Who is Responsible?

Conventional wisdom these days says that we are all responsible for our own successes and failures. We create our own problems, and have the capacity to solve them. That the measure of a man is how effective he is at meeting life's problems head-on and turning problems into opportunities.

I keep trying to tell myself the same thing. My problems are really opportunities to grow and succeed in life. They are the hot flame that hardens and refines me. They help me grow in wisdom.

Thanks, but I'm at the point where I think it's time to turn down the heat a bit. There seems to be too much being thrown at me at once this summer, and I'm ready to surrender. Stress makes me stupid - I almost took a bad job just for the change, and health insurance. I've been working like a maniac, but somehow it's never enough. I've been trying to make everyone happy, but nobody is; especially me.

When there are too many problems that I can't solve, I feel out of control. This is one of those times. I know I must snap out of it, and solve the problems. But right now I'd rather just hide out for awhile.

Somehow over the course of the next few weeks I'll find a way to make things a little better. But just temporarily better, not solved.

Gotta stop before I give away what I must keep to myself.

Wishing for a Weekend

This whole exile thing doesn't seem such a good idea at this moment. Between the stress of working long hours for the clients I'm visiting, I've also been hit with a variety of urgent things I also have to do. It's too much work, too much stress, too much frustration.

Enough of that.

The last few days I've been at a casino. It's full of grey/white/blue-haired folks. There's a continental breakfast off the lobby that was so jammed with elders this morning I didn't get much and couldn't sit down to eat. Is that what retirees do these days? Go spend a weekend at some casino? That doesn't seem like much fun to me, but I guess the casinos love the old folks.

Between state lotteries and the spread of casinos across the country, I'm more than a little disgusted. I'm old enough to remember when gambling was considered a kind of lowbrow and sinful activity. Now everybody does it, and the government loves it.

Lotteries are taxes on poor and stupid people. I've met many folks during my lifetime who routinely buy their quota of lottery tickets in the sad belief that someday the numbers will come up and make them rich. Maybe it's not much to worry about for many of those people, but the really poor are getting poorer chasing that impossible dream.

The big secret about what happens to towns when casinos arrive isn't all the locals who get the low-paying jobs there. Is everybody really OK with the increase in crime that comes with the casinos? Is replacing the manufacturing jobs that went overseas with casino jobs at half the pay worth the side effects of drugs, theft, prostitution, etc.?

Yeah, I do a lot of consulting for casino companies. So it's true that I'm making part of my living in the same industry. It presents a bit of a dilemma for me, working for the very businesses I find distasteful.

Maybe I can fall into a pile of money so I don't have to work for the evil casinos. At least I, who never gamble, get about the same odds of coming into big money as those who spend money they don't have on lottery tickets and casino games.

Stem Cells and Terrorists and Gays (Oh my!)

The political stuff is beginning to bore me, but I'll go ahead and post my particular take on the things that have been happening over the last week.

How about using the order established in the title.

Stem Cells. The argument's been going on for several years. People like the late Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan have all been publicly lobbying for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

I've heard both side of the argument. Proponents say that embryonic stem cells have a potential for curing damaged spinal cords, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. (See Reeve, Fox, Reagan). Their emotion-filled argument sounds full of hope that they or their family members could be (or could have been) cured of their terrible diseases, except the evil Bush refused to fund the research.

The other side fears a slippery slope. They have a somewhat cynical view that many proponents of this research are in it to further rationalize abortion than a sincere belief in cures. But their bottom line is that it is immoral to create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying (read, killing) it to search for a cure that isn't even likely.

Here's what I understand about the issue. Embryonic stem cells have not yet proven therapeutic for any disease, despite scientists worldwide apparently working hard in their labs to solve the puzzle. However, adult and placental stem cells, which by the way don't require killing anybody, are already being used successfully to treat all sorts of diseases.

What people on the "pro" side either miss or cynically avoid admitting are the basic facts I outlined above, plus the fact that Bush didn't "ban" stem cell research at all - he merely refuses to fund it with federal tax dollars.

What some people on the "con" side may miss is the fact that nobody is proposing the use of aborted fetuses for this research. They instead are asking permission to obtain unused embryos from fertility clinics. But those on this side who do understand that still oppose the research because #1: They have a moral objection to killing embryos under any circumstances, even from fertility clinics; #2: They are convinced that those who do the research will quickly be back demanding they be allowed to use aborted fetuses or even create embryos themselves for destruction in their research; and #3: They believe there are plenty of private biotech companies doing the research on their own without any help from Uncle Sam, and there's no reason to use tax dollars from people morally opposed to this research to support research that may eventually make some biotech company extremely rich.

