Immigration Misinformation

I had to comment on an article in the local newspaper today. The entire article was written to convey a message that the immigration system badly needs an overhaul. Such overhaul must make it easier and quicker to import workers from other countries.

The core of the argument came from the owner and HR manager of a local software company. They were quoted as griping about the terrible delays in importing programmers from India, because there were no qualified candidates here.

"No qualified candidates" is absolute baloney. Why can't they at least tell the truth, which is they can't find qualified candidates who are US Citizens because the market wages are two or three times what they can pay Indian immigrants.

This is my industry, so they can't fool me. In my little business, where I'm not even hiring, I get resumes from qualified candidates all the time. They're out there, and they're looking for work. But their potential employers are ignoring them while they pull every string possible to import technology workers from India at a fraction of the salary.

For just a moment, let's say there is a lack of available candidates for programmer jobs. This company's offices sit within a hundred yards of three community colleges. It's a ready-made pipeline for entry-level talent that the company can recruit, train, and mold into exactly what they need. Why aren't they taking that route? The simple answer is that the best programmers they recruit and develop will leave within 2 years for better pay elsewhere.

Still feel sorry for them? Still think we need to import people from India to take jobs people in Indiana would love to have?

Ridiculous.

Consequences

There's a bit of irony in the fact that the anti-war left need only look in a mirror to find the answer to their foremost question about why the Muslim world hates the west so.

A review of the cultural norms in North America today can't avoid finding that the results of the progressive ideals of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism are, in practice, the opposite. Tolerance has become code for acceptance and even celebration of immoral lifestyles; only the intolerant oppose homosexuality and cohabitation. Diversity doesn't mean respect for other races and ethnic groups, but is a hammer used to bludgeon the white Christian "majority". And multiculturalism celebrates any minority culture while disdaining and attempting to marginalize Judeo-Christian standards as bigoted and oppressive.

Nowhere is this more evident than among the leaders of the anti-war march over the weekend. The likes of Fonda, Robbins, and Penn epitomize the Hollywood anti-traditional hypocrisy. A brief listen to their rhetoric made it clear that they don't care about our soldiers - they hate the military. They don't care about the Iraqi people, because two seconds of reasoned thought about the consequences of an immediate US withdrawal is all that's needed to realize it would precipitate a horrific bloodbath.

Actually, you don't need to listen to them for long to find out their real motivation: A visceral hatred of George W. Bush. I'm fairly convinced that had Bill Clinton taken us into Iraq, their anti-war marches wouldn't be happening. They're not anti-war, they're just anti-Bush.

Interestingly, these people think they are allied with the radical muslims that wish to eradicate our society, when I'd suggest they're likely the first among those to be eliminated should the likes of bin Laden and Ahmadinijad succeed. Because when many muslims hear Americans speak of freedom, they equate that freedom with the hedonistic and narcissistic culture represented and portrayed by Hollywood.

We're told that the schools are to be accepting of all cultures, and should be neutral when it comes to religion. What has resulted is horribly underperforming and often unsafe government schools in which atheism is the official religion. Those who can have fled the public schools for private, parochial, and home schools, to the dismay of those who created the mess but refuse to acknowledge that fact.

The campaign for gay marriage and rabid support of abortion have put people of faith on the defensive. Vilification of religion has cowed or marginalized people of faith, who are the only citizen group for which it is acceptable to treat with contempt.

I do not suggest that some miraculous return of the coutry to our Judeo-Christian roots would immediately resolve the terrorist problem. But I do think that if American icons changed from the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to people of faith and character like Billy Graham and, say, Tony Dungy, the great majority of the world would have to at least respect us for being a sincere and principled people.

Instead, I'm convinced we are within a generation or two of a new dark age. Liberalism is leading to ignorance, which leads eventually to despotism and anarchy.

Is it a Sin?

In a world where sin gets only a sneer from many, I recently had an interesting discussion about sin. The discussion was interesting in terms of sins large and small, and the question of whether we've lowered the morality bar so far that we might think we're morally clean, when we're really not.

Let's assume we're honestly trying to be good people. We successfully avoid the big ones - we don't murder, steal, covet, have sex outside marriage, etc. But how do we handle the smaller things?

For example,

Is it sinful to work in the yard on Sunday? To work for a retail shop that's open on Sunday? If the shop sells alcohol? To patronize stores on Sunday?

If it's stealing to take office supplies home from your employer for personal use, is it sinful if you happen to have a pen from the office in your pocket and use it at home just because it's handy?

Suppose you're in a shop looking for something specific, but the shop is out of stock. An employee at the shop hands you a partially used and open packet of what you want, telling you, "No charge, just take it". Suppose the value of what you were given at the shop was less than a dollar. Are you stealing from the shop?

