I voted today, because I might be out of town next Tuesday.
It was easy, and didn't take long. I don't see what the flap is all about with having to show an ID. No problem.
As far as the new computer terminal, it seemed to work OK. I can understand where people might get concerned about hacking, but it seems to me that with adequate security measures and other checks and balances, like making sure the number of people who voted on the machine matches the number of people who showed up to vote, should help insure it doesn't get hacked.
I took my own advice. There was a local board that I didn't know anything about, and didn't know anybody running for it. So I didn't vote for anyone for that board. Otherwise I had done my homework and voted for the best options in each race.
It will be interesting to see how I did after all the votes are in next week.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Contradiction
Does anybody else wonder about contradictions? I was just thinking about several:
Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?
Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?
How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?
Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?
Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?
Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?
Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?
How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?
How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?
Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?
How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?
If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?
Just wondering.
Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?
Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?
How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?
Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?
Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?
Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?
Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?
How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?
How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?
Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?
How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?
If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?
Just wondering.
Monday, October 30, 2006
You better not vote if ...
You form all your impressions of the candidates from their TV ads
You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative
You're voting against someone instead of for someone
Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.
You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.
It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.
For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.
Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.
But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.
But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.
Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:
Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System
You get the idea.
Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.
If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).
I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.
You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative
You're voting against someone instead of for someone
Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.
You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.
It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.
For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.
Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.
But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.
But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.
Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:
Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System
You get the idea.
Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.
If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).
I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Language
Last week's assignment was an assessment of a company's use of software. The goal was to solve their biggest problems and identify efficiencies they could realize through better use of available features in the product.
Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".
I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.
The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?
It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.
Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.
Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.
Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?
Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."
Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".
I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.
The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?
It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.
Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.
Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.
Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?
Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Movie Review
I caught Flags of our Fathers on opening night. I was stuck in Kansas anyway, and had stayed in the hotel and worked pretty much every night this week. So for my big Friday night outing, I naturally chose to see the movie based on the book I enjoyed so much.
Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:
That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,
That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,
That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.
I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.
If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.
Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.
If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.
Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:
That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,
That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,
That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.
I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.
If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.
Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.
If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Grease - The Rest of the Story
I just happened to catch the movie Grease on TV, the one from 1978 with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. It just hit me as the movie was ending to write the rest of the story about Danny Zuko and Sandy (what is her last name?)
So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:
Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.
Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!
The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.
But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.
She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.
Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.
At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.
When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.
After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.
Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.
That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.
Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.
Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.
Next:
What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?
So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:
Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.
Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!
The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.
But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.
She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.
Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.
At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.
When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.
After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.
Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.
That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.
Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.
Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.
Next:
What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?
Saturday, October 14, 2006
End of Quarter Rant
Very little gets me in a bad mood like the end of the quarter. Once again, I say everyone should pay their own taxes every quarter. Then there would be the most gigantic tax revolt in history, when people actually have to write a check to the Federal, State, and Local goverments.
The high taxes is part of it, but the bigger thing is the stupid paperwork. I need somewhere between 8 and 12 hours at the end of each quarter to file all of the stupid little forms and reports. Last quarter I got blind-sided with some worker training tax I never heard of, but has to be paid by every "employer" once a year. The notice came about 2 weeks before the payment was due, and I didn't open the envelope until the actual due date. So I paid it right away, but too late - I got a bill for a late charge that was more than the tax itself. Arrgghh!
So you see it blows my mind that, at least according to the news media, the country is dead set on giving control of the federal government to the people who don't think we pay enough. They think we "fat cats" who happen to run our own small businesses aren't paying enough, plus we should be filling out more stupid forms and paying more "special" socialist taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I happen to think there are plenty of Republican jerks in office. But to cut my own throat to kick them out by electing a Democrat that's even more of a jerk? Get real!
Seriously, to anybody reading this who wants Democrats in charge, please answer these questions for me:
Do you pay taxes? Do you think you pay too much or not enough? Are you OK with paying more taxes starting next year? And that wouldn't make you just a little bit angry with those who stuck you with those taxes?
How much tax do you suppose the rich pay? What do you think the definition of "rich" is? I mean in terms of annual income, or total net worth? Is somebody who makes $50K a year rich? If somebody's worth a half million total, is he rich? How much do you think the rich should pay in taxes, total? What's a fair percentage, 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%?
If you're rich and still vote Socialist (oh, I mean Democrat), does that mean you want the government to have most of what you earn? If so, you know you could just make it a gift to the government - I'm sure they'd be happy to take it. Rich actor, how much of that $10mil per picture do you get to keep, after taxes? If you're not cheating, I'm thinking you can't possibly keep more than about 4 or 4.5 mil of that 10. Especially if you live in NY or LA. So you're saying you are not only OK with that, but you think they should take more? How much more?
Rich heir or heiress, you're voting Democrat. I can sort of understand you better than the entertainers, because Democrats like to tax productivity instead of wealth while we're alive. And you don't produce anything, you just party hard and look down your nose at the rest of us poor slobs who have to work for a living. You inherited yours, so it's pretty safe from taxes except for your capital gains, and of course you don't have a problem paying that tax. I'm guessing you keep most of your "real" wealth offshore to hide it from the government. Yeah, I know, you're a hypocrite. I just wonder how many others know that too. But besides that, you're really OK with letting the government take most of your estate when you die, leaving the short end of the stick for your own kids? All I can figure out is that you've got so much hidden offshore that you don't care, or you hate your kids and won't let them see a penny of your estate if you can help it.
Somebody explain it to me. It just blows my mind.
The high taxes is part of it, but the bigger thing is the stupid paperwork. I need somewhere between 8 and 12 hours at the end of each quarter to file all of the stupid little forms and reports. Last quarter I got blind-sided with some worker training tax I never heard of, but has to be paid by every "employer" once a year. The notice came about 2 weeks before the payment was due, and I didn't open the envelope until the actual due date. So I paid it right away, but too late - I got a bill for a late charge that was more than the tax itself. Arrgghh!
So you see it blows my mind that, at least according to the news media, the country is dead set on giving control of the federal government to the people who don't think we pay enough. They think we "fat cats" who happen to run our own small businesses aren't paying enough, plus we should be filling out more stupid forms and paying more "special" socialist taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I happen to think there are plenty of Republican jerks in office. But to cut my own throat to kick them out by electing a Democrat that's even more of a jerk? Get real!
Seriously, to anybody reading this who wants Democrats in charge, please answer these questions for me:
Do you pay taxes? Do you think you pay too much or not enough? Are you OK with paying more taxes starting next year? And that wouldn't make you just a little bit angry with those who stuck you with those taxes?
How much tax do you suppose the rich pay? What do you think the definition of "rich" is? I mean in terms of annual income, or total net worth? Is somebody who makes $50K a year rich? If somebody's worth a half million total, is he rich? How much do you think the rich should pay in taxes, total? What's a fair percentage, 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%?
If you're rich and still vote Socialist (oh, I mean Democrat), does that mean you want the government to have most of what you earn? If so, you know you could just make it a gift to the government - I'm sure they'd be happy to take it. Rich actor, how much of that $10mil per picture do you get to keep, after taxes? If you're not cheating, I'm thinking you can't possibly keep more than about 4 or 4.5 mil of that 10. Especially if you live in NY or LA. So you're saying you are not only OK with that, but you think they should take more? How much more?
