Time to go back on the road for almost two weeks solid. I hoped to be completely recovered, but not quite. I'm better, but not all the way back yet. Doesn't matter, I have to get on the airplane today. I'll be home for one overnight this Sunday, then have to go right back out again.
Since I had a CASA hearing yesterday afternoon, I took the rest of the afternoon off. I went home and took a nap. Although it just put me even further behind, I enjoyed it immensely.
Here goes ...
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Logic Pretzels
The change in the public political debates since last year's election put Democrats in power is becoming rather fascinating. Sure, the Iraq fight (not the one actually happening in Iraq, but the one in Washington) still gets lots of play. But I'm noticing that there are lots of new left-wing ideas beginning to pop up, because of course, domestic socialism is what that party's really about.
Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.
What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?
My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.
How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?
I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.
The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.
Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.
You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.
Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.
What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?
My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.
How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?
I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.
The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.
Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.
You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Could be Worse. But Not Much.
This week has been about the worst on record.
It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.
So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.
Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.
My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.
But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.
My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.
I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.
Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...
So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.
At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.
Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.
So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.
Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.
It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.
So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.
Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.
My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.
But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.
My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.
I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.
Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...
So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.
At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.
Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.
So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.
Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
I'd be a Pacers Fan, if only
I want to follow the Pacers. It would be fun to have a pro basketball team in Indy that was as much fun to watch as the Colts.
But not this team.
I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.
Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.
We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.
Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.
Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.
We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.
We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.
Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.
Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.
But not this team.
I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.
Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.
We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.
Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.
Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.
We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.
We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.
Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.
Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.
Friday, February 16, 2007
I'm Angry
I'm angry with Congress. Especially Democrats, but also Republicans who screwed up their chance to do something positive.
The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".
When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."
When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".
But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".
It's treason.
The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".
When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."
When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".
But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".
It's treason.
On Retirement
My half-century milestone is visible ahead, which has me contemplating the idea of retirement.
But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.
That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.
Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.
In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.
So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.
Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.
Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.
I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.
But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.
That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.
Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.
In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.
So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.
Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.
Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.
I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Personality Trait
I've become more convinced than ever that political orientation is a personality trait.
The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.
Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.
Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.
It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.
Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.
Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.
Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.
Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.
But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.
As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.
The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.
Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.
Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.
It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.
Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.
Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.
Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.
Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.
But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.
As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Sky is Blue
The simple analogy for my experience these crazy days is a sunny day.
It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".
The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".
I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".
This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.
I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"
This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.
We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.
It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".
The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".
I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".
This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.
I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"
This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.
We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Troubling Times
Simple logic. Critical Thinking. Informed Opinion.
All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.
If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?
Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?
Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?
Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?
Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?
Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?
Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?
If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.
All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.
If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?
Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?
Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?
Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?
Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?
Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?
Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?
If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Risky Travel
Tuesday afternoon was planned for the drive to Chicago. Going into the office first thing in the morning with my bag already packed and in Jed's back seat (Jed = my '99 Mercury Mountaineer), I heard weather forecasts on the radio predicting somewhere between 3 and 6 inches of snow later in the day.
But I had lots to accomplish in the office before hitting the road, so I got to work. By around 11AM, Claudia called to tell me it was snowing pretty heavily and she was hearing reports of people sliding off roads everywhere. Maybe I should postpone my trip for another day.
I responded that I had to go, because there were people coming to my training class up there from other parts of the country, and if I cancelled I'd be messing up their schedules and wasting their travel expenses. I decided to try getting as much of the most important work done in the office, then getting an earlier start on my drive north.
It was 2:00 when I finished the last of the most urgent tasks and began my trip. As I made my local stops at the ATM and gas station, I wondered whether it was a good idea to try driving all the way to Chicago in the storm.
Temperature was about 5 Farenheit, and so the snow had a sandy consistency, rattling the windshield as I drove. The roads were snow-covered and slippery, and I noted a couple of cars in the ditch as I slowly and carefully made my way to the interstate. Despite the heavy snow and poor road condition, I was able to drive through it all with about a quarter-mile of visibility, so I decided to try a few miles on the interstate and if it was too bad, I'd turn around.
The interstate wasn't too bad at first. The right lane was mostly open, and although it was snow-covered in places, I was able to move along at about 45MPH, so I decided to keep going.
But as I passed through Indianapolis, the road got worse. The extreme cold made the granular snow hit my warm windshield, melt briefly, then re-freeze against the windshield wipers until the wipers were completely encased in hard ice and useless.
I kept moving north of Indy, but gradually the average speed dropped to 30-35 as conditions worsened. I pulled off in the first roadside rest stop for a bathroom break, and cleaned off my windshield as best I could while knocking the ice off the wipers.
Then as I approached Lafayette, traffic came to a halt. Not being able to see ahead of the trucks I was parked behind, I found a report on the radio that there were a couple of jacknifed trucks in the Lafayette area that had stopped traffic. It was about an hour before the traffic moved beyond the jam, but even then I could not get up to speed on the icy highway.