Suppose you make a purchase in a store, and some time after you think the store clerk may have made a mistake and given you more change than you were due. If you don't immediately go back to the store to return the change, are you a thief?

If you don't tithe (give 10% of your income to God's work), is it a sin? If you do tithe, but grumble about it every time you write the check, is it a sin? If you give your money to worthy Christian causes but shut off funding to your own church because you disagree with something there, are you sinning?

If you voice your disagreement in your church over what you believe is improper behavior by the church's leadership, are you guilty of fomenting disunity and harming the congregation?

If you buy an expensive car, a vacation home, a boat, etc., is it sinful to indulge yourself when the money could have been spent doing God's work? Can it be fairly said that it's sinful simply to desire such luxuries?

If you hand cash to a panhandler on the street, knowing it will be used for alcohol or drugs, are you mistreating the panhandler? If you pass by and do nothing, is it better or worse than handing over the cash?

Is it a sin to do consulting and training for casinos? To work for one full-time?

Even if you are innocent, it it a sin to spend a lot of time with people who are currently, actively, and unapologetically living a sinful lifestyle?

If someone asks you to lie to another, even if it's meant to protect the other from the truth, should you lie, tell the truth, or keep silent?

You can probably make up your own list. The fundamental question boils down to, how can someone sincerely trying to live a good life and set a good example do so in a culture that despises good?

Hiatus Over for Now

There hasn't been time to post, so I've been on a sort of hiatus for awhile. This week's been spent in Vegas, where at least the sun shines every day.

I've nothing to say about politics for now because my isolated voice from the wilderness doesn't count. I'm trying to avoid television news, because nearly all of it makes me so angry it almost wrecks my day. Insanity is epidemic, ground zero being Washington, so I've decided to go into quarantine for awhile for my own good.

The Super Bowl is the matchup I could hardly dare hope for, but really happened. My two favorite NFL teams are playing each other. I'd rather soak up the enjoyment of this rare occasion than subject myself to depressing stupidity elsewhere.

Speaking of which, I'm sort of wondering if Las Vegas, Nevada may be the home of the stupidest people anywhere? Not meaning to be unkind, and I'm sure there are plenty of highly intelligent individuals residing in Sin City, but why does it seem that nearly everyone I meet here is about as intelligent as a ficus plant?

And for those who think Vegas is fun, I don't really see it. To me, sitting around playing cards or pushing buttons on slot machines is more like torture. A show might be fun, if the good ones didn't all cost a small fortune. There are lots of attractive women here, but there's nothing relevant to me except that now and then I see one and think, "there's an attractive woman". I can do the same thing watching television. Besides, if I actually talk to one, the attractiveness sort of declines as the ditzy airhead materializes.

Next week is officially Administration Week. That means cleaning up the office, closing the books on 2006, meeting with the accountant, signing a new lease on the office, and generally getting the decks cleared for the new year. It's the 'cleaning up the office' part that's going to take the most discipline - I've avoided that job so long I'm almost afraid to tackle it.

I'm ready for the long flight home tomorrow. And hoping to get the upgrade that makes it a comfortable trip.

Marriage Passe

Or at least according to recent reporting that says 51% of women are living without a husband. Apparently there was some pretty questionable statistical fudging used to get to that 51% number - such as counting girls down to age 15 and married women who weren't living under the same roof with their husbands at the moment for one reason or another. But the fudging is another topic.

The fact remains that marriage is in trouble. Part of the gay marriage argument is that it's pretty cheap among heteros anyway, so why lock them out? Sounds like the old "two wrongs don't make a right" sort of argument to me. I think gay marriage isn't about gay people wanting to marry each other. It's really about gay people wanting the government and employer benefits of marriage, treated equal to hetero couples in consideration of adoption, and undermining churches still trying to hold on to basic moral values. But that's another topic.

The story accompanying these managing statistics used them as some sort of evidence that feminism has taken over. Basically, that women have decided that they don't need men in their lives, and are now liberated in big numbers to demonstrate the fact. Maybe some women don't need men (I'd have to say I don't need women with that sort of attitude either), but I would strongly and passionately state that their children do! (Need fathers, that is). But that's another topic.

What the story really leads me to is the fact that this information, fudged as it is, represents something tragic, not something to be celebrated.

Behind the numbers, there is no doubt about the tragic impact this has on children, and by extension, the society. Take out the 15 to 21 year old unmarried girls, the huge numbers of widows, and you still have way too many poor unmarried mothers raising children certain to become poor unmarried mothers themselves.

The reporters telling us about this topic want to pretend it's about the liberation of women to pursue self-actualization and fantastic careers without the oppressive restriction of some jerk husband. What they conveniently leave out of the story is the relatively tiny population that can be reasonably identified in this utopian category.

