The book is Quiet Strength by Tony Dungy.
In our age of cynicism, role models and heroes are hard to find. How refreshing to find a book about a genuine American hero. No, he's not a war hero. He's not even a football hero really; his Super Bowl victory was merely the vehicle that allowed us all to learn about this outstanding man. If he wasn't a football coach, I'm convinced he would be just as successful at something else.
This isn't really a book about football. Sure, football is an integral part of his story and is Tony's chosen profession. But the real story of the book is about life, family, faith, success, and leadership.
Something that naturally draws me to view Tony as a role model is that he's a rare public example of my own core values. He's a strong Christian but is not preachy or pushy about it; he inspires by his personal example. He firmly believes that yelling or berating others is counterproductive. He always treats others with respect, holding firm to the Golden Rule. He understands life's priorities and lives accordingly.
His core principles related to football are applicable to any endeavor. He repeats the manta often to his players, "do what we do". To become a successful football team, you don't need lots of tricks or creativity; you simply need to focus on the small things, doing them over and over until they become second nature. The rest takes care of itself.
Whatever one does in life, that's good advice. Do the small things to the best of your ability, and the big things will take care of themselves.
As a football and Colts fan, I can see the effect of Tony's leadership. The team reflects their leader. They're not chippy or dirty. They don't "trash talk" - in fact, the book mentions that others have remarked about the general lack of profanity through the team. That's not because Tony won't allow profanity - it's because of the fact that Tony won't allow himself to use it, and the team respects him enough to emulate him. They don't get overly excited, and they don't let adversity get them down. They are steady and businesslike and competent. Just like their coach.
The tragic loss of Tony's son to suicide would have ripped most families apart. Tony and his family found a way to deal with their grief that bound them all closer together instead. I can't imagine what incredible faith and strength were required to allow him to survive that tragedy.
I hope every man in the country reads this book. Imagine what could happen if many more men embraced and attempted to live Tony's simple life principles.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Why I Will Never Vote for Hillary
Sure, the fact that my views on almost every issue are diametrically opposed to those Hillary espouses could be enough to justify my principled avoidance of any support for her as a candidate. After all, there's more than enough evidence to prove that Hillary is, at her very core, a Communist. No, I'm not name-calling like the left likes to do when they call Bush a fascist (I'm not sure they even know what fascism is, but that's another topic). I'm stating a simple fact. Just listen to her talk or read something she's written; she can't stop herself from revealing her Marxian belief system by often paraphrasing or even quoting Comrade Karl at every opportunity.
Sealing the deal for me is her own history. I still can't understand why those who support her, even if they agree with her on political policy, can stomach the litany of unethical, immoral, and even illegal behavior behind her dogged pursuit of the most powerful office in the world.
How about a reminder:
Her activism and radicalism as a college student
The Travel Office firings
Vince Foster
Susan McDougal
FBI Files
Whitewater Billing Records
Cattle Futures
Johnny Chung to Norman Hsu and Other Fundraising Scandals
And the above are only the more egregious. I could drill down further into her habitual lying, telling small lies to whoppers simply to endear herself to whatever audience she finds.
No other candidate for President, Democrat or Republican, has such a colorful history of scandal and hint of scandal. Not to mention no other candidate gets the free pass from the media on all this baggage like Hillary continues to enjoy.
I am disappointed that so many people have been fooled or simply don't care, because Hillary's nomination is a fait accompli.
Sealing the deal for me is her own history. I still can't understand why those who support her, even if they agree with her on political policy, can stomach the litany of unethical, immoral, and even illegal behavior behind her dogged pursuit of the most powerful office in the world.
How about a reminder:
Her activism and radicalism as a college student
The Travel Office firings
Vince Foster
Susan McDougal
FBI Files
Whitewater Billing Records
Cattle Futures
Johnny Chung to Norman Hsu and Other Fundraising Scandals
And the above are only the more egregious. I could drill down further into her habitual lying, telling small lies to whoppers simply to endear herself to whatever audience she finds.
No other candidate for President, Democrat or Republican, has such a colorful history of scandal and hint of scandal. Not to mention no other candidate gets the free pass from the media on all this baggage like Hillary continues to enjoy.
I am disappointed that so many people have been fooled or simply don't care, because Hillary's nomination is a fait accompli.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Labor Unions
The UAW strike against GM has raised some interesting issues about the general question of big business and big organized labor. Each side characterizes the other in ways that are both partly right and partly wrong.
The corporate side says that the labor unions will kill their business with their demands for expensive healthcare and pension benefits, plus overly restrictive work rules. They also suggest that the unions exist more for the benefit of corrupt mobster leaders than for the rank and file.
The unions say that if they didn't exist, employers would exploit workers with unsafe working conditions, unfairly low wages, little or no assistance with high healthcare costs and no retirement benefits. They suggest that corporations exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profits, even if their workers are abused to meet that end.
There is truth to be found in the arguments on both sides. Having worked in a union manufacturing company in the 80's, I saw firsthand how damaging it is to productivity for the company to have to deal with the work rules and liberal benefits demanded and given to the unionized employees.
On the other hand, the employers now have a global labor market they are gladly exploiting, with most manufactured goods now coming from China.
I'm neither anti-union nor anti-corporation. I believe that the best governance of these entities is to promote policies that allow neither side to become more powerful than the other.
On the corporate side, I believe that it can be reasonable to enforce rights of labor to organize for the purpose of bargaining with the company for fair pay, benefits and working conditions. I also believe that it would be reasonable to create certain incentives for business to keep their operations in the United States, and protect workers who are laid off so their jobs can be transferred to a cheaper worker.