So I've got no problem with Bush's veto of the bill out of congress today.

Next, terrorists. It's kind of scary to see the escalating conflict between Israel and their enemies. The crazy thing is everybody from Kofi Annan to CNN to Howard Dean running around blaming the current war on, you guessed it, President Bush. The twisted logic is that if Bush had somehow left Iraq alone, none of this stuff with Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas and North Korea would have happened.

Did our invasion of Iraq enrage a lot of radical Islamic terrorist types? Sure. News Flash! War usually does make the enemy hate you more when you fight them. The idea from the pacifists is that we could have somehow brought everyone in the world together to scold the terrorists, as if they were little children, to suddenly love us and stop trying to kill us. Iran, North Korea, and Syria were our enemies in 2001 and they remain our enemies today. Right now they've decided to take on Israel in full-on warfare through their proxies. Next they will do their best to attack American cities.

I know I said it before, but it's really very simple. Aggressors cannot be appeased. Never in history has anyone successfully appeased them. They are either defeated or they win.

Finally, gays. Congress tried to get the gay marriage amendment rolling and failed. They got lots of votes but not the two-thirds it requires. Why did they push this amendment? Was it some sort of campaign stunt, or were they serious?

I'd say both. Conservatives in the House can most definitely use their "Yes" votes to hold off their liberal challengers who mostly think Gay Marriage should be the law of the land. But the fundamental reason they tried the amendment was to keep the courts from forcing it on all of us without our approval. Massachusetts is the first example, and there likely will be other left-wing judges more than happy to dictate the subject against the wishes of the majority.

We live in interesting times.

Exile

My 2 week exile is underway. Just finished in DC with a day that went 8-8, and now here I am writing a blog entry for reasons I can't quite fathom. Maybe because I usually go 8-9 and feel like I have to do something with the extra hour.

Tomorrow an early-morning flight to Seattle. And I actually look forward to it a bit, because I don't have to do any actual work, and nobody will be able to reach me because the airlines make you turn off your cellphones during flight. Hopefully my upgrade went through and I can sit back in first class with a good book to pass the time.

Not that anybody cares, but the rest of my exile is a return flight to DC next weekend with the same trip back to Seattle again same time, next week. If I'm lucky, the exile will end before August rolls around.

This post was going to have a bit more, but I just got a big reminder from somewhere behind my navel that it's time to stop messing around and get some food.

Back to the 70's

Had an all-70's web radio playing while I worked yesterday, and it got me thinking about the evolution of popular music.

Call me biased, since of course the 70's is the decade in which I came of age, but I think it might be the best music decade in the modern era. Let me make the case.

Reason #1: Some of the greatest bands and artists made timeless classics.

Many of these are still around, and others are iconic. Just a short list:
Aerosmith, The Who, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Elton John, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Eagles, Genesis, Boston, Nugent, Clapton, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan. I probably forgot somebody important.

Reason #2: Music so good I personally haven't heard better since.
There were the bands and artists so well known that I listed above, but some of my favorites have never been duplicated.
My personal all-time favorites were Chicago, Harry Chapin, Jim Croce, and I, uh, had this crush on Olivia.

Reason #3: There was something for everyone.
From acid or metal to folk, there was a lot of great music for any taste. I was a great fan of Chapin's story songs. Others enjoyed Carly Simon and James Taylor (who by the way were married briefly back then).

We've gotta give Barry Manilow his due. I find it rather funny that nobody will admit to ever being a Manilow fan, but somebody had to be to explain his huge album sales and airplay. OK, I admit that I sort of liked Manilow. I listened to him when he came on the radio, saw him in concert once, and even did one of his songs as a solo in U. Singers.

Then there's disco. I think everybody who hates or makes fun of disco missed the point. Disco never tried to be about serious music. It was all about fun. And the girls were really into the disco dancing scene, which meant guys actually went out and learned the Hustle for the sole purpose of meeting them. Listen to the Bee Gees and Donna Summer and the Village People, and I think you'll hear that they're not about anything but having a good time.

Generally what I miss most about the music of the 70's in contrast to today's popular music is the spirit. In the 70's, music was about love and fun and hopefulness. Sure, lots of songs were kind of sappy by today's terms, but I don't have a problem with that. Today's music seems much more cynical and worldly and much less soulful. And in my humble opinion, it's hard to find an artist these days that can actually sing with range and pitch and tone. It seems like these days, good singers need not apply.

I think I'll listen to that 70's station some more. It takes me back, bringing some feelings and memories of people and events I haven't thought about in a long time.