I drove from Lafayette through the Region at about 30MPH, passing cars and trucks stuck in the median and the ditch on both sides of the road as I went. And getting rather stressed and tired. When I finally reached the Region, I considered pulling off the road for a break and some dinner, but decided that would just make the already long trip interminable. So I soldiered on.
Finally I made the turn on the 80-94 highway toward Chicago, and it looked pretty clear. I started to increase my speed, until an SUV ahead of me spun from left to right into the snow on the right shoulder. The road looked clear, but it was black ice. I tested my brakes and immediately felt Jed's back end begin to fishtail. So I backed down again to 30.
I finally reached my hotel after 8 hours after a trip that normally takes about 4 and a half. Exhausted, I went to bed and fell asleep fairly quickly.
Should I have made the trip? Probably not. But I got there, taught my class, and drove home Thursday night in the normal 4 and a half hours.
But I had lots to accomplish in the office before hitting the road, so I got to work. By around 11AM, Claudia called to tell me it was snowing pretty heavily and she was hearing reports of people sliding off roads everywhere. Maybe I should postpone my trip for another day.
I responded that I had to go, because there were people coming to my training class up there from other parts of the country, and if I cancelled I'd be messing up their schedules and wasting their travel expenses. I decided to try getting as much of the most important work done in the office, then getting an earlier start on my drive north.
It was 2:00 when I finished the last of the most urgent tasks and began my trip. As I made my local stops at the ATM and gas station, I wondered whether it was a good idea to try driving all the way to Chicago in the storm.
Temperature was about 5 Farenheit, and so the snow had a sandy consistency, rattling the windshield as I drove. The roads were snow-covered and slippery, and I noted a couple of cars in the ditch as I slowly and carefully made my way to the interstate. Despite the heavy snow and poor road condition, I was able to drive through it all with about a quarter-mile of visibility, so I decided to try a few miles on the interstate and if it was too bad, I'd turn around.
The interstate wasn't too bad at first. The right lane was mostly open, and although it was snow-covered in places, I was able to move along at about 45MPH, so I decided to keep going.
But as I passed through Indianapolis, the road got worse. The extreme cold made the granular snow hit my warm windshield, melt briefly, then re-freeze against the windshield wipers until the wipers were completely encased in hard ice and useless.
I kept moving north of Indy, but gradually the average speed dropped to 30-35 as conditions worsened. I pulled off in the first roadside rest stop for a bathroom break, and cleaned off my windshield as best I could while knocking the ice off the wipers.
Then as I approached Lafayette, traffic came to a halt. Not being able to see ahead of the trucks I was parked behind, I found a report on the radio that there were a couple of jacknifed trucks in the Lafayette area that had stopped traffic. It was about an hour before the traffic moved beyond the jam, but even then I could not get up to speed on the icy highway.
I drove from Lafayette through the Region at about 30MPH, passing cars and trucks stuck in the median and the ditch on both sides of the road as I went. And getting rather stressed and tired. When I finally reached the Region, I considered pulling off the road for a break and some dinner, but decided that would just make the already long trip interminable. So I soldiered on.
Finally I made the turn on the 80-94 highway toward Chicago, and it looked pretty clear. I started to increase my speed, until an SUV ahead of me spun from left to right into the snow on the right shoulder. The road looked clear, but it was black ice. I tested my brakes and immediately felt Jed's back end begin to fishtail. So I backed down again to 30.
I finally reached my hotel after 8 hours after a trip that normally takes about 4 and a half. Exhausted, I went to bed and fell asleep fairly quickly.
Should I have made the trip? Probably not. But I got there, taught my class, and drove home Thursday night in the normal 4 and a half hours.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Good Can Win
Having followed the Colts a little since they won the Super Bowl back in Baltimore when I was a kid, then much more closely when they relocated to Indy, I was of course very happy to see them win the Super Bowl finally this year.
But for me, it's more important that this victory showed that people of character and morals and ethics can win. It's true that any organization reflects its leader, and the Colts are no different. Their leader, Tony Dungy, is a soft-spoken man of integrity, sincerity, and strong faith. You don't catch him using profanity or yelling in the face of officials or players.
Tony's stated priorities are always faith, family, and football, in that order. I saw the televised celebration at the RCA dome from last night, where the stadium was jammed with people showing their appreciation for their championship team. Tony spoke to the crowd breifly, and told everyone that he was proud of his team, not as much for winning the Super Bowl, but for being great men of integrity. He assured everyone that we would be proud to have any one of those guys on the team as a son.
Sure, one could be cynical and suggest that multi-millionaire professional athletes can afford to portray whatever image they like to the public. But I think this group is unique. I know that the stars on this team do great things for charities of all sorts. Unlike our neighbors to the east in Cincinnati, we don't hear much about Colts players being arrested for drugs or assault or domestic issues.
