I'm sorry to read what seems to be a rather bitter tone in the comment to the previous post. All I can do is try to respond. I'm no trained theologian, but let's see:
Point-by-Point:
1. there is still no better theory put forth by christians than evolution
From my point of view, it's not necessary or required that a Christian prove scientific arguments for or against evolution. That's not the business of religion. Strict literalists may interpret Genesis to say that the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. For me, I can't say because I wasn't there.
I understand the arguments being made by some that the idea of "Intelligent Design" should be presented alongside Macro Evolutionary theories, suggesting that both theories rely as much on faith as measurable science.
I see an observable and solid case for adaptation of species to changing conditions - those species that do not adapt to their environment tend to be doomed to extinction. It seems to me it requires a great deal more faith to believe all life evolved from single-celled organisms that evolved from a chemical soup than to believe there was some divine influence.
On the other hand, it does not seem particularly antireligious to me to consider that God simply followed His own rules in enabling creation of life, including the amazing ability of life to sustain itself against all odds.
2. when we die, there's no one who can justify the assertion that that is NOT it except by saying "you have to have faith"
This touches on something that is core to Christianity - the idea of an eternal spirit and life after death. If Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, then Christianity would not exist. He is the proof, but absolutely - it is difficult 2,000 years later for people to believe the story really happened. Without getting into all the potential evidence for thinking people on this topic, my first thought is to look at his disciples. If Jesus was crucified and was not resurrected, why would every single one of them become his evangelists to the known world, causing all but one to be killed for their preaching? Many of them by horrific and painful means. Would they subject themselves to such torture for no good reason?
Ultimately, yes, you have to believe the story. That's where our personal search for the truth and our life experiences come into play.
3. show me a miracle, performed recently, that cannot be easily explained by rational means.
I've had events and experiences in my life that I feel were somewhat miraculous. So have other family members. But outside those, let me use some Catholic miracles. Mother Teresa was about the best example of true Christianity in modern times, and she will be canonized by the Church as a saint soon, if not already. To be canonized, miracles must be attributed to the saint, and such miracles are reportedly being investigated by the Church. The miracles attributed to intervention of saints are typically unexplained healings of severe illnesses, where the patient may have asked, say, Mother Teresa to intervene for them with God.
Do you think that when Mother Teresa is canonized, the Church lied about the miracles claimed to be based on Mother Teresa's intercession on behalf of the patient(s)? Essentially, your comment suggests that the Church not only has been lying about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, and also has lied about miracles attributed to hundreds of saints over that time.
Is it reasonable to accuse the entire Catholic Church of 2,000 years of deceit? If it's all a big lie, how has the Church been able to avoid exposure through all those generations?
4. a vocal portion of Christians ARE ignorant superstitious sheep
A vocal portion of Americans are ignorant about their constitution and form of government. Does that make the constitution invalid? Vocal groups of all kinds are ignorant about all manner of things.
People are what they always have been. The ignorant will always be with us, boldly proclaiming their ignorant ideas as truth. As will those who seek to profit from them. Those truths do not invalidate the truth that can be found in the Christian faith as defined pretty well in an old book called The Bible.
5. have you seen televangelists... ever?
Honestly, I don't pay them much attention. Some are money-grubbing charlatans, I'm sure. Tammy Faye just died. Do you think she was sincere, at least when she and her (then) husband Jim Bakker started their TV empire? Do you think they went into televangelism with a cynical profit motive, or did they fall victim to the greed and power they found when their TV empire took off?
I don't know. But I tend to believe the latter.
More importantly, do you watch televangelists? If so, do you think their message is inherently evil? Do you think their programs are worse than the trashy stuff on commercial television?
What have they done to you to make you so bitter, hateful, and angry? As far as I know, not a thing.
if christians want respect, they need to start earning it.
True. Ultimately, non-Christians judge the faith not on its true teaching, but on the people who profess to be Christians. If such people are mean, pushy, unethical, immoral, etc., then they are doing more damage to the Church than they will ever know.
I wonder if you are making the comment because you have seen too many such hypocrites. If so, I only hope I can offset them just a little.
God Bless.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Just Pity
That's mainly what I feel about the angry atheists who seem to have ascended to political and social power these days.
How desolate and hopeless it must be to believe that
humans are just more highly evolved mammals
when we die, that's it
there are no miracles, only coincidences
Christians are ignorant superstitious sheep
Christian leaders are evil greedy burgeoisie happy to clip the sheep to fill their own desires for wealth and power
religion is nothing but a set of arbitrary rules enforced only for the benefit of Christian leaders (interesting that the only Christian "rules" that really upset these folks are related to sex; they seem more upset at those than Muslim Jihad)
government should replace religion and control every aspect of human life (except sex, of course)
that stamping out religion will somehow lead to a peaceful, utopian planet
I indeed only feel pity for such people, who for their own reasons have become bitter and angry crusaders against God. It must be a sad and empty existence.
How desolate and hopeless it must be to believe that
humans are just more highly evolved mammals
when we die, that's it
there are no miracles, only coincidences
Christians are ignorant superstitious sheep
Christian leaders are evil greedy burgeoisie happy to clip the sheep to fill their own desires for wealth and power
religion is nothing but a set of arbitrary rules enforced only for the benefit of Christian leaders (interesting that the only Christian "rules" that really upset these folks are related to sex; they seem more upset at those than Muslim Jihad)
government should replace religion and control every aspect of human life (except sex, of course)
that stamping out religion will somehow lead to a peaceful, utopian planet
I indeed only feel pity for such people, who for their own reasons have become bitter and angry crusaders against God. It must be a sad and empty existence.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tax
Indy has been in turmoil lately over their property tax reassessments. Most people don't pay much attention to such things until they get a tax bill with a big increase, which is pretty much what happened in Indy. And down here everybody's nervous, because our bills haven't been sent yet. It's almost certain that the property taxes here will go up for almost everybody, and people are hoping they don't double like the poor residents in the Indianapolis area.
Mitch ordered a review of the assessments in Indy, plus a couple of other counties. It could partially be a political decision to dampen down the level of anger, but he says there seems to be some evidence that commercial property was undervalued, shifting a bigger burden to homeowners.
The larger problem of taxation goes to all levels of government and all types of taxes. Government exists to perpetuate itself, and bureaucrats are driven by a desire for personal power rather than the public good. Politicians argue about how high the tax rates should be on "rich" folks, but are strangely silent on the question of whether they're spending the tax money wisely.
The proponents of the "Fair Tax" plan, which would eliminate federal income taxes and replace them with a national sales tax, have some decent ideas. But they're fighting an impossible battle against the very system used by our politicians to keep them in office. It's not going to happen.
I think the best solution is a very simple one. It would probably require a constitutional amendment at the Federal Level to be enforceable, but here's the idea: The law of the land should simply say, "No citizen or for-profit organization may be exempted or relieved of any tax levied by federal, state, or local government entities."
Ever seen the Federal Tax Code? Know why it's contained in such a gigantic volume? Because it's loaded with exemptions, rebates, credits, and other considerations given to specific individuals and businesses. Not by name, because that would be gauche. But with a description of the person or entity being exempted worded in such a way as to remove all uncertainty about who's getting the special exemption.
Why do they exempt certain corporations and individuals from taxes? Because those individuals and corporations help insure the congressperson who inserted the exemption in the tax code is re-elected. Not a bad deal for a businessperson, really - all he has to do is contribute $100,000 to the campaign, and he'll get a $200,000 tax break. It's corrupt. And it's a way of life for our legislators.
It happens at the state and local levels too. Honda is building a new plant nearby in Greensburg. The governor and other state and local politicians get to crow about their great success in attracting this big Japanese automaker to Indiana. What do you think they offered to help incent Honda to locate in Greensburg? Tax exemptions, of course. Ever heard the term "Tax Abatement"? It's a simple device used to favor certain businesses. Honda's probably getting free infrastructure (roads, power, water & sewer, etc.) from the state as an added bonus.
Imagine what would happen if the law were written as I suggested? Nobody - no congressman, governor, mayor, city councilman, could hand out any tax favors to anybody. Honda would have to choose their sites based simply on the best place overall for them, not on how much of a tax break they're getting. I think it would force legislators to be more responsible in their tax policies, and maybe even rethink their wasteful spending habits.
Unfortunately, this idea likely has no better chance of passing than the "Fair Tax". For the same reasons.
Mitch ordered a review of the assessments in Indy, plus a couple of other counties. It could partially be a political decision to dampen down the level of anger, but he says there seems to be some evidence that commercial property was undervalued, shifting a bigger burden to homeowners.
The larger problem of taxation goes to all levels of government and all types of taxes. Government exists to perpetuate itself, and bureaucrats are driven by a desire for personal power rather than the public good. Politicians argue about how high the tax rates should be on "rich" folks, but are strangely silent on the question of whether they're spending the tax money wisely.