Inevitable

The mess in the middle east continues. An emboldened Hamas ratchets up the conflict with Israel, which in turn emboldens Hezbollah to do the same. Is peace in that region a pipe dream, or has everyone just been looking in the wrong places for peace?

Going back to the original speech by the President in the buildup to the Iraq war, we can still point to the forces of evil in the world named by him: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea. The only thing that has changed is Iraq, which isn't a state sponsor of terrorism but is going through the birth pains of a democratic state. Iran and Syria are still out there, arming and moving "insurgents" into Iraq and pulling the strings of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

The constant warring and turmoil could be stopped in a number of ways. For example, if the UN was an effective organization rather than the corrupt and dysfunctional waste of money it is today, they should get together to solve the problem.

The solution is simple: Work with Israel to draw the lines between Israel and Palestine, then send a multinational force to enforce those borders indefinitely. And enforcement doesn't mean a bunch of unarmed blue helmets standing around making good targets for terrorists. It means a force armed to the teeth that puts up with no nonsense. Anybody who violates the border or tosses rockets across the border or otherwise threatens the peace is dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly until such activities cease.

Iran stops building nukes or we take out the facilities. They and Syria stop supporting terrorists or we build a big wall around their countries through which nothing comes out or goes in.

Basically, the US could do all these things all by ourselves if we wanted to, but such an action will be so opposed as to make the Iraq war opposition look trite. Because too many people in this country and the world live in a fantasy world where all that needs to be done is discuss these things reasonably with combatants until they see the light and voluntarily choose peace.

Iran and Syria are behind an Islamic jihad. There is a clearly stated goal of erasing Israel from the planet, then bringing about a world dominated by Islam. From Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, talks and peace plans and "frameworks" have taken place on a nearly continuous basis until Israel was finally convinced to give up territories to the Palestinians in return for peace. See what that got them.

My reading of history suggests that no aggressor has never been successfully appeased. They either attack and win or are defeated. Peace must be won, not negotiated.

As much as we wish there was another way, there is not. We can solve the problem through strength and resolve now, or be pulled into a long, difficult, and costly war later. Unfortunately the world's leaders are committed to later.

American Mythology

There is a great deal of mythology happening in the American public discourse. Any reasoned and logical analysis of the kinds of political arguments being made these days would have to conclude that the most commonly held beliefs held by people and promulgated by those who stand to benefit from them are mythological rather than factual.

Here's a long list of mythological theories held by huge segments of the population:

• "Bush lied" - complete myth promulgated by the anti-war crowd, continuing in spite of direct evidence to the contrary.
• Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al broke the law by exposing the name of Valerie Plame.
  
• High oil prices are because of some Bush/Cheney scheme to enrich their buddies in the oil business.
• Illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won't do.
• Raising the minimum wage to $6 or $6.50 would wreck the economy.
• There are no anti-trust violations in corporate America, or mega-monopolistic corporations aren't a problem.
• Tax cuts only benefited the "rich".
• Network and NY Times reporting is fair and unbiased.
• Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats.
• Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans.
• The US Senate is in touch and cares about what's best for their consituents.
• Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats.
• Right-wing conservatives want to make the US a theocracy.
• Democrats have a plan for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.
• Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.
• There were no WMD in Iraq.
• If we just stop "meddling" in the middle east, the terrorists will become our friends, or at least leave us alone.
• The Iranian nuclear threat is Bush's fault.
• The Iranian nuclear threat is Clinton's fault.
• The North Korean nuclear threat is Bush's fault.
• The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese are our friends.
• The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese would be our friends if it wasn't for Bush.
• Government deficits exist because the rich aren't taxed enough.
• 9/11 was an "inside job".
• All conservatives are racists or fascists.
• All liberals are communists.
• Prisoners in Iraq and Gitmo are routinely tortured by American troops under the direction of the Bush administration.
  
• Abortion is a fundamental human right, not infanticide.
• It's not possible to secure the borders.
• It's not possible to enforce laws against employers hiring illegal immigrants.
• Politicians refust to solve the illegal immigration problem because they care about the welfare of immigrants.
• The Supreme Court makes all decisions strictly on interpretation of U.S. law and the constitution.
• American "war criminal" troops routinely murder, rape, and loot innocent Iraqis.
  
• Bush "stole" both his elections for President.
• Colleges and Universities are havens for diversity of thought and freedom of expression of all ideas and philosophies.
• The NY Times has the right to publish details of classified intelligence programs to expose a president that has overreached his powers, even if such publication damages efforts to protect the country from terrorist attack.
• Congressmen aren't beholden to big special-interest donors, and don't pass or block legislation to favor those who help keep them in office. Such as coporate interests, foreign interests (China), trade unions, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, banks and investment firms, environmental organizations, George Soros, etc.
  