On the labor side, I believe unions should be required to have wide open books that can be analyzed by their union membership and anyone else to keep corruption down. I believe no worker should be compelled to allow their dues to be spent in sweetheart deals with the Democrat party. I believe union members should be empowered to elect their own leadership.
On the corporate side, I believe the laws regarding freedom of their employees to organize should be upheld and the often extreme and illegal methods often employed to intimidate workers from joining union efforts prosecuted. I think that employers should accept mediation and arbitration where indicated if they need assistance in resolving contract negotiations. I also believe corporations should not be allowed to underfund pensions they committed to in previous union contracts - if they want out of the pension business, they should negotiate the terms with their union employees and convert the pensions into fully funded 401K's.
The impossible dream, of course, is that employers and their unions find a way to work together to share success or failure for the common good of the company and its employees. Wouldn't it be nice if negotiations for pay and benefits focused on a baseline, plus certain bonuses and incentives that reward the workers for helping the company achieve their profitability goals?
Too bad neither side would ever consider such a radical idea.
The corporate side says that the labor unions will kill their business with their demands for expensive healthcare and pension benefits, plus overly restrictive work rules. They also suggest that the unions exist more for the benefit of corrupt mobster leaders than for the rank and file.
The unions say that if they didn't exist, employers would exploit workers with unsafe working conditions, unfairly low wages, little or no assistance with high healthcare costs and no retirement benefits. They suggest that corporations exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profits, even if their workers are abused to meet that end.
There is truth to be found in the arguments on both sides. Having worked in a union manufacturing company in the 80's, I saw firsthand how damaging it is to productivity for the company to have to deal with the work rules and liberal benefits demanded and given to the unionized employees.
On the other hand, the employers now have a global labor market they are gladly exploiting, with most manufactured goods now coming from China.
I'm neither anti-union nor anti-corporation. I believe that the best governance of these entities is to promote policies that allow neither side to become more powerful than the other.
On the corporate side, I believe that it can be reasonable to enforce rights of labor to organize for the purpose of bargaining with the company for fair pay, benefits and working conditions. I also believe that it would be reasonable to create certain incentives for business to keep their operations in the United States, and protect workers who are laid off so their jobs can be transferred to a cheaper worker.
On the labor side, I believe unions should be required to have wide open books that can be analyzed by their union membership and anyone else to keep corruption down. I believe no worker should be compelled to allow their dues to be spent in sweetheart deals with the Democrat party. I believe union members should be empowered to elect their own leadership.
On the corporate side, I believe the laws regarding freedom of their employees to organize should be upheld and the often extreme and illegal methods often employed to intimidate workers from joining union efforts prosecuted. I think that employers should accept mediation and arbitration where indicated if they need assistance in resolving contract negotiations. I also believe corporations should not be allowed to underfund pensions they committed to in previous union contracts - if they want out of the pension business, they should negotiate the terms with their union employees and convert the pensions into fully funded 401K's.
The impossible dream, of course, is that employers and their unions find a way to work together to share success or failure for the common good of the company and its employees. Wouldn't it be nice if negotiations for pay and benefits focused on a baseline, plus certain bonuses and incentives that reward the workers for helping the company achieve their profitability goals?
Too bad neither side would ever consider such a radical idea.
Monday, September 24, 2007
One Question
Suppose you could ask one question of a well-known or powerful person. And the person receiving the question is obligated to give a truthful and complete answer. Who would you want to ask your question of, and what would it be?
I've thought of a few:
George W Bush: Clearly you have resisted all pressure to close the borders to illegal immigrants. What is the real reason you've so obviously shirked your duties in border enforcement, especially given the current terror threats we face as a country?
Hillary Clinton: Why do you want to be President?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Where and when do you plan to detonate your nuclear weapons?
Vladimir Putin: Is your ultimate goal the re-establishment of the old communist Soviet Union?
Michael Moore: You are known for praising totalitarian communist regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela. Given that fact, are you suggesting you would have no problem if the government confiscated all of the proceeds from your latest film, "Sicko", redistributing the money to government bureaucrats who skim as much as they can off the top before giving the rest to poor people for welfare and healthcare?
Al Gore: Do you actually believe everything you're presenting in your movie and your speeches around the country about global warming, or is it just a highly lucrative gig for you and you know most of it is BS?
Any member of the United States Congress: For your next vote on whatever bill is brought to the floor, what is the primary influencer on your vote - what your party tells you to do, what your biggest campaign donors tell you to do, or what's best for the country and/or your district as a whole?
Any Prime Minister or President of a European Country (or Canada): Suppose the United States as a country decided we would no longer be the world police force. Suppose we brought our military home from around the world and changed their mission to simply protect our own borders against foreign attack. Suppose we told the rest of the world, "You're on your own. From now on, no military aid, no disaster relief, no food aid, etc. will be provided from the USA." Would you be comfortable with that decision?
Dan Rather: Are you really that delusional, or are you playing your current games for the benefit of the loonies who think you're out to prove their wild conspiracy theories might be true?
I've thought of a few:
George W Bush: Clearly you have resisted all pressure to close the borders to illegal immigrants. What is the real reason you've so obviously shirked your duties in border enforcement, especially given the current terror threats we face as a country?
Hillary Clinton: Why do you want to be President?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Where and when do you plan to detonate your nuclear weapons?
Vladimir Putin: Is your ultimate goal the re-establishment of the old communist Soviet Union?