Rich heir or heiress, you're voting Democrat. I can sort of understand you better than the entertainers, because Democrats like to tax productivity instead of wealth while we're alive. And you don't produce anything, you just party hard and look down your nose at the rest of us poor slobs who have to work for a living. You inherited yours, so it's pretty safe from taxes except for your capital gains, and of course you don't have a problem paying that tax. I'm guessing you keep most of your "real" wealth offshore to hide it from the government. Yeah, I know, you're a hypocrite. I just wonder how many others know that too. But besides that, you're really OK with letting the government take most of your estate when you die, leaving the short end of the stick for your own kids? All I can figure out is that you've got so much hidden offshore that you don't care, or you hate your kids and won't let them see a penny of your estate if you can help it.
Somebody explain it to me. It just blows my mind.
Friday, October 13, 2006
On Ambition
Had a discussion with someone this week about the trade-offs ambition requires. We agreed that there's a real conflict between keeping the relatively stress-free 9 to 5 job and striving for the better job that brings great stress along with the higher pay and prestige.
I've been warned by my own father many times about getting so wrapped up in career and monetary success that everything else gets left behind. I think he's right.
Just as in the other conversation, the person I was talking with stated the dilemma very clearly. The better job is stimulating and challenging and pays more, which are all good things. But the job also can be all-consuming. You're at work all the time, and when you're home, you still are working, or at least thinking about work. You miss family events. Errands don't get run, little broken things around the house don't get fixed, you lose touch with your spouse and kids.
Sometimes you want to go back to that old job, where you simply showed up and did your work. It was easy, relatively stress-free, and very boring. Back then you knew you had so much more to contribute. You were pretty sure you could do your boss's job better. You sometimes envied the higer-ups for their bigger houses and nicer cars.
Now you've got the better job and the responsibilities and the prestige. Sure, the money's better, but somehow it hasn't made you happier. You find that even though you bend over backward to be fair and respectful to your subordinates, they don't appreciate it. In fact, some of them are always undermining or disrespecting your leadership. There's no way to get all of the work done.
You work extra hours at the office and take work home, but it seems you continue to fall farther behind. Your superiors don't seem to notice how hard you've been working, but keep the pressure on by asking you to do even more. They also hold you accountable when one of your staff makes a mess of things.
In the meantime, things aren't so great at home. Your spouse is giving you grief about "always" working and never being there for the family. You miss the soccer or football games, music performances, plays, or spelling bees your kids are in more and more often. You're mostly not home for dinner these days.
What will you do? You can't quit; your income is badly needed to support the lifestyle your family enjoys. You can't spend less time at work; you're already in trouble with your boss for problems in your department.
So you resolve to just try to become more efficient, and do a better job budgeting your time to get more quality time at home. Only that never seems to quite work out.
Ambition. Do you still have it?
I've been warned by my own father many times about getting so wrapped up in career and monetary success that everything else gets left behind. I think he's right.
Just as in the other conversation, the person I was talking with stated the dilemma very clearly. The better job is stimulating and challenging and pays more, which are all good things. But the job also can be all-consuming. You're at work all the time, and when you're home, you still are working, or at least thinking about work. You miss family events. Errands don't get run, little broken things around the house don't get fixed, you lose touch with your spouse and kids.
Sometimes you want to go back to that old job, where you simply showed up and did your work. It was easy, relatively stress-free, and very boring. Back then you knew you had so much more to contribute. You were pretty sure you could do your boss's job better. You sometimes envied the higer-ups for their bigger houses and nicer cars.
Now you've got the better job and the responsibilities and the prestige. Sure, the money's better, but somehow it hasn't made you happier. You find that even though you bend over backward to be fair and respectful to your subordinates, they don't appreciate it. In fact, some of them are always undermining or disrespecting your leadership. There's no way to get all of the work done.
You work extra hours at the office and take work home, but it seems you continue to fall farther behind. Your superiors don't seem to notice how hard you've been working, but keep the pressure on by asking you to do even more. They also hold you accountable when one of your staff makes a mess of things.
In the meantime, things aren't so great at home. Your spouse is giving you grief about "always" working and never being there for the family. You miss the soccer or football games, music performances, plays, or spelling bees your kids are in more and more often. You're mostly not home for dinner these days.
What will you do? You can't quit; your income is badly needed to support the lifestyle your family enjoys. You can't spend less time at work; you're already in trouble with your boss for problems in your department.
So you resolve to just try to become more efficient, and do a better job budgeting your time to get more quality time at home. Only that never seems to quite work out.
Ambition. Do you still have it?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Clarity
Events are so simple, transparent, and easy to understand. But it seems most of the time I'm one of a very tiny group of people that understand. Right now may be a critical stage in history, and the future of the world could hang in the balance.
North Korea is throwing a gigantic tantrum. The nuclear test that maybe they thought would yield 4 kilotons actually might have been below 1 kiloton, but they did get an explosion. They continue to jump up and down to get the attention of the United States. Why? Extortion. They want us to pay them off in food, money, and technology. Sort of like a mob protection racket. We just have to keep them isolated and try to figure out how to keep them from selling nukes to Iran or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. And hope Kim Jong Il isn't stupid enough to try tossing a nuke over the DMZ into South Korea.
Iran's a different problem. They are building nukes, and have a stated purpose which involves wiping Israel off the map and driving the United States completely out of the Middle East. As soon as they have nukes, it seems pretty certain that they will use them as soon as they think they can get away with it. They've infiltrated heavily into Iraq, and some who seem to know are saying they are orchestrating much of the current violence there. It's turning out to be a pretty good strategy for them, because here at home, people seem to be blaming Bush instead of Iran for that violence.
Ultimately, Iran wants to build their grand caliphate, making all of the middle east and northern Africa part of their own brand of Islam. When they have consolidated power, they will proceed to expand toward world domination. Very Hitleresque, don't you think?
In the meantime, we in the US are war weary. Not that any combat death should be shrugged off, but we lose more people to car accidents every month in California than we lose in a year in Iraq. People who don't really know, or perhaps don't care to know the stakes in Iraq and Iran and Syria and North Korea, just want to give them their wish. I hear them all the time, once they're done calling Bush some sort of profanity, saying we should just pull the troops home and turtle up. Just create some sort of big shell around the United States and hope we don't get another 9/11. Then the Democrats can take control of the government and try to get Iran and North Korea to like us, using Clinton diplomacy to give them that protection payoff for a promise to leave us alone.
So my crystal ball is clearer than it's ever been on this stuff. If Democrats take over Congress next month, they will start with myriad investigations of the Bush Administration, possibly including a bill of impeachment. They will move ahead with defunding of the war in Iraq and increasing demands we get out of there, plus of course a rollback of everything else that happened during the Bush years.