What's really happening is this: Single women shacked up with a guy who may or may not hang around when the baby (or babies) arrive. Or women that don't let the guys move in but still have 2 or 3 or 4 or more babies that are housed, fed, and raised by taxpayers. I can't ever run for office, because I'd be publicly crucified for daring to "judge" people like this.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not just judging women. The men who shack up with them, get them pregnant, then won't take responsibility for their own kids deserve just as much judgement. As a businessman, if I were interviewing a man who tells me without prompting that he's currently living with his girlfriend, I would not hire him. Here's why - if the guy is willing to move in with a woman while keeping the door wide open to bolt as soon as he gets bored or something doesn't go quite right (say she gets pregnant, for example), then how can I trust him to show any commitment or strong ethical practices as a representative of my company?

I've heard it in person from young, supposedly intelligent people:

Marriage is an anachronism.

We have such a great relationship, why ruin it by getting married?

We don't need to be married to have love and commitment for each other.

Sound familiar?

Know what happens to kids raised by single mothers? I do. Especially boys - how can a boy ever learn how to be a man if there isn't a "real" man present as a father figure?

A few months ago I was working with a client where they needed some help setting up their employee benefits. I spent several hours reviewing the employees and their company-provided benefits - you know, health insurance and life insurance and so on. I was astounded at what I saw.

Most of the men were married, especially those in skilled and management positions. Most of the women were single. Almost all the single women over 25 had children. A large majority of married men and women had children with different last names. And it was not unusual to see 3 or more different last names among the children.

Were the unmarried women with children liberated career women? No. Almost none of them. The single women with kids had the lower-level jobs. Because they have to leave work at 3:30 every day to pick up the kids from school. Overtime is impossible. If a meeting goes past 3:30, they just have to miss it. If something goes wrong and needs to be addressed at the end of the day, somebody else has to do it, because she has to go home and take care of the kids. They can't afford day care, unless they're lucky enough to have a grandparent in town. They barely made it through high school, and college is an old, dead dream given up long ago.

Of course I didn't meet but a few of them at that company, but many I did meet had boyfriends. Some live-in, others not. Think they consider themselves liberated? Interested in a bet on how they'd answer if you asked them how liberated they feel? What do you think they'd say if you asked them whether they needed a man?

Most importantly, how do you think their children are doing? What's the chance their kids, especially their daughters, will go to college?

See, it's not cause for celebration. It's a tragedy. It's an outrage. All sold every day by nearly everything we see on TV. Isn't everybody on TV shacking up or having sex with any hottie that shows up? And despite all that, isn't it interesting that the characters never get pregnant or catch a disease? Even if a baby comes along, somehow it doesn't in any way change the lifestyle of the TV mom, does it?

It's a gigantic lie. If I were a public figure, I'd be crucified for holding the mirror up to the lie. But isn't it time somebody did?

Crazy

The craziness goes on.

Only 30 years ago if you told the average adult these things would be happening now, they'd have called you crazy.

Terrorism strikes here at home, we respond by going to war, then when we get tired of fighting, want to say "never mind" and quit. Then again, I suppose that did happen in a little war in Vietnam. For everyone comparing this war to Vietnam and saying we should retreat just like we did there, they seem to have forgotten how many people died after we quit. To a seeming majority, it doesn't matter if a couple million Iraqis, then millions more across the rest of the middle east, die as a direct result of our retreat.

Gays want to get married. (Legally, that is. Nobody's stopping them from making a marriage-like promise in whatever ceremony they like on their own.) And are taken seriously.

Our taxes are to be increased to kill human embryos for experimentation because some have convinced most Americans that there might be miraculous cures in doing so. (Even though there's been nothing even close to success in lots of such experimentation so far)

The borders are open and illegal immigrants are streaming through in higher numbers than ever. And the national leaders tell us this is a good thing, and even tell us we're too lazy so these illegals are necessary. The insanity extends to a conviction of border agents for wounding a drug smuggler to a large prison term, while the drug smuggler (who's not a US citizen) goes free.

An entire political party, supported now by over half the population, openly espouses Socialist and Marxist doctrines. Most of their supporters don't even know what Marxism is. Or what life is like for the average citizen in those regimes.

God has been banished from society. The citizenry has been told, in no uncertain terms, to keep their religious faith to themselves. Schools teach atheism and eastern mysticism and even Islam, but can't even mention Christianity or Judaism. And most people of faith have accepted it with little complaint.

Companies have finished moving their plants out of the country, and are now moving foreign workers into the country to take the jobs of native-born Americans at a fraction of the pay. And most people go along.