Michael Moore: You are known for praising totalitarian communist regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela. Given that fact, are you suggesting you would have no problem if the government confiscated all of the proceeds from your latest film, "Sicko", redistributing the money to government bureaucrats who skim as much as they can off the top before giving the rest to poor people for welfare and healthcare?
Al Gore: Do you actually believe everything you're presenting in your movie and your speeches around the country about global warming, or is it just a highly lucrative gig for you and you know most of it is BS?
Any member of the United States Congress: For your next vote on whatever bill is brought to the floor, what is the primary influencer on your vote - what your party tells you to do, what your biggest campaign donors tell you to do, or what's best for the country and/or your district as a whole?
Any Prime Minister or President of a European Country (or Canada): Suppose the United States as a country decided we would no longer be the world police force. Suppose we brought our military home from around the world and changed their mission to simply protect our own borders against foreign attack. Suppose we told the rest of the world, "You're on your own. From now on, no military aid, no disaster relief, no food aid, etc. will be provided from the USA." Would you be comfortable with that decision?
Dan Rather: Are you really that delusional, or are you playing your current games for the benefit of the loonies who think you're out to prove their wild conspiracy theories might be true?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
It's About Fairness
In my profession I see the strange traditions and strategies used by companies that are real head-scratchers when I take just a few moments to think about them.
Tips, for example. Companies are allowed to employ food and beverage servers, porters and bellmen, valets, and such with very little requirement they pay them. These employees are expected to make their money from customer tips - otherwise, the employer is just required to at least guarantee them minimum wage.
What about tips is so sacred? Why can't employers simply pay their service workers a decent wage and leave tips the way they should be - a way for a customer to voluntarily reward their server for exceptional service! Instead, we customers are expected to cough up the price of the restaurant meal, plus hand over money to the kid who parks our car and the girl who brings us our food. Because if we don't, nobody else will.
I think it's ridiculous.
Then there's the one that really bugs me. Some may remember that the corporate revolution in the 80's was to "flatten" the organization, cutting out all of the so-called "middle management" positions. Some of that was because some of those middle managers became unnecessary with the advent of powerful and efficient data processing systems.
The other thing that happened was that jobs formerly held by professional people are now held by clerks.
Consider this common scenario:
Company ABC has lost their long-time Manager of Accounts Payable, let's say to early retirement (euphemism for a white-collar layoff aimed at cutting out the high salary of the 30-year professional manager). The company changes the position title from Manager of Accounts Payable to A/P Supervisor. The newly designed position pays maybe 50-60% of the old position, and the company promotes the most reliable Accounts Payable clerk to the new position.
The A/P Supervisor position is still a Salaried Exempt job, which means the clerk now responsible for the department is required to work around 50 hours per week. Of course, the 50 hours can go up to 60 or more during certain times of the year, when the activity gets high or new systems and processes are implemented. The catch is that if you break down the new supervisor's effective hourly pay, it is actually lower than their more experienced direct-reports.
So this clerk, who used to like her job as the lead A/P clerk, now can never seem to get away from the office. Her boss won't let her take all her earned vacation; not by directly denying her requests for vacation time, but by making it crystal clear to her that if she takes all of her vacation, it will be impossible for her to meet her job objectives and will either have no salary increase or possibly be fired. So she gives up 2 weeks of vacation every year, which the employer takes back in their "use it or lose it" vacation policy.
To me, it's morally repugnant. But nobody even knows the definition of morality these days. The government can't fix it with legislation, because such legislation would be micro-management. I only hope that companies rediscover that simply being fair and caring about the welfare and personal needs of their employees can pay off with better and more loyal employees.
Tips, for example. Companies are allowed to employ food and beverage servers, porters and bellmen, valets, and such with very little requirement they pay them. These employees are expected to make their money from customer tips - otherwise, the employer is just required to at least guarantee them minimum wage.
What about tips is so sacred? Why can't employers simply pay their service workers a decent wage and leave tips the way they should be - a way for a customer to voluntarily reward their server for exceptional service! Instead, we customers are expected to cough up the price of the restaurant meal, plus hand over money to the kid who parks our car and the girl who brings us our food. Because if we don't, nobody else will.
I think it's ridiculous.
Then there's the one that really bugs me. Some may remember that the corporate revolution in the 80's was to "flatten" the organization, cutting out all of the so-called "middle management" positions. Some of that was because some of those middle managers became unnecessary with the advent of powerful and efficient data processing systems.
The other thing that happened was that jobs formerly held by professional people are now held by clerks.
Consider this common scenario:
Company ABC has lost their long-time Manager of Accounts Payable, let's say to early retirement (euphemism for a white-collar layoff aimed at cutting out the high salary of the 30-year professional manager). The company changes the position title from Manager of Accounts Payable to A/P Supervisor. The newly designed position pays maybe 50-60% of the old position, and the company promotes the most reliable Accounts Payable clerk to the new position.
The A/P Supervisor position is still a Salaried Exempt job, which means the clerk now responsible for the department is required to work around 50 hours per week. Of course, the 50 hours can go up to 60 or more during certain times of the year, when the activity gets high or new systems and processes are implemented. The catch is that if you break down the new supervisor's effective hourly pay, it is actually lower than their more experienced direct-reports.
So this clerk, who used to like her job as the lead A/P clerk, now can never seem to get away from the office. Her boss won't let her take all her earned vacation; not by directly denying her requests for vacation time, but by making it crystal clear to her that if she takes all of her vacation, it will be impossible for her to meet her job objectives and will either have no salary increase or possibly be fired. So she gives up 2 weeks of vacation every year, which the employer takes back in their "use it or lose it" vacation policy.
