsed.
Mitt Romney himself delivered an acceptance speech that wasn't terrible, but it certainly was a bit anticlimactic. That's OK with me; I'd rather have a solid but non-charismatic president who can get the job done than a soaring speaker who promises to cure disease and lower the sea levels then does nothing but funnel money and goodies to his cronies while our country circles the drain.
Paul Ryan is my superstar among the leading characters in the GOP. The proof that his speech was pitch-perfect was found in the media attempts to attack him as a liar. Only the Left-Wing media's manufactured "fact-checkers" turned out to be lying themselves about Ryan's reported whopper about the GM plan closing in Janesville.
MSNBC's "dog whistle" theme was proved to be merely a desperate ploy to paint the entire party as racist, based on ... nothing. I spent a short time looking in on MSNBC after the speeches just out of curiosity to observe their "analysis". Rather than analysis, I saw the Obama Campaign volunteer staff members who masquerade as journalists try to stop themselves from screaming in frustration and desperation, because they knew Obama's presidency was being systematically destroyed and they were powerless to stop it.
The MSNBC themes that accused republicans of racism and sexism were soundly refuted simply by the outstanding messages delivered by Love, Martinez, Rice, and Martinez, and Davis. The party members proved the snarky commentators from Obama's House Network to be fools. It was so silly and juvenile that the network chose not to televise any of the speeches given by those folks so they could pretend they didn't exist. As if people wouldn't catch on.
Clint Eastwood's appearance as the convention's mystery guest was interesting. He was funny and modestly entertaining, but I thought his presentation seemed off-the-cuff and unrehearsed.
Mitt Romney himself delivered an acceptance speech that wasn't terrible, but it certainly was a bit anticlimactic. That's OK with me; I'd rather have a solid but non-charismatic president who can get the job done than a soaring speaker who promises to cure disease and lower the sea levels then does nothing but funnel money and goodies to his cronies while our country circles the drain.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
What if the Fact Checkers Lie?
For several weeks now, I've been hearing Democrats and their media sycophants incessant whines that the evil Romney campaign keeps lying about Obama's efforts to single-handedly invalidate the welfare reform law that is a source of pride for republicans from 1996.
It continued at the convention with Rick Santorum's speech. After the evening's speeches ended with Ann Romney and Chris Christie's impressive performances, I stumbled across Andrea Mitchell getting a microphone into Santorum's face to accuse him of lying in his speech about the welfare work requirements being removed by Obama. After the ambush of Santorum, she and anchor Rachel Maddow commisserated about the gall of right-wing extremists like Santorum and the rest of the republicans to continue pounding such an outright lie. For them, "everybody knows" it's not true that Obama removed the work requirements from welfare.
The interesting thing that's happened in this campaign is that the Left has created their own "fact-checkers" who turn out to be partisan crusaders for Obama and publish Obama campaign talking points while calling them "facts", then get quoted as the authorities on who's telling the truth in the campaign. Of course, somehow actual lies from the Obama campaign team are buried, ignored, or explained away, while mere disagreements with Romney campaign rhetoric are inflated into outrageous and dishonest lies.
Where to go to find the truth about the welfare issue? I've knocked around the internet now and then in search of facts, but until this morning failed to find any honest account. Surely, if Obama wants to claim it's a lie, there must be some underlying story that he could point to that explains the misunderstanding or distortion. But no such defense of fact could be found.
Until today. The first time I've seen anything that tells the underlying story comes from Ann Coulter.
Sure, Ann's a major partisan figure on the right, and is known for her satirical approach in trying to expose what she sees as Democrat foolishness. If you follow the link to her article, she explains what happened and why the Left built a very thin cover story through faux fact-checkers in an attempt to mislead the public.
If somebody out there believes they have factual evidence to the contrary of Ann's piece that proves Obama and Sebelius are not destroying the 1996 welfare reform law, I'd love to see it. Of course, don't bother if your approach is to try to invalidate her by trying to refute her satirical suggestions such as the one about exempting welfare recipients so they can spend their time "playing XBox and eating Doritos". Nobody thinks that's an actual qualification for receiving a work exemption, so don't even try.
It continued at the convention with Rick Santorum's speech. After the evening's speeches ended with Ann Romney and Chris Christie's impressive performances, I stumbled across Andrea Mitchell getting a microphone into Santorum's face to accuse him of lying in his speech about the welfare work requirements being removed by Obama. After the ambush of Santorum, she and anchor Rachel Maddow commisserated about the gall of right-wing extremists like Santorum and the rest of the republicans to continue pounding such an outright lie. For them, "everybody knows" it's not true that Obama removed the work requirements from welfare.
The interesting thing that's happened in this campaign is that the Left has created their own "fact-checkers" who turn out to be partisan crusaders for Obama and publish Obama campaign talking points while calling them "facts", then get quoted as the authorities on who's telling the truth in the campaign. Of course, somehow actual lies from the Obama campaign team are buried, ignored, or explained away, while mere disagreements with Romney campaign rhetoric are inflated into outrageous and dishonest lies.
Where to go to find the truth about the welfare issue? I've knocked around the internet now and then in search of facts, but until this morning failed to find any honest account. Surely, if Obama wants to claim it's a lie, there must be some underlying story that he could point to that explains the misunderstanding or distortion. But no such defense of fact could be found.
Until today. The first time I've seen anything that tells the underlying story comes from Ann Coulter.
Sure, Ann's a major partisan figure on the right, and is known for her satirical approach in trying to expose what she sees as Democrat foolishness. If you follow the link to her article, she explains what happened and why the Left built a very thin cover story through faux fact-checkers in an attempt to mislead the public.
If somebody out there believes they have factual evidence to the contrary of Ann's piece that proves Obama and Sebelius are not destroying the 1996 welfare reform law, I'd love to see it. Of course, don't bother if your approach is to try to invalidate her by trying to refute her satirical suggestions such as the one about exempting welfare recipients so they can spend their time "playing XBox and eating Doritos". Nobody thinks that's an actual qualification for receiving a work exemption, so don't even try.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
2016: Obama's America Reviewed
Last night I decided to go catch the timely bio-documentary on Obama called "2016: Obama's America". Before settling into my seat in the theater, I resolved to view it with a critical eye, since I could be reasonably considered a member of the choir prepared to receive Dinesh D'Sousa's anti-Obama sermon.
Expecting a partisan hatchet job against the president, I was a bit surprised to find the film had nothing close to a partisan tone. It treated the president respectfully and approached the narrative more as an attempt to understand who he is and where his policy priorities come from, rather than Michael Moore-style disdain a la Farenheit 911.
The film was compellingly shot and paced, and very well done. It wasn't too long, and avoided preaching about why Obama's policies have been so destructive to our country. D'Souza instead introduced the film by explaining that he found himself puzzled by Obama's policy priorities after he achieved office on such a positive platform of unity, "Hope and Change".
D'Souza travels to Hawaii, Kenya, and Indonesia in a quest to understand the roots of Obama's personal philosophy, following the president's own autobiography as a guidebook. The host concludes through his studies of Obama's history and interviews with his family members that the president is driven by a desire to prove himself worthy of the father that abandoned him by achieving the United States presidency and rolling back the American legacy of colonial exploitation of the third world.
Angry critics from the Left have of course used vicious attacks on D'Souza's motives, some of which were excerpted near the end of the film. I read an AP review that trashed the film today by picking apart minor theories from D'Souza that tied Obama's attitudes on some specific issues to his father's. The AP reporter's approach was to try to invalidate the entire documentary by suggesting he made some of those up ("There is no evidence that Obama believes ...."). The story also tries to argue against some of the assertions among the litany of problems that have been created by Obama's administration, such as arguing that his suggestion that Obamacare will cost a trillion dollars over the next decade (a right-wing lie). It fails to even address the basic message of the film, which is that Obama was raised in a radical family, attracted to radical leftists who became his mentors and supporters, and truly believes he can and must transform America into a less wealthy, unthreatening member of the family of nations.
Personally, I found the brief scene of D'Souza interviewing a psychologist about the effect of parental abandonment on the psyche of children pretty much useless and unnecessary. Although some of his conclusions about Obama policies based on "Dreams from my Father" are not evident, I tend to believe they are consistent with what we've seen in his first term and the attitudes he has projected throughout the past 3 years.
Ultimately, I don't believe it's accurate to describe this film as "Anti-Obama". D'Souza never engages in gratuitous partisanship and is never disrespectful to the president. He actually shows what I took to be sincere empathy for Obama's life experience and understanding about how he reached his adult attitudes and political beliefs. In the end, he simply suggests that he doesn't believe Obama's attitudes qualify him to serve as the President of the United States.
Of course, I agree.
Expecting a partisan hatchet job against the president, I was a bit surprised to find the film had nothing close to a partisan tone. It treated the president respectfully and approached the narrative more as an attempt to understand who he is and where his policy priorities come from, rather than Michael Moore-style disdain a la Farenheit 911.
The film was compellingly shot and paced, and very well done. It wasn't too long, and avoided preaching about why Obama's policies have been so destructive to our country. D'Souza instead introduced the film by explaining that he found himself puzzled by Obama's policy priorities after he achieved office on such a positive platform of unity, "Hope and Change".
D'Souza travels to Hawaii, Kenya, and Indonesia in a quest to understand the roots of Obama's personal philosophy, following the president's own autobiography as a guidebook. The host concludes through his studies of Obama's history and interviews with his family members that the president is driven by a desire to prove himself worthy of the father that abandoned him by achieving the United States presidency and rolling back the American legacy of colonial exploitation of the third world.
Angry critics from the Left have of course used vicious attacks on D'Souza's motives, some of which were excerpted near the end of the film. I read an AP review that trashed the film today by picking apart minor theories from D'Souza that tied Obama's attitudes on some specific issues to his father's. The AP reporter's approach was to try to invalidate the entire documentary by suggesting he made some of those up ("There is no evidence that Obama believes ...."). The story also tries to argue against some of the assertions among the litany of problems that have been created by Obama's administration, such as arguing that his suggestion that Obamacare will cost a trillion dollars over the next decade (a right-wing lie). It fails to even address the basic message of the film, which is that Obama was raised in a radical family, attracted to radical leftists who became his mentors and supporters, and truly believes he can and must transform America into a less wealthy, unthreatening member of the family of nations.
Personally, I found the brief scene of D'Souza interviewing a psychologist about the effect of parental abandonment on the psyche of children pretty much useless and unnecessary. Although some of his conclusions about Obama policies based on "Dreams from my Father" are not evident, I tend to believe they are consistent with what we've seen in his first term and the attitudes he has projected throughout the past 3 years.
Ultimately, I don't believe it's accurate to describe this film as "Anti-Obama". D'Souza never engages in gratuitous partisanship and is never disrespectful to the president. He actually shows what I took to be sincere empathy for Obama's life experience and understanding about how he reached his adult attitudes and political beliefs. In the end, he simply suggests that he doesn't believe Obama's attitudes qualify him to serve as the President of the United States.
Of course, I agree.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Is it a Normal Part of Maturing?
I think about the old caricature of the crotchety old man shaking his cane at the world and declaring, "This country's going to hell in a handbasket!" Am I becoming that old man because I increasingly hold that sentiment?