The proponents of the "Fair Tax" plan, which would eliminate federal income taxes and replace them with a national sales tax, have some decent ideas. But they're fighting an impossible battle against the very system used by our politicians to keep them in office. It's not going to happen.
I think the best solution is a very simple one. It would probably require a constitutional amendment at the Federal Level to be enforceable, but here's the idea: The law of the land should simply say, "No citizen or for-profit organization may be exempted or relieved of any tax levied by federal, state, or local government entities."
Ever seen the Federal Tax Code? Know why it's contained in such a gigantic volume? Because it's loaded with exemptions, rebates, credits, and other considerations given to specific individuals and businesses. Not by name, because that would be gauche. But with a description of the person or entity being exempted worded in such a way as to remove all uncertainty about who's getting the special exemption.
Why do they exempt certain corporations and individuals from taxes? Because those individuals and corporations help insure the congressperson who inserted the exemption in the tax code is re-elected. Not a bad deal for a businessperson, really - all he has to do is contribute $100,000 to the campaign, and he'll get a $200,000 tax break. It's corrupt. And it's a way of life for our legislators.
It happens at the state and local levels too. Honda is building a new plant nearby in Greensburg. The governor and other state and local politicians get to crow about their great success in attracting this big Japanese automaker to Indiana. What do you think they offered to help incent Honda to locate in Greensburg? Tax exemptions, of course. Ever heard the term "Tax Abatement"? It's a simple device used to favor certain businesses. Honda's probably getting free infrastructure (roads, power, water & sewer, etc.) from the state as an added bonus.
Imagine what would happen if the law were written as I suggested? Nobody - no congressman, governor, mayor, city councilman, could hand out any tax favors to anybody. Honda would have to choose their sites based simply on the best place overall for them, not on how much of a tax break they're getting. I think it would force legislators to be more responsible in their tax policies, and maybe even rethink their wasteful spending habits.
Unfortunately, this idea likely has no better chance of passing than the "Fair Tax". For the same reasons.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Overblown
All the hand-wringing over child obesity is getting out of control. Maybe more kids are fat than ever before. It's a sign of prosperity. To me, some kids are going to be fat; so what?!
What is more disturbing is what some in positions of power are doing about it.
Taking the candy and soda machines out of the schools. What a joke. As if fat kids won't be fat anymore if they can't buy Mountain Dew and a Baby Ruth at school?
Passing laws against restaurants serving food with trans fats. Big Brother is alive and well and living in our big cities.
The worst idea: Removing fat children from their homes under the philosophy that the parents of fat kids are guilty of abuse and neglect. If the government can define child abuse any way they choose, what's next? Removing children from Christian homes where they are taught intolerance of homosexuals and skepticism of Darwinian Evolution? Totalitarianism.
Do we really want to find ways to solve the problem, assuming it's really a problem? How about some practical ideas -
Stop the practice of washing out kids from sports by the fifth grade. Get everybody playing their favorite sports on organized teams without slamming the door on them before they even got the chance to develop! Make active sports and games a required hour in every school day, then let everybody play on a school team that practices every afternoon. If 100 boys want to play basketball, then form 10 teams.
See, all the Big Brother policies will ever accomplish is denial of everybody's freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. We live in a society of rampant permissiveness in all areas, including raising of children. Parents don't want to do the hard parenting stuff, so they let their kids eat whatever they want, play stupid video games all day, and pretty much do whatever they please. No wonder lots of them get fat. They also fail to learn the most basic concepts of morality and civility.
So government can't fix that problem except through long-term policies that value and support those institutions that teach morality. But they can provide plenty of opportunities for kids to do active things that are fun. And if they have the courage to buck the ACLU, maybe even provide teachers and coaches who serve as strong role models for the kids while giving them outlets for healthy physical activities.
It's just one of the many issues of our age with a huge disconnect between the common-sense solutions that can work and the non-solutions proposed and implemented by the ignorant elites.
What is more disturbing is what some in positions of power are doing about it.
Taking the candy and soda machines out of the schools. What a joke. As if fat kids won't be fat anymore if they can't buy Mountain Dew and a Baby Ruth at school?
Passing laws against restaurants serving food with trans fats. Big Brother is alive and well and living in our big cities.
The worst idea: Removing fat children from their homes under the philosophy that the parents of fat kids are guilty of abuse and neglect. If the government can define child abuse any way they choose, what's next? Removing children from Christian homes where they are taught intolerance of homosexuals and skepticism of Darwinian Evolution? Totalitarianism.
Do we really want to find ways to solve the problem, assuming it's really a problem? How about some practical ideas -
Stop the practice of washing out kids from sports by the fifth grade. Get everybody playing their favorite sports on organized teams without slamming the door on them before they even got the chance to develop! Make active sports and games a required hour in every school day, then let everybody play on a school team that practices every afternoon. If 100 boys want to play basketball, then form 10 teams.
See, all the Big Brother policies will ever accomplish is denial of everybody's freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. We live in a society of rampant permissiveness in all areas, including raising of children. Parents don't want to do the hard parenting stuff, so they let their kids eat whatever they want, play stupid video games all day, and pretty much do whatever they please. No wonder lots of them get fat. They also fail to learn the most basic concepts of morality and civility.
So government can't fix that problem except through long-term policies that value and support those institutions that teach morality. But they can provide plenty of opportunities for kids to do active things that are fun. And if they have the courage to buck the ACLU, maybe even provide teachers and coaches who serve as strong role models for the kids while giving them outlets for healthy physical activities.
It's just one of the many issues of our age with a huge disconnect between the common-sense solutions that can work and the non-solutions proposed and implemented by the ignorant elites.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Better than Hotels
This week and next I get to work in my own office, which means no airplanes or hotels. It's nice to have an almost normal working schedule and sleep in my own bed at night.
Even though I usually get rental cars much nicer than my old beat-up Jed. Sometimes the hotel rooms can be very nice, with some recent examples with flat panel HDTV and kitchenette and big beds. I still prefer home.
This web training is a pretty decent gig. It will never be as effective as face-to-face classroom instruction, but the more I do it the better I get. Been teaching classes over the web all week, and today I felt like I am really getting the hang of it. I'll be doing a lot of it through the end of this year, so we'll see how that works out. So far not bad.
I need a secretary.
Even though I usually get rental cars much nicer than my old beat-up Jed. Sometimes the hotel rooms can be very nice, with some recent examples with flat panel HDTV and kitchenette and big beds. I still prefer home.
This web training is a pretty decent gig. It will never be as effective as face-to-face classroom instruction, but the more I do it the better I get. Been teaching classes over the web all week, and today I felt like I am really getting the hang of it. I'll be doing a lot of it through the end of this year, so we'll see how that works out. So far not bad.
I need a secretary.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Destiny
There's a strange feeling nagging at me today that something momentus is about to happen. I can't identify what or when or even if it's a good or bad thing.
Then again, these days I don't really think about events so much in terms of good and bad. Sure, I have days that are better than others. I don't especially care for things that cause me physical or emotional pain. I can get irritated by stupid and unreasonable people.
But I've never really been one to get terribly worked up worrying about things. I never felt like I feared my own death, but I did fear intense pain and suffering. I have feared disability. But these no longer elicit fear for me. Not that I'd welcome them, but neither do I worry much about them.
Maybe its the age I'm reaching, but I've come to realize that I am the culmination of my life experiences. The pleasant experiences leave nice memories I can recall to cheer me up. The unpleasant experiences, in most cases, led to something better. Or they made me more resilient, perhaps a bit less fearful.
I've been taught from an early age in Sunday School that God doesn't give any of us more than we can bear. Now the way I think of that old idea is that we don't have much choice in the matter - whatever happens, we must accept and find a way to deal with or overcome.
Even though I'm disheartened at the state of today's world and the corrupt people who run it, I no longer fear the collapse I think is imminent. Sort of like Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps the only way to cleanse the world of its corruption is some major catastrophe. Not that I wish for it, but it seems somehow natural and inevitable.
So whether my strange feeling involves a momentus success or catastrophe in my personal life, my community, nation, or the world, I can accept it. Whatever occurs, assuming I survive, I will simply re-evaluate the situation and make the best choice I can to move forward.
Is that destiny? Is the course of life preordained, or do we choose our own? Is there a destiny out there for each of us, but only a select few have the courage to find it?
I can't say. But whatever is coming, let it come.
Then again, these days I don't really think about events so much in terms of good and bad. Sure, I have days that are better than others. I don't especially care for things that cause me physical or emotional pain. I can get irritated by stupid and unreasonable people.
But I've never really been one to get terribly worked up worrying about things. I never felt like I feared my own death, but I did fear intense pain and suffering. I have feared disability. But these no longer elicit fear for me. Not that I'd welcome them, but neither do I worry much about them.