Then we'll get attacked again. I'm not sure when, or where, or even how. The Democrats will of course blame the Bush administration for not doing enough to stop the attack. Gas prices spike again, taxes go out of site, unemployment gets out of control, and terrorism increases steadily across the country. Iran takes control of Iraq, and with their Syrian alliance begins to threaten the rest of the middle east. Maybe they take over Kuwait first, then cast their evil eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
North Korea will likely be allowed to develop their nukes, and will demand and receive their protection deal from the U.S. It might keep them at bay for a couple years, but pretty soon they will demand more protection money. They will continue to ratchet up their demands as time goes on: Give us what we want or we'll toss a nuke at South Korea or Japan. Maybe they'll give a nuke to somebody who can sneak it into a major US city.
What I'm not completely sure about is what the Democrats will do when things go south. I'm pretty sure they'll leave Iraq to the Iranians. There's precedent for that - Jimmy Carter is the one who gave Iran to the Ayatollahs to begin with. What I don't know is what they will do when terrorists once again begin to successfully blow things up here at home. Again, precedent and their rhetoric throughout the war on terror suggests that they will take no action beyond trying to find the individuals responsible for each attack, and if they find them, hauling them in for prosecution in US courts.
It is all so clear and simple. But so many don't understand. Perhaps they choose not to understand. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, give it a year and then come back to this post to see if I was prophetic.
North Korea is throwing a gigantic tantrum. The nuclear test that maybe they thought would yield 4 kilotons actually might have been below 1 kiloton, but they did get an explosion. They continue to jump up and down to get the attention of the United States. Why? Extortion. They want us to pay them off in food, money, and technology. Sort of like a mob protection racket. We just have to keep them isolated and try to figure out how to keep them from selling nukes to Iran or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. And hope Kim Jong Il isn't stupid enough to try tossing a nuke over the DMZ into South Korea.
Iran's a different problem. They are building nukes, and have a stated purpose which involves wiping Israel off the map and driving the United States completely out of the Middle East. As soon as they have nukes, it seems pretty certain that they will use them as soon as they think they can get away with it. They've infiltrated heavily into Iraq, and some who seem to know are saying they are orchestrating much of the current violence there. It's turning out to be a pretty good strategy for them, because here at home, people seem to be blaming Bush instead of Iran for that violence.
Ultimately, Iran wants to build their grand caliphate, making all of the middle east and northern Africa part of their own brand of Islam. When they have consolidated power, they will proceed to expand toward world domination. Very Hitleresque, don't you think?
In the meantime, we in the US are war weary. Not that any combat death should be shrugged off, but we lose more people to car accidents every month in California than we lose in a year in Iraq. People who don't really know, or perhaps don't care to know the stakes in Iraq and Iran and Syria and North Korea, just want to give them their wish. I hear them all the time, once they're done calling Bush some sort of profanity, saying we should just pull the troops home and turtle up. Just create some sort of big shell around the United States and hope we don't get another 9/11. Then the Democrats can take control of the government and try to get Iran and North Korea to like us, using Clinton diplomacy to give them that protection payoff for a promise to leave us alone.
So my crystal ball is clearer than it's ever been on this stuff. If Democrats take over Congress next month, they will start with myriad investigations of the Bush Administration, possibly including a bill of impeachment. They will move ahead with defunding of the war in Iraq and increasing demands we get out of there, plus of course a rollback of everything else that happened during the Bush years.
Then we'll get attacked again. I'm not sure when, or where, or even how. The Democrats will of course blame the Bush administration for not doing enough to stop the attack. Gas prices spike again, taxes go out of site, unemployment gets out of control, and terrorism increases steadily across the country. Iran takes control of Iraq, and with their Syrian alliance begins to threaten the rest of the middle east. Maybe they take over Kuwait first, then cast their evil eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
North Korea will likely be allowed to develop their nukes, and will demand and receive their protection deal from the U.S. It might keep them at bay for a couple years, but pretty soon they will demand more protection money. They will continue to ratchet up their demands as time goes on: Give us what we want or we'll toss a nuke at South Korea or Japan. Maybe they'll give a nuke to somebody who can sneak it into a major US city.
What I'm not completely sure about is what the Democrats will do when things go south. I'm pretty sure they'll leave Iraq to the Iranians. There's precedent for that - Jimmy Carter is the one who gave Iran to the Ayatollahs to begin with. What I don't know is what they will do when terrorists once again begin to successfully blow things up here at home. Again, precedent and their rhetoric throughout the war on terror suggests that they will take no action beyond trying to find the individuals responsible for each attack, and if they find them, hauling them in for prosecution in US courts.
It is all so clear and simple. But so many don't understand. Perhaps they choose not to understand. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, give it a year and then come back to this post to see if I was prophetic.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Creating Our Own Problems
The more direct experience I have with the "system", the more convinced I am that it desperately needs an overhaul.
Nobody wants others to suffer. We're largely a compassionate people, turning to both the government and private charities to take care of the "less fortunate".
Well, I've been seeing a lot of the "less fortunate" through my work with CASA. And I've gotta say, the way our government "helps" them is making their problems worse, not better.
Here's the reality. Social welfare programs have created generations of leeches. There's a whole class of people that don't get educated, have kids in poverty and out of wedlock, and make a career out of getting the maximum in benefits from the government and local charities.
There are too many 21-year-old girls who already have 4 kids. She has never worked, never married, and gets by on handouts. She can get a decent house from the government, or if she's really lucky, a charity like Habitat for Humanity will build her a really nice one.
In the meantime, her boyfriends will move in and are likely to physically or sexually abuse her kids. She doesn't much care, either because she wants the man around (even if he's an abusive bum), or because she's so stoned she hasn't noticed.
She gets food stamps, but is as likely to sell them for drugs as use them for groceries for her children. She gets regular government checks, which of course are as likely to be spent on the drugs as anything else.
Eventually somebody will catch up with her and get her children out of there. "There" being the home that she got for free, that in only a few months' time has been utterly trashed. Her children probably will have to be split up between foster homes. The foster parents may not be able to deal with the destructive behaviors of the children, who are already at risk to stay in the system until they end up in prison as adults.
These programs are well-meaning, but terribly misguided. Here's what I would do, assuming you put me in charge:
No more cash payments. If you're poor, you can't get cash from the government.
Instead, the government will partner with charities to provide services. Need help? Come on in, and we'll help.
But first, you have to help yourself. If you need emergency shelter, food, or clothing, it will be provided. But going forward, you have to work for whatever benefits you get. If you don't work for a local business, we'll give you a job. Show up and you'll get paid; fail to show up, tough luck.
If you're strung out, we'll get you into a rehab program. Need someone to take care of your kids while you dry out? We'll take care of the kids. If and when you're through rehab and demonstrate you can hold a job and stay clean, you get your kids back. That's assuming you can do that in less than 2 years, by the way.
Bottom line, if you've fallen on hard times, we'll be there to help. But the help won't be free houses, free food stamps, or checks. It will be in drug and alcohol treatment, education or job training, job placement, and whatever you need to become self-sufficient. No more government coddling.
It might sound kind of tough, and it is. But this approach is the only way to make sure people take responsibility for themselves, instead of adding themselves to the ever-increasing rolls of leeches on the rest of us. Nobody starves, and nobody has to be homeless; but if turning to the government for those needs is less desirable than going to work and taking care of themselves, I believe most will choose self-sufficiency.