There's something called "Political Correctness", which by definition is avoiding any speech or writing that might be taken as insulting by a particular group of minority ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Even if such speech is not intended to insult said group; if one or two members of the group finds it offensive, the offender is persecuted mercilessly. But it's quite acceptable to actually be insulting and vulgar and even abusive toward white Christians.

The country has divided itself into two distinct groups, now labeled Blue and Red. And the color codes are opposite what you would think - Red is attached to conservatives. The Blues appear to have won, with full support of nearly all broadcast media. Which happens to be the only media seen by the majority of Americans.

The most dangerous enemies of the US are building nuclear weapons, and our leaders wring their hands but do nothing.

It's history repeating itself. Our great civilization is crumbling under the weight of its own ignorance and decadence. And when disaster strikes, most will be clueless as to its cause.

Go Colts!

Can't ask for better than another shot at the Patriots, this time at home.

I have to travel on Sunday. Hope I get where I'm going before the game starts.

This is fun.

Fighting Cynicism

I'm becoming a terrible cynic. I used to believe that people were mostly sincere, even though they often use poor judgement.

For example, I think the average Liberal is driven to their left-wing views and beliefs because their lives are driven by emotion. Conversely, a Conservative discounts the emotional in favor of cold hard logical fact. I generally think it's a good thing as long as the two sort of balance each other.

But now I'm rapidly approaching the decision that national leaders on both sides care little about either logic or emotion, but are focused solely on power. The power of their political party and of themselves individually.

Democrats would fling open the doors to outside marauders if it means they can get more power for themselves, even if it's temporary. Republicans would likewise permit other marauders to damage their country's population in return for their own power and wealth.

Last night was an illustration. The President went on television to announce what is really a modest troop level increase to support a new strategy developed to pacify Baghdad. Then Dick Durbin came on to tell us we should just bail out and leave Iraq to settle it's own problems.

I'm tired of hearing all about how we're "losing" in Iraq, or how the Democrats think if we "win" in Iraq, that's somehow bad for them politically. Heaven forbid Bush actually succeeds.

Here's my radical idea: We already won the war in Iraq. We defeated Saddam's troops, removed his government, and helped install a new democratically-elected government. All military objectives met, and rather spectacularly at that. We're only still there to help the new government get on their feet, because if we don't, Iraq will become a province of Iran. If anybody thinks that won't lead to a major explosion in terrorism, along with a continued expansion of Iranian power in the region, they live in a fantasy world.

Ironically, the President just did everything the Democrats have been hammering him to do for the past 3 years. He fired Rumsfeld. He commissioned an "Iraq Study Group" to give him recommendations. He met with all the generals in the field. He talked with Democrat and Republican leaders. He even publicly admitted to past mistakes. Then he made a decision, and says he has the Iraqi government on board with that decision. Did he get credit for doing everything the democrats asked? Did anyone actually believe he would ever get any credit from them for anything at all? Get real.

Will it work? I don't know. But I also don't think all the congressional blowhards on both sides know either. He's the Commander in Chief. Wars can't be fought by committees. It's the President's job to decide and implement strategy, and the generals' job to implement the strategy. Just let them do it.

Next year we're voting for a new president anyway. Whether Bush succeeds or fails in this new strategy will probably have an impact on that vote. Then we'll get a new president who can decide where we go from there.

And we'll either march ahead toward a socialist, perhaps marxist country, or we'll stay pretty much the same. I think most people want a third way, and want to elect people who actually care more about the country than themselves. But it won't happen, because only those who agree to toe the line drawn by their campaign financiers will get into office.

The cynicism is winning.

Stem Cell Deception

During the campaign last year, I found it objectionable that one political party supported distorted messages suggesting that evil opponents of stem cell research were denying people with all manner of disease and injury hope for a cure. What they conveniently didn't mention was that the only thing being opposed was tax money spent on embryonic stem cell research, which by the way requires destruction of a human embryo. Nobody's stopping privately funded research in this area.

As I do with many controversial issues, I checked it out and discovered that stem cells are indeed proving valuable in many cases. But not embryonic stem cells. The truth is that adult and placental stem cells are widely and successfully used, and new applications are being developed all the time. But embryonic stem cells haven't yet proven therapeutic for any disease. They just can't get them to work.

I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the very vocal proponents of selective taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cells, thinking that maybe they were being duped by researchers in search of grant money. Or, like Michael J. Fox, they simply held out hope for a cure from any source for their own debilitating disease, even on the barest sliver of probability for success.

But now I'm more fully inclined to believe that the whole issue was manufactured. First of all, the announcement this week of the discovery that stem cells taken from amniotic fluid have all the properties of embryonic stem cells without the problems that researchers haven't yet been able to overcome.

Problem solved, right? You can now harvest stem cells that are better than embryonic without destroying a human embryo. So we can all celebrate and move forward!