Maybe its the age I'm reaching, but I've come to realize that I am the culmination of my life experiences. The pleasant experiences leave nice memories I can recall to cheer me up. The unpleasant experiences, in most cases, led to something better. Or they made me more resilient, perhaps a bit less fearful.
I've been taught from an early age in Sunday School that God doesn't give any of us more than we can bear. Now the way I think of that old idea is that we don't have much choice in the matter - whatever happens, we must accept and find a way to deal with or overcome.
Even though I'm disheartened at the state of today's world and the corrupt people who run it, I no longer fear the collapse I think is imminent. Sort of like Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps the only way to cleanse the world of its corruption is some major catastrophe. Not that I wish for it, but it seems somehow natural and inevitable.
So whether my strange feeling involves a momentus success or catastrophe in my personal life, my community, nation, or the world, I can accept it. Whatever occurs, assuming I survive, I will simply re-evaluate the situation and make the best choice I can to move forward.
Is that destiny? Is the course of life preordained, or do we choose our own? Is there a destiny out there for each of us, but only a select few have the courage to find it?
I can't say. But whatever is coming, let it come.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Stuff that Wastes Time
Being independent implies that I don't have to answer to anyone.
But that's not the reality.
I answer to my customers every day. And my biggest customer is the one that supplies me with the bulk of my work. So in that sense, I regularly answer to them.
Lately they've been getting irritating, asking for extra time-consuming things that they of course don't pay for. Stupid little administrative rules designed to shift paperwork from their staff down to me. Playing games with what they will and won't accept in terms of billing, expenses, and so forth. It all costs me, in time or money or both.
The essential problem of a small business is that you must constantly make your biggest customer happy. Knowing that, the big customer raises the bar and lowers the pay. And the small business person, despite seeing all his (my) other costs continue to grow year after year, just has to accept the fact that the trend will continue until it becomes so one-sided that there's no longer any point to continuing the business relationship.
The only avenue open to me is to do my best to be more sought-after than any of the customer's other contractors, which hopefully grants some small bit of leverage to push back against the next list of silly rules and requirements. The ability to just be able to say, "Sure, we would be happy to comply with your new requests. To cover our cost of providing these additional services, our rate will be increased to $X."
I know. Dreaming again.
But that's not the reality.
I answer to my customers every day. And my biggest customer is the one that supplies me with the bulk of my work. So in that sense, I regularly answer to them.
Lately they've been getting irritating, asking for extra time-consuming things that they of course don't pay for. Stupid little administrative rules designed to shift paperwork from their staff down to me. Playing games with what they will and won't accept in terms of billing, expenses, and so forth. It all costs me, in time or money or both.
The essential problem of a small business is that you must constantly make your biggest customer happy. Knowing that, the big customer raises the bar and lowers the pay. And the small business person, despite seeing all his (my) other costs continue to grow year after year, just has to accept the fact that the trend will continue until it becomes so one-sided that there's no longer any point to continuing the business relationship.
The only avenue open to me is to do my best to be more sought-after than any of the customer's other contractors, which hopefully grants some small bit of leverage to push back against the next list of silly rules and requirements. The ability to just be able to say, "Sure, we would be happy to comply with your new requests. To cover our cost of providing these additional services, our rate will be increased to $X."
I know. Dreaming again.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Faulty Logic
I've listened closely, and the point about the Iraq war is that Bush should be forced to end it. Because war is bad, people die, we never should have started it, and so on.
So I think, sure war is bad. Nobody likes a war, except maybe people who like to watch war movies in the safety of their living room. Was Iraq a bad idea? I didn't know when it started, and still don't know. I don't think all of us ordinary people get in on the information that led to our leaders (not just Bush, but an overwhelming majority of congress, democrats included, by the way) to decide we needed to take on Saddam.
But then I start to get lost. See, they tell us the war should end because we shouldn't have started it in the first place, Saddam wasn't that bad a guy and wasn't really a threat, and now our soldiers are just stuck in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia.
From what I'm able to discern, it's true that lots of the current violence involves turf wars between the Sunni and Shia. And our soldiers probably are unfortunately caught in the crossfire from time to time. But aren't they mostly killing each other? And if we just leave, won't they kill each other in massive numbers until one side or the other wins?
See, I'm confused by the left side's position on that, given they've been clamoring for us to intervene in Darfur for years. Isn't the situation in Iraq likely to become a repeat of Darfur the minute our soldiers leave the country? So what are you saying, anti-war lefties? That people in Darfur are more valuable than Iraqi people?
Then are the other questions the anti-war people never seem to want to answer. Like Al Quaeda. They're the ones who blew up the towers in New York - you know, September 11th? They're making Iraq their central front in their war on America. They say so, openly and often. Then there's Iran. They're arming and training people and sending them into Iraq to blow up our soldiers, so they're actually at war with us too.
So here's my big question for the get out now folks: How exactly does it help protect our country from terrorism if we just drop everything, say "never mind", and bug out of Iraq? As soon as we do that, doesn't it seem reasonable to predict that a holocaust will soon follow among the Iraqi people? That Iran will move swiftly in alliance with the Shia to rule what used to be Iraq? That Al Quaeda will strengthen with the aid of Iran and immediately begin hatching plans to bring Iranian nukes into America to set off in our cities?
Oh yeah, you guys say those are just scare tactics by the Nazi Republicans. Just let me get this straight - you're saying that if we leave Iraq immediately, somehow all those radicals that want to kill us will suddenly like us and leave us alone?
Please explain it to me. Because I don't get it.
So I think, sure war is bad. Nobody likes a war, except maybe people who like to watch war movies in the safety of their living room. Was Iraq a bad idea? I didn't know when it started, and still don't know. I don't think all of us ordinary people get in on the information that led to our leaders (not just Bush, but an overwhelming majority of congress, democrats included, by the way) to decide we needed to take on Saddam.
But then I start to get lost. See, they tell us the war should end because we shouldn't have started it in the first place, Saddam wasn't that bad a guy and wasn't really a threat, and now our soldiers are just stuck in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia.
From what I'm able to discern, it's true that lots of the current violence involves turf wars between the Sunni and Shia. And our soldiers probably are unfortunately caught in the crossfire from time to time. But aren't they mostly killing each other? And if we just leave, won't they kill each other in massive numbers until one side or the other wins?
See, I'm confused by the left side's position on that, given they've been clamoring for us to intervene in Darfur for years. Isn't the situation in Iraq likely to become a repeat of Darfur the minute our soldiers leave the country? So what are you saying, anti-war lefties? That people in Darfur are more valuable than Iraqi people?
Then are the other questions the anti-war people never seem to want to answer. Like Al Quaeda. They're the ones who blew up the towers in New York - you know, September 11th? They're making Iraq their central front in their war on America. They say so, openly and often. Then there's Iran. They're arming and training people and sending them into Iraq to blow up our soldiers, so they're actually at war with us too.
So here's my big question for the get out now folks: How exactly does it help protect our country from terrorism if we just drop everything, say "never mind", and bug out of Iraq? As soon as we do that, doesn't it seem reasonable to predict that a holocaust will soon follow among the Iraqi people? That Iran will move swiftly in alliance with the Shia to rule what used to be Iraq? That Al Quaeda will strengthen with the aid of Iran and immediately begin hatching plans to bring Iranian nukes into America to set off in our cities?
Oh yeah, you guys say those are just scare tactics by the Nazi Republicans. Just let me get this straight - you're saying that if we leave Iraq immediately, somehow all those radicals that want to kill us will suddenly like us and leave us alone?
Please explain it to me. Because I don't get it.
Monday, July 09, 2007
If Asked for Advice
Interesting that lately I've been watching the political scene in sort a detached, analytical manner. Deeply disappointed by Republicans on the Immigration issue and dumbfounded by the antics of the Democrats, I've lost any hope for reason or common sense to prevail.
So instead, here are some of my suggestions for the outgoing President and those who want to be President when he leaves.
Bush only has one chance to salvage his presidency, and that's a miracle in Iraq. The miracle has to be in the form of a great success with his surge and actual progress in stabilizing a US-friendly government there. Problem is, even if the surge becomes a resounding success, we'll never get to hear about it, because the Bush-haters between congress and the news media are way to deeply invested in failure.
Hillary can win if she succeeds at shutting up those who mention her personal inconvenient truths. You know, her baggage from the years she spent with Bubba in the White House. Like the travel office firings, the Whitewater billing records, Vince Foster, the FBI Files, HillaryCare. Stuff like that.
Oh yeah, she's already succeeded. Nobody is talking about that stuff. So she wins, unless Obama can knock her off.
Speaking of Obama, all he has to do is say something really good. So far, he's an empty suit, but is doing well partly because of that. He needs to verbalize some bold plan for something or other that nobody else has, but can get people excited.
I don't know what that is, but it might not matter. The media are drooling over both Obama and Hillary, and don't really care which one wins - as long as one of them wins. Probably both, because I think the Dems will end up with a Hillary/Obama ticket.