My grandparents were scandalized when the Beatles showed up on Ed Sullivan with their floppy hair and wild rock and roll music. They were also aghast at the increasing depictions and frank discussions of extramarital sex on television during primetime, not to mention the constant pushing of the envelope in the amount of skin displayed.
I'm shocked to find out that the Democrat party considers my views on abortion "extreme". That nobody under 40 seems to understand that a major factor in the social crisis our country is experiencing is the destruction of the family. Now they tell me I'm a bigot if I don't celebrate the idea of the government forcing us all to recognize (and celebrate) gays "marrying" each other?
My generation dismissed our grandparents' alarm at loosening sexual mores, but now those of us who managed to grow up are suddenly beginning to understand why they were alarmed.
Truth doesn't change. God doesn't change. I suspect every generation experienced a certain level of hubris in believing theimselves to be more enlightened than all the generations of human beings that came before. It's sort of like a disease that has become pandemic with this current generation.
Mitch Daniels was right in telling our generation at the 2009 Butler commencement that it's our fault. Absolutely, the current generation is merely a product of ours. We're the ones that taught them narcissism, the myth of self-image, and the attitude toward everything of "what's in it for me?".
We've doomed the greatest country in the world to a path that ends at anarchy and dictatorship. We've doomed our grandchildren to lives of hopelessness and want. Because in our selfishness we failed to honor our parents' values.
My generation created a mess, and somehow we should strive to make it right for our offspring before we die.
My grandparents were scandalized when the Beatles showed up on Ed Sullivan with their floppy hair and wild rock and roll music. They were also aghast at the increasing depictions and frank discussions of extramarital sex on television during primetime, not to mention the constant pushing of the envelope in the amount of skin displayed.
I'm shocked to find out that the Democrat party considers my views on abortion "extreme". That nobody under 40 seems to understand that a major factor in the social crisis our country is experiencing is the destruction of the family. Now they tell me I'm a bigot if I don't celebrate the idea of the government forcing us all to recognize (and celebrate) gays "marrying" each other?
My generation dismissed our grandparents' alarm at loosening sexual mores, but now those of us who managed to grow up are suddenly beginning to understand why they were alarmed.
Truth doesn't change. God doesn't change. I suspect every generation experienced a certain level of hubris in believing theimselves to be more enlightened than all the generations of human beings that came before. It's sort of like a disease that has become pandemic with this current generation.
Mitch Daniels was right in telling our generation at the 2009 Butler commencement that it's our fault. Absolutely, the current generation is merely a product of ours. We're the ones that taught them narcissism, the myth of self-image, and the attitude toward everything of "what's in it for me?".
We've doomed the greatest country in the world to a path that ends at anarchy and dictatorship. We've doomed our grandchildren to lives of hopelessness and want. Because in our selfishness we failed to honor our parents' values.
My generation created a mess, and somehow we should strive to make it right for our offspring before we die.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Missouri Abortion/Rape Flap
As one who would like to see the Senate flop to the GOP this year, I cringed when I heard the story about Todd Akin in Missouri suggesting that women who are raped are less likely to get pregnant.
Even if he can cite a peer-reviewed scientific study that backs up his suggestion, he was stupid to make such a statement. He quickly tried to walk it back by claiming he "mis-spoke", but that doesn't really work. I wonder if he really did hear that from a Doctor. We'd all like to believe that's true, but even if there are great studies out there backing up the statment, it's probably not a great thing to say when running for a national office.
He was on a radio show and the interviewer was asking him about his views on abortion. I was able to later hear what he said in context, and it was sort of an aside in a much longer explanation of his conviction about protecting life. He would have done much better to simply leave out his thoughts about the ability of women to fend off pregnancy in the case of rape. Obama himself expressed outrage in response to the statement.
His better response was that we should worry more about punishing the rapist than punishing the innocent baby that resulted from the crime.
Of course, in all discussions about abortion we hear the pro-choice folks talking about, "What will you do, outlaw abortions from rape or incest? Huh? Huh?"
Reasonable people can have their opinions on that question, but it's a distraction from the core issue, which is abortion as birth control. I'm a self-control guy who actually holds old-fashioned notions of honor and responsibility. Plus I'm a Christian who believes such things belong to God, not men. I think abortion amounts to murder of a developing child, and it's silly to try to suggest a child is somehow less human if it happens to still be in the womb.
For now I have to deal with my disappointment that a single unfortunate sentence uttered by Mr. Akin will send Claire McCaskill back to the senate for 6 more years to continue inflicting terrible damage to the republic.
Even if he can cite a peer-reviewed scientific study that backs up his suggestion, he was stupid to make such a statement. He quickly tried to walk it back by claiming he "mis-spoke", but that doesn't really work. I wonder if he really did hear that from a Doctor. We'd all like to believe that's true, but even if there are great studies out there backing up the statment, it's probably not a great thing to say when running for a national office.
He was on a radio show and the interviewer was asking him about his views on abortion. I was able to later hear what he said in context, and it was sort of an aside in a much longer explanation of his conviction about protecting life. He would have done much better to simply leave out his thoughts about the ability of women to fend off pregnancy in the case of rape. Obama himself expressed outrage in response to the statement.
His better response was that we should worry more about punishing the rapist than punishing the innocent baby that resulted from the crime.
Of course, in all discussions about abortion we hear the pro-choice folks talking about, "What will you do, outlaw abortions from rape or incest? Huh? Huh?"
Reasonable people can have their opinions on that question, but it's a distraction from the core issue, which is abortion as birth control. I'm a self-control guy who actually holds old-fashioned notions of honor and responsibility. Plus I'm a Christian who believes such things belong to God, not men. I think abortion amounts to murder of a developing child, and it's silly to try to suggest a child is somehow less human if it happens to still be in the womb.
For now I have to deal with my disappointment that a single unfortunate sentence uttered by Mr. Akin will send Claire McCaskill back to the senate for 6 more years to continue inflicting terrible damage to the republic.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Fascinating Peek at Voter Demographics
USA Today had a fascinating lead article today by Susan Page. It's easy to tell she's a Democrat, and it's also easy to tell she's worried about this upcoming election.
The article's fascinating because of the suggestions it makes about voter demographics and the overwhelming proportion of voters who know next to nothing about the candidates they're choosing.
It was striking to read that USA Today's numbers suggested that only 39 percent of voters are able to name the Vice President. A woman featured in the article as an example of a disaffected voter unlikely to bother showing up at the polls was quoted as follows:
"I really don't know that much about him, but from what I hear, he's all about putting taxes on the middle class people, and I've heard that he's put his money in overseas accounts".
She's disappointed in Obama but has swallowed the false media-amplified narrative so aggressively hammered home about Mitt Romney by the Obama campaign over the summer. She admits that she doesn't pay much attention to the campaign, or politics for that matter, which supports the idea that the coordinated messaging on behalf of the Democrat candidate is highly effective.
Polls consistently show that Americans are divided approximately in thirds: One third are committed Liberals, one third Comservatives, and the remaining third are in between. But this article suggests that the true division is inside the approximately 40 percent of voters who are actually paying attention. I suspect that among those 40 percent, about half are conservative and the other half big-L Liberal. So the electoral fight is really to find that catchy jingle that will appeal the unwashed and ignorant masses from the other 60 percent.
If Romney wants to overcome the sycophantic media's Obama messaging echo chamber, he needs to find a way to connect to people at the grass roots level. He needs a different narrative about himself that tells the disconnected and disaffected voters who he really is; rather than the elite rich guy who's going to stick it to the middle class so he can make his rich friends richer, he needs to promote an equally simple message that he stands for prosperity for everybody. Alongside the message telling the same folks that Obama's objective is to make everybody poor except the government class, who live like kings while everyone else suffers.
Susan, the author, is clearly worried. She found out that most of these disaffected voters who say they're unlikely to show up to vote this year voted for Obama in 2008. She tries to make her liberal self feel better by offering the hopeful news that Romney's got only tepid support from the other side, but I think she's missing a very important distinction about that observation.
Although most conservatives, me included, are less than enamored with Mitt Romney, we are all planning to show up at our polling places with bells on to enthusiastically pull the lever for him. Because we are unified behind the absolute certainty that Obama will destroy America if he's allowed to stay in office beyond January.
What's disappointing about the article is that it seems close to 2/3 of American adults are almost completely ignorant about candidates and their policies, not to mention any notion of how the Left's policies affect their lives.
What's encouraging is the knowledge that millions of people that were so enthusiastically turning out for Obama last time are disappointed and discouraged, and most likely won't bother this time. I'm pretty sure that adds up to a Romney victory. Although I also believe if more of those ignorant folks took some time to educate themselves, they would be more likely to be converted to the conservative philosophy.
The article's fascinating because of the suggestions it makes about voter demographics and the overwhelming proportion of voters who know next to nothing about the candidates they're choosing.
It was striking to read that USA Today's numbers suggested that only 39 percent of voters are able to name the Vice President. A woman featured in the article as an example of a disaffected voter unlikely to bother showing up at the polls was quoted as follows:
"I really don't know that much about him, but from what I hear, he's all about putting taxes on the middle class people, and I've heard that he's put his money in overseas accounts".
She's disappointed in Obama but has swallowed the false media-amplified narrative so aggressively hammered home about Mitt Romney by the Obama campaign over the summer. She admits that she doesn't pay much attention to the campaign, or politics for that matter, which supports the idea that the coordinated messaging on behalf of the Democrat candidate is highly effective.
Polls consistently show that Americans are divided approximately in thirds: One third are committed Liberals, one third Comservatives, and the remaining third are in between. But this article suggests that the true division is inside the approximately 40 percent of voters who are actually paying attention. I suspect that among those 40 percent, about half are conservative and the other half big-L Liberal. So the electoral fight is really to find that catchy jingle that will appeal the unwashed and ignorant masses from the other 60 percent.
If Romney wants to overcome the sycophantic media's Obama messaging echo chamber, he needs to find a way to connect to people at the grass roots level. He needs a different narrative about himself that tells the disconnected and disaffected voters who he really is; rather than the elite rich guy who's going to stick it to the middle class so he can make his rich friends richer, he needs to promote an equally simple message that he stands for prosperity for everybody. Alongside the message telling the same folks that Obama's objective is to make everybody poor except the government class, who live like kings while everyone else suffers.
Susan, the author, is clearly worried. She found out that most of these disaffected voters who say they're unlikely to show up to vote this year voted for Obama in 2008. She tries to make her liberal self feel better by offering the hopeful news that Romney's got only tepid support from the other side, but I think she's missing a very important distinction about that observation.
Although most conservatives, me included, are less than enamored with Mitt Romney, we are all planning to show up at our polling places with bells on to enthusiastically pull the lever for him. Because we are unified behind the absolute certainty that Obama will destroy America if he's allowed to stay in office beyond January.
What's disappointing about the article is that it seems close to 2/3 of American adults are almost completely ignorant about candidates and their policies, not to mention any notion of how the Left's policies affect their lives.
What's encouraging is the knowledge that millions of people that were so enthusiastically turning out for Obama last time are disappointed and discouraged, and most likely won't bother this time. I'm pretty sure that adds up to a Romney victory. Although I also believe if more of those ignorant folks took some time to educate themselves, they would be more likely to be converted to the conservative philosophy.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Subtle and not-so-subtle referees
Factcheck.org was made famous in the previous presidential elections, cited often by both sides as some sort of independent arbiter of campaign claims and counter-claims.