I guess not. The Dems have told us to ignore that news, it's full speed ahead on their big bill to throw millions of dollars into embronic stem cell research. In other words, facts and science don't matter, and people with moral objection to such human experimentation certainly don't matter either.

Why? I think at least two reasons: First is money. Democrats have been given huge campaign contributions from those who champion this issue for their own reasons. Second is the reason isn't actually the reason. It's not about finding cures, but creating justification for abortion. See, with embryonic stem cell research funded by the government, women can say, "I'm not ready to be a mother just now, so I gave my embryo to science to help develop a cure for (insert disease here)."

What other explanation is there?

Football Entertainment

The first weekend of playoffs in the NFL was fun to watch, mostly I think because the Colts won. The bowl games were also somewhat interesting, even though Notre Dame seemed to hang up the cleats at halftime.

It seemed that KC had almost the right strategy for beating the Colts, at least on defense. In the first half, they kept the Colts out of the end zone. And you have to tip a hat to them for picking off Peyton 3 times.

Their problem was that they didn't count on Indy's defense actually showing up. In hindsight it may be easy to say they should have mixed the run and the pass to keep the Colts defense off-balance, but anybody who watched Indy this season would have to believe that the best rushing offense in the league should have run up and down the field all day long.

Bob Sanders helped - he made plays and brought lots of energy - but he didn't do it by himself. Kudos to the Colts defense. Let's hope they can do it again Saturday in Baltimore.

Interestingly, the two NFC games were very similar to each other. Except that Romo muffed the snap for what would have been the Cowboys' game-winner, and the Eagles had no such trouble.

It's gotta be tough to be Tony Romo right now. But then again, maybe not - he's sure to get a big contract boost and he's young. He'll do just fine, I think.

Ohio State and Florida tonight. Personally I don't care too much which team wins, but would enjoy a close game. Like Boise State against Oklahoma - too bad I didn't see that one as it happened.

People find entertainment in a variety of ways. Football is mine. And college basketball. And I don't bet.

Surviving the Holidays

Taking an entire week off for the first time in the nearly 3 years since becoming self-employed was a mixed blessing, to say the least. There were many things that came into sharp focus over the course of the week, and I was not happy to look. There's nothing more I dare say about that subject.

I'm back at work, planning to take every opportunity possible to earn as much as I possibly can. It's the only thing I can control.

Ever come off vacation thinking, "Boy, do I need a vacation!"?

Yeah, it's like that.

Junk Science

Michael Crichton published a novel, State of Fear, which uses an eco-terrorism story to illustrate the way so many people are duped by junk science.

This book is about global warming, and the desperation of radical environmentalists to either make lots of money or influence government policy. They resort to eco-terrorism in an attempt to influence the masses.

The underlying message from Crichton is a sort of 'buyer beware', especially in the sense of buying junk science that is designed to make money and influence politics.

Global Warming is the top issue these days. Crichton uses real data from actual climate studies to show that the hype of the global warming issue comes from those who hope to profit from it, through wealth or political power. A fascinating proof of his point came from Columbia University, which actually changed their data after he published links to their climate studies in an attempt to make the data seem to support the global warming idea more dramatically.

From the link I provided above, you'll notice that he uses Eugenics as one of the more egregious examples of popular junk science. If you don't know who Margaret Sanger is, she happens to be the founder of Planned Parenthood. She formed that organization primarily as part of her Eugenics crusade. I'm not sure that the goals of that organization have changed all that much.

So many theories and "discoveries" from junk science continue to be pressed forward as matters of faith, not of disciplined use of the scientific method.

Such as homosexuality. How many take it on faith that gays are born that way? It started because the gay rights people consistently and loudly proclaim it as truth. So scientific research takes place that seems to support their contention. Does it, really?

For example, there has been no specific genetic marker for homosexuality. In fact, studies you've probably never heard about actually show the most likely factors that lead to homosexuality are environmental and experiential. Gays are more likely to have suffered sexual abuse as children, are more likely to have been raised in a single-parent home, influence of peer groups, etc.

But those studies get vilified and buried. Why? Because the topic isn't about science, but about popular cultural norms.

Likewise, anyone who dares study things like the differences between males and females is marginalized and made a pariah.

Even macro evolution - you know, the chart showing an amoeba morphing into a fish then an amphibian then a mammal then a monkey then a human - after all these years, there hasn't been a single discovery of a transitional species in the fossil record. But that doesn't matter, because the dogmatic faith in this evolutionary theory is the equivalent to those who believe just as fervently that all was created by God.

Beware of those who cite science in the pursuit of funds or political power. Al Gore, for example. Al's apocalyptic film about global warming has been ripped even by scientists who support the global warming theory as containing gross exaggerations, mischaracterizations, and even outright lies.