The rest of the Democrat candidates are window dressing.
On the Republican side, Rudy could wrap it up with a simple strategy: He should clearly define his stance on the two big social issues he's on the wrong side of the party on - abortion and gay marriage. If he suddenly does an about-face on those issues (ala Romney), nobody will believe him. But if he tells everyone something like he can't force abortion law to be changed himself, but will use the bully pulpit as president to educate women and encourage alternatives to abortion, it could go a long way. On gay marriage, hmm, I think he's got a problem there.
Romney just has to get past the Mormon thing. I think that instead of running away from the issue, he should take it head-on and challenge those who want to make it an issue. He needs lots of prime-time publicity letting everyone know that his religious faith will influence him no more and no less than the faith of any president before him. Those who keep hammering him on it should put up or shut up.
Fred Thompson has a great opportunity. When he gets in the race, he has to personify the image he currently has as a common-sense, no-nonsense guy. Like Reagan, he can draw on his acting talents to project a straight-shooter that never backs down on his principles. But also like Reagan, he can somehow make his critics and enemies with nowhere to go by meeting their attacks head-on.
If Fred does it right, I think he might be the only Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama. Or I could just be fantasizing.
McCain's already done because of Immigration. And nobody else has a chance, even if there are a couple of them that deserve one. Because the Media chooses the candidate, not the rest of us.
By the time Indiana has primaries next summer, the choices will have already been made. So I'll only be a spectator anyway.
So instead, here are some of my suggestions for the outgoing President and those who want to be President when he leaves.
Bush only has one chance to salvage his presidency, and that's a miracle in Iraq. The miracle has to be in the form of a great success with his surge and actual progress in stabilizing a US-friendly government there. Problem is, even if the surge becomes a resounding success, we'll never get to hear about it, because the Bush-haters between congress and the news media are way to deeply invested in failure.
Hillary can win if she succeeds at shutting up those who mention her personal inconvenient truths. You know, her baggage from the years she spent with Bubba in the White House. Like the travel office firings, the Whitewater billing records, Vince Foster, the FBI Files, HillaryCare. Stuff like that.
Oh yeah, she's already succeeded. Nobody is talking about that stuff. So she wins, unless Obama can knock her off.
Speaking of Obama, all he has to do is say something really good. So far, he's an empty suit, but is doing well partly because of that. He needs to verbalize some bold plan for something or other that nobody else has, but can get people excited.
I don't know what that is, but it might not matter. The media are drooling over both Obama and Hillary, and don't really care which one wins - as long as one of them wins. Probably both, because I think the Dems will end up with a Hillary/Obama ticket.
The rest of the Democrat candidates are window dressing.
On the Republican side, Rudy could wrap it up with a simple strategy: He should clearly define his stance on the two big social issues he's on the wrong side of the party on - abortion and gay marriage. If he suddenly does an about-face on those issues (ala Romney), nobody will believe him. But if he tells everyone something like he can't force abortion law to be changed himself, but will use the bully pulpit as president to educate women and encourage alternatives to abortion, it could go a long way. On gay marriage, hmm, I think he's got a problem there.
Romney just has to get past the Mormon thing. I think that instead of running away from the issue, he should take it head-on and challenge those who want to make it an issue. He needs lots of prime-time publicity letting everyone know that his religious faith will influence him no more and no less than the faith of any president before him. Those who keep hammering him on it should put up or shut up.
Fred Thompson has a great opportunity. When he gets in the race, he has to personify the image he currently has as a common-sense, no-nonsense guy. Like Reagan, he can draw on his acting talents to project a straight-shooter that never backs down on his principles. But also like Reagan, he can somehow make his critics and enemies with nowhere to go by meeting their attacks head-on.
If Fred does it right, I think he might be the only Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama. Or I could just be fantasizing.
McCain's already done because of Immigration. And nobody else has a chance, even if there are a couple of them that deserve one. Because the Media chooses the candidate, not the rest of us.
By the time Indiana has primaries next summer, the choices will have already been made. So I'll only be a spectator anyway.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Scent Sensitivity Rights
Check out this story.
Some people would scoff and say Ms. McBride is just creating a stupid issue.
Not me, because I share her pain. Fortunately I'm not in a situation where I need to share a small office space with a woman that bathes in perfume or lathers her hands in pungent lotions several times a day. If I were, I would be forced to resign the job, because such things make me violently ill.
Our society has gone smoke-free almost everywhere to protect people from secondhand smoke. What's wrong with sensitive people like us being protected from toxic perfumes?
My bigger question is, why is this woman's co-worker so insensitive that she refuses to skip the perfume out of respect for her office mate? She certainly can pour it on as much as she likes on her own time, and it's hardly an imposition on her to skip it at work. Unless she's got a bad case of B.O. and uses the perfume in lieu of a daily shower (?)
I'm not big on Ms. McBride getting damages, but I do think it would be reasonable to accomodate her need for a perfume-free workplace.
Some people would scoff and say Ms. McBride is just creating a stupid issue.
Not me, because I share her pain. Fortunately I'm not in a situation where I need to share a small office space with a woman that bathes in perfume or lathers her hands in pungent lotions several times a day. If I were, I would be forced to resign the job, because such things make me violently ill.
Our society has gone smoke-free almost everywhere to protect people from secondhand smoke. What's wrong with sensitive people like us being protected from toxic perfumes?
My bigger question is, why is this woman's co-worker so insensitive that she refuses to skip the perfume out of respect for her office mate? She certainly can pour it on as much as she likes on her own time, and it's hardly an imposition on her to skip it at work. Unless she's got a bad case of B.O. and uses the perfume in lieu of a daily shower (?)
I'm not big on Ms. McBride getting damages, but I do think it would be reasonable to accomodate her need for a perfume-free workplace.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Happy Independence Day
This will be a very nice day for the July 4th holiday. I'm looking forward to a relaxing day off.
Whenever I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am reminded of what an amazing group of guys our founders were. To think that they created this system of government in a world where nothing like it existed adds to my awe and respect for this group of gentlemen. To think that the Brits regarded them as nothing but rabble and hayseeds from the colonies who didn't have the sense to govern themselves. I think they were proven wrong.
The very act of signing that Declaration they knew to be very likely their own death warrants, but they stepped up and did it anyway.
Happy 4th!
Whenever I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am reminded of what an amazing group of guys our founders were. To think that they created this system of government in a world where nothing like it existed adds to my awe and respect for this group of gentlemen. To think that the Brits regarded them as nothing but rabble and hayseeds from the colonies who didn't have the sense to govern themselves. I think they were proven wrong.
The very act of signing that Declaration they knew to be very likely their own death warrants, but they stepped up and did it anyway.
Happy 4th!
Monday, July 02, 2007
Must be Racist
The elite media and government types are angry. They're angry that the American people overwhelmingly panned their very complex legislation dealing with immigration.
Anger makes people lash out. When it comes to our Washington elites, lashing out usually means wielding the racist club. All over the airwaves are angry legislators and media types, blaming racist Americans enflamed by racist AM Radio talkers.
The either refuse to look past their idealistic noses to find out the real reasons behind the public outcry, or they actually understand that outcry but prefer to ignore it in favor of propagandist messages designed to club people with accusations they hate the most - that they must be a bunch of racists.
From my point of view, I don't care if it's a bunch of poor Mexicans or Swedish Swimsuit Models; if they are in the country illegally, they should be just as subject to enforcement of our laws as anyone else.
The opposition to the bill is not some simplistic xenophobic fear. It's based simply on the reported content of the bill itself. The Washington ivory tower residents say it isn't an amnesty bill, but their own defense of the bill admits it is. Only those illegal immigrants who want to climb on the yellow brick road also known as the "path to citizenship" are required to do anything at all. Everybody else here illegally gets essentially an unlimited free pass, as long as they don't want to apply for citizenship.
There were lots of other things reportedly in that monstrosity, such as a deal-killer national id card. But mainly, niether congress nor the president have the slightest hint of credibility in this area. They can promise they will secure the borders, but their actions to date seem to prove those are the emptiest of promises.
I think there is a very easy, common-sense solution to the problem. Once again, common sense is a foreign concept in Washington, but I'll outline it here anyway.
First, put everyone on notice. Run an ad campaign in all the media telling illegal immigrants and employers who hire them that time is running out. The ads say this:
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Agency is implementing new policies and procedures for enforcing our immigration laws.
Employers, within 6 months you will be asked to submit a full roster of your employees, with monthly updates to follow with new employees hired.
New government systems will be implemented to confirm your employees are legally entitled to live and work in the United States. You will be notified on a monthly basis of those of your employees that do not appear to hold valid social security or work permit documentation. Once notified of a discrepancy, you have 30 days to either correct the information, provide copies of proof of citizenship or current work permits, or terminate employment of the employees in question.