I beg to differ. Factcheck obviously bends over backwards in sometimes ridiculous attempts to show that both sides lie and distort the facts. But there are big differences between the lies of the Obama campaign and the sometimes arguable rhetoric of Romney's.
Since they think they must show balance by documenting lies and distortions on both sides, the impression they're going for with their readers is that both sides are liars to some degree or another. I think that's the strategy used by their fact-checkers who carefully construct their stories to ultimately benefit Obama.
Let's look at one example - Obamacare.
Factcheck says Obama fibbed when he promised Americans can keep their existing plans (ya think?)
But to achieve balance, they accuse Romney of misleading people by claiming that Obamacare will come between the patient and his/her doctor. They spin like a top in trying to convince the reader that ObamaCare's "Advisory Board" isn't at all going to resemble Sarah Palin's "Death Panel". Plus they're saying the only thing coming between us and our doctors is going to be the Insurance Company, as if that's going to be the only obstacle between us and the care we may actually need.
I think it's comical how Factcheck can't seem to make the linkage between the insurance companies and the advisory board and the obvious logical extension that the ultimate reason we might be denied the care we need is because our insurance company refuses to cover it because the advisory board told them not to cover it.
So where exactly is Romney's lie in saying, "And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor".
Nearly every example on the website has a similar analysis that can be applied. The reality is that most of the Obama lies and distortions are truly lies and distortions, while most of the Romney accused lies and distortions are easily argued as truth or at least much less egregious cases of campaign rhetoric or overstatement.
In politics, both sides are definitively not equal when it comes to lies.
I beg to differ. Factcheck obviously bends over backwards in sometimes ridiculous attempts to show that both sides lie and distort the facts. But there are big differences between the lies of the Obama campaign and the sometimes arguable rhetoric of Romney's.
Since they think they must show balance by documenting lies and distortions on both sides, the impression they're going for with their readers is that both sides are liars to some degree or another. I think that's the strategy used by their fact-checkers who carefully construct their stories to ultimately benefit Obama.
Let's look at one example - Obamacare.
Factcheck says Obama fibbed when he promised Americans can keep their existing plans (ya think?)
But to achieve balance, they accuse Romney of misleading people by claiming that Obamacare will come between the patient and his/her doctor. They spin like a top in trying to convince the reader that ObamaCare's "Advisory Board" isn't at all going to resemble Sarah Palin's "Death Panel". Plus they're saying the only thing coming between us and our doctors is going to be the Insurance Company, as if that's going to be the only obstacle between us and the care we may actually need.
I think it's comical how Factcheck can't seem to make the linkage between the insurance companies and the advisory board and the obvious logical extension that the ultimate reason we might be denied the care we need is because our insurance company refuses to cover it because the advisory board told them not to cover it.
So where exactly is Romney's lie in saying, "And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor".
Nearly every example on the website has a similar analysis that can be applied. The reality is that most of the Obama lies and distortions are truly lies and distortions, while most of the Romney accused lies and distortions are easily argued as truth or at least much less egregious cases of campaign rhetoric or overstatement.
In politics, both sides are definitively not equal when it comes to lies.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Finally the Football Withdrawal Ends
Even though I had to settle for listening on the radio, it was nice to finally catch the NFL on a Sunday afternoon again.
The Colts destroyed St. Louis while I coincidentally was driving from Indianapolis to St. Louis. It was certainly encouraging to listen while the Colts' rookie quarterback, Andrew Luck, matched Peyton Manning's debut by throwing a short pass to Donald Brown on his first play as an NFL QB that was turned into the first touchdown of the season.
The entire Colts team played well, racking up a 38-3 victory. It's not enough to gloat or declare the Colts are back. Because after all, it was the first preseason game and it was against the lowly Rams.
However, Luck seemed poised and effective. The offensive line seemed solid. The running backs corps seemed capable. The defense managed to mostly dominate.
But were these promising signs really showing us that the Colts' new front office and new coaching staff were successful at going out and finding a a bunch of great young players and preparing them to play well at the NFL level? Or did we just get a preview of how bad the Rams might be this year?
My hope is that the Colts have indeed found the right bunch of draft picks and free agents to give the fans an exciting and competitive season. My prediction is that the Colts will go about 6-10 and miss the playoffs. If they end 8-8 on the year, I think that would be an overachievement.
As long as they get better as the season goes along and give us hope for the future. That might at least ease the pain a little bit in February when we're watching Peyton and the Broncos going against the Packers in the Super Bowl.
Then again, the AFC South doesn't look particularly strong going into the season. The Texans are ahead of everyone else, while Jacksonville and Tennessee both look beatable. Who knows, maybe the Colts can steal a playoff berth by sweeping the weaker teams and splitting with Houston? It's not completely impossible, is it?
Whatever happens, it's all just fun.
The Colts destroyed St. Louis while I coincidentally was driving from Indianapolis to St. Louis. It was certainly encouraging to listen while the Colts' rookie quarterback, Andrew Luck, matched Peyton Manning's debut by throwing a short pass to Donald Brown on his first play as an NFL QB that was turned into the first touchdown of the season.
The entire Colts team played well, racking up a 38-3 victory. It's not enough to gloat or declare the Colts are back. Because after all, it was the first preseason game and it was against the lowly Rams.
However, Luck seemed poised and effective. The offensive line seemed solid. The running backs corps seemed capable. The defense managed to mostly dominate.
But were these promising signs really showing us that the Colts' new front office and new coaching staff were successful at going out and finding a a bunch of great young players and preparing them to play well at the NFL level? Or did we just get a preview of how bad the Rams might be this year?
My hope is that the Colts have indeed found the right bunch of draft picks and free agents to give the fans an exciting and competitive season. My prediction is that the Colts will go about 6-10 and miss the playoffs. If they end 8-8 on the year, I think that would be an overachievement.
As long as they get better as the season goes along and give us hope for the future. That might at least ease the pain a little bit in February when we're watching Peyton and the Broncos going against the Packers in the Super Bowl.
Then again, the AFC South doesn't look particularly strong going into the season. The Texans are ahead of everyone else, while Jacksonville and Tennessee both look beatable. Who knows, maybe the Colts can steal a playoff berth by sweeping the weaker teams and splitting with Houston? It's not completely impossible, is it?
Whatever happens, it's all just fun.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Paul Ryan's a Star
Personally I think Romney made the perfect choice in tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan's young, charismatic, brilliant, energetic - he's a GOP superstar and the model of the ideal conservative candidate. He's certain to rev up the conservative base, since he's got it all; unapologetic conservative ideology on both sides of the fiscal and social issues.
The old women in the GOP establishment are already wringing their hands and crying;
"The Obama campaign will demonize him for his budget cutting and entitlement reform bills", or
"He'll drive away the independents".
I find it refreshing and a bit of a contrast with the party's Presidential candidate to bring on a Veep candidate who's not afraid to talk out loud about the philosophies of our founders and other conservative icons like Ronald Reagan without apologizing or equivocating.
When the election returns are counted in November, regardless of the outcome, don't try to tell me Romney lost because he picked Ryan. I must believe it more likely he will win at least partly because he picked Ryan.
He won't win anything by trying to entice independent voters by pretending to be a more moderate version of Obama. That strategy's already been tried and it failed. Remember McCain? I continue to believe McCain would have been beaten even more severely had he picked a running mate other than Sarah Palin. He lost because he ran as Obama-lite and failed to fight back when the media set out to destroy Palin in the most misogynist campaign we never could have imagined when he chose her.
Romney can't win by trying to moderate his message or try to fool moderate-to-liberal voters into thinking he's not as conservative as the Obama campaign would like them to believe. Misleading voters is what Obama and the Democrats do; it must not be what Conservatives do.
We must stand or fall fighting for what is best for the country.
The old women in the GOP establishment are already wringing their hands and crying;
"The Obama campaign will demonize him for his budget cutting and entitlement reform bills", or
"He'll drive away the independents".
I find it refreshing and a bit of a contrast with the party's Presidential candidate to bring on a Veep candidate who's not afraid to talk out loud about the philosophies of our founders and other conservative icons like Ronald Reagan without apologizing or equivocating.
When the election returns are counted in November, regardless of the outcome, don't try to tell me Romney lost because he picked Ryan. I must believe it more likely he will win at least partly because he picked Ryan.
He won't win anything by trying to entice independent voters by pretending to be a more moderate version of Obama. That strategy's already been tried and it failed. Remember McCain? I continue to believe McCain would have been beaten even more severely had he picked a running mate other than Sarah Palin. He lost because he ran as Obama-lite and failed to fight back when the media set out to destroy Palin in the most misogynist campaign we never could have imagined when he chose her.
Romney can't win by trying to moderate his message or try to fool moderate-to-liberal voters into thinking he's not as conservative as the Obama campaign would like them to believe. Misleading voters is what Obama and the Democrats do; it must not be what Conservatives do.
We must stand or fall fighting for what is best for the country.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Campaign Mythology
The stunning show of support for Chick-Fil-A this week was a very hopeful sign that we still have a chance to stop the Obama project of American Transformation into a Socialist State.
I remain convinced that most of those who steadfastly cling to their support for Obama and the Democrats do so out of willful ignorance driven by fear. For example, I just read about mass mailings going to public employees in battleground states spreading the false message that a Romney presidency will lead to the destruction of all public employee pensions.
While it is true that public employee defined benefit pension plans are at or near the top of the list of costs that are bankrupting states and municipalities across the country, it is an outright lie to suggest that a President Romney would or could have the power to simply dictate the cancellation of such plans. Each state and municipality must make those decisions independently of the Federal government.
The Obama goal is to use Federal dollars (that don't exist) to prop up the budgets of States and Cities across the nation, so they won't have to make those tough decisions they're now facing on how to balance their shrinking budgets. As far as I know, none have yet cancelled their public employee pension plans, although Wisconsin famously tried to recall their governor for having the gall to require a modest contribution to the pension fund by that state's public workers. The dominoes now falling in California with cities declaring bankruptcy will force somebody to make very difficult decisions, but even in those cases I doubt pensions will be cancelled in their entirety.
Today's Obama supporters simply reject the facts about his misdeeds, from Solyndra and Green Energy corrupt boondoggles to illegally changing immigration laws to implement amnesty without a single vote by a citizen or citizen representative to using regulation to close down domestic coal and oil production to violating the First Amendment by forcing the Church to provide free abortifacients to their female employees.
They are unwittingly trading away their freedoms of religion and association. They're giving up their ability to choose what to drive, where to live, what to eat, what to believe, and what to do with their own property. In return, they hope to get free healthcare and a comfortable retirement from their government without having the freedoms they personally care about taken away.
Somehow all of us need to find a way to get the message to the citizens Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that it's up to them to decide whether we have a chance to save our uniquely free way of life or give up to tyranny.
I remain convinced that most of those who steadfastly cling to their support for Obama and the Democrats do so out of willful ignorance driven by fear. For example, I just read about mass mailings going to public employees in battleground states spreading the false message that a Romney presidency will lead to the destruction of all public employee pensions.