So which is true about Al Gore? Is he just a naive pawn of the radical environmental movement, or is he cynically and knowingly exploiting the issue to carve out his niche for another Presidential campaign. It has to be one or the other, so regardless of which is true, is this the kind of person we want as President?

Science is important, because at its best it helps us understand ourselves and the world better, and develop advances from cures to disease to technologies that improve all our lives. But at worst, it can be used to fool the masses into horrible and even inhumane governmental abuses.

So we all need to be careful about jumping on board the latest media-promoted fads without making the attempt to become informed about where the studies came from, who funded them, and whether they adhered to the standards of scientific method.

If Christmas Happened Today

I was just thinking about the Christmas story, and about how it would be different if it happened in today's society.
A little girl who attends Middle School, or is a High School Freshman at the least, is a very devout member of her church and is known as well-behaved and a model student. When she gets pregnant, she says she's never done more than kissed her boyfriend. But she met someone claiming to be an angel who told her she would be giving birth to the Messiah. Does she even know what a messiah is?

Let's say her boyfriend is a bit older. He wants to break up with her because he knows he didn't get her pregnant, thinks she's crazy to tell this wild story about how it happened, and figures she is a very different person than he thought she was. But he has a vivid dream where an angel tells him it's OK. And he marries her.

These kids live in some small town in southern Indiana. A poor little town that's run down and kind of disrespected by most people. So anybody that hears her outrageous claim of virgin conception of the Messiah are beyond skeptical.

So they get married and decide to drive across country to have the baby in his grandparents' town, maybe somewhere in Kansas. They drive an old Ford Tempo that's barely holding together. Somehow instead of having the child in a hospital like everyone else, they pull off the road somewhere when she's in labor and she gives birth in an old barn.

There's some sort of bright light in the sky hovering over them, which brings people from around the midwest, who bring gifts for the baby.

The story spreads across the news media, which mostly makes fun of the whole story. But people everywhere make the trip to find the young family, to the point where the family has to run away to some undisclosed hiding place in South Dakota just to escape the crowds.

If something like this happened today, would anybody believe the little girl?

I think they'd be more likely to have her committed, blame the boyfriend, and give the baby up for adoption.

But maybe not, if it really was the Son of God.

Merry Christmas everybody.

Schism

The Episcopals are splitting, understandably so. This is a result of a battle between secular infiltration of the Episcopal denomination and those who desire to maintain their Christianity.

I've read quite a bit on church history. Schisms have been happening from the very beginning, with various sects forming and reforming based on competing ideas and principles. The split of the Church of England from Rome was particularly interesting. Martin Luther's rebellion against a corrupt Roman church was understandable in its historic context.

I believe that the secular takeover of American Episcopalians as well as many other large Protestant denominations will eventually lead to their downfall as viable religious organizations. Because when you no longer stand for anything, there's no longer a reason for people to affiliate.

Given the open war on religion from the American atheist left, I think it is a shame that those churches that still hold fast to the tenets of their faith are too absorbed in age-old interfaith disputes to unite together to save the faith from this national attack. I'm listening to the atheist political left, and they are no longer disguising their intentions - to drive religion out of American society by any means necessary.

As sad as it may be, I think other serious Christians in denominations being infiltrated and taken over by anti-Christian activists should either band together to reclaim their denominations or follow the example of those Episcopal churches that are abandoning their anti-Christian leaders.

The Wonders of Air Travel

This week included a much higher than usual amount of time sitting in airports and on airplanes. Usually I don't notice a lot because I keep my nose in a book when I'm traveling. But this time, the sheer number of hours made me a bit too restless to spend them all escaping in some best-seller paperback.

Most of the observations come from my abortive trip home at the end of the week. Checking in on Thursday evening, I discovered there was an earlier departure I could easily catch. So I asked the agent if I could switch to the earlier flight. She said sure, there were plenty of seats left. But I'd have to pay a change fee of $25.

I asked her, can't I just stand by for an open seat? There's no cost to the airline for me to sit in an otherwise empty seat on the 4:05 flight versus the 5:50 flight, right? She said sorry, can't do it.

The airlines never did this in the past. Apparently while they struggled financially in recent years they began looking around for ways to gouge more dollars from customers while still keeping their fares in line with the competition. So some idiot in a boardroom at Delta said, "let's just charge a fee whenever a passenger makes any itinerary change".

See, business travelers do it all the time. Because things happen to business travelers. Customers make last minute changes. Things come up. Business travelers routinely change their plans. So like the government, the airlines decided to stick it to the business travelers. They can afford it, right?

Anyway, I figured it was likely the client would challenge the change fee and I didn't want to pay it out of my own pocket, so I said,

"Never mind. Just keep me on the same flight."