Immigrants, if you are in the country illegally, you have 6 months to return to your country of origin. If you do so within this 6 month period, you will not be subject to fines or imprisonment in the United States, unless you have committed punishable offenses other than your illegal immigrant status.
Once you have returned to your country of origin, you may make application to return to the United States through your consulate. If your application for legal entry into the United States demonstrates you are proficient in English, have a written recommendation and job offer from a United States employer, and have no serious criminal record, your application is likely to be approved on an expedited basis. If your application is approved, you will be permitted to return to the United States under a 2-year work permit.
Any employers found to be in violation of the law with respect to ongoing employment of illegal aliens after the afore-mentioned 6 month period will be subject to fines of up to $10,000 per illegal employee. Repeat offenses will be subject to higher fines and imprisonment of those company officials involved in such illegal employment.
Any persons remaining in the country illegally after this 6 month period are subject to arrest and immediate deportation to their country of origin, with a permanent flag attached to their record, indicating they cannot re-enter the United States under any circumstances.
Of course, the other piece of this is shutting down the borders - both northern and southern. Fences, cameras, agents - whatever is necessary.
Simple, common-sense, very fair I think. I know some would object to the part about letting them apply to get back in, but if they can show they're already pretty well assimilated, know the language, and have a company sponsoring them for return, I don't think it's unreasonable.
Anger makes people lash out. When it comes to our Washington elites, lashing out usually means wielding the racist club. All over the airwaves are angry legislators and media types, blaming racist Americans enflamed by racist AM Radio talkers.
The either refuse to look past their idealistic noses to find out the real reasons behind the public outcry, or they actually understand that outcry but prefer to ignore it in favor of propagandist messages designed to club people with accusations they hate the most - that they must be a bunch of racists.
From my point of view, I don't care if it's a bunch of poor Mexicans or Swedish Swimsuit Models; if they are in the country illegally, they should be just as subject to enforcement of our laws as anyone else.
The opposition to the bill is not some simplistic xenophobic fear. It's based simply on the reported content of the bill itself. The Washington ivory tower residents say it isn't an amnesty bill, but their own defense of the bill admits it is. Only those illegal immigrants who want to climb on the yellow brick road also known as the "path to citizenship" are required to do anything at all. Everybody else here illegally gets essentially an unlimited free pass, as long as they don't want to apply for citizenship.
There were lots of other things reportedly in that monstrosity, such as a deal-killer national id card. But mainly, niether congress nor the president have the slightest hint of credibility in this area. They can promise they will secure the borders, but their actions to date seem to prove those are the emptiest of promises.
I think there is a very easy, common-sense solution to the problem. Once again, common sense is a foreign concept in Washington, but I'll outline it here anyway.
First, put everyone on notice. Run an ad campaign in all the media telling illegal immigrants and employers who hire them that time is running out. The ads say this:
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Agency is implementing new policies and procedures for enforcing our immigration laws.
Employers, within 6 months you will be asked to submit a full roster of your employees, with monthly updates to follow with new employees hired.
New government systems will be implemented to confirm your employees are legally entitled to live and work in the United States. You will be notified on a monthly basis of those of your employees that do not appear to hold valid social security or work permit documentation. Once notified of a discrepancy, you have 30 days to either correct the information, provide copies of proof of citizenship or current work permits, or terminate employment of the employees in question.
Immigrants, if you are in the country illegally, you have 6 months to return to your country of origin. If you do so within this 6 month period, you will not be subject to fines or imprisonment in the United States, unless you have committed punishable offenses other than your illegal immigrant status.
Once you have returned to your country of origin, you may make application to return to the United States through your consulate. If your application for legal entry into the United States demonstrates you are proficient in English, have a written recommendation and job offer from a United States employer, and have no serious criminal record, your application is likely to be approved on an expedited basis. If your application is approved, you will be permitted to return to the United States under a 2-year work permit.
Any employers found to be in violation of the law with respect to ongoing employment of illegal aliens after the afore-mentioned 6 month period will be subject to fines of up to $10,000 per illegal employee. Repeat offenses will be subject to higher fines and imprisonment of those company officials involved in such illegal employment.
Any persons remaining in the country illegally after this 6 month period are subject to arrest and immediate deportation to their country of origin, with a permanent flag attached to their record, indicating they cannot re-enter the United States under any circumstances.
Of course, the other piece of this is shutting down the borders - both northern and southern. Fences, cameras, agents - whatever is necessary.
Simple, common-sense, very fair I think. I know some would object to the part about letting them apply to get back in, but if they can show they're already pretty well assimilated, know the language, and have a company sponsoring them for return, I don't think it's unreasonable.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Healthcare Redux
Healthcare is a topic I've written about before, but since it's hot again, I'll see if I can add a bit to my previous thoughts on the subject.
Our favorite fat communist filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a film called "Sicko". I don't need to see it to know it's full of stories about poor people who can't get treated for their maladies, corrupt politicians supporting evil and greedy drug and insurance companies.
He wouldn't even need to make stuff up like he did in Farenheit 911 to be able to convince anybody that the system is broken. I already concede that point - it is broken. But where he runs off the rails is by suggesting that the only solution is to have the government take over.
Let's start at the beginning.
Sometimes we wish for the good old days, where the country doctor with his little black bag made house calls. He treated broken bones and illnesses, administered medication, then was paid in whatever the patients had to offer. If not a few dollars, he might get a couple of chickens.
Today every malady requires a specialist. The General Practitioner is almost a thing of the past. All manner of high-tech devices have been invented that can pinpoint your problem without the need to cut. Thousands of pharmaceuticals have been invented to treat all manner of problems.
All that was made possible by health insurance. Back in the days of 80 percent marginal income tax rates, companies needed to get creative in giving compensation packages to their employees to keep their taxable incomes under that outrageous 80% threshold. So one of the things they came up with was health insurance.
I've been around long enough to have seen the evolution of healthcare firsthand. When I first entered the workforce, my employers provided only "Major Medical" insurance. That meant that if you had to go into the hospital for an expensive surgical procedure, the insurance would pay for it. Otherwise, you paid everything else out of your pocket.
Early in my career I was dirt poor. But I could afford to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription when I got sick. If I needed a higher level of care and couldn't afford to pay on the spot, the doctor's office would simply set me up on a payment program. The bill would be paid within a few months without a major strain on my small budget.
Then one day my employer came through with this new thing called an HMO. We loved it, because it was almost free. Anything we needed, we could just go to the doctor's office and get it. Our share was $5. When our first child was born, I happily pulled a five-dollar bill out of my wallet to pay my share of the bill.
What happened? Well, when something is free (or almost free), people will use it a lot more. Kid got a sniffle? Take her to the doctor. Pull a muscle playing basketball? Go see the doctor. When it's practically free, why not?
Everybody came to rely on that health insurance, and now most consider it some sort of fundamental human right.
Today, the insurance companies have become the gatekeepers to the healthcare system. They created bureaucracies designed to look over the shoulder of your doctor and decide whether or not they will pay for his recommended treatments. They all have their own unique filing and reporting systems that must be used by the providers in order to get paid. And they are for-profit business entities.
Bigger corporations are "self-insured", which basically means they hire a company called a TPA (Third-Party Administrator) to manage their health plans. As the costs have risen higher and higher, companies are now seeking to cut their healthcare expenses. They cut their expenses by raising the amount they charge their employees for coverage, cutting out selected diseases or accidents they will cover, and by firing or avoiding hiring of anyone that might be a higher risk for health problems.
I'm not sure how smokers or overweight people can find a job these days, because they are openly discriminated against by companies everywhere because they just might end up costing the company one day if they get cancer or heart disease or diabetes or stroke.
So these days we are already solidly entrenched in a government-run insurance system. Most everyone over 65 is under Medicare, and now is also covered under a very poorly conceived prescription drug program run by the Feds. Considered honestly, the elderly need more healthcare than the rest of the population, so it could be fairly stated that the taxes of all working Americans go to pay medical expenses for our retirees.
The other socialized medicine in place is MedicAid, or variations on that program administered by every state. These programs use our tax money to pay for medical treatment for the poor and indigent.
For the rest of us, we can get great health coverage if we work for the right company that provides great health benefits for an affordable price. But if you're out of work, work for a small business that doesn't offer health benefits, or are a small business owner yourself, you are very likely to be uninsured.
Yes there are millions of uninsured Americans, either because they can't afford to buy their own insurance, can't buy insurance even if they can afford it, or simply decided to save the high premiums and take their chances.
Just about everyone will need some sort of surgery or other expensive medical treatments sometime during their lifetime. Some small business owners choose to forego the $1,000 monthly premium for health insurance, knowing that if they have an accident or illness while uninsured, they will be bankrupt. They figure that the odds are higher that their business will fail and they'll be bankrupt anyway, so they take their chances on being uninsured until the business begins to be successful.
Someone who quits their job or gets laid off must be offered COBRA coverage by their employer. Family coverage premiums under COBRA range between $800 and $1200 per month. The average person simply doesn't have that kind of money, especially one who was terminated and hasn't yet found a new job.