To me, it's morally repugnant. But nobody even knows the definition of morality these days. The government can't fix it with legislation, because such legislation would be micro-management. I only hope that companies rediscover that simply being fair and caring about the welfare and personal needs of their employees can pay off with better and more loyal employees.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Absolute Disgust
My disgust is aimed squarely at the Democrats who choose politics over common sense and civility in the Petraeus hearings today. The behavior of some of them in their posturing and disrespect in calling the General everything from a liar to a Bush hack was outrageous.
They've been clear from the beginning that no matter what General Petraeus has to say this week, they will accept nothing but immediate abandonment of Iraq. The consequences of their loudly trumpeted demands for surrender matter not at all to them.
As one who pays attention, I've no doubt that whether we like it or not, we've got to finish the job. Whether we should have invaded and ousted Saddam is not today's argument. Today's argument instead is about Iraq's future, the future of the Middle East, and the future of Islamic terror.
Surrender creates a certain vacuum in Iraq that Iran and Syria will move quickly to fill. Any Iraqis not in league with the Iranians will be dead. Israel will become the next target of the new powerful Iranian regime, and the same characters believe firmly that continued terrorism against American citizens has been proven to cow America into staying out of their way.
It is saddened that elected representatives in congress are really and truly American traitors. Did anybody notice that Bin Laden's latest video sounds just exactly like the rhetoric of our political left? Haven't the Democrats who continue to undermine the effort in Iraq noticed that that they are being cheered on by our country's enemies?
People need to figure out which politicians have our country's best interests at heart and which only care about their own.
Disgusting.
They've been clear from the beginning that no matter what General Petraeus has to say this week, they will accept nothing but immediate abandonment of Iraq. The consequences of their loudly trumpeted demands for surrender matter not at all to them.
As one who pays attention, I've no doubt that whether we like it or not, we've got to finish the job. Whether we should have invaded and ousted Saddam is not today's argument. Today's argument instead is about Iraq's future, the future of the Middle East, and the future of Islamic terror.
Surrender creates a certain vacuum in Iraq that Iran and Syria will move quickly to fill. Any Iraqis not in league with the Iranians will be dead. Israel will become the next target of the new powerful Iranian regime, and the same characters believe firmly that continued terrorism against American citizens has been proven to cow America into staying out of their way.
It is saddened that elected representatives in congress are really and truly American traitors. Did anybody notice that Bin Laden's latest video sounds just exactly like the rhetoric of our political left? Haven't the Democrats who continue to undermine the effort in Iraq noticed that that they are being cheered on by our country's enemies?
People need to figure out which politicians have our country's best interests at heart and which only care about their own.
Disgusting.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Observations
Feeling ill. Allergy season always seems to bring on something nasty. It makes work much more difficult when I'm feeling miserable.
Watched the GOP President wannabe debate last night. Disappointing says it best. I actually wasn't impressed with the way Fox handled it, although they were certainly more serious and capable than those who have run the Democrat debates.
There are too many guys on the stage. Instead of learning something about the candidates, I just heard boring sound bites. Rudy was the worst, answering every question directed his way with "I sure was a great Mayor of New York!". !Yawn!
They didn't even bring up the topics that interest me. And other than the insane Ron Paul, nobody has much of anything different to say than anybody else on most topics. Nothing new, no creative ideas, not even much wit.
Before I get too down about the dearth of good candidates, I have to remind myself that an actual leader would never get elected. Nobody can lay out a strong and certain vision without being crucified, so we're stuck with a bunch of limp girly-men. Sometimes I think Hillary is more manly than most of the men running for President this year.
The hotel puts the NY Times outside my door every morning. I haven't read that rag much, but it's striking how far left the entire paper slants. Forget the editorials, all their news reports serve as left-wing editorials themselves. I've decided that in New York, if they even become aware of a different point of view on any topic, they apparently discard it out of hand. They can't imagine any sane person would view the world through any lens other than their own.
Their lens must have psychedelic colors and fun-house mirrors, they're so out of touch in most areas.
Must rest and watch Colts-Saints.
Watched the GOP President wannabe debate last night. Disappointing says it best. I actually wasn't impressed with the way Fox handled it, although they were certainly more serious and capable than those who have run the Democrat debates.
There are too many guys on the stage. Instead of learning something about the candidates, I just heard boring sound bites. Rudy was the worst, answering every question directed his way with "I sure was a great Mayor of New York!". !Yawn!
They didn't even bring up the topics that interest me. And other than the insane Ron Paul, nobody has much of anything different to say than anybody else on most topics. Nothing new, no creative ideas, not even much wit.
Before I get too down about the dearth of good candidates, I have to remind myself that an actual leader would never get elected. Nobody can lay out a strong and certain vision without being crucified, so we're stuck with a bunch of limp girly-men. Sometimes I think Hillary is more manly than most of the men running for President this year.
The hotel puts the NY Times outside my door every morning. I haven't read that rag much, but it's striking how far left the entire paper slants. Forget the editorials, all their news reports serve as left-wing editorials themselves. I've decided that in New York, if they even become aware of a different point of view on any topic, they apparently discard it out of hand. They can't imagine any sane person would view the world through any lens other than their own.
Their lens must have psychedelic colors and fun-house mirrors, they're so out of touch in most areas.
Must rest and watch Colts-Saints.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Rambling on Labor Day
Traveling on Labor Day. Oh well, you do what you have to.