And these were just off the top of my head.

Back to Work

Getting a four day weekend after not a day off all year was fantastic. Trip to Goshen and a lazy 4th were a nice combination to recharge batteries a bit. The main problem was that I really didn't want to go back to work on Wednesday.

Wednesday was crazy enough that it seemed to justify my reluctance to return.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just work whenever we felt like it and still be able to pay the bills? There's a dream job for ya. Show up whenever you like, leave when you're done or just have had enough. If you wake up one morning and the sun is shining, just skip work and go play golf. Or you wake up and feel rotten, just turn over and go back to sleep.

How many days would we work per month if we had such dream jobs? Or would they really be dream jobs after awhile? If the job isn't important enough that you can just skip out whenever you feel the urge, would you ever really want to show up? I think eventually most of us would end up trying to find something more challenging, or we would just show up every day and try to make something out of the job that makes us feel useful.

Life's dilemma, I suppose. What's worthwhile is very difficult. What's easy is boring and unsatisfying. We can choose.

Boy Do I Need a Vacation

The last time I had a day off that wasn't on a weekend was back around Christmastime. I recall looking forward to Memorial Day, because finally I could have a 3-day weekend. But something came up, and I worked Memorial Day.

So this long holiday weekend has got me sort of excited. I plan to take the whole weekend, including a trip to Goshen on Sunday and Monday. Back to work Wednesday, which will be quite a busy return.

Actually went on an interview today. Confirmed it's too far to commute, and although if they offer me a solid salary and benefits package it will be tempting, my gut tells me I don't want to uproot for it. No need to worry about it now. They will either offer or they won't. If they do, then I have to decide. I'd rather convince them to contract me, which seems the best solution for both parties.

On the drive, I picked up Air America on the radio. Talk about a parallel universe. The nicest thing I can say is, those people are nuts. I couldn't listen very long, because the whole thing was bizarre and just a bit scary.

How to describe Air America? The bottom line of the radio network starts from a visceral and irrational hatred of the President. The host started off her show by crowing (yes, it did sound like a crow) about how the Supreme Court "slapped down Bush". She was so excited, you would have thought the President had actually been physically assaulted. No analysis of the decision, no factual or thoughtful analysis of the decision itself. Just celebration, because the hated Bush didn't get his way on how to try the terrorists held in Guantanamo.

Oh, by the way, from Air America's perspective, the "detainees" at Gitmo aren't terrorists. They are just unfortunate slobs that got caught up in George Adolph Hitler Bush's reign of terror. I couldn't tell for certain whether she thought they were innocent, or just supported them because they would jump at the chance to shoot or blow up the President.

Clearly she lives her life on emotion, the foremost of which is hatred. Why does she (and her cronies at Air America) hate Bush so much? I think I listened long enough to figure that out. She hates him because he stole the presidency from her beloved Al Gore, then added insult to injury by stealing it again from John Kerry. So it really doesn't matter much what he does, she will assume it is done with the worst possible motives.

In her sad world, Bush manufactured the "war on terror" as a key strategy for a carefully planned power grab. Then he pushed through the Patriot Act, uses the NSA to spy on Americans, tracks everybody's financial transactions, incarcerates and tortures innocent people for no good reason, and generally created an intrusive dictatorship designed to control and suppress the population. If there is any justice in the world, Bush will not only be impeached, but tried in the Hague as a war criminal. Everything he does, in her delusional mind, is to advance his evil plan to become dictator.

I wonder what she will say in 2008 when a new president is elected. Gee, if Bush was all about this dictatorial power, why did he give it up? What if a Democrat wins? If Bush is actually spying on you, why haven't you been arrested or harrassed? So it would be OK with you, then, if we just let everybody in Gitmo loose in your home city? Oh yeah, one more thing - if Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, how do you explain the reports coming out now about the 500+ chemical warheads found and the Iraqi government documents describing specific plans to use a variety of such weapons on the US?

Facts are funny things when they refute such deeply held beliefs.

Pharmacist Persecution?

Heard something briefly that seemed to suggest that Illinois is either considering or has already passed a law forcing pharmacists to dispense abortion drugs. Yes, it's an abortion drug - I think we should call things what they are rather than use euphemisms.

The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.

To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.

Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?

Maybe, maybe not.

Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:

During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.

Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.

It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.

But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.

Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.

I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.

Global Warming: Science or Politics?

There's too much to absorb in this topic if you're someone like me who likes to decide for himself about the issues of the day by researching the underlying data, finding out what "experts" think, listening to arguments pro and con, then making an informed decision.

With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.

The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:

1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?

I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.