I despise the fact that I've been paying outrageous monthly premiums for health insurance that hasn't actually paid for anything yet. Between my high deductible and the restrictions in the plan, it will never pay any of my family's medical bills unless or until a serious injury or illness were to occur.
But I still don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what doctor I can see, what drugs I'm allowed, or when I can get a needed surgery. That's what happens when the government runs the system.
If affordable insurance for major medical was available for everyone, nobody would have to go bankrupt if they have an auto accident or get cancer.
Then, if routine medical care and prescription drugs were taken completely out of the insurance system, I think almost everyone would be able to afford their routine doctor visits and prescriptions. Physicians I think would welcome office vist fees of $30 or $40 if they never had to file an insurance claim and wait to get paid. Drug companies would be forced to bring down their prices as well in return for getting cash for every prescription filled. No more bureaucracies, no more restrictions on physician treatment decisions.
It won't happen. Neither will government-controlled socialized medicine. Because the industry likes the status quo and has the money to make sure congress likes it too.
Our favorite fat communist filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a film called "Sicko". I don't need to see it to know it's full of stories about poor people who can't get treated for their maladies, corrupt politicians supporting evil and greedy drug and insurance companies.
He wouldn't even need to make stuff up like he did in Farenheit 911 to be able to convince anybody that the system is broken. I already concede that point - it is broken. But where he runs off the rails is by suggesting that the only solution is to have the government take over.
Let's start at the beginning.
Sometimes we wish for the good old days, where the country doctor with his little black bag made house calls. He treated broken bones and illnesses, administered medication, then was paid in whatever the patients had to offer. If not a few dollars, he might get a couple of chickens.
Today every malady requires a specialist. The General Practitioner is almost a thing of the past. All manner of high-tech devices have been invented that can pinpoint your problem without the need to cut. Thousands of pharmaceuticals have been invented to treat all manner of problems.
All that was made possible by health insurance. Back in the days of 80 percent marginal income tax rates, companies needed to get creative in giving compensation packages to their employees to keep their taxable incomes under that outrageous 80% threshold. So one of the things they came up with was health insurance.
I've been around long enough to have seen the evolution of healthcare firsthand. When I first entered the workforce, my employers provided only "Major Medical" insurance. That meant that if you had to go into the hospital for an expensive surgical procedure, the insurance would pay for it. Otherwise, you paid everything else out of your pocket.
Early in my career I was dirt poor. But I could afford to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription when I got sick. If I needed a higher level of care and couldn't afford to pay on the spot, the doctor's office would simply set me up on a payment program. The bill would be paid within a few months without a major strain on my small budget.
Then one day my employer came through with this new thing called an HMO. We loved it, because it was almost free. Anything we needed, we could just go to the doctor's office and get it. Our share was $5. When our first child was born, I happily pulled a five-dollar bill out of my wallet to pay my share of the bill.
What happened? Well, when something is free (or almost free), people will use it a lot more. Kid got a sniffle? Take her to the doctor. Pull a muscle playing basketball? Go see the doctor. When it's practically free, why not?
Everybody came to rely on that health insurance, and now most consider it some sort of fundamental human right.
Today, the insurance companies have become the gatekeepers to the healthcare system. They created bureaucracies designed to look over the shoulder of your doctor and decide whether or not they will pay for his recommended treatments. They all have their own unique filing and reporting systems that must be used by the providers in order to get paid. And they are for-profit business entities.
Bigger corporations are "self-insured", which basically means they hire a company called a TPA (Third-Party Administrator) to manage their health plans. As the costs have risen higher and higher, companies are now seeking to cut their healthcare expenses. They cut their expenses by raising the amount they charge their employees for coverage, cutting out selected diseases or accidents they will cover, and by firing or avoiding hiring of anyone that might be a higher risk for health problems.
I'm not sure how smokers or overweight people can find a job these days, because they are openly discriminated against by companies everywhere because they just might end up costing the company one day if they get cancer or heart disease or diabetes or stroke.
So these days we are already solidly entrenched in a government-run insurance system. Most everyone over 65 is under Medicare, and now is also covered under a very poorly conceived prescription drug program run by the Feds. Considered honestly, the elderly need more healthcare than the rest of the population, so it could be fairly stated that the taxes of all working Americans go to pay medical expenses for our retirees.
The other socialized medicine in place is MedicAid, or variations on that program administered by every state. These programs use our tax money to pay for medical treatment for the poor and indigent.
For the rest of us, we can get great health coverage if we work for the right company that provides great health benefits for an affordable price. But if you're out of work, work for a small business that doesn't offer health benefits, or are a small business owner yourself, you are very likely to be uninsured.
Yes there are millions of uninsured Americans, either because they can't afford to buy their own insurance, can't buy insurance even if they can afford it, or simply decided to save the high premiums and take their chances.
Just about everyone will need some sort of surgery or other expensive medical treatments sometime during their lifetime. Some small business owners choose to forego the $1,000 monthly premium for health insurance, knowing that if they have an accident or illness while uninsured, they will be bankrupt. They figure that the odds are higher that their business will fail and they'll be bankrupt anyway, so they take their chances on being uninsured until the business begins to be successful.
Someone who quits their job or gets laid off must be offered COBRA coverage by their employer. Family coverage premiums under COBRA range between $800 and $1200 per month. The average person simply doesn't have that kind of money, especially one who was terminated and hasn't yet found a new job.
I despise the fact that I've been paying outrageous monthly premiums for health insurance that hasn't actually paid for anything yet. Between my high deductible and the restrictions in the plan, it will never pay any of my family's medical bills unless or until a serious injury or illness were to occur.
But I still don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what doctor I can see, what drugs I'm allowed, or when I can get a needed surgery. That's what happens when the government runs the system.
If affordable insurance for major medical was available for everyone, nobody would have to go bankrupt if they have an auto accident or get cancer.
Then, if routine medical care and prescription drugs were taken completely out of the insurance system, I think almost everyone would be able to afford their routine doctor visits and prescriptions. Physicians I think would welcome office vist fees of $30 or $40 if they never had to file an insurance claim and wait to get paid. Drug companies would be forced to bring down their prices as well in return for getting cash for every prescription filled. No more bureaucracies, no more restrictions on physician treatment decisions.
It won't happen. Neither will government-controlled socialized medicine. Because the industry likes the status quo and has the money to make sure congress likes it too.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Victory or Defeat
The headline was Senate hands Bush major defeat on Immigration.
I hear news reports on the radio with essentially the same headline.
I don't need to get into a discussion of the shenanigans in the Senate over this bad piece of legislation, but instead just find it rather interesting that its defeat was immediately laid at Bush's feet.
Sure, Bush supports and has done plenty of arm-twisting of the Republican senators to pass it, but it's hardly his bill. It's Kennedy's and McCain's. It's the only thing in recent memory that the Dems were able to agree with Bush about. The problem is that nobody else in the country agrees with either of them.
The characterization in the headlines of this as a major defeat for Bush is so misleading it's laughable. Sensational maybe, but dishonest.
It was killed because a number of senators in both parties received such overwhelmingly negative feedback from their constituents on this poorly conceived and politically motivated legislation that they voted against ending debate.
Those clueless senators, including both of Indiana's out-of-touch guys, Lugar and Bayh, deluded themselves into thinking that they could pass this turkey and their grassroots back home would quickly forget. I don't think so - everybody in Indiana has concluded that Lugar is old, lazy, and out of touch with his home state and needs to be retired. The problem is that he's got another 5 years before anybody has an opportunity to unseat him. That's 5 years he can either use to resurrect his image or bury himself.
Bayh's probably safer, because the fiercely partisan Dems will support him forever because he's attractive and almost always votes with his party leadership. So somebody would have a huge hill to climb to raise enough money to effectively take him on.
That's why I don't give much thought to the presidential race. The fact is that the candidates will be selected by those with enough money to buy them in the early primaries. By the time Indiana has our primary next summer, both parties will have already chosen their presidential candidate. The Dem candidate will be chosen by Soros, Trial Lawyers, and Labor Unions. The GOP candidate will be chosen by Big Business, Insurance, and Drug companies.
Because they provide the money to their favorite candidate. Soros seems to have already picked Hillary, so unless she screws up big time in the next 9 months, she's their candidate. The GOP money seems to like Giuliani, unless Romney can woo the big money or Fred Thompson gets them excited.
The winner will be elected by an ignorant population based on how they look and how they are portrayed by the media. Not on their position on any issues.
Chances of getting somebody who actually works for the rest of us? Approaching zero.
Update: To be fair, I jumped the gun on Bayh. He's voted with his party leadership so regularly I just assumed he would do so on this one. But he didn't - he actually helped sink the cloture on the Immigration bill. Gotta give him credit for being smarter than Indiana's senior senator.