Nobody wants others to suffer. We're largely a compassionate people, turning to both the government and private charities to take care of the "less fortunate".
Well, I've been seeing a lot of the "less fortunate" through my work with CASA. And I've gotta say, the way our government "helps" them is making their problems worse, not better.
Here's the reality. Social welfare programs have created generations of leeches. There's a whole class of people that don't get educated, have kids in poverty and out of wedlock, and make a career out of getting the maximum in benefits from the government and local charities.
There are too many 21-year-old girls who already have 4 kids. She has never worked, never married, and gets by on handouts. She can get a decent house from the government, or if she's really lucky, a charity like Habitat for Humanity will build her a really nice one.
In the meantime, her boyfriends will move in and are likely to physically or sexually abuse her kids. She doesn't much care, either because she wants the man around (even if he's an abusive bum), or because she's so stoned she hasn't noticed.
She gets food stamps, but is as likely to sell them for drugs as use them for groceries for her children. She gets regular government checks, which of course are as likely to be spent on the drugs as anything else.
Eventually somebody will catch up with her and get her children out of there. "There" being the home that she got for free, that in only a few months' time has been utterly trashed. Her children probably will have to be split up between foster homes. The foster parents may not be able to deal with the destructive behaviors of the children, who are already at risk to stay in the system until they end up in prison as adults.
These programs are well-meaning, but terribly misguided. Here's what I would do, assuming you put me in charge:
No more cash payments. If you're poor, you can't get cash from the government.
Instead, the government will partner with charities to provide services. Need help? Come on in, and we'll help.
But first, you have to help yourself. If you need emergency shelter, food, or clothing, it will be provided. But going forward, you have to work for whatever benefits you get. If you don't work for a local business, we'll give you a job. Show up and you'll get paid; fail to show up, tough luck.
If you're strung out, we'll get you into a rehab program. Need someone to take care of your kids while you dry out? We'll take care of the kids. If and when you're through rehab and demonstrate you can hold a job and stay clean, you get your kids back. That's assuming you can do that in less than 2 years, by the way.
Bottom line, if you've fallen on hard times, we'll be there to help. But the help won't be free houses, free food stamps, or checks. It will be in drug and alcohol treatment, education or job training, job placement, and whatever you need to become self-sufficient. No more government coddling.
It might sound kind of tough, and it is. But this approach is the only way to make sure people take responsibility for themselves, instead of adding themselves to the ever-increasing rolls of leeches on the rest of us. Nobody starves, and nobody has to be homeless; but if turning to the government for those needs is less desirable than going to work and taking care of themselves, I believe most will choose self-sufficiency.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Observations on People and Places
Did I mention I've been pretty much everywhere?
Everywhere in the Continental United States, that is. I've never been to Alaska, Idaho, or Vermont. Or Puerto Rico, if that counts. But I've been in every other state, and in pretty much every major city.
I've been in most Canadian provinces, but admit that I haven't explored Canada much beyond the offices and hotels. There is just a bit of hesitation in striking out to explore a different country on my own. I have explored Toronto, and wandered around Montreal a bit.
My conclusions, if you're interested, are these.
No matter where I go, the bottom line is that people are people. I don't find a fundamental difference between Argentines and Californians, in the sense that they are all just living their lives and doing the best they can to take care of their families.
That said, I found different attitudes and group personalities in different places. From my personal experiences,
New Yorkers are the rudest and most profane.
Bostonians aren't far behind New Yorkers.
Texans are the friendliest and most hospitable.
Californians are the strangest.
Midwesterners are the most taciturn, but warm up to people after they get to know them.
Florida's a fascinating blend of southerners and midwestern snowbirds and New Yorkers, depending on where you are.
The southwest is hard to pin down. For example, Phoenix is full of people from somewhere else. Then there are the indians, with their own fiercely guarded heritage and interesting attitudes toward "white men".
The southeast is friendly and very laid back. They do things there on their own time. It's nice, if you can put aside your frenetic pace and go with the flow.
The mountain states seem to attract the hardcore skiers and mountian biker types. Not to mention Mormons, who are wonderfully friendly, hospitable, and family-oriented people.
People in major cities seem edgier. They're less trusting, and unfortunately many are also less trustworthy. They're always watching to make sure you're not taking advantage, while also watching for opportunities to take advantage of you. I'm glad I'm not a city dweller.
But of all the big cities, I think Chicago and Atlanta are less deserving of the previous characterization.
My favorite big cities are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago. Maybe Seattle.
My least favorite big cities are Los Angeles, New York, Miami. Maybe Boston.
I feel like I can place people from listening to them speak for a few minutes. I can definitely pick out a Chicagoan, Bostonian, New Yorker, Texan, Dakotas/Minnesota, Wisconsin, Southeasterner (Georgia/Alabama/Carolinas). I could place a Californian sometimes.
Since I've been everywhere, why do I choose to live in Indiana? Honestly, I don't believe there's anywhere else in the country I would prefer. Partly it's home for me. But mostly, Indiana has low cost of living, is quieter, has no traffic to speak of, is a hospitable and simple place to live and raise a family. There are lots of other places in the country that are great to visit, but when the visit is over, I want to come back home to Indiana.
Everywhere in the Continental United States, that is. I've never been to Alaska, Idaho, or Vermont. Or Puerto Rico, if that counts. But I've been in every other state, and in pretty much every major city.
I've been in most Canadian provinces, but admit that I haven't explored Canada much beyond the offices and hotels. There is just a bit of hesitation in striking out to explore a different country on my own. I have explored Toronto, and wandered around Montreal a bit.
My conclusions, if you're interested, are these.
No matter where I go, the bottom line is that people are people. I don't find a fundamental difference between Argentines and Californians, in the sense that they are all just living their lives and doing the best they can to take care of their families.
That said, I found different attitudes and group personalities in different places. From my personal experiences,
New Yorkers are the rudest and most profane.
Bostonians aren't far behind New Yorkers.
Texans are the friendliest and most hospitable.
Californians are the strangest.
Midwesterners are the most taciturn, but warm up to people after they get to know them.
Florida's a fascinating blend of southerners and midwestern snowbirds and New Yorkers, depending on where you are.
The southwest is hard to pin down. For example, Phoenix is full of people from somewhere else. Then there are the indians, with their own fiercely guarded heritage and interesting attitudes toward "white men".
The southeast is friendly and very laid back. They do things there on their own time. It's nice, if you can put aside your frenetic pace and go with the flow.
The mountain states seem to attract the hardcore skiers and mountian biker types. Not to mention Mormons, who are wonderfully friendly, hospitable, and family-oriented people.
People in major cities seem edgier. They're less trusting, and unfortunately many are also less trustworthy. They're always watching to make sure you're not taking advantage, while also watching for opportunities to take advantage of you. I'm glad I'm not a city dweller.
But of all the big cities, I think Chicago and Atlanta are less deserving of the previous characterization.
My favorite big cities are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago. Maybe Seattle.