The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.

We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.

Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.

So what to believe? Who to believe?

Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.

Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.

Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.

Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.

Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?

If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?

And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.

Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.

You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.

Monday Blog Break

This afternoon I'm writing for no better reason than I just wanted to take a break from the drudgery of work.

Let's go with some brief observations.

How can NBC credibly claim any sense of balance when Meet the Press this Sunday had not one single Republican or Conservative to respond to the litany of idiocy and pandering spouted by their left-wing guests? I turned it off after about 10 minutes of Russ Feingold demonstrating why he is the worst possible choice for the job of Commander in Chief in two years.

If Feingold is being honest, he's a dangerous idiot. If not, he's just a John Kerry clone. I saw Jack Murtha, and sure hope somebody's running against him in his district, because the old coot's senile. Hillary's pandering with her proposal that sounds a lot like what the President and his generals are actually doing, but at least she seems halfway logical.

I think it would be cool if we let North Korea shoot their missile across the Pacific, but take it out in flight with our "Star Wars" system. For one thing, I'm interested to see if the system actually works. For another, just think about the impact that would make on the rest of the world: Go ahead if you want to shoot at us, we'll just knock your missiles out of the air.

I'm wondering how anybody can possibly take the weekend attack in Israel as Israel's fault? Some Hamas militants build a tunnel under the fence from Gaza, which by the way was territory just given them by the Israelis in hope it would lead to peace. They engage the Israeli military in a shootout, then escape back to their territory with a captive Israeli soldier.

And this was Israel's fault how? And Israel should give them even more territory why?

Let's see if I can recap the facts:

Israel's a soverign nation. They have prospered and built an oasis in what used to be an impoverished desert region. They employ Palestinian Arabs and help them prosper as well, as long as those Arabs don't shoot at them or blow them up. They have agreed in principle, and have actually ceded big chunks of their territory to allow the Palestinians their own country.

Again, in what way exactly does this make Israel the villain in this conflict? Sometimes the road to peace isn't through pacifism, but victory. If the UN was anything close to an effective organization, here's what they should do:

1. Broker a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for borders and peace.
2. Help both countries create that border and enforce it with International Troops. Bill both countries for the security forces.
3. Impose severe sanctions on anybody that disrupts the peace. Do this in every way possible, including incarceration of individual terrorists up to financial sanctions on the government that might have supported them in any way.

It could work. But not from the UN.

PC Religion

Something's been bothering me for a long time now. After reading an article in the local paper praising this trend I feel a strong need to vent. The article was from Mona Safley, a local religion writer who just last week wrote a piece about accepting and embracing homosexuals because Jesus would have. She has a habit of missing or distorting the truth.

PC is running amok in churches these days. The one place I had always hoped would remain a refuge from the insanity of popular culture has joined that very popular culture.

I'm talking about something called "inclusiveness".

A few activist feminists in churches have decided it's offensive that so much of what goes on there violates their sensitivities by calling God "The Father". 200 year old hymns contain lyrics referring to people as "men" or "mankind". (Show of hands, how many are offended by the phrase "good will toward men" in a hymn we all know by heart?)

So they went about rewriting everything they could get their hands on. Ancient hymns I used to be able to sing without cracking the hymnal have now been rewritten so thoroughly that sometimes they don't even convey the same message. (Some hymnals have replaced or rewritten verses that refer to uncomfortable issues like "sin" and "repentance" because we don't want any sinners to feel bad)

They've even rewritten the entire Bible into the New Revised Standard Inclusive Edition, which has completely neutered God.

Our singing group did a kind of tour of local churches over the last few weeks. In two of these churches, the theology of inclusiveness was in full display. The first church's female pastor was making opening remarks before the service, during which she apologized to the congregation because that day's service included the singing of the Gloria Patri. The apology was that this ancient piece of sacred music was not "as inclusive as we here at (church name) prefer". But she went on to explain that it was an ancient traditional song that had long been sung on this particular Sunday. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Another church had the "inclusive" hymnals of course, which isn't really all that unusual. I did get sort of caught singing a favorite old hymn without looking at the words, but nobody seemed to notice when I sang the offensive male-gender lyric in place of its neutered replacement.

But it was during the sermon that it hit like fingernails on the chalkboard. The pastor (a male this time) on several occasions chose to refer to God as "she" or "her". Why wreck an otherwise good sermon with such hubris?

I cantor regularly in the Catholic Church, which officially frowns on the "inclusive language" movement. But that doesn't stop local parishes from forging ahead. My personal little act of disobedience in the big church that we mostly don't attend anymore was to ignore the instructions to replace the text in the Gloria. I refused to change "and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God's people on earth". But nobody ever confronted me about it.