I hear news reports on the radio with essentially the same headline.
I don't need to get into a discussion of the shenanigans in the Senate over this bad piece of legislation, but instead just find it rather interesting that its defeat was immediately laid at Bush's feet.
Sure, Bush supports and has done plenty of arm-twisting of the Republican senators to pass it, but it's hardly his bill. It's Kennedy's and McCain's. It's the only thing in recent memory that the Dems were able to agree with Bush about. The problem is that nobody else in the country agrees with either of them.
The characterization in the headlines of this as a major defeat for Bush is so misleading it's laughable. Sensational maybe, but dishonest.
It was killed because a number of senators in both parties received such overwhelmingly negative feedback from their constituents on this poorly conceived and politically motivated legislation that they voted against ending debate.
Those clueless senators, including both of Indiana's out-of-touch guys, Lugar and Bayh, deluded themselves into thinking that they could pass this turkey and their grassroots back home would quickly forget. I don't think so - everybody in Indiana has concluded that Lugar is old, lazy, and out of touch with his home state and needs to be retired. The problem is that he's got another 5 years before anybody has an opportunity to unseat him. That's 5 years he can either use to resurrect his image or bury himself.
Bayh's probably safer, because the fiercely partisan Dems will support him forever because he's attractive and almost always votes with his party leadership. So somebody would have a huge hill to climb to raise enough money to effectively take him on.
That's why I don't give much thought to the presidential race. The fact is that the candidates will be selected by those with enough money to buy them in the early primaries. By the time Indiana has our primary next summer, both parties will have already chosen their presidential candidate. The Dem candidate will be chosen by Soros, Trial Lawyers, and Labor Unions. The GOP candidate will be chosen by Big Business, Insurance, and Drug companies.
Because they provide the money to their favorite candidate. Soros seems to have already picked Hillary, so unless she screws up big time in the next 9 months, she's their candidate. The GOP money seems to like Giuliani, unless Romney can woo the big money or Fred Thompson gets them excited.
The winner will be elected by an ignorant population based on how they look and how they are portrayed by the media. Not on their position on any issues.
Chances of getting somebody who actually works for the rest of us? Approaching zero.
Update: To be fair, I jumped the gun on Bayh. He's voted with his party leadership so regularly I just assumed he would do so on this one. But he didn't - he actually helped sink the cloture on the Immigration bill. Gotta give him credit for being smarter than Indiana's senior senator.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Tragic Sign of Times
It was disturbing to see the story today of the 15 year old girl who stabbed her Mother's boyfriend to death over an argument about what to watch on television.
The story so far is that the mother and her boyfriend returned home together, where her twin 15-year-old daughters were watching television. The boyfriend wanted to switch to a news program, which triggered an argument that ended with one of the sisters stabbing him to death. When the police arrived and took the young murderess into custody, the officer was physically attacked by her twin sister. So both girls were arrested.
Sure, the first gut reaction would be, "what a brat". Killing someone over an argument about what to watch on television would seem to be the ultimate in spoiled brat behavior.
Probably so. But even with what little facts are available at this point in the story, I'm prepared to suggest that at least equal guilt should be assessed against the girls' mother.
It stretches credibility that even a self-centered and narcissistic teenager would go so far as murder unless there's a lot more than a simple television programming argument. Unless the girl has a serious mental illness, the only reasonable explanation for the extreme response of murder is abuse.
There would have been no argument over the television between the girls and their mother's boyfriend unless he felt some sort of entitlement. I'm guessing he's not just bringing the mother back from a date, but lives in the house. Otherwise, he would have no standing to demand that the channel be changed to what he wanted to watch.
Maybe the boyfriend has been abusive with the girls since he moved in. Perhaps he began beating one of the sisters when she refused to pass him the TV remote and the other sister stabbed him to stop him. Maybe he's been abusing them physically and/or sexually for months or years.
The young murderess must be held responsible for her actions, unless evidence does come out in the case that the boyfriend was stabbed in an act of self-defense. But I think the mother deserves at least equal punishment, whether for allowing her daughters to become such stupendous brats or for failing to protect them from this or maybe a string of abusive boyfriends. Either way, Mom can be presumed guilty of neglect based simply on the information available already.
The saddest part is that live-in boyfriends who may or may not abuse the children is an all-to-common occurrence in today's America. And people like me are vilified for "judging" their lifestyles.
The story so far is that the mother and her boyfriend returned home together, where her twin 15-year-old daughters were watching television. The boyfriend wanted to switch to a news program, which triggered an argument that ended with one of the sisters stabbing him to death. When the police arrived and took the young murderess into custody, the officer was physically attacked by her twin sister. So both girls were arrested.
Sure, the first gut reaction would be, "what a brat". Killing someone over an argument about what to watch on television would seem to be the ultimate in spoiled brat behavior.
Probably so. But even with what little facts are available at this point in the story, I'm prepared to suggest that at least equal guilt should be assessed against the girls' mother.
It stretches credibility that even a self-centered and narcissistic teenager would go so far as murder unless there's a lot more than a simple television programming argument. Unless the girl has a serious mental illness, the only reasonable explanation for the extreme response of murder is abuse.
There would have been no argument over the television between the girls and their mother's boyfriend unless he felt some sort of entitlement. I'm guessing he's not just bringing the mother back from a date, but lives in the house. Otherwise, he would have no standing to demand that the channel be changed to what he wanted to watch.
Maybe the boyfriend has been abusive with the girls since he moved in. Perhaps he began beating one of the sisters when she refused to pass him the TV remote and the other sister stabbed him to stop him. Maybe he's been abusing them physically and/or sexually for months or years.
The young murderess must be held responsible for her actions, unless evidence does come out in the case that the boyfriend was stabbed in an act of self-defense. But I think the mother deserves at least equal punishment, whether for allowing her daughters to become such stupendous brats or for failing to protect them from this or maybe a string of abusive boyfriends. Either way, Mom can be presumed guilty of neglect based simply on the information available already.
The saddest part is that live-in boyfriends who may or may not abuse the children is an all-to-common occurrence in today's America. And people like me are vilified for "judging" their lifestyles.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Radical
Radical is hardly a word I'd use to describe myself, but apparently those in power would use that precise label.
Apparently these things make me a radical.
I think our borders and immigration laws should be enforced. (gasp!)
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I believe that most abortion procedures are barbaric infanticide and are primarily used to help women avoid the inconvenience of raising (or offering for adoption) a child.
I think that if health insurance was eliminated for all but major medical surgery and hospitalization, other doctor and medication fees would become affordable. I also think that the best way to really wreck the healthcare system is to let the government run it.
I think that official recognition of gay marriage is designed to criminalize religious organizations that refuse to stop discriminating against homosexuals.
I think that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the best interests of the American people who supposedly elected them. Instead, Republicans represent big business and Democrats represent the tyranny of repressive socialism.
I think the energy legislation just passed does nothing to solve the energy or environmental problems of the country. Instead, it enriches biofuel producers, will make trucks and suv's so scarce that the used market for such vehicles will explode, and benefits nobody but congresspersons and their best patrons.
I think the only way to win the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on Terror, is to turn the military loose. Ruthless and effective projection of power is the only way to defeat terrorism.
See what I mean? Radical.
I'm right. But right is radical these days.
Apparently these things make me a radical.
I think our borders and immigration laws should be enforced. (gasp!)
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I believe that most abortion procedures are barbaric infanticide and are primarily used to help women avoid the inconvenience of raising (or offering for adoption) a child.
I think that if health insurance was eliminated for all but major medical surgery and hospitalization, other doctor and medication fees would become affordable. I also think that the best way to really wreck the healthcare system is to let the government run it.
I think that official recognition of gay marriage is designed to criminalize religious organizations that refuse to stop discriminating against homosexuals.
I think that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the best interests of the American people who supposedly elected them. Instead, Republicans represent big business and Democrats represent the tyranny of repressive socialism.
I think the energy legislation just passed does nothing to solve the energy or environmental problems of the country. Instead, it enriches biofuel producers, will make trucks and suv's so scarce that the used market for such vehicles will explode, and benefits nobody but congresspersons and their best patrons.
I think the only way to win the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on Terror, is to turn the military loose. Ruthless and effective projection of power is the only way to defeat terrorism.
See what I mean? Radical.
I'm right. But right is radical these days.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
They Merely Reflect Us
The government is corrupt. Lawmakers are in it for themselves, not their consituents and not their country. Anybody paying the slightest attention over the last few years is either angry enough that they want to clean out the whole lot in Washington and start over, or have just given up.
The illegal immigration issue is a great case in point. A perfect storm has put both political parties on the wrong side of this issue for different reasons. Dems love illegals and want to make them citizens as quickly as possible because they mostly vote for Dems. Republicans are beholden to corporate donors who also love illegals because they can hire them at $5 an hour. So they team up on a bill that gives immediate legal status to everybody here illegally, then makes a token effort at beefing up border patrols.