Notre Dame looked worse than I expected on Saturday. Either Georgia Tech is on their way to a National Championship or the Irish have fallen very hard. The Irish defense clearly hasn't improved from last year, when I'd suggest that porous defense was the reason ND couldn't make the mix for the top tier.
Now they need to break in a new offense. It was completely rattled by Tech. I'm thinking the best ND fans can hope for this year is one game over .500 and a minor bowl. The question is whether Charlie can build on his young guys for next season. We'll see.
An emotional Indiana football team had their memorial for Coach Hep, then proceeded to steamroll poor Indiana State. It's nice that they got the first win of the season, and the memorial was moving. But we won't know whether they're any better this year until they get into the Big Ten season. It might be nice to see them spring a suprise on one or two Big Ten teams this year. We'll see.
It was a bit surprising to find Air America on the radio when I got to my destination today. I thought they'd gone bankrupt. Anyway, I was curious enough to listen for a few minutes. It really struck me that they live in some sort of alternate universe. I figured they'd be over the constant Bush hatred thing, but no - impeaching Bush and Cheney remains their obsession.
It was interesting to hear the guys on the program (I didn't catch either person's name - neither was anybody I'd ever heard of before) go on and on about their impeachment dream, but then actually they briefly admitted that there was no specific charge that could be used. They even mentioned, in perhaps the most honest moment I heard, that Clinton was impeached for specific crimes of perjury and suborning perjury and obstructing justice. I about keeled over to hear somebody from their side actually admit as much.
But they really went off the tracks talking about how Bush has rolled back civil rights and is just a dictator. Wierd from people who love Cesar Chavez and Fidel Castro. I had a desire to ask them for an example of such civil rights violations by Bush and Cheney - can they produce a single American citizen who has been denied rights by the government in the name of fighting terrorism? Hmm, if it's true that Bush is guilty of illegal surveillance of guys like them who talk to each other every day about how much they hate him, why haven't they been arrested by this dictatorial regime? Or harrassed? Or even questioned?
Wow. These guys should go ahead and move to Venezuela or Cuba. I'd like them to experience first-hand what it's like to live under such benevolent regimes without Bush or Cheney around.
So bizarre.
Notre Dame looked worse than I expected on Saturday. Either Georgia Tech is on their way to a National Championship or the Irish have fallen very hard. The Irish defense clearly hasn't improved from last year, when I'd suggest that porous defense was the reason ND couldn't make the mix for the top tier.
Now they need to break in a new offense. It was completely rattled by Tech. I'm thinking the best ND fans can hope for this year is one game over .500 and a minor bowl. The question is whether Charlie can build on his young guys for next season. We'll see.
An emotional Indiana football team had their memorial for Coach Hep, then proceeded to steamroll poor Indiana State. It's nice that they got the first win of the season, and the memorial was moving. But we won't know whether they're any better this year until they get into the Big Ten season. It might be nice to see them spring a suprise on one or two Big Ten teams this year. We'll see.
It was a bit surprising to find Air America on the radio when I got to my destination today. I thought they'd gone bankrupt. Anyway, I was curious enough to listen for a few minutes. It really struck me that they live in some sort of alternate universe. I figured they'd be over the constant Bush hatred thing, but no - impeaching Bush and Cheney remains their obsession.
It was interesting to hear the guys on the program (I didn't catch either person's name - neither was anybody I'd ever heard of before) go on and on about their impeachment dream, but then actually they briefly admitted that there was no specific charge that could be used. They even mentioned, in perhaps the most honest moment I heard, that Clinton was impeached for specific crimes of perjury and suborning perjury and obstructing justice. I about keeled over to hear somebody from their side actually admit as much.
But they really went off the tracks talking about how Bush has rolled back civil rights and is just a dictator. Wierd from people who love Cesar Chavez and Fidel Castro. I had a desire to ask them for an example of such civil rights violations by Bush and Cheney - can they produce a single American citizen who has been denied rights by the government in the name of fighting terrorism? Hmm, if it's true that Bush is guilty of illegal surveillance of guys like them who talk to each other every day about how much they hate him, why haven't they been arrested by this dictatorial regime? Or harrassed? Or even questioned?
Wow. These guys should go ahead and move to Venezuela or Cuba. I'd like them to experience first-hand what it's like to live under such benevolent regimes without Bush or Cheney around.
So bizarre.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Poor
I noticed some discussions around a new study just released that says the proportion of poor, at least as defined by the Federal government, has declined somewhat over the last few years.
Naturally, the Left is invested in the idea that conservative policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Right believes freedom and lower taxes create more opportunities for the poor to pull themselves up to prosperity.
Another interesting trend is among new Christian socialists, who have somehow decided that Jesus was a socialist. Their simplistic idea is that Jesus exhorted his followers to help the poor, so that somehow morphed into the position that Christians today should petition their government to confiscate more money from everyone else and redistribute it to the poor.
Actually, Jesus never told anybody to go to Rome and lobby Ceasar to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. He told individuals to help the poor. One poor rich fellow he challenged to sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him. That fellow walked away shaking his head, because that was the only thing in his life he couldn't do for Christ.
No, Jesus wasn't talking about helping the poor by trying to influence the government to confiscate the money from other people. He was talking about each of us caring about others and doing what we can to help those in need.
It's interesting to me that "poor" is in the eye of the beholder. Those in the United States labeled "poor" would be considered to be living high on the hog by the actual poor in third-world countries. Recently there have been studies trying to find people who are homeless and starving, and they struggled to find anyone. Homelessness would seem to be a choice these days rather than a forced condition - government housing programs, shelters, and all sorts of public assistance are accessible for anyone willing to seek them out. Food stamps and community food banks and school lunch programs and churches with free meals abound.