Here's my bottom line. God self-identifies himself in the masculine. The Bible is full of teaching on the roles of men and women that our modern feminist society can't accept. What people fail to recognize most of all is that Christianity in no way seeks to demean or oppress women. What it clearly does instead is honors women, and teaches that men and women were created to complement each other.

The truth, even though it may offend modern feminists, is this: Men are given certain abilities and strengths and women are given other abilities and strengths. Together, a man and woman can make a great team if they recognize and honor the capabilities of each other.

And if people spend all their time being offended at hearing God referred to as Father, then I suggest they may be more focused on things temporal than things divine.

Consulting Kookiness

Got a rather funny email today originating from the software company I do a lot of my contract consulting for these days. New rule: If you pay for a meal with a credit card, the receipt can't be the credit card receipt. It has to be one that shows what you actually ordered.

What's funny about that is the idea that somebody out there searches through every receipt from every consultant expense invoice, looking for something to question. It's an old practice that is really kind of ridiculous, where somebody actually gets paid (or maybe gets some odd kick) to look at every single receipt.

It's not because they are being thorough, although it is partially to keep consultants honest. The real reason, as I discovered back in my consulting management days, is to delay payment as long as humanly possible.

Here's how it works:

Consulting delivered, expense report processed, invoice sent to customer. Customer demands copies of all receipts in order to approve any expenses for payment.

Photocopies of receipts sometimes don't come out very clearly. So they reject the entire expense invoice until the company provides a legible receipt.

Receipts sometimes are handwritten. Rejected for illegibility.

The receipt doesn't match the invoice. For example, the consultant forgot to include the tip when charging a meal. Rejected for unmatched amount. (even though it's in the customer's favor)

So imagine what the game is now, with this new demand to see the actual meal. Let me guess: An alcoholic beverage with dinner - rejected. Meal included steak, or heaven forbid, veal - rejected by the vegan chick who reviews the receipts! Ordered dessert - rejected. The tip for the waitress was more than 10% - rejected!

You see, there's already a sort of daily meal maximum. Most reasonable customers don't mind if you exceed it now and then - say you're in town for the whole week and you want to have dinner at a decent restaurant one night. Generally no sweat. You only spent $20 to $30 bucks a day, and on one day it went up to $50. No biggie.

Except for the type of customer that makes these sorts of demands. They will hold up payment on every invoice you sent them over the last 6 months because they are questioning a $2 discrepancy on a single expense report. You think I'm exaggerating? Nope, I've actually seen it happen. Again, not because they're worried about getting ripped off by shady consultants padding their expenses. The real truth is they just use it as an excuse to keep from paying their bill.

Personally, if I had a contract opportunity with a company I knew played such games, I wouldn't take it. Or I'd demand a rate high enough to compensate for the hassle, not to mention make up for the slow-paying customer.

Friday Not Really

Normally I'd be happy for Friday. Not this week, because it's not a normal Friday. I've got so much work to do that I'll be late again today, then have to come back in to the office on Saturday. But not Sunday - that's a non-workday no matter what.

Sad to see the US out of the World Cup. Since I got home after 10 last night, I just replayed the first half. Apparently that's all I really needed to see, as no other goals were scored.

Sure, the penalty kick was a terrible call. So was at least one, if not both of the red cards in the Italy game. It does seem rather suspicious to see the US singled out for so many bad calls. But they can't totally blame the referees for being out of the running.

They wouldn't have beaten Ghana even without the penalty kick. A 1-1 tie would have knocked them out of the competition just as effectively as the loss. The referees didn't really need their terrible calls, if indeed their objective was to drum the US out of the competition, because this US team just couldn't score. One goal in 3 games actually scored by the US team tells the whole story.

The US team plays a ball-control style that kept them in possession most of all 3 games. That's great if you want to play keep-away at midfield all day, but it doesn't get the ball in the net. In every game, whenever the US moved toward the opponent's goal, the other team just stacked up in a human wall. The US guys couldn't get quality shots, let alone score.

Were they not good enough for the World Cup? Results say yes. Was it Bruce Arena's fault? In the sense that he's the head coach, who sets the strategy and chooses the players, sure. This was probably the best team the US could put on the field, but would better coaching have brought out the best of the talent?

Who knows.

Godless

It's the title of a book by Ann Coulter that seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. Seems pretty provocative, as she uses "godless" to describe the political left.

My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.

OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.

But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.

So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.

Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.

Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.

Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.

On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?

When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?

Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.

Ancient Brilliance

I wonder how many people realize that modern society and law are based on the ancient law of Moses? Of which the essentials were boiled down to the 10 commandments.