The last time they passed a bill like this, it gave legal status to a huge number of illegals and promised to shore up border and employer enforcement. Then they conveniently forgot about the enforcement part. They passed a bill just over a year ago to build a 700-mile border fence. It's not built, and there seems to be no intention to build it.
A huge majority of people, well over 70% of the citizenry, is outraged. But Congress and the President don't care. They think they can put one over on all of us and get away with it. Maybe they can - we'll soon find out.
Look at any other issue. Healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and the broader Terror War, Trade. On every single issue, you find both political parties wanting to do what's best for those who stuff their campaign chests rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole.
Suppose we elected a congressman from our area who is honest and smart and wants to do the right thing for all of us. He goes to Washington and his first reality check happens when a bill comes up that's being pushed by his party leadership. He knows it's a bad bill, and knows it was designed to satisfy a major donor to the campaigns of his party's leaders. This new congressman is told, "You better vote for this bill, or you can kiss anything you want for your district goodbye."
What will he do?
What will we do?
The illegal immigration issue is a great case in point. A perfect storm has put both political parties on the wrong side of this issue for different reasons. Dems love illegals and want to make them citizens as quickly as possible because they mostly vote for Dems. Republicans are beholden to corporate donors who also love illegals because they can hire them at $5 an hour. So they team up on a bill that gives immediate legal status to everybody here illegally, then makes a token effort at beefing up border patrols.
The last time they passed a bill like this, it gave legal status to a huge number of illegals and promised to shore up border and employer enforcement. Then they conveniently forgot about the enforcement part. They passed a bill just over a year ago to build a 700-mile border fence. It's not built, and there seems to be no intention to build it.
A huge majority of people, well over 70% of the citizenry, is outraged. But Congress and the President don't care. They think they can put one over on all of us and get away with it. Maybe they can - we'll soon find out.
Look at any other issue. Healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and the broader Terror War, Trade. On every single issue, you find both political parties wanting to do what's best for those who stuff their campaign chests rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole.
Suppose we elected a congressman from our area who is honest and smart and wants to do the right thing for all of us. He goes to Washington and his first reality check happens when a bill comes up that's being pushed by his party leadership. He knows it's a bad bill, and knows it was designed to satisfy a major donor to the campaigns of his party's leaders. This new congressman is told, "You better vote for this bill, or you can kiss anything you want for your district goodbye."
What will he do?
What will we do?
Monday, June 18, 2007
Success
How do you define success? What people do you know or know about that you would consider successful? Are you successful?
For myself, I have begun to realize that I've never really sat down and defined the meaning of success in my own life.
If I build my business into a large and profitable venture and become wealthy, is that success?
Or would the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve that vision of success be too costly, meaning that success in business requires failure in all other aspects of life?
How many people do we look up to as the model for the success we hope to achieve? Business leaders? Politicians? Musicians? Actors? Sports stars?
How many of those so-called success stories have dark personal failures in their lives? Broken marriages, estranged children, addiction problems?
Whenever I read a biography of a famous person, it almost always includes failure. People who achieve great things in their endeavors almost always fail at first, or multiple times. Even when they achieve great success in their field, they often suffer terrible failure in other aspects of their lives. What sets them apart in their field of endeavor is typically a deep desire and the spirit to keep trying despite repeated failure.
I've had several devastating failures. When difficult times come, my first inclination is to give up. Failure gives a horrible feeling of hopelessness and deals a heavy blow to self-confidence. I don't even want to get out of bed in the morning at first, feeling sorry for myself.
Some successes provide an ecstatic feeling for awhile. Such things are fleeting, because life doesn't allow us to dwell on our successes. They are quickly forgotten as we must move on to the next endeavor.
Wealth is nice, but it doesn't mean success. At least not for me.
Success is not a destination, but an unattainable goal. When we die, if others say we made a difference, then maybe we achieved some success. The rest doesn't mean a thing.
For myself, I have begun to realize that I've never really sat down and defined the meaning of success in my own life.
If I build my business into a large and profitable venture and become wealthy, is that success?
Or would the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve that vision of success be too costly, meaning that success in business requires failure in all other aspects of life?
How many people do we look up to as the model for the success we hope to achieve? Business leaders? Politicians? Musicians? Actors? Sports stars?
How many of those so-called success stories have dark personal failures in their lives? Broken marriages, estranged children, addiction problems?
Whenever I read a biography of a famous person, it almost always includes failure. People who achieve great things in their endeavors almost always fail at first, or multiple times. Even when they achieve great success in their field, they often suffer terrible failure in other aspects of their lives. What sets them apart in their field of endeavor is typically a deep desire and the spirit to keep trying despite repeated failure.
I've had several devastating failures. When difficult times come, my first inclination is to give up. Failure gives a horrible feeling of hopelessness and deals a heavy blow to self-confidence. I don't even want to get out of bed in the morning at first, feeling sorry for myself.
Some successes provide an ecstatic feeling for awhile. Such things are fleeting, because life doesn't allow us to dwell on our successes. They are quickly forgotten as we must move on to the next endeavor.
Wealth is nice, but it doesn't mean success. At least not for me.
Success is not a destination, but an unattainable goal. When we die, if others say we made a difference, then maybe we achieved some success. The rest doesn't mean a thing.
Monday, June 11, 2007
This Says it Better
The following is attributed to Paul Harvey, but the way things bounce around the web these days I can't be sure. I'll assume it's Paul unless I hear otherwise, but for now, this expresses my point of view about as well as anything I've come across.
Paul Harvey says :
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries
founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,
Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what
would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a
football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and
their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well .. just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell
them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of
allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. But by
golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting
back . .. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all .. especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America and Canada, despite all their faults. They are still the
greatest nations of all.
God bless our service men and women who are fighting to protect our
right to pray and worship God.
May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Paul Harvey says :
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries
founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,
Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what
would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a
football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and
their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well .. just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell
them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of
allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. But by
golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting
back . .. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all .. especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America and Canada, despite all their faults. They are still the
greatest nations of all.
God bless our service men and women who are fighting to protect our
right to pray and worship God.
May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Vacation Thoughts
The first "real" family vacation in many years, and most likely the last vacation we will all take together just wrapped up. Overall it was enjoyable. I came into the office today to just check email and pay some bills, and discovered things sort of went crazy while I was gone. Funny how that always seems to happen when I go on vacation for a week.
Even though the flights were covered by miles, taking 5 people on vacation is a rather expensive undertaking. Considering the fact that a week of vacation also costs a self-employed individual like myself a week of revenue, it could be said that the true cost of the trip was triple the amount I actually shelled out.
Something I noticed about this vacation was a rather new attitude about vacations in general. I've become rather jaded these days, and the sights, shows, and attractions we visit during the trip aren't particularly exciting to me anymore. When my participation in an activity, go-carting for example, was optional, I was more than happy to save the money and just watch the boys. The fishing trip might have been a bit more enjoyable if we'd caught more and/or bigger fish, but otherwise it was memorable more for how tired I was when we returned.
In the future, an ideal vacation for me might be just a chance to get away from everything and relax. Or there are some places I haven't seen and would like to someday. Most of those are overseas, because I've pretty much covered the continental US. History fascinates me these days, so I'd probably enjoy a vacation that involved visiting ancient sites or digs.
But for now, the important thing about a vacation isn't my own entertainment, but just being with my family. If they have a good time, that's good enough for me.
Now I have to jump back into work with both feet and earn back what was spent. If the activities that inundated me on my return are any indication, that shouldn't be difficult. Stressful for sure, but it looks like I'll be able to work as many hours as my old bones can handle.
Even though the flights were covered by miles, taking 5 people on vacation is a rather expensive undertaking. Considering the fact that a week of vacation also costs a self-employed individual like myself a week of revenue, it could be said that the true cost of the trip was triple the amount I actually shelled out.
Something I noticed about this vacation was a rather new attitude about vacations in general. I've become rather jaded these days, and the sights, shows, and attractions we visit during the trip aren't particularly exciting to me anymore. When my participation in an activity, go-carting for example, was optional, I was more than happy to save the money and just watch the boys. The fishing trip might have been a bit more enjoyable if we'd caught more and/or bigger fish, but otherwise it was memorable more for how tired I was when we returned.
In the future, an ideal vacation for me might be just a chance to get away from everything and relax. Or there are some places I haven't seen and would like to someday. Most of those are overseas, because I've pretty much covered the continental US. History fascinates me these days, so I'd probably enjoy a vacation that involved visiting ancient sites or digs.
But for now, the important thing about a vacation isn't my own entertainment, but just being with my family. If they have a good time, that's good enough for me.
Now I have to jump back into work with both feet and earn back what was spent. If the activities that inundated me on my return are any indication, that shouldn't be difficult. Stressful for sure, but it looks like I'll be able to work as many hours as my old bones can handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)