My least favorite big cities are Los Angeles, New York, Miami. Maybe Boston.
I feel like I can place people from listening to them speak for a few minutes. I can definitely pick out a Chicagoan, Bostonian, New Yorker, Texan, Dakotas/Minnesota, Wisconsin, Southeasterner (Georgia/Alabama/Carolinas). I could place a Californian sometimes.
Since I've been everywhere, why do I choose to live in Indiana? Honestly, I don't believe there's anywhere else in the country I would prefer. Partly it's home for me. But mostly, Indiana has low cost of living, is quieter, has no traffic to speak of, is a hospitable and simple place to live and raise a family. There are lots of other places in the country that are great to visit, but when the visit is over, I want to come back home to Indiana.
Unhinged
It's shaping up to be the ugliest campaign season I've ever seen.
The ongoing dirty tricks campaign against Michael Steele in Maryland continues. He's endured racial slandering from his opponents, Senator Schumer's staff got caught illegally stealing his credit report, campaign activists trail him everywhere and film everything he says and does, trying to splice together misleading footage to discredit him, and the latest case the Dem hit team was filming him trying to offer private condolence to parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Then there's an ugly attack ad against JD Hayworth in Arizona. Bad enough it smeared him with a lie about ties to Abramoff. That's a reality of politics these days. But it also ran a picture of his head centered in crosshairs of a rifle scope. Unbelievable.
Even locally, today Baron Hill announced that Mike Sodrel should return money from the Republican National Campaign Committee because of the Foley mess. What a sad and disgusting example of political opportunism.
What ever happened to campaigning on issues? Why can't Hayworth's opponent simply say that JD's a supporter of the war in Iraq and a leader on Border security, among other positions he opposes? Could it be because he can't win on the issues?
What else can Baron Hill do? The reality is that when you get into an actual issues discussion, Baron comes pretty close to Mike on most of them. And where he doesn't agree, he probably doesn't want to mention it because his stance is opposite of the voters.
OK, now tell me that both sides use dirty tricks in campaigning. Maybe so. But so far I haven't seen any from the Republicans. Of course, the real campaign is only beginning; just wait until the TV and radio ads come in full force.
Tell you what. As soon as I see a Republican ad that's unfairly trashing the Democrat, I'll post it.
The ongoing dirty tricks campaign against Michael Steele in Maryland continues. He's endured racial slandering from his opponents, Senator Schumer's staff got caught illegally stealing his credit report, campaign activists trail him everywhere and film everything he says and does, trying to splice together misleading footage to discredit him, and the latest case the Dem hit team was filming him trying to offer private condolence to parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Then there's an ugly attack ad against JD Hayworth in Arizona. Bad enough it smeared him with a lie about ties to Abramoff. That's a reality of politics these days. But it also ran a picture of his head centered in crosshairs of a rifle scope. Unbelievable.
Even locally, today Baron Hill announced that Mike Sodrel should return money from the Republican National Campaign Committee because of the Foley mess. What a sad and disgusting example of political opportunism.
What ever happened to campaigning on issues? Why can't Hayworth's opponent simply say that JD's a supporter of the war in Iraq and a leader on Border security, among other positions he opposes? Could it be because he can't win on the issues?
What else can Baron Hill do? The reality is that when you get into an actual issues discussion, Baron comes pretty close to Mike on most of them. And where he doesn't agree, he probably doesn't want to mention it because his stance is opposite of the voters.
OK, now tell me that both sides use dirty tricks in campaigning. Maybe so. But so far I haven't seen any from the Republicans. Of course, the real campaign is only beginning; just wait until the TV and radio ads come in full force.
Tell you what. As soon as I see a Republican ad that's unfairly trashing the Democrat, I'll post it.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Hostility Against Religion
When explaining my rightward-leaning viewpoints to Democrat acquaintences, I've cited the left's hostility toward Christianity as one of the most important reasons. In response, Democrats will usually scoff, and say there's no campaign against Christians. They claim to simply believe in the "Separation between Church and State".
I beg to differ. Check out this story from the Washington Post. Sure, you might make the case that the Assistant Principal involved stepped over the line, and it's just an isolated case. I don't think so.
Across the country there have been cases of school administrators shutting down religious expression, either out of contempt for such expression or fear of ACLU lawsuits. This is just the latest of many examples ranging from schools kicking out small student-led bible studies to shutting off the microphone of a student attempting to cite her faith in God in a graduation speech to suspending students for praying.
Then there's the general attitude toward Christians from the left as expressed in recent days by Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher. If that's not hostility, then we need a new definition of the word.
Also today came the news that the Senate failed to achieve cloture to move a simple parental notification abortion measure. What parent could possibly be comfortable with the fact that their 14-year-old daughter can be transported across state lines, for example from Indiana to Illinois, by another adult for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without the parents' knowledge or consent?
Apparently 45 Democrats in the Senate are or would be such parents. And I haven't even started on the Partial-Birth abortion topic.
How could anyone with a conscience affiliate with a political party that is so clearly wrong on so many issues of faith and morality?
I beg to differ. Check out this story from the Washington Post. Sure, you might make the case that the Assistant Principal involved stepped over the line, and it's just an isolated case. I don't think so.
Across the country there have been cases of school administrators shutting down religious expression, either out of contempt for such expression or fear of ACLU lawsuits. This is just the latest of many examples ranging from schools kicking out small student-led bible studies to shutting off the microphone of a student attempting to cite her faith in God in a graduation speech to suspending students for praying.
Then there's the general attitude toward Christians from the left as expressed in recent days by Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher. If that's not hostility, then we need a new definition of the word.
Also today came the news that the Senate failed to achieve cloture to move a simple parental notification abortion measure. What parent could possibly be comfortable with the fact that their 14-year-old daughter can be transported across state lines, for example from Indiana to Illinois, by another adult for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without the parents' knowledge or consent?
Apparently 45 Democrats in the Senate are or would be such parents. And I haven't even started on the Partial-Birth abortion topic.
How could anyone with a conscience affiliate with a political party that is so clearly wrong on so many issues of faith and morality?
Monday, October 02, 2006
Book Review
I picked up Flags of our Fathers by James Bradley at the airport.
It's about Iwo Jima. As someone who has always had a particular interest in the many stories of WWII, of course it didn't take me long to grab it off the shelf and take it to the checkout counter.
I knew the basic story of Iwo Jima, and have been moved at the sight of the half dozen soldiers hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi, knowing a bit about the tremendous cost in lives spent in taking that summit.
But the book takes the reader much deeper into the campaign for that tiny hunk of rock in the Pacific. It introduces the flag-raisers and tells each of their stories: Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, and the author's father, John Bradley.
Using what is described as exhaustive research combining military records and interviews with survivors, the book weaves a compelling tale of this group of ordinary American kids who lived through unimaginable events.
Whether you're interested in WWII stories or not, I'd highly recommend you get your hands on this book. There is much to be learned in its pages, about war, courage, and men.
I understand it's coming out in movie form. Assuming the movie is true to the story, I believe I would find it difficult to watch. But I'll probably be in line at the theatre when it opens.