While it is true that public employee defined benefit pension plans are at or near the top of the list of costs that are bankrupting states and municipalities across the country, it is an outright lie to suggest that a President Romney would or could have the power to simply dictate the cancellation of such plans. Each state and municipality must make those decisions independently of the Federal government.
The Obama goal is to use Federal dollars (that don't exist) to prop up the budgets of States and Cities across the nation, so they won't have to make those tough decisions they're now facing on how to balance their shrinking budgets. As far as I know, none have yet cancelled their public employee pension plans, although Wisconsin famously tried to recall their governor for having the gall to require a modest contribution to the pension fund by that state's public workers. The dominoes now falling in California with cities declaring bankruptcy will force somebody to make very difficult decisions, but even in those cases I doubt pensions will be cancelled in their entirety.
Today's Obama supporters simply reject the facts about his misdeeds, from Solyndra and Green Energy corrupt boondoggles to illegally changing immigration laws to implement amnesty without a single vote by a citizen or citizen representative to using regulation to close down domestic coal and oil production to violating the First Amendment by forcing the Church to provide free abortifacients to their female employees.
They are unwittingly trading away their freedoms of religion and association. They're giving up their ability to choose what to drive, where to live, what to eat, what to believe, and what to do with their own property. In return, they hope to get free healthcare and a comfortable retirement from their government without having the freedoms they personally care about taken away.
Somehow all of us need to find a way to get the message to the citizens Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that it's up to them to decide whether we have a chance to save our uniquely free way of life or give up to tyranny.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Confession Required
While attending a Catholic Mass out of town last weekend, I was disappointed to hear a political prayer mixed in with the Prayers of the Faithful. It was not only political, but contrary to the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
Here's the prayer, paraphrased:
May our leaders take action to affect a more equal distribution of wealth among the people
The prayer may as well have been for all Catholics to cast their vote for Obama.
It's time someone took the time to refute this misguided attempt by liberal christians to mislead others about what charity really means.
The idea that Christians should support socialism is horribly wrong. If Jesus believed that Caesar should confiscate money from his wealthy Roman citizens and give it to the poor throughout the empire, perhaps he would have preached that lesson. Instead, he was very clear that it is each individual's responsibility to help the poor. If we encounter someone in need, he challenges us to meet that need - not by demanding someone else take care of them, but by meeting the need personally and immediately.
The major flaws in the philosophy proposed by that prayer are numerous, and helping someone in need on a person-by-person basis is far superior:
Whenever a liberal expounds on the need for government driven social welfare, the source of the money to be redistributed is never them. Proponents of government redistribution always intend for somebody else's wealth to be redistributed. Because it makes them feel better to tell themselves that they care, because they helped take care of the poor by voting for candidates who promised to take money from those who deserve to have their money taken from them. The liberal never considers himself someone who deserves to have his wealth redistributed.
Government socialism is inherently corrupting. When you give a bureaucrat authority to redistribute other people's money, you are guaranteed that the bureaucrat will stuff as much of that money in his own pocket as he thinks he can get away with. The less sophisticated bureaucrats just steal it, while the savvy bureaucrat makes sure to write volumes of rules and regulations that will allow him to steal it "legally".
Government socialism fails to recognize that people are individuals, and each individual has his own set of needs. Government socialism is by definition a "one size fits all" solution. Therefore, people truly in need will fall through the cracks of the system if they fail to meet some obscure regulation, while others who don't really need the help receive it in excess by simply learning how to exploit those regulations to their own benefit.
The fruits of socialism are corruption, waste, fraud, and failure. It fails to lift people out of dependence while teaching them how to turn their dependence into a money-making lifestyle. It fails to deal with people as individuals and solve each needy person's individual problem.
Worst of all, socialism is the last step on the way to dictatorship and authoritarianism. Because it kills initiative and industry by punishing achievers in order to reward bureaucrats and sloths.
Therefore, the prayer itself is a sin.
Here's the prayer, paraphrased:
May our leaders take action to affect a more equal distribution of wealth among the people
The prayer may as well have been for all Catholics to cast their vote for Obama.
It's time someone took the time to refute this misguided attempt by liberal christians to mislead others about what charity really means.
The idea that Christians should support socialism is horribly wrong. If Jesus believed that Caesar should confiscate money from his wealthy Roman citizens and give it to the poor throughout the empire, perhaps he would have preached that lesson. Instead, he was very clear that it is each individual's responsibility to help the poor. If we encounter someone in need, he challenges us to meet that need - not by demanding someone else take care of them, but by meeting the need personally and immediately.
The major flaws in the philosophy proposed by that prayer are numerous, and helping someone in need on a person-by-person basis is far superior:
Whenever a liberal expounds on the need for government driven social welfare, the source of the money to be redistributed is never them. Proponents of government redistribution always intend for somebody else's wealth to be redistributed. Because it makes them feel better to tell themselves that they care, because they helped take care of the poor by voting for candidates who promised to take money from those who deserve to have their money taken from them. The liberal never considers himself someone who deserves to have his wealth redistributed.
Government socialism is inherently corrupting. When you give a bureaucrat authority to redistribute other people's money, you are guaranteed that the bureaucrat will stuff as much of that money in his own pocket as he thinks he can get away with. The less sophisticated bureaucrats just steal it, while the savvy bureaucrat makes sure to write volumes of rules and regulations that will allow him to steal it "legally".
Government socialism fails to recognize that people are individuals, and each individual has his own set of needs. Government socialism is by definition a "one size fits all" solution. Therefore, people truly in need will fall through the cracks of the system if they fail to meet some obscure regulation, while others who don't really need the help receive it in excess by simply learning how to exploit those regulations to their own benefit.
The fruits of socialism are corruption, waste, fraud, and failure. It fails to lift people out of dependence while teaching them how to turn their dependence into a money-making lifestyle. It fails to deal with people as individuals and solve each needy person's individual problem.
Worst of all, socialism is the last step on the way to dictatorship and authoritarianism. Because it kills initiative and industry by punishing achievers in order to reward bureaucrats and sloths.
Therefore, the prayer itself is a sin.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Today's Important Stories
There are two stories today about the latest government outrages that should turn the people out with pitchforks to run the corrupt villians out of office.
The first is about an organization called the 'Voter Participation Center', which has been mailing pre-populated voter registration applications to over 200 thousand people who fit the profile of typical Democrat voters.
Despite the typical left-wing spin the story is getting in the so-called "mainstream press", there's a lot more to the story. Anyone with a curious mind might wonder, where did this database come from, and how did dead people and pets make it into the database? And why would the organization say they didn't know the database was faulty when it's clear they did and do?
This 'Voter Participation Center' is another one of those left-wing organizations of the same type as most of the others we hear about. It's run by the Center for American Progress and funded by Soros, of course. The organization of course has close ties to the Obama campaign. And it's not just doing this in Virginia, but in all of this year's "battleground" states.
Here's how it works: While Eric Holder sues all of the states that passed Voter ID laws in hopes he can stop them from being implemented until after November's election, this organization is mass-mailing pre-filled voter registrations to potential Democrat voters, plus convicted felons, illegal immigrants, pets, and dead folks. The strategy is to get living humans to forge signatures on the forms so they themselves or other operatives can show up at the polls to vote for Obama, either as themselves while being ineligible to vote or impersonating a pet or deceased person.
When Holder rails against GOP voter suppression, what he really means is the suppression of illegal votes.
The second story is about Chick Fil A. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have publicly promised to block any attempt of the food chain to open any stores in those cities. No, the company hasn't done anything wrong. Those mayors simply don't like the fact that Chick Fil A's Presidnet happens to be a Christian who has spoken out in favor of traditional marriage.
In response to the company president's statement of a personal opinion, these mayors are illegally trying to ruin the company and slandering its president. He would be more than justified to sue both cities for such fascist policies, whether he actually wants to open stores in those cities or not.
I think being slandered and banned by the Chicago gangster Emanuel is a badge of honor. If I can find a Chick Fil A near where I'm working next Wednesday, I would be happy to participate in the planned show of support by getting lunch there. I encourage anyone else who opposes oppressive government suppression by the thought police to do the same.
The first is about an organization called the 'Voter Participation Center', which has been mailing pre-populated voter registration applications to over 200 thousand people who fit the profile of typical Democrat voters.
Despite the typical left-wing spin the story is getting in the so-called "mainstream press", there's a lot more to the story. Anyone with a curious mind might wonder, where did this database come from, and how did dead people and pets make it into the database? And why would the organization say they didn't know the database was faulty when it's clear they did and do?
This 'Voter Participation Center' is another one of those left-wing organizations of the same type as most of the others we hear about. It's run by the Center for American Progress and funded by Soros, of course. The organization of course has close ties to the Obama campaign. And it's not just doing this in Virginia, but in all of this year's "battleground" states.
Here's how it works: While Eric Holder sues all of the states that passed Voter ID laws in hopes he can stop them from being implemented until after November's election, this organization is mass-mailing pre-filled voter registrations to potential Democrat voters, plus convicted felons, illegal immigrants, pets, and dead folks. The strategy is to get living humans to forge signatures on the forms so they themselves or other operatives can show up at the polls to vote for Obama, either as themselves while being ineligible to vote or impersonating a pet or deceased person.
When Holder rails against GOP voter suppression, what he really means is the suppression of illegal votes.
The second story is about Chick Fil A. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have publicly promised to block any attempt of the food chain to open any stores in those cities. No, the company hasn't done anything wrong. Those mayors simply don't like the fact that Chick Fil A's Presidnet happens to be a Christian who has spoken out in favor of traditional marriage.
In response to the company president's statement of a personal opinion, these mayors are illegally trying to ruin the company and slandering its president. He would be more than justified to sue both cities for such fascist policies, whether he actually wants to open stores in those cities or not.
I think being slandered and banned by the Chicago gangster Emanuel is a badge of honor. If I can find a Chick Fil A near where I'm working next Wednesday, I would be happy to participate in the planned show of support by getting lunch there. I encourage anyone else who opposes oppressive government suppression by the thought police to do the same.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Sad Week
The whole week makes me sad. The Colorado movie theater shooting. The Penn State punishment. The Obama campaign calling all those opposed to his re-election racists. Those who try to use Colorado for political gain. The girl in Chicago who was killed by Planned Parenthood. Obamacare was upheld in clear violation of constitutional principles. Obama vilified all entrepreneurs with his "you didn't build that!" speech.
When I was young, no stories like these ever made the news. I think it's not because the stories were suppressed, but because they just didn't happen.
Faith and religion are under attack. People who support Christian and family values are ridiculed and called evil. Americans now call good evil and evil good. What was formerly the best country in the history of the planet is circling the drain. We're setting records in entitlements and welfare payments, children without a father, illiteracy, and the chronically unemployed.
It makes me sad.
When I was young, no stories like these ever made the news. I think it's not because the stories were suppressed, but because they just didn't happen.
Faith and religion are under attack. People who support Christian and family values are ridiculed and called evil. Americans now call good evil and evil good. What was formerly the best country in the history of the planet is circling the drain. We're setting records in entitlements and welfare payments, children without a father, illiteracy, and the chronically unemployed.