Now for sake of argument, let's say that Moses wrote them by himself without God's help. (although as a Christian, I tend to believe otherwise).

He then was the most brilliant leader in world history, at least as far as we know.

Because the 10 commandments is a social code of behavior developed to bring order to a very large body of ethnic Jews who suddenly found themselves free in the desert and without any sort of government structure.

So where's the brilliance, you ask? Let me show you:
(paraphrasing)

1. Have no other gods before me: They lived in Egypt, where there were all sorts of gods. Imagine the conflicts that might have caused between people. One God, that's it. Brilliant.

2. No graven images: Don't waste your gold and other precious materials making stupid gods to try to win their favor. Very good idea for a bunch of people wandering the desert with limited resources.

3. Don't take God's name in vain: Watch your mouth. Don't curse or disrespect God. Foul language is offensive in general, but disrespecting God is the worst.

4. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy: Take a day off every week to rest and gather together for nice peaceful worship. Great for building a unified community. And makes sure everybody, even slaves, get a day off once a week.

5. Honor your father and mother: 'nuff said. What an excellent commandment, if I may say so.

6. Don't Murder: Duh. Strange thing, I get the idea these days it's more like, "don't murder anybody unless they are a total creep." Personally I tend to believe this is a pretty good commandment.

7. Don't commit adultery: Why is this a good commandment? Our society today has a particular problem with this one, because people don't like to be told what to do in this area. But think about it this way: what happens when a man or woman has sex with someone not his or her husband or wife? For starters, they break up their families. The distraught spouse might become suicidal or homicidal or both. They pass around all sorts of horrible diseases. You see, it's actually a very civilized rule.

8. Don't Steal: Seems obvious, but I notice people chip away at this one too. For example, some might find Robin Hood to be virtuous, even though he clearly violated this commandment. Lots of people steal stuff from their parents, siblings, or employers just because they can, or because they make up silly rationalizations for why it's not really "stealing". Bottom line, people going around stealing other people's stuff isn't a very good way to keep a stable society.

9. Don't Lie: It's sad that most people seem to have forgotten this one. Imagine, if like in the Jim Carrey movie nobody was able to tell a lie. It's OK to say nothing if the truth would hurt somebody, but generally speaking, little lies lead to bigger and bigger lies and then, well, it's just a mess.

10. Don't be jealous: Don't be a Democrat (just kidding, sort of). Don't spend all your time looking at somebody who has stuff you don't and thinking you are more deserving of all that stuff than he or she. It also mentions this about the other guy's wife (or woman's husband), which could lead to a violation of #7.

You see, I don't really understand the whole atheist hatred of people like me who take these rules seriously. Because, whether you want to follow the first three or not, they all really are extremely valuable for the building and maintenance of a stable and peaceful society. Not to mention good for everyone in general.

If more people just decided to go ahead and follow these rules for living, I can think of a whole host of social ills that would just go away. You know what I'm talking about - don't say you don't! Greatly reduced divorce, which in turn greatly reduces problem children that grow up to be problem adults who might do things like murder, steal, adulter (is that a verb?). Overall, better communication and unity, where people share common values, communicate better and focus more on God and others than themselves.

Want peace? Just follow the ten commandments and get 10 other people to do the same.

Ultimately most of these rules are hard to enforce. My reading of the context of the commandments is that they are meant to be internalized and followed by people out of free will. They're not rules designed to stop people from having fun, but to help people live full, happy, and peaceful lives.

Translating into morality, Jesus Christ himself said it best when he identified the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love One Another. See, if you internalize those two, the rest of the commandments are merely corollaries.

That's what morality means.

What If

Thinking about a few "What if"s:

What if indisputable evidence was found that Saddam had all sorts of WMD in Iraq?

What if that evidence showed that those weapons were in the hands of Iran's Dictator/President?

What if evidence of persecution of Christians in America was made public, such as the girl in Nevada who had her microphone turned off by administrators during her speech because she dared to suggest that her faith was an important part of her experience?

What if studies were publicized that strongly suggested homosexuality was not a natural preference, but was actually due to childhood abuse and disfunctional home environments?

What if every pregnant woman was given an ultrasound that showed her the growing child within before making an abortion decision?

What if the epidemic of STD's was made public and the truth simply stated that the only way to stop it was lifelong fidelity to a single mate?

What if everybody understood that a plurality of their political leaders were beholden to those who pay to keep them in office, not the people who voted for them?

What if every tax we pay was billed separately with everything we buy, and all of our income taxes were billed every month by the federal and state governments so that we had to write a check?

What if a law was passed that no government- federal, state, or local - may exempt or reduce taxes of any sort for any individual or corporation?