So I went to the gate and settled in for my 2 hour wait.

The first thing I encountered was a bit of an obstacle course to get to an open seat in the gate area. The facing rows of seats nearest the window by our gate were about 6 feet apart. On the end of the rows were some young black guys. They might have been athletes, because that's the way they were dressed. Their large duffels were piled across the open space between the seats, creating an effective barricade. All the open seats in their row, which was most of them, could only be accessed by those brave intrepid souls willing to climb their barricade.

I was the first. I noticed a couple of women who walked up as if to try walking through to one of the many waiting seats, but they pulled back, either intimidated by the large black men or unsure how to pull their rollaboard suitcases through to the empty seats. I went ahead, stepping over their duffels with a long stride so I could avoid stepping on one.

Another gentleman followed my lead and followed the trail I blazed through the duffel bag mountain. As we reached our seats, I looked over and noticed one of the guys grabbing a duffel and stacking it on top of the others to make the obstacle more intimidating.

Nobody spoke. Nobody else tried to walk through until after the group boarded their flight (that would be the 4:05 they wouldn't let me on without a bribe).

That brings me to the next observation. When they boarded the 4:05, they called first for families with small children, first class, and elite passengers. This also made for an interesting sociological/anthropological field study.

There was a young couple with a wiggly baby, who gathered up their carry-on's and stroller and baby to board the plane just as the announcement for "pre-boarding" was made. My expectation was that they would be brought to the front of the line, because they were the prototype for the purpose of the "pre-boarding" concept.

Actually, they ended up at the back of a rather long boarding line. I watched with fascination as the "elite" passengers jostled for position in the line, while outwardly pretending their position in line was irrelevant to them. I waited to see if anyone in the line would notice the young family struggling to hang onto their active pre-toddler while keeping their carry-on bags and stroller with them. Somebody, anybody, noticing them and offering to let them through toward the front of the boarding line. Or maybe the gate agent, busily working over their computer monitor preparing to board passengers, might look up and notice the young family and invite them to the front of the line.

None of that happened. The "elite" passengers acted as if they were elite people, deserving of special treatment and disdainful of the rabble who couldn't board early like they could. I laughed to myself as I noticed the subtle dance, with passengers casually walking up near the front of the already-formed line to attemt to blend in while others blocked them with their bodies while trying to make it look like they just didn't notice.

I travel so much that I've seen the behavior of many of these folks in first class after they get on the plane. Sometimes they are complete jerks with the flight attendants, demanding to be served first, making silly requests, and even leaving their carry-on bag in the aisle for the flight attendant to stow somewhere.

Trying to think through these behaviors from a more scientific point of view, here are my conclusions. The black guys were making a statement in building their little barricade. Perhaps their attitudes about their minority status drives them to assert some power over others in places like airports, where they enjoy making people uncomfortable and inconvenienced.

The airlines create the "elite" monsters with their frequent flier programs, where they reward frequent fliers with early boarding and first class upgrades. This seems to create an attitude of entitlement, especially among the frequent fliers who are not otherwise wealthy. They perhaps long to be treated as important, and unwittingly become insufferable idiots as they vie to be the most elite of all the elite.

Adding insult to injury, here's what happened that Thursday night. My 5:50 flight was delayed to about 7:50, making it impossible to make my connection. I had to rebook for the first flight out Friday morning. When I went to collect my checked luggage, the agent returned from a rather long search to sheepishly inform me that my bag had been loaded on the 4:05 flight.

My bag didn't have to pay the $25 bribe, so it got home on Thursday night. I didn't get home until Friday night.

Gee thanks, Delta. Service like that, and you're in bankruptcy? I wonder why?

The Story Gets Stranger

I was out of town all week (gotta make a blog entry about that), but when I returned I heard the latest in the Barry Huckeby saga. The story has taken a bizarre turn.

Those who have followed the story about Barry and allegations he stole $3,000 from the gate receipts at a Columbus North high school sectional football playoff game probably already know the decision reached by the school board. The decision is incomprehensible.

Barry lost his positions as Assistant Athletic Director and Basketball Coach, but kept his teaching job. Of course, none of the details of the hearing they held last week were released, so the general public still has no information about the facts or evidence of the case.

What puzzles me is the nonsensical decision. If he's guilty of theft, he should have been terminated - end of story. If it was a misunderstanding, he should have been exonerated and returned to all of his duties. If he violated policy and procedures, but quickly admitted his errors and cooperated fully, maybe he would have been fired from the role of Assistant Athletic Director and/or suspended temporarily from the coaching position. But removing him from both the AD and coaching jobs while letting him keep the teaching job just doesn't make sense.