It makes me sad.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Speaking of Truth and Liars
Ironically we've been subjected to the Obama campaign talking points hammering Romney as an outsourcer and perhaps criminal for stashing some money in Swiss and Bermuda banks.
The truth of the outsourcer charge is that it's a lie. There's no evidence that Romney personally ordered, suggested, or otherwise facilitated the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries while with Bain Capital. And of course, there's also no evidence that Romney broke any laws by opening offshore bank accounts.
But to the Obama campaign, the truth is irrelevant. The objective for them is never to tell the truth, but rather to create a narrative against Romney that will make him an unacceptable alternative to Obama to occupy the White House.
They understand that the typical voter doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to the campaign. So all they have to do is saturate the airwaves with simple themes that those uninformed folks can't avoid hearing.
So talk to the average American, and you might hear things like "Romney only cares about his rich friends", or "Romney's policies will destroy the environment", or "Romney wants to outsource even more jobs to China", or "Romney wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security", or "I heard Romney is a tax cheat who has millions of dollars stashed away in Swiss bank accounts".
Those people are Obama voters. Not one of those sentences is true, but they will believe them all anyway.
If Romney wants to play that game, he could saturate the airwaves with ads putting out his own simple messages against Obama. Like Obama's a communist who is transforming America into the Soviet Union. Or Obama's plan is to bankrupt America so he can rise from the rubble as our dictator. Or Obama will destroy the churches and trample the first amendment to impose a officially secular and atheistic society. Or Obama wants to deny us our home heating, air conditioning and electricity and purposely drive up our pump price for gas to an unaffordable 10 bucks a gallon.
Oh wait, most of those are probably true.
Doesn't matter though, because whatever message Romney wants to put out there is ignored by the press. What they can't ignore they'll just try to refute as racist propaganda. Romney can't get anything through the media filter, which is now the functional equivalent of the Soviet Pravda. Nothing that casts the great leader in less than a positive light will reach the ears of the public.
Word of mouth isn't going to work either. Obama democrats refuse to listen to anyone who would try to pass on the truth. Their worldview rejects the possibility that any conservative idea could ever be anything but evil.
It would be nice to be able to believe those few voices on the Right who are convinced Romney will sweep Obama out of office in a landslide on par with Reagan's beatdown of Jimmy Carter. But it requires more folks to actually start paying attention and begin trying to separate truth from lies.
We have about 4 months left to find out whether the majority chooses the door to slavery and tyranny or the door to continued freedom.
The truth of the outsourcer charge is that it's a lie. There's no evidence that Romney personally ordered, suggested, or otherwise facilitated the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries while with Bain Capital. And of course, there's also no evidence that Romney broke any laws by opening offshore bank accounts.
But to the Obama campaign, the truth is irrelevant. The objective for them is never to tell the truth, but rather to create a narrative against Romney that will make him an unacceptable alternative to Obama to occupy the White House.
They understand that the typical voter doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to the campaign. So all they have to do is saturate the airwaves with simple themes that those uninformed folks can't avoid hearing.
So talk to the average American, and you might hear things like "Romney only cares about his rich friends", or "Romney's policies will destroy the environment", or "Romney wants to outsource even more jobs to China", or "Romney wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security", or "I heard Romney is a tax cheat who has millions of dollars stashed away in Swiss bank accounts".
Those people are Obama voters. Not one of those sentences is true, but they will believe them all anyway.
If Romney wants to play that game, he could saturate the airwaves with ads putting out his own simple messages against Obama. Like Obama's a communist who is transforming America into the Soviet Union. Or Obama's plan is to bankrupt America so he can rise from the rubble as our dictator. Or Obama will destroy the churches and trample the first amendment to impose a officially secular and atheistic society. Or Obama wants to deny us our home heating, air conditioning and electricity and purposely drive up our pump price for gas to an unaffordable 10 bucks a gallon.
Oh wait, most of those are probably true.
Doesn't matter though, because whatever message Romney wants to put out there is ignored by the press. What they can't ignore they'll just try to refute as racist propaganda. Romney can't get anything through the media filter, which is now the functional equivalent of the Soviet Pravda. Nothing that casts the great leader in less than a positive light will reach the ears of the public.
Word of mouth isn't going to work either. Obama democrats refuse to listen to anyone who would try to pass on the truth. Their worldview rejects the possibility that any conservative idea could ever be anything but evil.
It would be nice to be able to believe those few voices on the Right who are convinced Romney will sweep Obama out of office in a landslide on par with Reagan's beatdown of Jimmy Carter. But it requires more folks to actually start paying attention and begin trying to separate truth from lies.
We have about 4 months left to find out whether the majority chooses the door to slavery and tyranny or the door to continued freedom.
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Living the Crazy Lie Life
It struck me that the average Democrat goes through life under a system of beliefs that are based on a very large compendium of lies. I was having a conversation this week in which we were discussing the question, are most folks of left-wing persuasion really true-blue believers, or just gullible victims of the false message of the left?
Let's examine a list of lies that most Democrats I know have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.
9/11 was an inside job
If it wasn't an inside job, Bush parlayed it into an illegal and immoral war against Iraq
There would be no such thing as terrorism if our country just stopped greedily grasping for middle east oil
Bush lied, people died
Deficits and Debt don't really matter
Besides, if the rich just start paying their fair share, the deficits will go away
Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters
Undocumented immigrants (illegal immigrants is such a nasty phrase) only want a better life for their families
Those who want the government to enforce immigration law are racists
Fast & Furious was a failed Bush-era operation
All Eric Holder did was shut it down once he discovered its existence
The only reason Holder and Obama are withholding F&F documents from congress is because it's nothing but a partisan election-year witch hunt
There is no God
Life on Earth evolved from some chemical reactions that turned basic elements into single-celled organisms that over billions of years evolved and mutated into the human race, in gross violation of the theory of Entropy
Education will improve if only the rich pay their fair share in taxes so teachers salaries can be increased
Global Warming will destroy the planet 10 years ago
The only way to save the planet is for everyone to give up their cars, move to a big city and ride mass transit to work
The only solution to environmental disaster is global socialism
ObamaCare is about providing healthcare access to poor people
Healthcare is a basic human right, as is free contraception paid for by Roman Catholics
Catholics and Republicans want to outlaw contraceptives because they hate women
Conservatives oppose Obama because they are inherently racist
Nobody could possibly oppose Obama's policy priorities unless they are racist sexist homophobic bigots
Since Obama has quelled Islamic hatred and improved America's relationship with the rest of the world, we can disband the military and stop making war
When gas prices hit $4 during the Bush era, it was because Bush & Cheney were engaged in a conspiracy to enrich their buddies in the oil industry
This year, when gas hit $4 again under Obama, it was just because of market forces no president can control
Government subsidized windmills and solar panels will free us from awful global warming-causing carbon-based fuels
Unemployment is 8.2 percent
Obama had no other choice than to nationalize General Motors and give Chrysler away to Fiat
Excessive government union benefits have no effect on current federal, state, and local government budget crises
If only the nasty Republicans would stop blocking him, Obama will help us all make more money and no longer have to worry about our mortgages or medical expenses
I'm poor because somebody else is rich
Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary
Democrats care about ordinary middle-class people
Obama's right: The only way the economy can recover is by having the government hand out money and free stuff to people
Easing up on regulatory and tax burdens won't help the economy recover, but will just go back to the evil Bush-era practices of licensing greedy corporate types to mistreat their workers
Republicans care only about rich people
The list goes on and on and on ...
Let's examine a list of lies that most Democrats I know have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.
9/11 was an inside job
If it wasn't an inside job, Bush parlayed it into an illegal and immoral war against Iraq
There would be no such thing as terrorism if our country just stopped greedily grasping for middle east oil
Bush lied, people died
Deficits and Debt don't really matter
Besides, if the rich just start paying their fair share, the deficits will go away
Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters
Undocumented immigrants (illegal immigrants is such a nasty phrase) only want a better life for their families
Those who want the government to enforce immigration law are racists
Fast & Furious was a failed Bush-era operation
All Eric Holder did was shut it down once he discovered its existence
The only reason Holder and Obama are withholding F&F documents from congress is because it's nothing but a partisan election-year witch hunt
There is no God
Life on Earth evolved from some chemical reactions that turned basic elements into single-celled organisms that over billions of years evolved and mutated into the human race, in gross violation of the theory of Entropy
Education will improve if only the rich pay their fair share in taxes so teachers salaries can be increased
Global Warming will destroy the planet 10 years ago
The only way to save the planet is for everyone to give up their cars, move to a big city and ride mass transit to work
The only solution to environmental disaster is global socialism
ObamaCare is about providing healthcare access to poor people
Healthcare is a basic human right, as is free contraception paid for by Roman Catholics
Catholics and Republicans want to outlaw contraceptives because they hate women
Conservatives oppose Obama because they are inherently racist
Nobody could possibly oppose Obama's policy priorities unless they are racist sexist homophobic bigots
Since Obama has quelled Islamic hatred and improved America's relationship with the rest of the world, we can disband the military and stop making war
When gas prices hit $4 during the Bush era, it was because Bush & Cheney were engaged in a conspiracy to enrich their buddies in the oil industry
This year, when gas hit $4 again under Obama, it was just because of market forces no president can control
Government subsidized windmills and solar panels will free us from awful global warming-causing carbon-based fuels
Unemployment is 8.2 percent
Obama had no other choice than to nationalize General Motors and give Chrysler away to Fiat
Excessive government union benefits have no effect on current federal, state, and local government budget crises
If only the nasty Republicans would stop blocking him, Obama will help us all make more money and no longer have to worry about our mortgages or medical expenses
I'm poor because somebody else is rich
Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary
Democrats care about ordinary middle-class people
Obama's right: The only way the economy can recover is by having the government hand out money and free stuff to people
Easing up on regulatory and tax burdens won't help the economy recover, but will just go back to the evil Bush-era practices of licensing greedy corporate types to mistreat their workers
Republicans care only about rich people
The list goes on and on and on ...
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Course of the Nation is Decided
The long-awaited supreme court decision is due this week, perhaps as early as today. It's the most consequential decision by the high court in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Roe v Wade. It's a decision about what sort of country we will have from this point forward; a socialist state with an all-powerful Federal government micromanaging the lives of all citizens, or a mostly free society that permits its citizens to make their own decisions.
The question asked of the government lawyer during the Obamacare hearing that was never clearly answered goes to the heart of the question (I paraphrase): "If the government has the power to force individuals to engage in private commerce for health insurance, is there any private commerce the government cannot force on them?"
As we've seen with the more recent anti-religion mandate dictating contraception, the attitude of the Obama administration is no, there is no limit to what we can force on the people. The same president just flaunted the law by making his own brand new immigration law without even consulting the other two branches of government. Dictators act like this, not United States Presidents.
The Supreme Court needs to send a strong message to the president that he's not King Barack, but must govern within the constitution and laws of the country. The best way to do so is to strike down the entire Obamacare law.
The law was passed against the will of the people. It was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats without a single Republican vote. It was passed with considerable arm-twisting, threats to Democrat legislators' careers, and bribes to other Democrat legislators. It deserves to be thrown out in its entirety.
If the court rules the law constitutional, the grand experiment that was the United States of America ends. Because that ruling will grant absolute power to the man who would be king. If our self-appointed king then hangs on to office by any means necessary in November, we'll experience something akin to Venezuela after Chavez took power, or Cuba under Castro.