I've seen and met several members of the American poor underclass. They tend to be third or fourth generation poor, living as their parents and grandparents did since the start of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. They tend to be experts at working the system, knowing all of the government aid programs and local charities and taking advantage of them all. Mostly, they would be physically and mentally able to work, but holding a full-time job is the last thing they aspire to do.
The key to receiving housing, healthcare, food stamps, and cash, as most of these folks know, is children. Make sure there are a couple of dependent children in the household and there are agencies and charities all over the place eager to provide assistance and services.
Why work for a living if you can have a home, food, clothing, medical care, and some spending money by just learning to exploit the social services system? These "poor" folks have cable television and often even big-screen televisions. They have cars. For them, it's a better life than having to punch a timeclock every day and struggle to make house payments, car payments, buy insurance, pay for medical care and prescription drugs, etc.
Want a government approach to helping the poor that really works? Take the money out of the system. Transform social services to be there to help, but those who need help must come to them and ask for it. If people need food, it will be given to them. If they need a place to stay, a temporary room will be provided. Mainly, they need a job, so every person accessing services will receive assistance in finding a job.
Social services should exist for the purpose of helping the poor and needy become independent, not keeping them dependent. The approach is common sense, and it cannot fail. But politicians are more interested in buying votes than in solving problems, and Democrat politicians in particular have found a gold mine of votes among the poor. Get them a roof and food and some cash so they don't have to get a job, and they'll vote for you the rest of their life.
Naturally, the Left is invested in the idea that conservative policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Right believes freedom and lower taxes create more opportunities for the poor to pull themselves up to prosperity.
Another interesting trend is among new Christian socialists, who have somehow decided that Jesus was a socialist. Their simplistic idea is that Jesus exhorted his followers to help the poor, so that somehow morphed into the position that Christians today should petition their government to confiscate more money from everyone else and redistribute it to the poor.
Actually, Jesus never told anybody to go to Rome and lobby Ceasar to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. He told individuals to help the poor. One poor rich fellow he challenged to sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him. That fellow walked away shaking his head, because that was the only thing in his life he couldn't do for Christ.
No, Jesus wasn't talking about helping the poor by trying to influence the government to confiscate the money from other people. He was talking about each of us caring about others and doing what we can to help those in need.
It's interesting to me that "poor" is in the eye of the beholder. Those in the United States labeled "poor" would be considered to be living high on the hog by the actual poor in third-world countries. Recently there have been studies trying to find people who are homeless and starving, and they struggled to find anyone. Homelessness would seem to be a choice these days rather than a forced condition - government housing programs, shelters, and all sorts of public assistance are accessible for anyone willing to seek them out. Food stamps and community food banks and school lunch programs and churches with free meals abound.
I've seen and met several members of the American poor underclass. They tend to be third or fourth generation poor, living as their parents and grandparents did since the start of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. They tend to be experts at working the system, knowing all of the government aid programs and local charities and taking advantage of them all. Mostly, they would be physically and mentally able to work, but holding a full-time job is the last thing they aspire to do.
The key to receiving housing, healthcare, food stamps, and cash, as most of these folks know, is children. Make sure there are a couple of dependent children in the household and there are agencies and charities all over the place eager to provide assistance and services.
Why work for a living if you can have a home, food, clothing, medical care, and some spending money by just learning to exploit the social services system? These "poor" folks have cable television and often even big-screen televisions. They have cars. For them, it's a better life than having to punch a timeclock every day and struggle to make house payments, car payments, buy insurance, pay for medical care and prescription drugs, etc.
Want a government approach to helping the poor that really works? Take the money out of the system. Transform social services to be there to help, but those who need help must come to them and ask for it. If people need food, it will be given to them. If they need a place to stay, a temporary room will be provided. Mainly, they need a job, so every person accessing services will receive assistance in finding a job.
Social services should exist for the purpose of helping the poor and needy become independent, not keeping them dependent. The approach is common sense, and it cannot fail. But politicians are more interested in buying votes than in solving problems, and Democrat politicians in particular have found a gold mine of votes among the poor. Get them a roof and food and some cash so they don't have to get a job, and they'll vote for you the rest of their life.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Bias Evidence
Have you seen the ads with the diabled Iraq veterans talking about the importance of success in Iraq and encouraging people to contact their congressmen to support that message?
Apparently MSNBC and CNBC refused to allow those ads on their networks. They claimed a previously unknown policy against running "controversial issue advertising". Interesting, since they seem to have had no hesitation in running controversial ads from the left wing.
For networks that run anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Everything-slightly-conservative 24/7, this would appear to confirm that they are not legitimate news outlets, but propaganda mills.
If anyone would like to suggest they're not any different from Fox News Channel, let me ask this question: What do you think would happen if Fox News refused to air issue ads on, say, Global Warming?
The answer is easy: Blaring headlines. The primary topic for all the talking heads at places like MSNBC outraged at such blatant censorship.
Double standard.
Apparently MSNBC and CNBC refused to allow those ads on their networks. They claimed a previously unknown policy against running "controversial issue advertising". Interesting, since they seem to have had no hesitation in running controversial ads from the left wing.
For networks that run anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Everything-slightly-conservative 24/7, this would appear to confirm that they are not legitimate news outlets, but propaganda mills.
If anyone would like to suggest they're not any different from Fox News Channel, let me ask this question: What do you think would happen if Fox News refused to air issue ads on, say, Global Warming?