What if everyone no longer had any health insurance and had to pay for their health care out of their own personal funds?

What if government-run social programs were required to spend no more than 10% of their budget on administration?

What if companies could not fire or lay off anyone without paying severance based on years of service, especially if the purpose of the layoff is to replace them with illegal (or legal) immigrants who will work for less?

What if the people, through a plurality referendum, could recall their elected officials with a new election before their term ended?

What if there was a "Neither" option on the ballot, and when "Neither" gets the highest number of votes, both candidates are thrown out and new ones must campaign for the office?

Would these things change people's minds? Would they change people's behavior?

Would they make this a better country? A better world?

World Cup Musings

The best thing about the DVR is that it can capture all the World Cup matches during the day. Then I can speed-watch them at night. I haven't watched one live yet, but will try to catch the US against Italy this weekend.

I've seen some pretty amazing players, and some dramatic games. Like yesterday, when it looked like Poland had a 0-0 tie in the bag. They went into extra time just having dodged a major bullet with two German balls hitting the crossbar. But a perfect centering pass to a German who stretched out to redirect the ball into the net killed Poland. Wow.

The US didn't look like they belonged. Even though they controlled the ball for the majority of their match with the Czechs, they got no more than 1 serious scoring chance, while giving up 3. Granted, 2 of the 3 Czech goals were amazing. But isn't that what it takes to compete a the World Cup level?

Offensively, the US seemed to spend most of their time playing keep-away at midfield. They were so plodding and methodical that whenever they began to try advancing the ball toward the Czech box, it was simply taken away by an obviously faster and more skilled team toward a good chance on the US end.

As one who was hoping to see a good effort by the US team in this event, I'm probably as disappointed in this team as anybody. The question is, is the US Team overrated and not good enough for the Cup? Or did they have a nervous and tentative first outing against a very good Czech team, and they can rebound to beat Italy and Ghana to advance to the next round?

I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.

The Pump Metaphor

A long time ago I spent some time in Real Estate. I got some sales training back then, where a metaphor of a manual garden water pump was used to describe the process of establishing yourself in the market.

I was thinking about that metaphor recently, and think it's a good one not only for salespeople, but for just about any human endeavor. It is certainly true in business. Unfortunately, anybody under 40 years old or has never spent time in the country might not know much about the pumps I'm talking about. Thus the picture.

When I jumped into opening my own business over 2 years ago, after getting my office set up and attending some training, I enthusiastically grabbed the pump handle and started pumping as hard as I could.

But nothing came out at first. "What am I doing wrong?", I wondered. I was working the pump so hard my shoulder was starting to hurt. I was told there is plenty of water in this well, so why can't I seem to get any?

I was out talking to people and business everywhere, using whatever marketing strategies I thought I could afford, joined networking groups, and spread around business cards. But it seemed that none of it was paying off. Everybody was nice, they seemed to appreciate my product and service offerings, but when it came time to decide whether to write the check and move forward, it usually came down to a polite "Not now".

Just as I was beginning to wonder if this endeavor was ever going to get off the ground, I began to get a trickle of water. I was considering giving up, and had actually begun to rest a bit, begin thinking about doing something that wasn't so difficult, and began to reduce my pumping intensity. But right about that time, suddenly a trickle appeared.

Some people began to trust me with small projects. The trickle wasn't getting me what I needed, but it gave me enough encouragement to renew my pumping efforts. After awhile the trickle increased to a stream, then almost before I realized it, a full flow of water. This was exciting and a big relief, because my reservoir was getting very low.

Pretty soon the water filled my containers to capacity. So I had to stop pumping for awhile to carry the water everywhere it needed to go. I worked hard and got the water I had pumped distributed and got high praise from those I served with the fresh water. It was a great feeling.

But then I finished. The water was all distributed and the pump was idle. I had to start over.

So I began pumping again. This time I found I was better at pumping, but it still took awhile before the water began flowing again. And because I was too busy taking care of the immediate needs from last time, I hadn't refilled my reservoir.

This continued through my second year in business. The cycle repeated itself: Pumping vigorously to get a good flow, filling my water capacity, leaving the pump to carry the water, then starting over at the pump. Each time I got better and the dry spells became shorter, but I realized this was a problem.

So here I am today with the dilemma probably most entrepreneurs face at some point. How can I keep the pump going and still get the water carried? The obvious answer is, I need help. I either need someone who's good at pumping to man the pump while I carry the water. Or I need someone who's a good reliable water carrier to carry the water while I keep the pump flowing.

The question is Who? How? When? What? Most importantly, Whether?

Got work to do. The water's overflowing.