That's why this decision is so vitally important. Everyone expects a single justice to make the final decision: Justice Kennedy, the man who hasn't discovered his core convictions yet.
Update: It wasn't Kennedy, but John Roberts who disappointed the nation by changing the law to manufacture a reason to uphold it. Apparently he was hyper-sensitive to being called a partisan hack by the Left. He didn't want to be the person responsible for the destruction of the Obama monarchy, so what he did was challenge all of us: "If you think Obamacare is bad law, fix it at the ballot box. Don't run to me like a child running to Daddy to complain about her brother's misdeeds."
Roberts can partially redeem this horrible precedent (changing a law to make it constitutional rather than simply ruling it unconstitutional) by striking down the Sebelius mandate denying the Catholic Church and other people of faith their first amendment rights.
The question asked of the government lawyer during the Obamacare hearing that was never clearly answered goes to the heart of the question (I paraphrase): "If the government has the power to force individuals to engage in private commerce for health insurance, is there any private commerce the government cannot force on them?"
As we've seen with the more recent anti-religion mandate dictating contraception, the attitude of the Obama administration is no, there is no limit to what we can force on the people. The same president just flaunted the law by making his own brand new immigration law without even consulting the other two branches of government. Dictators act like this, not United States Presidents.
The Supreme Court needs to send a strong message to the president that he's not King Barack, but must govern within the constitution and laws of the country. The best way to do so is to strike down the entire Obamacare law.
The law was passed against the will of the people. It was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats without a single Republican vote. It was passed with considerable arm-twisting, threats to Democrat legislators' careers, and bribes to other Democrat legislators. It deserves to be thrown out in its entirety.
If the court rules the law constitutional, the grand experiment that was the United States of America ends. Because that ruling will grant absolute power to the man who would be king. If our self-appointed king then hangs on to office by any means necessary in November, we'll experience something akin to Venezuela after Chavez took power, or Cuba under Castro.
That's why this decision is so vitally important. Everyone expects a single justice to make the final decision: Justice Kennedy, the man who hasn't discovered his core convictions yet.
Update: It wasn't Kennedy, but John Roberts who disappointed the nation by changing the law to manufacture a reason to uphold it. Apparently he was hyper-sensitive to being called a partisan hack by the Left. He didn't want to be the person responsible for the destruction of the Obama monarchy, so what he did was challenge all of us: "If you think Obamacare is bad law, fix it at the ballot box. Don't run to me like a child running to Daddy to complain about her brother's misdeeds."
Roberts can partially redeem this horrible precedent (changing a law to make it constitutional rather than simply ruling it unconstitutional) by striking down the Sebelius mandate denying the Catholic Church and other people of faith their first amendment rights.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Girls Get Equal Outcomes
This weekend I'm seeing lots of articles singing the praises of Title IX. They universally celebrate the way the law gave the girls equal opportunities with the boys in sports. In these times it's not cool to suggest there might be any downside to this big government program.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Brand New Indy Colts
One way to address the disastrous 2011 season for the Indianapolis Colts was to start over. That's the one Irsay went with, from the GM all the way to the last man on the roster. This year's Colts look like an expansion team, with only a handful of players wearing the horseshoe who also wore it last year.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contempt
Eric Holder tried to delay Mr. Issa's plan to bring him before the House of Representatives for a vote on Contempt of Congress. They met, but Holder still refused to offer any more documents about that gun-running operation called Fast & Furious.
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
Why Obama Must Go
Obamacare
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
Friday, June 15, 2012
Glimpsing Truth
Recently the president's been giving us a glimpse of his true philosophy of government, which he went to great pains to conceal during his last campaign. It started with his statement that was later called a gaffe, that the private sector is doing just fine and it's the public sector that needs help.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
My Proposal to Save CNN
This is an open post for CNN with my suggestions on how they can recover from their disastrous ratings slide. CNN has lost viewers dramatically with the emergence of Fox News. They've lost many from their left-wing audience to MSNBC, leaving them without a niche.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
The Problem with Exit Polling
The media thought the Walker Recall election was going to be extremely close, based on their Exit Polls. Historically, Democrats have been much more enthusiastic than Republicans about talking to the pollsters after voting, so exit polls almost always overstate the number of votes for the Democrat.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
Monday, June 04, 2012
On, Wisconsin
The unions in Wisconsin didn't like Scott Walker's budget reforms that included a scaleback of those things public unions can negotiate. That allowed him to proceed to increase public employees' contributions to their pensions and healthcare costs to relatively modest levels of 5 and 12 percent respectively.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Ramping Up
After a little bit of a spring slowdown, it looks like I'm going to be ramping back up in June. Projects are coming through for me that could suddenly find me overbooked for the rest of the summer and possibly into the fall.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Burning Questions for Liberals
OK, I've got the message from all you rich entertainers. You love Obama and hate all conservatives. It's probably reasonable to assume that you have no conservative-thinking individuals among your circle of friends. So I've got some questions I'd love to get a chance to ask one of you rich and famous guys or girls.
If you live in New York or LA, you're already paying somewhere north of half of all your income to the various levels of government. Since you seem to agree with Obama that rich people should pay more, please tell me how much more? What percentage of your income do you consider fair?
You apparently love being green, just like Kermit the Frog. I figure you don't care about $4 gas, but I also would predict you keep your hybrid car in the garage just to be cool, but would rather drive around in that sweet V8 sports car. You can afford it, but how do you feel about the poor factory workers out here who have to shell out 70 bucks a week to get to their 250/week job? How do you think your activism to save the planet is working out to save them from losing everything when they can no longer afford to get to work?
I get it, you're an atheist. Would you please go ahead and admit that the Freedom of Religion part of the Constitution means nothing to you? How far do you think the government should take such mandates - do you favor outlawing Christianity altogether?
You're loud and clear on the subject of war. War is bad. How could I disagree? Do you really believe that if we just dismantle our military and pacify our enemies, war will go away all by itself? Are you convinced that your self, family, and property will be safe and unaffected if we just open the borders to all comers?
Sure, you feel compassion for poor folks from other countries who sneak into our country just because they're looking for a better life for their families. Does that mean you're willing to pony up the cash to cover their children's education and their families' medical care?
Do I understand you to be perfectly OK with Obama borrowing billions from China only to hand it out to his friends to blow all of it on bad business ventures (ie Solyndra)? You actually don't see a problem with that?
You're also just fine with the federal government nationalizing the nation's largest automaker and giving another one to a foreign company nearly for free? How about nationalizing healthcare? Do you think the government should do the same with other American companies, such as banks, energy companies, telecommunications, transportation? Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?
All I want is honest answers to my questions. At least it would help me resolve a debate I'm having with myself, about whether these folks are true believers or truly ignorant.
If you live in New York or LA, you're already paying somewhere north of half of all your income to the various levels of government. Since you seem to agree with Obama that rich people should pay more, please tell me how much more? What percentage of your income do you consider fair?
You apparently love being green, just like Kermit the Frog. I figure you don't care about $4 gas, but I also would predict you keep your hybrid car in the garage just to be cool, but would rather drive around in that sweet V8 sports car. You can afford it, but how do you feel about the poor factory workers out here who have to shell out 70 bucks a week to get to their 250/week job? How do you think your activism to save the planet is working out to save them from losing everything when they can no longer afford to get to work?
I get it, you're an atheist. Would you please go ahead and admit that the Freedom of Religion part of the Constitution means nothing to you? How far do you think the government should take such mandates - do you favor outlawing Christianity altogether?
You're loud and clear on the subject of war. War is bad. How could I disagree? Do you really believe that if we just dismantle our military and pacify our enemies, war will go away all by itself? Are you convinced that your self, family, and property will be safe and unaffected if we just open the borders to all comers?
Sure, you feel compassion for poor folks from other countries who sneak into our country just because they're looking for a better life for their families. Does that mean you're willing to pony up the cash to cover their children's education and their families' medical care?
Do I understand you to be perfectly OK with Obama borrowing billions from China only to hand it out to his friends to blow all of it on bad business ventures (ie Solyndra)? You actually don't see a problem with that?
You're also just fine with the federal government nationalizing the nation's largest automaker and giving another one to a foreign company nearly for free? How about nationalizing healthcare? Do you think the government should do the same with other American companies, such as banks, energy companies, telecommunications, transportation? Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?
All I want is honest answers to my questions. At least it would help me resolve a debate I'm having with myself, about whether these folks are true believers or truly ignorant.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Taxes
This might be a good time to step back and look at the big picture in the presidential campaign, where Obama's making his foremost argument for re-election based on hiking tax rates for the "rich".
In the big picture, Democrats represent the bureaucracy. Their interest is in protecting and growing that bureaucracy, therefore they have to raise more funds to pay the salaries and pensions for their constituencies in those posh DC offices. A Democrat can't imagine any problem ever being solved without the intervention of their benevolent management. For them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government agency. Their compassion is reserved first and foremost for their compatriots and supporters holding down those featherbed jobs in places like Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, and the rest of the alphabet soup of "necessary" government agencies.
Republicans are wary of the bureaucracy, but despite running for office with the stated goal of reining in the bureaucrats, tend to join the party shortly after settling inside the beltway. The GOP philosophy begins with the theory that our country doesn't have a tax problem, but a spending problem. Unfortunately, their constituents can't seem to control their apparent inability to keep the faith of that philosophy once they climb into the big-boy chair.
The campaign arguments are laughably simplistic, and neither is likely to actually solve the problem of massive deficits and debt. Obama's the most dishonest, suggesting to his minions that he can go on exploding the bureaucracy by simply raising the tax rate 5 percent on the "rich". His rhetoric defines the rich as multi-millionaires and billionaires, but his math-challenged rate increase is targeted to people with incomes as low as $200K.
Romney's being somewhat coy about his plans, but at least we know enough to realize his tax reform policies will be modest at best. He supports much of Paul Ryan's budgetary reforms and suggests he believes in lowering and flattening rates while removing loopholes in the tax code. Assuming he prevails in November, I hold very little hope that the reform part of his plan will become reality. His beltway culture-corrupted GOP colleagues will stop him from removing those loopholes if the Democrats don't.
Although neither candidate is serious about solving the problem, at least Romney's not lying outright about his plans. I think the economy recovery will begin the day Romney is declared the winner, and by the time he's inaugurated will be visibly heating up. That's because businesses know that Romney will roll back the most egregious of Obama's overreaching regulations, and he will put the breaks on the massive tax increases built into Democrats' laws and initiatives due to go into effect January 1st.
Executives nearly everywhere I go have made it clear that they've been in a holding pattern, waiting and hoping that Obama will get turned out of office. They'll start investing and growing again once they have confidence that the government won't hammer them with even more tax and regulation.
So if you lean left and fear Romney, I can almost guarantee that you have little to fear. Romney's not going to shake things up much. If you're on the right and are hoping for a big u-turn in government tax and regulatory policies, likewise I predict you will be disappointed in Romney, but you will comfort yourself with the thought, "at least he's not Obama".