The answer is easy: Blaring headlines. The primary topic for all the talking heads at places like MSNBC outraged at such blatant censorship.
Double standard.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Football Friday Night
Tonight's the big game in Columbus with North playing at East. East has won something like 4 in a row, but all of them were close and exciting to watch.
I haven't seen the North team play, but they apparently looked dominant in their first game last Friday, a 55-0 win against Seymour.
It's a senior laden team, starting a senior at nearly every position on offense and defense. I'm told those seniors are a strong and athletic group of guys, with an especially impressive group of linemen on both offense and defense.
There are high expectations for both teams this year, after both made it to the semistate last season. North knows that the only way to get to the RCA Dome for the Thanksgiving weekend championship is if they can get past the semi-pro team from Warren Central. Two times in the last three years, North has made impressive runs through the playoffs only to be humiliated by the giant Indy-area school that has dominated the state for so many years.
Even though East was a senior-heavy team last year and is breaking in new starters at many positions, that should not be interpreted as making a North win tonight any more likely. The game is always very close and hard-fought, and entertaining for the huge turnout of fans every year.
North's got Mike Hladik returning at QB and Alex Turner at Running back, both seniors and 3-year starters. Turner racked up 197 yards against Seymour, and Hladik had an efficient night with 9 for 12 for 159 yards and 2 TD's. Hladik is a tall kid with a great arm capable of making big plays, but has tended to overthrow receivers in big games or under a pass rush in past years. Turner's a fast and shifty runner who can get big yards when he has a gap to run through, but has not been one that can overpower a tackler.
Both these key offensive players are stronger and more mature this year, and I think they'll both have notable seasons, barring injury. It will be interesting to see if Hladik has a new receiver to replace his best target, Brandon Butler, who graduated last year. If the running game continues to be as dominant as it was against Seymour, the question may not be that important.
Tonight I'll just enjoy being a fan and taking in all the excitement of the big Columbus crowds.
I haven't seen the North team play, but they apparently looked dominant in their first game last Friday, a 55-0 win against Seymour.
It's a senior laden team, starting a senior at nearly every position on offense and defense. I'm told those seniors are a strong and athletic group of guys, with an especially impressive group of linemen on both offense and defense.
There are high expectations for both teams this year, after both made it to the semistate last season. North knows that the only way to get to the RCA Dome for the Thanksgiving weekend championship is if they can get past the semi-pro team from Warren Central. Two times in the last three years, North has made impressive runs through the playoffs only to be humiliated by the giant Indy-area school that has dominated the state for so many years.
Even though East was a senior-heavy team last year and is breaking in new starters at many positions, that should not be interpreted as making a North win tonight any more likely. The game is always very close and hard-fought, and entertaining for the huge turnout of fans every year.
North's got Mike Hladik returning at QB and Alex Turner at Running back, both seniors and 3-year starters. Turner racked up 197 yards against Seymour, and Hladik had an efficient night with 9 for 12 for 159 yards and 2 TD's. Hladik is a tall kid with a great arm capable of making big plays, but has tended to overthrow receivers in big games or under a pass rush in past years. Turner's a fast and shifty runner who can get big yards when he has a gap to run through, but has not been one that can overpower a tackler.
Both these key offensive players are stronger and more mature this year, and I think they'll both have notable seasons, barring injury. It will be interesting to see if Hladik has a new receiver to replace his best target, Brandon Butler, who graduated last year. If the running game continues to be as dominant as it was against Seymour, the question may not be that important.
Tonight I'll just enjoy being a fan and taking in all the excitement of the big Columbus crowds.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Reading Test
There's this survey in the news about people who read books. The study said that on average, a liberal reads one more book per year than a conservative, so of course some point derisively and shout, "See, we told you conservatives were stupid!"
Hmm, a typical liberal claims to read 1 more book than a typical conservative. It makes me wonder if liberals taking the survey asked how many books conservatives claim to read every year before answering the question, so they could be sure to one-up their rivals. There was no discernable political affiliation one way or the other with those who didn't read any books at all. Political moderates read the least.
Would that mean that moderates are the stupidest? Or maybe the most honest?
The survey said women read more than men. Does that mean men are stupid?
It also said whites read more than blacks and hispanics. Does that mean blacks and hispanics are stupid?
Suburbanites read more than urban or rural residents. Does that mean farmers and city dwellers are stupid?
Among the readers, the Bible and other religious books are the most popular, with about two-thirds choosing them. Interestingly, non-readers are most likely to be non-religious. What does that say about atheists? Stupid, maybe?
The types of books other than religious read by most people are popular fiction, biographies, mysteries, and romance novels. The survey found that an insignificant number of people read political books or classical literature or poetry.
It's funny to observe that there really isn't anything that can be drawn from this study correlating intelligence with political leanings. It anything at all can be said about the study, the most consistent readers of books seem to be people of faith.
If the small difference in the number of books claimed by liberals and conservatives was based on the number of Harlequin Romances read by liberal women, what would that say about intelligence and political persuasions?
Did they count comic books? What political beliefs are held by comic book readers?
If they had surveyed me, they'd find me at the top of the scale. I read about a book a week on average. Mostly popular fiction, but I can also be found reading religious books and biographies and political books that interest me. I even pick up a classic literary work from time to time. Historical fiction is a favorite.
But I'm a rural male, so according to those who might choose to lump me with the stupid and illiterate, I might present a conundrum.
I like that idea.