Even the fans seem to have taken a page from Tony Dungy's playbook. The fan celebration in the city after the Super Bowl victory was exuberant but law-abiding. Unlike the stories you hear from many cities after big sports wins, Indianapolis did not experience vandalism or outrageous disorderly conduct on the streets after the Super Bowl.
I hope the message goes far and wide and is embraced by people everywhere.
Good Can Win.
But for me, it's more important that this victory showed that people of character and morals and ethics can win. It's true that any organization reflects its leader, and the Colts are no different. Their leader, Tony Dungy, is a soft-spoken man of integrity, sincerity, and strong faith. You don't catch him using profanity or yelling in the face of officials or players.
Tony's stated priorities are always faith, family, and football, in that order. I saw the televised celebration at the RCA dome from last night, where the stadium was jammed with people showing their appreciation for their championship team. Tony spoke to the crowd breifly, and told everyone that he was proud of his team, not as much for winning the Super Bowl, but for being great men of integrity. He assured everyone that we would be proud to have any one of those guys on the team as a son.
Sure, one could be cynical and suggest that multi-millionaire professional athletes can afford to portray whatever image they like to the public. But I think this group is unique. I know that the stars on this team do great things for charities of all sorts. Unlike our neighbors to the east in Cincinnati, we don't hear much about Colts players being arrested for drugs or assault or domestic issues.
Even the fans seem to have taken a page from Tony Dungy's playbook. The fan celebration in the city after the Super Bowl victory was exuberant but law-abiding. Unlike the stories you hear from many cities after big sports wins, Indianapolis did not experience vandalism or outrageous disorderly conduct on the streets after the Super Bowl.
I hope the message goes far and wide and is embraced by people everywhere.
Good Can Win.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Double Super
Whatever happens, this would have to be the best Super Bowl ever, if you're a Hoosier and fan of both the Colts and the Bears. The Colts are favored, and I'm personally hoping they win, but that hardly means that will happen. If the Bears were playing against any other team, I'd be solidly behind them.
The guys on the sports shows overanalyze the game. By now everybody knows that the Bears hope to win through their defense and rely on their running game over a small Colt defense. The Colts hope to get a lead early and force the Bears into a passing game, where their defense is best at pressuring the QB and forcing turnovers.
That all may be true from a strategy standpoint, but I think the winner will be determined on a much simpler level. The winner will be determined by which individuals on either side are able to play their best despite all the hype and pressure.
Somebody's going to get so emotionally pumped up before the game that he presses and tries to play above his abilities. When that happens, instead of playing the inspired football he wanted, the player can't seem to do anything right. Before he has the chance to settle down and rediscover his normal game, it's too late.
Somebody's going to have partied so hard all week that he arrives at the game dazed and sluggish.
A quarterback is going to overthrow his receivers because of the adrenaline. One or more receivers will drop easy passes because they're scoring a touchdown in their mind before the ball got to their hands. A running back will fumble the ball trying to make an extra effort to get one or two more yards. A defensive end will run past the quarterback while trying to get a sack, leaving his side wide open to the draw play. Linebackers will run fast to the ball carrier and overrun the play, leaving a wide open cutback lane. A kicker will miss a critical field goal after thinking about how everything in the Super Bowl hangs on that one kick.
These things are very likely to happen. The question is, which team will suffer more than the other? This is what will determine the outcome, more than strategy, more than talent, more than preparation.
Sunday's going to be a lot of fun.
The guys on the sports shows overanalyze the game. By now everybody knows that the Bears hope to win through their defense and rely on their running game over a small Colt defense. The Colts hope to get a lead early and force the Bears into a passing game, where their defense is best at pressuring the QB and forcing turnovers.
That all may be true from a strategy standpoint, but I think the winner will be determined on a much simpler level. The winner will be determined by which individuals on either side are able to play their best despite all the hype and pressure.
Somebody's going to get so emotionally pumped up before the game that he presses and tries to play above his abilities. When that happens, instead of playing the inspired football he wanted, the player can't seem to do anything right. Before he has the chance to settle down and rediscover his normal game, it's too late.
Somebody's going to have partied so hard all week that he arrives at the game dazed and sluggish.
A quarterback is going to overthrow his receivers because of the adrenaline. One or more receivers will drop easy passes because they're scoring a touchdown in their mind before the ball got to their hands. A running back will fumble the ball trying to make an extra effort to get one or two more yards. A defensive end will run past the quarterback while trying to get a sack, leaving his side wide open to the draw play. Linebackers will run fast to the ball carrier and overrun the play, leaving a wide open cutback lane. A kicker will miss a critical field goal after thinking about how everything in the Super Bowl hangs on that one kick.
These things are very likely to happen. The question is, which team will suffer more than the other? This is what will determine the outcome, more than strategy, more than talent, more than preparation.
Sunday's going to be a lot of fun.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
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
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.
Monday, January 29, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
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?
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?
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, January 15, 2007
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.
I have to travel on Sunday. Hope I get where I'm going before the game starts.
This is fun.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)