In the big picture, Democrats represent the bureaucracy. Their interest is in protecting and growing that bureaucracy, therefore they have to raise more funds to pay the salaries and pensions for their constituencies in those posh DC offices. A Democrat can't imagine any problem ever being solved without the intervention of their benevolent management. For them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government agency. Their compassion is reserved first and foremost for their compatriots and supporters holding down those featherbed jobs in places like Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, and the rest of the alphabet soup of "necessary" government agencies.
Republicans are wary of the bureaucracy, but despite running for office with the stated goal of reining in the bureaucrats, tend to join the party shortly after settling inside the beltway. The GOP philosophy begins with the theory that our country doesn't have a tax problem, but a spending problem. Unfortunately, their constituents can't seem to control their apparent inability to keep the faith of that philosophy once they climb into the big-boy chair.
The campaign arguments are laughably simplistic, and neither is likely to actually solve the problem of massive deficits and debt. Obama's the most dishonest, suggesting to his minions that he can go on exploding the bureaucracy by simply raising the tax rate 5 percent on the "rich". His rhetoric defines the rich as multi-millionaires and billionaires, but his math-challenged rate increase is targeted to people with incomes as low as $200K.
Romney's being somewhat coy about his plans, but at least we know enough to realize his tax reform policies will be modest at best. He supports much of Paul Ryan's budgetary reforms and suggests he believes in lowering and flattening rates while removing loopholes in the tax code. Assuming he prevails in November, I hold very little hope that the reform part of his plan will become reality. His beltway culture-corrupted GOP colleagues will stop him from removing those loopholes if the Democrats don't.
Although neither candidate is serious about solving the problem, at least Romney's not lying outright about his plans. I think the economy recovery will begin the day Romney is declared the winner, and by the time he's inaugurated will be visibly heating up. That's because businesses know that Romney will roll back the most egregious of Obama's overreaching regulations, and he will put the breaks on the massive tax increases built into Democrats' laws and initiatives due to go into effect January 1st.
Executives nearly everywhere I go have made it clear that they've been in a holding pattern, waiting and hoping that Obama will get turned out of office. They'll start investing and growing again once they have confidence that the government won't hammer them with even more tax and regulation.
So if you lean left and fear Romney, I can almost guarantee that you have little to fear. Romney's not going to shake things up much. If you're on the right and are hoping for a big u-turn in government tax and regulatory policies, likewise I predict you will be disappointed in Romney, but you will comfort yourself with the thought, "at least he's not Obama".
Friday, May 18, 2012
Out of Step
Even though there's some frustration involved, I actually rather enjoy debating liberals. During some of those debates recently, I was informed that my attitudes and philosophies are just wrong and out of step. Apparently having conservative values makes me wierd, not to mention a bigot, racist, and homophobe. I've been informed that my attitudes and opinions are not only wrong, but a character flaw.
For just a moment I became a bit depressed and confused. Am I a bad person?
No, I'm very sure I'm not a bad person. Faith and family are very important to me. As are American values of freedom and justice. Those fundamental values are the very root of evil to these liberals, ergo I'm evil. Or as one liberal suggested, maybe not completely evil, just brainwashed by the right-wing nuts.
Some specific policy disagreements discussed:
The HHS Contraception mandate:
The liberal misses the point by trying to say that free contraception is just good public policy, because human overpopulation is killing the planet. And besides, contraception helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reduces the "need" for abortions - being anti-abortion, I should favor that, right? Also, the liberal swears that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the mandate, which turns out to be based on a statement made by Kathleen Sebelius, who tried to split hairs on the definition of abortifacient. Basically, the argument was repeated that since most Roman Catholic women use contraception, the bishops' opposition to the mandate is irrelevant.
Wierd fuddy-duddy that I am, I think the liberal argument misses the point entirely. Roman Catholics believe contraception is immoral and sex is reserved for marital relationships. The effect of the mandate is a clear violation of the First Amendment, where the government is indeed making a law that interferes with the Roman Catholic practice of religion. Forcibly taking money from someone to fund something they find morally reprehensible is wrong. The liberal says I'm a woman-hater for believing such.
Gay Marriage
The liberal expounds the favored rhetoric about gay people just wanting the freedom to love whomever they choose. I counter that it has nothing to do with love, that the movement is all about creating new rights to benefits. Gays want to have their "marriages" placed on par with traditional marriage so that government can force organizations to cover their same-sex partners as "spouses" in their benefit programs, the government will provide surviving spouse pensions to same-sex partners, and the government will mandate that same-sex couples be afforded exactly the same consideration as traditional families for adoption placement. The liberal believes it's a civil right, no different than the movement to grant blacks voting and integration rights.
This dinosaur still knows that homosexual behavior remains a disfunctional and sinful practice. Our generation isn't somehow smarter than all of the generations that preceded us, as the liberal suggests. In many ways I think our generation is less intelligent and certainly less moral than many prior generations. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but absolutely do not support a government mandate that forces me to contribute to their new-found rights and priviledges through my taxes and insurance premiums. So I'm a bigoted homophobe for expressing such intolerant attitudes. Perhaps I deserve imprisonment for such outrageous bigotry.
Energy
The liberal hates fossil fuels and is completely sold on the idea that we can replace coal, oil, and gas with "clean" and "renewable" energy. The liberal is 100% behind Obama's moratorium on gulf oil production, refusal to approve the XL Pipeline, and his EPA over-regulation designed to significantly scale back or eliminate production of coal, oil, and natural gas. Admittedly, natural gas is the cleanest fuel, but must be eliminated as well because of "fracking".
I find it puzzling that the same liberal who was so angry and hostile about what they were certain was greedy collusion between Bush and his oil company buddies causing $4 gasoline now extoll fhe virtues of $4 gas under Obama because it will help drive conservation and pave the way for alternative fuels. Even more puzzling is how little the liberal seems to know about those "alternative" energy sources, how much they cost, and how badly Obama's attempts to promote them have failed. And of course, the liberal has no idea about the corruption involved in Obama's generous government guarantees and giveaways to his favorite supporters in building failing "clean energy" ventures. That makes me a pro-polluter who is happy to destroy the planet and give people cancer.
For so many other issues of the day, I'm told my views range from evil to old-fashioned. I hate unions because I oppose cap and trade and don't have too much of a problem with right-to-work. By considering the budget deficits a disaster and supporting lower government spending I want children to starve and be denied an education. Being skeptical that soaking the rich with higher taxes will make even the smallest dent in the deficit I'm a racist who favors white fat cats over poor struggling inner-city folks. By favoring a strong military and worrying that Obama's pacifism is encouraging aggression from our enemies, I'm a war monger who wants to send our military around the world to kill innocent people indiscriminately so we can steal their oil.
I remain saddened that people I would otherwise consider friends think I'm evil for merely being what I thought was mainstream; Somehow I woke up one day and discovered that Fauth, Family, and Patriotism are now considered intolerant and racist.
For just a moment I became a bit depressed and confused. Am I a bad person?
No, I'm very sure I'm not a bad person. Faith and family are very important to me. As are American values of freedom and justice. Those fundamental values are the very root of evil to these liberals, ergo I'm evil. Or as one liberal suggested, maybe not completely evil, just brainwashed by the right-wing nuts.
Some specific policy disagreements discussed:
The HHS Contraception mandate:
The liberal misses the point by trying to say that free contraception is just good public policy, because human overpopulation is killing the planet. And besides, contraception helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reduces the "need" for abortions - being anti-abortion, I should favor that, right? Also, the liberal swears that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the mandate, which turns out to be based on a statement made by Kathleen Sebelius, who tried to split hairs on the definition of abortifacient. Basically, the argument was repeated that since most Roman Catholic women use contraception, the bishops' opposition to the mandate is irrelevant.
Wierd fuddy-duddy that I am, I think the liberal argument misses the point entirely. Roman Catholics believe contraception is immoral and sex is reserved for marital relationships. The effect of the mandate is a clear violation of the First Amendment, where the government is indeed making a law that interferes with the Roman Catholic practice of religion. Forcibly taking money from someone to fund something they find morally reprehensible is wrong. The liberal says I'm a woman-hater for believing such.
Gay Marriage
The liberal expounds the favored rhetoric about gay people just wanting the freedom to love whomever they choose. I counter that it has nothing to do with love, that the movement is all about creating new rights to benefits. Gays want to have their "marriages" placed on par with traditional marriage so that government can force organizations to cover their same-sex partners as "spouses" in their benefit programs, the government will provide surviving spouse pensions to same-sex partners, and the government will mandate that same-sex couples be afforded exactly the same consideration as traditional families for adoption placement. The liberal believes it's a civil right, no different than the movement to grant blacks voting and integration rights.
This dinosaur still knows that homosexual behavior remains a disfunctional and sinful practice. Our generation isn't somehow smarter than all of the generations that preceded us, as the liberal suggests. In many ways I think our generation is less intelligent and certainly less moral than many prior generations. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but absolutely do not support a government mandate that forces me to contribute to their new-found rights and priviledges through my taxes and insurance premiums. So I'm a bigoted homophobe for expressing such intolerant attitudes. Perhaps I deserve imprisonment for such outrageous bigotry.
Energy
The liberal hates fossil fuels and is completely sold on the idea that we can replace coal, oil, and gas with "clean" and "renewable" energy. The liberal is 100% behind Obama's moratorium on gulf oil production, refusal to approve the XL Pipeline, and his EPA over-regulation designed to significantly scale back or eliminate production of coal, oil, and natural gas. Admittedly, natural gas is the cleanest fuel, but must be eliminated as well because of "fracking".
I find it puzzling that the same liberal who was so angry and hostile about what they were certain was greedy collusion between Bush and his oil company buddies causing $4 gasoline now extoll fhe virtues of $4 gas under Obama because it will help drive conservation and pave the way for alternative fuels. Even more puzzling is how little the liberal seems to know about those "alternative" energy sources, how much they cost, and how badly Obama's attempts to promote them have failed. And of course, the liberal has no idea about the corruption involved in Obama's generous government guarantees and giveaways to his favorite supporters in building failing "clean energy" ventures. That makes me a pro-polluter who is happy to destroy the planet and give people cancer.
For so many other issues of the day, I'm told my views range from evil to old-fashioned. I hate unions because I oppose cap and trade and don't have too much of a problem with right-to-work. By considering the budget deficits a disaster and supporting lower government spending I want children to starve and be denied an education. Being skeptical that soaking the rich with higher taxes will make even the smallest dent in the deficit I'm a racist who favors white fat cats over poor struggling inner-city folks. By favoring a strong military and worrying that Obama's pacifism is encouraging aggression from our enemies, I'm a war monger who wants to send our military around the world to kill innocent people indiscriminately so we can steal their oil.
I remain saddened that people I would otherwise consider friends think I'm evil for merely being what I thought was mainstream; Somehow I woke up one day and discovered that Fauth, Family, and Patriotism are now considered intolerant and racist.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Can a Team Beat a Pair of Stars?
That's the question the Indiana Pacers believe will be answered in the affirmative. I've seen the first two games between the Pacers and the Miami Heat, and both games seemed to underscore the fundamental question. So far it's a split, with the superstars taking game 1 and the team without stars hanging on by their fingernails to wil game 2.