The ongoing problem is we really don't know the details. We don't know the evidence. We only know some vague and contradictory information that he indeed took some cash, in an amount somewhere between $100 and $3,000.

The school board's decision sounds a lot like a compromise. My logical best guess is that the board was split between retaining or terminating Barry, and they knew they had to come forward to the public united behind a specific resolution. So they compromised, letting him stay on as a teacher but taking away his responsibilities in the athletic department.

From my perspective, if he deserves to be fired as coach, he also deserves to be fired as a teacher. I can imagine a scenario where they decided he didn't have the skills or discipline to be an effective Athletic Director, so it could completely make sense if they terminated that role. But teacher and coach are pretty much the same to me - he should either be allowed to return in both or should be fired from both. Anything else, like the decision actually reached, sends the worst of mixed messages.

Welcome to Columbus, home of the Twilight Zone.

Interesting Stuff from the Weekend

Just a few interesting items from this weekend:

Barry Huckeby had a hearing of sorts in front of the School Board. According to The Republic newspaper, the board heard details of the charges against him and his own defense in a closed session. The public doesn't get to find out about all of it until everything's complete. Apparently they will decide on his termination tonight (Monday). There's no new information being made public, as far as I can tell.

Colts fans, forget any delusions of a Super Bowl appearance for this year. I could run for 200 yards against that defense. They can't stop anybody. Their linebackers play like girls.

A little story from Mike Sodrel about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress: When Mike beat Baron Hill, he was provided a small cubicle to use while getting settled for his term in congress. He was given the office space only after Baron's term was over. (This was when Republicans were in charge). Well, this time the Democrats are taking power, and they demanded that all of the congressmen who were defeated this time move out of their offices immediately and hand them over to their incoming replacements. JD Hayworth refused, telling them he is a congressman until December 31st, and if they want him out of his office before then, they can bring in the police to remove him.

I was a ringer in the tenor section for a church's Christmas cantata yesterday. It was pretty nice, a decent piece with a good brass sextet from IU playing along. Just challenging enough to make it interesting. Gotta sing again this evening for some old folks.

Eye on the Prize

Since I couldn't get the early morning flight out, I'm hanging out in the hotel room for another half hour before heading to the airport and home. It feels like a long week. Maybe it's the cold and snow.

Next week includes a meeting with a company that may sign up to keep me exclusively for the forseeable future. Ordinarily it seems like I'd be excited by that prospect, but instead I don't really care. Sure, it can be comforting to know there won't be a dry spell in work for a long time. And less travel is always good. But on the other hand, what I like most about this consulting thing is the variety. The deal I'm working on will be more like becoming a corporate employee again, which is restrictive and boring, among other negatives.

What I do instead is look at the big picture. I have to continue to take everything I can get and work like a maniac until the boys are out of college, the house is paid off, we have decent vehicles, and enough put away in the retirement accounts. Then I can just do this consulting stuff for fun, maybe taking around a dozen days of work a month and doing whatever I want the rest of the time.

That time seems a long way off right now. I just have to hope I make it there in time to enjoy it.

They Don't Hide it Anymore

This speaks volumes about the identity and objectives of the political party in power.

I guess they aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Maybe it's because they don't have to.

Ever been out of the country? Ever seen how the rest of the world lives? Are you ready to reset our American living standard to that of Europe?

Maybe so. But I don't really believe it; I'm more inclined to believe most Americans haven't been there, haven't seen how the people live, and support the goals of that political party out of pure ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance, check out this article.

Add all this to the Iraq Study Commission deciding that we should ask for help from Iran and Syria, and I rest my case. The politicians are indeed clueless, incompetent, bought and paid for by those who want to destroy our country, or all of the above. The real WWIII is coming, and it will be much worse than WWI and WWII combined. I'm very sad for the terrible times ahead.

Blog about Nothing

Here in the great white north I can't get warm anywhere but my hotel room. And I'm generally not one to get cold easily. It might be a great place to be in the winter if you like snowmobiling.

The cold I don't mind so much, but the real issue is the travel. It's an all day trip each way. So this week I use two full days to get here and back, and can only bill the three days I'm here. Next trip I'll have to give up Sunday and the following Saturday for travel to bill the full week.

Oh well, just part of life.

Trying to decide how much Christmas shopping to do. What to get, how much to spend, who all should get something anyway all part of the process. Christmas must be fun for the very rich, because if I were very rich, I would get nice stuff for all kinds of people. Just for the fun of it.

Right now I just wish I could go out and buy a decent vehicle to replace Jed. Jed's getting very old - well over 135K miles. Hard as I'm working, it would seem not to be all that tough. But whatever comes in just goes back out. Sigh.

I should also get business Christmas cards out to clients this weekend. I'll try to overcome laziness and get that done.