It's about Iwo Jima. As someone who has always had a particular interest in the many stories of WWII, of course it didn't take me long to grab it off the shelf and take it to the checkout counter.
I knew the basic story of Iwo Jima, and have been moved at the sight of the half dozen soldiers hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi, knowing a bit about the tremendous cost in lives spent in taking that summit.
But the book takes the reader much deeper into the campaign for that tiny hunk of rock in the Pacific. It introduces the flag-raisers and tells each of their stories: Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, and the author's father, John Bradley.
Using what is described as exhaustive research combining military records and interviews with survivors, the book weaves a compelling tale of this group of ordinary American kids who lived through unimaginable events.
Whether you're interested in WWII stories or not, I'd highly recommend you get your hands on this book. There is much to be learned in its pages, about war, courage, and men.
I understand it's coming out in movie form. Assuming the movie is true to the story, I believe I would find it difficult to watch. But I'll probably be in line at the theatre when it opens.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Breathe
Returned from a week-long trip to Canada, which seemed longer.
Dropped by the office after the Colt's game (a great game, by the way), just to take care of a couple of pressing items before the new week starts. I'm now very happy not to be traveling again this week, which actually was planned up until about a week ago when the client cancelled.
The piles on my desk have reached critical mass, and this week has to be dedicated to digging out of the hole created by what's been a crazy month. There's unopened mail, which I hope isn't anything terribly important. There are unreturned phone calls, most of which are probably too late to return anyway. Then there's just piles of administrative work that make me wish I could afford an assistant.
Did I mention that TV in Canada is terrible? They've got the basic US networks and CNN, and that's about it. Aside from my usual (and seemingly never-ending) evening online work, there wasn't much to do besides sleep. CNN is already in election mode, with almost every story designed to convey just how rotten Bush is. Doesn't anybody else get tired of that, over and over and over and over ...?
During the Colts' game this afternoon, they did a short ad for 60 Minutes. What do you know, here's the almost verbatim pitch:
"Is Bush lying to the American People about the Iraq war? Bob Woodward says he is. Tune in tonight to hear us trash Bush on another 60 Minutes."
OK, that last sentence wasn't verbatim. But it's close enough. What's that they say? Repeat a lie often enough and most people will begin to accept it as the truth? With the news dominated by crusading leftists who care more about influencing people than about reporting facts, as I've said before, our grand American experiment is over. The power-hungry left is taking charge, and before long the rest of us will just be hungry.
Dropped by the office after the Colt's game (a great game, by the way), just to take care of a couple of pressing items before the new week starts. I'm now very happy not to be traveling again this week, which actually was planned up until about a week ago when the client cancelled.
The piles on my desk have reached critical mass, and this week has to be dedicated to digging out of the hole created by what's been a crazy month. There's unopened mail, which I hope isn't anything terribly important. There are unreturned phone calls, most of which are probably too late to return anyway. Then there's just piles of administrative work that make me wish I could afford an assistant.
Did I mention that TV in Canada is terrible? They've got the basic US networks and CNN, and that's about it. Aside from my usual (and seemingly never-ending) evening online work, there wasn't much to do besides sleep. CNN is already in election mode, with almost every story designed to convey just how rotten Bush is. Doesn't anybody else get tired of that, over and over and over and over ...?
During the Colts' game this afternoon, they did a short ad for 60 Minutes. What do you know, here's the almost verbatim pitch:
"Is Bush lying to the American People about the Iraq war? Bob Woodward says he is. Tune in tonight to hear us trash Bush on another 60 Minutes."
OK, that last sentence wasn't verbatim. But it's close enough. What's that they say? Repeat a lie often enough and most people will begin to accept it as the truth? With the news dominated by crusading leftists who care more about influencing people than about reporting facts, as I've said before, our grand American experiment is over. The power-hungry left is taking charge, and before long the rest of us will just be hungry.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Consequences
Election time is about here.
I think there used to be a time where it made sense to vote for the person and not the party. That's what I did most elections, and still do in the local city and county offices. But at the national level, I don't think that works too well anymore.
Maybe you are influenced by all the flack and spin out there that successfully gave you the idea that it's time to kick out everybody. Maybe you think that means voting for the Democrat who wants the seat of a sitting Republican in your district for the Federal House or Senate.
Go ahead, vote for the Democrat, but make sure you understand what you're voting for.
Let me use the example of my House district. Baron Hill, the Democrat, was narrowly defeated 2 years ago by Mike Sodrel, a Republican owner of a trucking company from down south. Baron's what is known as a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and I have no idea what "Blue Dog" is supposed to mean, but it refers to a group of relatively conservative Democrats.
Baron's a bit more refined, a better public speaker, and sounds like a reasonable guy. But a big reason he lost his job last time around was that he voted way too often with the Democrats, which included voting the opposite way of what most Hoosiers want.
The reason he votes so often against his constituents probably isn't because he disagrees with his constituents. The reason is because if he dares defy his party on votes they deem important and demand unity from their members, they will punish him severely. So whether he likes what they're doing or not, he goes along to get along.
So if you like Baron and want to give him another chance simply because you're being told that Mike Sodrel's just a Bush lap dog, it will help the Democrats gain a majority. When they get the majority, they have already told us what they plan to do; understand, these aren't made up, but are what the Democrat leaders are actually telling everyone.
Their priorities if they get power are:
Impeach Bush
Pull out of Iraq
Shut down terrorist surveillance
Open the borders
Re-Institute the "Fairness Doctrine"
Repeal all Tax Cuts
Implement Major Initiatives Toward Slowing Global Warming
Pushing Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Legislation
Pushing Universal Government Healthcare Legislation
Defunding the Military
Pushing a Miriad of Social Welfare Legislation
I know there are some people who think everything on the above list would be fantastic. That's too bad, because those people haven't thought through the consequences of these actions.
I lived through the reaction to the Nixon impeachment that resulted in Jimmy Carter as President and a Democrat-controlled legislature. Believe me, if that history repeats itself, we all will suffer not only economically, but physically.
What happened under Carter?
Inflation was in double-digits
Unemployment was in double-digits
Mortgage rates were 16%, and peaked at 19%
Carter helped the Ayatollah Khomeini oust the Shah of Iran, and was rewarded with the invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran, where embassy staff were killed and held hostage.
Top marginal income tax rates were 80%
The "Fairness Doctrine" effectively muzzled any speech deemed irrelevant by the 3 TV networks. (Read Conservative speech)
I'm sorry for my college-age children, who will have to live a repeat of those bad old days. Fortunately, within a couple of years of Reagan taking over from Carter, the job market opened up, interest rates came down, taxes came down, the hostages were freed from Iran, and later the Cold War ended.
Some say maybe the American people need to suffer under a modern Jimmy Carter era to understand how good they have it now. Maybe so.
I just hope, if it happens, it doesn't last long.
I think there used to be a time where it made sense to vote for the person and not the party. That's what I did most elections, and still do in the local city and county offices. But at the national level, I don't think that works too well anymore.
Maybe you are influenced by all the flack and spin out there that successfully gave you the idea that it's time to kick out everybody. Maybe you think that means voting for the Democrat who wants the seat of a sitting Republican in your district for the Federal House or Senate.