Indiana doesn't have marquee players. Their top scorer the past few seasons has been Danny Granger, who is a decent player in the NBA that will never be mentioned in the same breath as LeBron or Kobe. On the other side, Miami fans are expressing their displeasure with LeBron James, blaming him for failing to step up and defeat the Pacers last night when the game was on the line.
The Pacers use 10 players every game without suffering a significant drop in effectiveness. They've got a roster full of team-oriented players that play hard, play tough, dive on the floor for loose balls, and are positively mean on the boards. That's quite a contrast with the Heat, where the rest of the team gives the ball to Dewayne Wade and LeBron James in the fourth quarter and get out of the way.
The pair of stars accounted for 54 of the Heat's 75 points, while not a single teammate managed more than 5. The game 1 stats were similar for the Heat. By contrast, the Pacers spread their 78 points pretty evenly, with 4 of their 5 starters scoring in double figures.
Heat fans need to back off of James. He's a superstar, sure, but give some credit to the Pacers for playing great defense. Imagine praising a team's defense when they allowed LeBron "only" 28 points. Both teams can be credited with strong defensive schemes. Ending the game in the 70's is a defensive struggle in this league.
In game 1, when the Pacers dominated the first half, my vote on the question would have been "No". Because in the last 6 minutes of the game, LeBron and D-Wade decided to step up their games and suddenly that terrific Indiana defense looked lost as the two stars slashed, spun, and scored seemingly at will.
The two stars obviously tried their best to repeat their performance from game 1, but the Pacer defense seemed better prepared to survive the onslaught.
This series may go 7 games, and I won't be surprised if the trend continues. Miami will win when their two stars dominate, and Indiana will win when they're able to withstand the pair at the end of the game. The question will be answered at the end of Game 7, one way or the other but only by a whisker.
Indiana doesn't have marquee players. Their top scorer the past few seasons has been Danny Granger, who is a decent player in the NBA that will never be mentioned in the same breath as LeBron or Kobe. On the other side, Miami fans are expressing their displeasure with LeBron James, blaming him for failing to step up and defeat the Pacers last night when the game was on the line.
The Pacers use 10 players every game without suffering a significant drop in effectiveness. They've got a roster full of team-oriented players that play hard, play tough, dive on the floor for loose balls, and are positively mean on the boards. That's quite a contrast with the Heat, where the rest of the team gives the ball to Dewayne Wade and LeBron James in the fourth quarter and get out of the way.
The pair of stars accounted for 54 of the Heat's 75 points, while not a single teammate managed more than 5. The game 1 stats were similar for the Heat. By contrast, the Pacers spread their 78 points pretty evenly, with 4 of their 5 starters scoring in double figures.
Heat fans need to back off of James. He's a superstar, sure, but give some credit to the Pacers for playing great defense. Imagine praising a team's defense when they allowed LeBron "only" 28 points. Both teams can be credited with strong defensive schemes. Ending the game in the 70's is a defensive struggle in this league.
In game 1, when the Pacers dominated the first half, my vote on the question would have been "No". Because in the last 6 minutes of the game, LeBron and D-Wade decided to step up their games and suddenly that terrific Indiana defense looked lost as the two stars slashed, spun, and scored seemingly at will.
The two stars obviously tried their best to repeat their performance from game 1, but the Pacer defense seemed better prepared to survive the onslaught.
This series may go 7 games, and I won't be surprised if the trend continues. Miami will win when their two stars dominate, and Indiana will win when they're able to withstand the pair at the end of the game. The question will be answered at the end of Game 7, one way or the other but only by a whisker.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Never Thought This Day Would Come
That a United States President would come out squarely and openly against families, tradition, and Christianity. He's not only done that in his declaration for Gay Marriage, but has gone beyond it in speeches to subtly equate people of faith with racists while his syncophants in his own house network (MSNBC, in case you're not sure) equate us with Hitler.
Women should be insulted that he chose to equate Gay Marriage with Sufferage. No homosexual has ever been denied access to the voting booth by government regulation. Black people should be insulted that he also equated Gay Marriage with Civil Rights. Where has gay discrimination ever been encouraged by government? (Don't obscure the point by trying to use a gay discrimination story from some town council in Stickville Arkansas that happened 30 years ago.)
Simply stated, no person should receive special recognition, benefits, or preference from the government based on behavior. Homosexuality is definitively not something one is, but something one does. Marriage is a sacred sacrament which the President promises to destroy, no differently than if he entered a church sanctuary and proceeded to smash the altar, chalice, and tabernacle, then arrested everyone worshipping inside.
His own words condemn him, showing once and for all that he truly is not a Christian, but anti-Christian. His extremist policies in matters of faith have disqualified him from the office he holds. Radical abortion-on-demand and childbirth abortions, mandating that all employers provide abortifacients and sterilization, and now the satanic destruction of the marriage sacrament go beyond the pale. He may not be the antichrist that brings about Armageddon, but he is an antichrist all the same.
Sadly, the institution of marriage has been cheapened by so many Americans who lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be. Hollywood set the example over the years, with actors and actresses marrying at the drop of a hat. The rest of the celebrity-obsessed culture followed their lead by treating marriage like middle schoolers treat "going steady".
Republicans will run and hide, because they fear that the truth will lose them votes. Romney will make a simple and mild statement that he continues to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is perhaps all he need say on the subject. America must reject the immorality of this guy they accidentally elected president four years ago, or suffer even worse fate than we have already.
Women should be insulted that he chose to equate Gay Marriage with Sufferage. No homosexual has ever been denied access to the voting booth by government regulation. Black people should be insulted that he also equated Gay Marriage with Civil Rights. Where has gay discrimination ever been encouraged by government? (Don't obscure the point by trying to use a gay discrimination story from some town council in Stickville Arkansas that happened 30 years ago.)
Simply stated, no person should receive special recognition, benefits, or preference from the government based on behavior. Homosexuality is definitively not something one is, but something one does. Marriage is a sacred sacrament which the President promises to destroy, no differently than if he entered a church sanctuary and proceeded to smash the altar, chalice, and tabernacle, then arrested everyone worshipping inside.
His own words condemn him, showing once and for all that he truly is not a Christian, but anti-Christian. His extremist policies in matters of faith have disqualified him from the office he holds. Radical abortion-on-demand and childbirth abortions, mandating that all employers provide abortifacients and sterilization, and now the satanic destruction of the marriage sacrament go beyond the pale. He may not be the antichrist that brings about Armageddon, but he is an antichrist all the same.
Sadly, the institution of marriage has been cheapened by so many Americans who lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be. Hollywood set the example over the years, with actors and actresses marrying at the drop of a hat. The rest of the celebrity-obsessed culture followed their lead by treating marriage like middle schoolers treat "going steady".
Republicans will run and hide, because they fear that the truth will lose them votes. Romney will make a simple and mild statement that he continues to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is perhaps all he need say on the subject. America must reject the immorality of this guy they accidentally elected president four years ago, or suffer even worse fate than we have already.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Lugar-Mourdock Post Mortem
Everything I read or see on television about the shellacking Dick Lugar took in the Primary is a bunch of hand-wringing over the Tea Party destruction of centrists in the Congress.
They haven't got a clue, or are once again trying to manage our perceptions to fit their own.
Talk all you want about Lugar's moderate voting record, that he's left of John McCain and only slightly right of the ladies from Maine. That's not why he lost.
He lost because the citizens in Indiana found out he hasn't been in the state for 36 years. Because he sold his house and moved to Washington when he was elected in the 70's. And especially in recent years, was seldom seen or heard from by Hoosiers.
I may have been mistaken in my assumption that Senators are supposed to live in the state they represent. That Lugar did not is the reason he lost.
Not that the Tea Party and other national organizations that got behind Mourdock didn't have some effect on getting folks out to the polls. But my prediction is that if all other factors had been exactly the same and Dick Lugar had a home in Indiana that he returned to most weekends, he would have again won his seat back easily.
The Gregg governor's campaign has siezed on this fundamental truth, and is trying it out on Mike Pence. They're issuing press releases saying that Mike Pence is out of touch with Hoosiers because he's been living in Virginia for the last decade while serving as a congressman. Problem is, Mike didn't give up his home and is seen back home frequently, especially since he started his campaign to replace Mitch Daniels.
So Gregg's attempt to Lugarize Pence won't work.
Lugar's retired. Not because of his voting record or his stated admiration for Barack Obama. Because he's past retirement age and a creature of the DC beltway who disdains those hicks back in his home state. It was sad to see his dripping disdain in his parting letter to the Hoosier constituents that decided to facilitate his retirement. That bitter letter is beneath Dick's dignity, and he should have bowed out gracefully without the parting shots at us ignorant rubes.
They haven't got a clue, or are once again trying to manage our perceptions to fit their own.
Talk all you want about Lugar's moderate voting record, that he's left of John McCain and only slightly right of the ladies from Maine. That's not why he lost.
He lost because the citizens in Indiana found out he hasn't been in the state for 36 years. Because he sold his house and moved to Washington when he was elected in the 70's. And especially in recent years, was seldom seen or heard from by Hoosiers.
I may have been mistaken in my assumption that Senators are supposed to live in the state they represent. That Lugar did not is the reason he lost.
Not that the Tea Party and other national organizations that got behind Mourdock didn't have some effect on getting folks out to the polls. But my prediction is that if all other factors had been exactly the same and Dick Lugar had a home in Indiana that he returned to most weekends, he would have again won his seat back easily.
The Gregg governor's campaign has siezed on this fundamental truth, and is trying it out on Mike Pence. They're issuing press releases saying that Mike Pence is out of touch with Hoosiers because he's been living in Virginia for the last decade while serving as a congressman. Problem is, Mike didn't give up his home and is seen back home frequently, especially since he started his campaign to replace Mitch Daniels.
So Gregg's attempt to Lugarize Pence won't work.
Lugar's retired. Not because of his voting record or his stated admiration for Barack Obama. Because he's past retirement age and a creature of the DC beltway who disdains those hicks back in his home state. It was sad to see his dripping disdain in his parting letter to the Hoosier constituents that decided to facilitate his retirement. That bitter letter is beneath Dick's dignity, and he should have bowed out gracefully without the parting shots at us ignorant rubes.
Monday, May 07, 2012
Voted Early
Since I knew I wouldn't be around for the official primary day, I went down to the courthouse last week and picked my GOP candidates.
As mentioned in previous posts, the hardest decision for me was US Senator. I also went with the Presidential candidate I was supporting, even though he'd already given up. Not sure why, I suppose just to send a message to the nominee that we're not all thrilled with him.
Does it really matter? Whichever founding father it was that said our republic could not survive without a moral population was absolutely right, so it doesn't seem to matter much who we elect, as long as we've got a country full of selfish narcissists who, to put a twist on JFK, ask only what their country can do for them.
The people have willingly traded freedom for temporary security, and will soon have neither.
As mentioned in previous posts, the hardest decision for me was US Senator. I also went with the Presidential candidate I was supporting, even though he'd already given up. Not sure why, I suppose just to send a message to the nominee that we're not all thrilled with him.
Does it really matter? Whichever founding father it was that said our republic could not survive without a moral population was absolutely right, so it doesn't seem to matter much who we elect, as long as we've got a country full of selfish narcissists who, to put a twist on JFK, ask only what their country can do for them.
The people have willingly traded freedom for temporary security, and will soon have neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)