Go ahead, vote for the Democrat, but make sure you understand what you're voting for.
Let me use the example of my House district. Baron Hill, the Democrat, was narrowly defeated 2 years ago by Mike Sodrel, a Republican owner of a trucking company from down south. Baron's what is known as a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and I have no idea what "Blue Dog" is supposed to mean, but it refers to a group of relatively conservative Democrats.
Baron's a bit more refined, a better public speaker, and sounds like a reasonable guy. But a big reason he lost his job last time around was that he voted way too often with the Democrats, which included voting the opposite way of what most Hoosiers want.
The reason he votes so often against his constituents probably isn't because he disagrees with his constituents. The reason is because if he dares defy his party on votes they deem important and demand unity from their members, they will punish him severely. So whether he likes what they're doing or not, he goes along to get along.
So if you like Baron and want to give him another chance simply because you're being told that Mike Sodrel's just a Bush lap dog, it will help the Democrats gain a majority. When they get the majority, they have already told us what they plan to do; understand, these aren't made up, but are what the Democrat leaders are actually telling everyone.
Their priorities if they get power are:
Impeach Bush
Pull out of Iraq
Shut down terrorist surveillance
Open the borders
Re-Institute the "Fairness Doctrine"
Repeal all Tax Cuts
Implement Major Initiatives Toward Slowing Global Warming
Pushing Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Legislation
Pushing Universal Government Healthcare Legislation
Defunding the Military
Pushing a Miriad of Social Welfare Legislation
I know there are some people who think everything on the above list would be fantastic. That's too bad, because those people haven't thought through the consequences of these actions.
I lived through the reaction to the Nixon impeachment that resulted in Jimmy Carter as President and a Democrat-controlled legislature. Believe me, if that history repeats itself, we all will suffer not only economically, but physically.
What happened under Carter?
Inflation was in double-digits
Unemployment was in double-digits
Mortgage rates were 16%, and peaked at 19%
Carter helped the Ayatollah Khomeini oust the Shah of Iran, and was rewarded with the invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran, where embassy staff were killed and held hostage.
Top marginal income tax rates were 80%
The "Fairness Doctrine" effectively muzzled any speech deemed irrelevant by the 3 TV networks. (Read Conservative speech)
I'm sorry for my college-age children, who will have to live a repeat of those bad old days. Fortunately, within a couple of years of Reagan taking over from Carter, the job market opened up, interest rates came down, taxes came down, the hostages were freed from Iran, and later the Cold War ended.
Some say maybe the American people need to suffer under a modern Jimmy Carter era to understand how good they have it now. Maybe so.
I just hope, if it happens, it doesn't last long.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Secret to Success and Happiness
I have reached a firm belief that all any man needs to do to be successful and happy is cultivate these qualities:
Intelligent, approachable, personable, moral, ethical, faithful, honest, empathetic, firm, industrious, witty, trim, fit, pleasant, friendly, positive, energetic, self-assured, consistent, assertive, well-read, helpful, well-spoken, never intimidated, confident, even-tempered, logical, competent.
Every day I think about these attributes and try to exemplify as many as possible. The only item holding me back is my lask of industriousness (OK, you can call it laziness if you must.)
If I could ever consistently achieve every attribute, I have little doubt that my success and happiness will indeed know no limit.
Intelligent, approachable, personable, moral, ethical, faithful, honest, empathetic, firm, industrious, witty, trim, fit, pleasant, friendly, positive, energetic, self-assured, consistent, assertive, well-read, helpful, well-spoken, never intimidated, confident, even-tempered, logical, competent.
Every day I think about these attributes and try to exemplify as many as possible. The only item holding me back is my lask of industriousness (OK, you can call it laziness if you must.)
If I could ever consistently achieve every attribute, I have little doubt that my success and happiness will indeed know no limit.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Celebrity Politicians
It seems these days the prevalence of actors and musicians in the political arena has exploded. I wonder sometimes why it seems the vast majority of them hang on the far left wing.
Part of the answer to that is obvious. “Artists” have always been the type of people to push the envelope, seek out new avant garde ideas. They are naturally attracted to “free thinkers” and anti-establishment rhetoric.
Along with that inclination comes what I see as a complete lack of common sense. If I ever found myself thrust into celebrityhood, the last thing I would want to do is run out and trash the President or be a frontman for radical groups. Even though I do tilt right in my philosophy, you wouldn’t see me denouncing John Kerry or Al Gore or Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton from the stage or David Letterman’s couch. I’d quietly contribute to candidates I like, and would accept invitations to perform for anybody from either political party who asks, but the general public would never really know where I stood politically.
Celebrities live in an insular world, where they never get a chance to meet real people. I suspect they view most of the rest of us as some unwashed ignorant mob, that they spend most of their time trying to avoid. Many of them probably don’t have even a single acquaintance who goes to church every Sunday and is raising 3 or 4 kids in a traditional family setting. Those people (like me) might as well be from Mars, as far as a Susan Sarandon is concerned. These celebrities have no idea what the lives of most of us are like, but instead have formed attitudes based on ridiculous stereotypes promoted by their small circle of rich and famous friends.
I believe that celebrities are so accustomed to being worshipped and adored by all the fans they see at their concerts or public appearances that they begin to believe they are worthy of such worship. They’re not just attractive and talented, they’re smart and witty and wise. Why not, isn’t that what virtually everyone tells them every day of their pampered lives?
So celebrities are clueless about how stupid they really look when they parrot left-wing platitudes or come up with a cute new euphemism to equate the President with Hitler. They arrogantly spout Michael Moore-ism's on talk shows when they really don't have the slightest idea about the actual truth of the topic.
How many of them make a show of driving their expensive new hybrid automobile to the airport to fly to their next gig in their personal Gulfstream jet, completely oblivious to their comical hypocrisy. How many of them expend more energy to heat, cool, and light their various estates for a week than most people use over an entire year? They still don’t stop railing against oil and coal and nuclear, somehow instead choosing to believe the only reason we don’t convert to “alternative” and environmentally-friendly energy sources is some sort of Republican conspiracy.
They get homicidally angry thinking about Christians who they believe are "judging" them for their serial marriages, homosexuality, abortions, and general bacchanalia lifestyles. So angry that they have convinced themselves that Christians are more dangerous than the Radical Islamists who are the only ones blowing people up in the name of their religion.
What really floors me is a celeb like Danny Glover, hugging Hugo Chavez like he’s some sort of hero. Is Danny so stupid as to not know that Hugo is a Communist Dictator? Does he not know what Communists do when they take power? I assume Danny’s pretty well heeled, given his status as a
Celebrities, if you want a good example of how to make your mark on society without alienating half the country, may I suggest you observe the Manning brothers. After Katrina, Peyton and Eli didn’t go on a bunch of TV talk shows to trash Bush and accuse him of wanting to kill off poor black folks in
Stop talking politics, celebrities. You are just actors and singers, not experts in government policy. What you do will tell the world more about you than anything you say.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Kick out the United Nations?
The theatrics of this week at the United Nations has gone way over the line, and I think maybe the time has come to kick them out and stop giving them money. At least until they grow up and decide to become a truly effective international body.
Just a reminder. Without the United States, there would be no United Nations. We rescued the world from Hitler and Hirohito, only to see them replaced by Stalin and Mao. Yet we founded and hosted the UN out of the fervent hope that nations that keep talking to each other might be less likely to start fighting with each other.
Today that seems to have changed. The UN is now a corrupt den where enemies of the US do their level best every day to undermine and embarrass their host. Where "humanitarian relief" has been changed into "UN Officials' relief" with everybody up to and including the Secretary General's son skimming off most of the money meant for the poor, starving, and oppressed throughout the world. Where Saddam Hussein successfully paid off key government officials in France, Germany, and Russia so they would not support any US-led effort to crack down on his regime.
Thus this week's outrageous events. Fiction writers would never make up a story like this week, as they would dismiss it as totally implausible. In a transparent move to embarrass President Bush, the UN invited two of the United States' worst enemies, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, to speak right after him. This week the UN came to our home and defecated all over the living room carpet.
Who gives more money than everyone else combined to help the poorest of third world nations and bail the world out of natural disasters? US.
Where does the UN get most of it's money? US.
Who has the largest and strongest military on the planet so countries from Canada to Germany to Japan can rest secure in our protection and spend all of their own money on socialist programs? US.
Who will the world run to for protection as soon as Iran or Venezuela or North Korea starts launching nukes at their neighbors? US.
We're like the long-suffering father of a bunch of ungrateful and unruly children. Maybe it's time to kick them out of the house and let them fend for themselves for awhile.
Just a reminder. Without the United States, there would be no United Nations. We rescued the world from Hitler and Hirohito, only to see them replaced by Stalin and Mao. Yet we founded and hosted the UN out of the fervent hope that nations that keep talking to each other might be less likely to start fighting with each other.
Today that seems to have changed. The UN is now a corrupt den where enemies of the US do their level best every day to undermine and embarrass their host. Where "humanitarian relief" has been changed into "UN Officials' relief" with everybody up to and including the Secretary General's son skimming off most of the money meant for the poor, starving, and oppressed throughout the world. Where Saddam Hussein successfully paid off key government officials in France, Germany, and Russia so they would not support any US-led effort to crack down on his regime.
Thus this week's outrageous events. Fiction writers would never make up a story like this week, as they would dismiss it as totally implausible. In a transparent move to embarrass President Bush, the UN invited two of the United States' worst enemies, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, to speak right after him. This week the UN came to our home and defecated all over the living room carpet.
Who gives more money than everyone else combined to help the poorest of third world nations and bail the world out of natural disasters? US.
Where does the UN get most of it's money? US.
Who has the largest and strongest military on the planet so countries from Canada to Germany to Japan can rest secure in our protection and spend all of their own money on socialist programs? US.
Who will the world run to for protection as soon as Iran or Venezuela or North Korea starts launching nukes at their neighbors? US.
We're like the long-suffering father of a bunch of ungrateful and unruly children. Maybe it's time to kick them out of the house and let them fend for themselves for awhile.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Taking Jobs from Canadians
So I got the permit after a 2-hour wait at the border this morning. The best part is that I no longer have to sweat whether they're going to let me in or turn me away every time I come up here.
The immigration attorney that helped me get the permit said the basic issue is that there are some "union types" working in Canadian immigration that are really tough on anybody they think might be taking work from Canadians. Which I'm not, because there isn't anybody in Canada who can do what I do.
The funny thing is I really don't care whether I work in Canada or not. I find Windsor a boring place, and feel as though I always lose on the currency exchanges. It's really just about the client, helping them get what they need from their systems.
For those who have done much air travel, have you ever noticed these irritating things at the airports?
Now that everybody has to check a bag or leave behind anything liquid, the baggage carousels are jammed with people. They line up right against the carousel all the way around. So unless I squeeze in with the rest of the human wall, I can't even see if my bag's coming around. I tried to figure out some way to lead by example, standing about 6 feet away from the carousel. See, if everyone did that, there would be plenty of room, everyone could see the bags coming off, then move forward to grab their bag when it comes around. But apparently nobody else sees the wisdom in that system. Rather than play the rude game of shouldering people aside for a place at the carousel, I just wait until the crowd thins enough so I can see and grab my bag.
Then there's the rental car bus. So many times I get on the bus to the car rental lot and wait. People keep coming out of the airport and getting on the bus. After awhile the driver tries to close the doors to drive us to the lot, but just then two more people walk up and bang on the doors. So we have to wait for them to get on, then more people show up and get on. And so on, until it's seemingly an hour before the driver finally just shuts the doors and drives off to the lot. Even then, sometimes people run up to the bus that's driving away and scream and hammer on the doors! Really irritating - they should wait for the next bus like everyone else.
The good thing about everyone having to check their bags: Plenty of overhead space. I don't have to worry about getting on the plane as early as possible so I don't get stuck having to put the laptop case under the seat, which makes the already cramped legroom even more cramped. It's incredible how empty those overhead bins are these days.
Now I'm just trying to regain my elite status on the airlines so I get the automatic upgrades again. You can't beat first class.
The immigration attorney that helped me get the permit said the basic issue is that there are some "union types" working in Canadian immigration that are really tough on anybody they think might be taking work from Canadians. Which I'm not, because there isn't anybody in Canada who can do what I do.
The funny thing is I really don't care whether I work in Canada or not. I find Windsor a boring place, and feel as though I always lose on the currency exchanges. It's really just about the client, helping them get what they need from their systems.
For those who have done much air travel, have you ever noticed these irritating things at the airports?
Now that everybody has to check a bag or leave behind anything liquid, the baggage carousels are jammed with people. They line up right against the carousel all the way around. So unless I squeeze in with the rest of the human wall, I can't even see if my bag's coming around. I tried to figure out some way to lead by example, standing about 6 feet away from the carousel. See, if everyone did that, there would be plenty of room, everyone could see the bags coming off, then move forward to grab their bag when it comes around. But apparently nobody else sees the wisdom in that system. Rather than play the rude game of shouldering people aside for a place at the carousel, I just wait until the crowd thins enough so I can see and grab my bag.
Then there's the rental car bus. So many times I get on the bus to the car rental lot and wait. People keep coming out of the airport and getting on the bus. After awhile the driver tries to close the doors to drive us to the lot, but just then two more people walk up and bang on the doors. So we have to wait for them to get on, then more people show up and get on. And so on, until it's seemingly an hour before the driver finally just shuts the doors and drives off to the lot. Even then, sometimes people run up to the bus that's driving away and scream and hammer on the doors! Really irritating - they should wait for the next bus like everyone else.
The good thing about everyone having to check their bags: Plenty of overhead space. I don't have to worry about getting on the plane as early as possible so I don't get stuck having to put the laptop case under the seat, which makes the already cramped legroom even more cramped. It's incredible how empty those overhead bins are these days.
Now I'm just trying to regain my elite status on the airlines so I get the automatic upgrades again. You can't beat first class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)