Hmm, a typical liberal claims to read 1 more book than a typical conservative. It makes me wonder if liberals taking the survey asked how many books conservatives claim to read every year before answering the question, so they could be sure to one-up their rivals. There was no discernable political affiliation one way or the other with those who didn't read any books at all. Political moderates read the least.
Would that mean that moderates are the stupidest? Or maybe the most honest?
The survey said women read more than men. Does that mean men are stupid?
It also said whites read more than blacks and hispanics. Does that mean blacks and hispanics are stupid?
Suburbanites read more than urban or rural residents. Does that mean farmers and city dwellers are stupid?
Among the readers, the Bible and other religious books are the most popular, with about two-thirds choosing them. Interestingly, non-readers are most likely to be non-religious. What does that say about atheists? Stupid, maybe?
The types of books other than religious read by most people are popular fiction, biographies, mysteries, and romance novels. The survey found that an insignificant number of people read political books or classical literature or poetry.
It's funny to observe that there really isn't anything that can be drawn from this study correlating intelligence with political leanings. It anything at all can be said about the study, the most consistent readers of books seem to be people of faith.
If the small difference in the number of books claimed by liberals and conservatives was based on the number of Harlequin Romances read by liberal women, what would that say about intelligence and political persuasions?
Did they count comic books? What political beliefs are held by comic book readers?
If they had surveyed me, they'd find me at the top of the scale. I read about a book a week on average. Mostly popular fiction, but I can also be found reading religious books and biographies and political books that interest me. I even pick up a classic literary work from time to time. Historical fiction is a favorite.
But I'm a rural male, so according to those who might choose to lump me with the stupid and illiterate, I might present a conundrum.
I like that idea.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Super Bowl Champs
The question for the Indianapolis Colts is, can they repeat last year's Super Bowl championship season?
It's unlikely, but certainly possible.
Watching them play the Bears last night, it's difficult to tell much. The majority of the game was played by the backups and those trying to make the team, so all that could be said about the Bear's 27-24 win is that their rookies and free agents are a bit better than the Colts'.
And the Colts' special teams stink. Why they can't seem to find a decent kickoff team year after year puzzles me.
The Colts' first teams looked pretty sharp in the first quarter. The offense failed to score twice when they probably should have, but otherwise Peyton and the boys look like they'll continue to be one of the league's best offenses.
The Colt defense is questionable, just as they were last year. Last night, they looked good at times and not so good at other times. Which is also the same as last year. Will they miss their starting corners from last year? Somewhat. Will they miss Cato June? Not really. Will they miss Booger McFarland? Yes.
The same question asked about the Colts' chances in the last 4 or 5 years still applies this year. Can the defense manage to give up a few less points than the offense puts up this year?
They have a pretty good chance of winning their division again this season, although Tennessee should be a lot better this year. New England will probably be back as a major challenge to the Colts' Super Bowl hopes. It will be interesting to find out what other AFC teams rise to the top this year - will Pittsburgh be back with their new coach? Cincinnati should be strong as usual. Can San Diego break through? Did Kansas City improve or get worse with their QB shuffle and running back problem? Jacksonville and Baltimore could easily rejoin the elite.
For me, it's just fun to watch it all develop.
I'm not sure that Indy will be able to win their first regular season game against New Orleans. That's a pretty good team that might be able to run through the Colts' porous defense and keep the ball away from Peyton.
It's fun to move into the best season of the year. I also enjoy football at the high school and college levels, so that HD flat screen I've been saving up to purchase hopefully will be in place just in time for the regular season.
It's unlikely, but certainly possible.
Watching them play the Bears last night, it's difficult to tell much. The majority of the game was played by the backups and those trying to make the team, so all that could be said about the Bear's 27-24 win is that their rookies and free agents are a bit better than the Colts'.
And the Colts' special teams stink. Why they can't seem to find a decent kickoff team year after year puzzles me.
The Colts' first teams looked pretty sharp in the first quarter. The offense failed to score twice when they probably should have, but otherwise Peyton and the boys look like they'll continue to be one of the league's best offenses.
The Colt defense is questionable, just as they were last year. Last night, they looked good at times and not so good at other times. Which is also the same as last year. Will they miss their starting corners from last year? Somewhat. Will they miss Cato June? Not really. Will they miss Booger McFarland? Yes.
The same question asked about the Colts' chances in the last 4 or 5 years still applies this year. Can the defense manage to give up a few less points than the offense puts up this year?
They have a pretty good chance of winning their division again this season, although Tennessee should be a lot better this year. New England will probably be back as a major challenge to the Colts' Super Bowl hopes. It will be interesting to find out what other AFC teams rise to the top this year - will Pittsburgh be back with their new coach? Cincinnati should be strong as usual. Can San Diego break through? Did Kansas City improve or get worse with their QB shuffle and running back problem? Jacksonville and Baltimore could easily rejoin the elite.
For me, it's just fun to watch it all develop.
I'm not sure that Indy will be able to win their first regular season game against New Orleans. That's a pretty good team that might be able to run through the Colts' porous defense and keep the ball away from Peyton.
It's fun to move into the best season of the year. I also enjoy football at the high school and college levels, so that HD flat screen I've been saving up to purchase hopefully will be in place just in time for the regular season.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Staying Positive
Busy times. Not much time to post these days.
Lately I've found new perspectives and continue to learn. Some things fascinate me, and when I pick up new perspectives that deepen understanding, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction.
Frustration with things political has almost led me to give up caring. For example, I recently heard a member of the Dem leadership admit that the party will attempt to force an exit from Iraq regardless of progress that will be reported next month. In other words, facts don't matter, security and stability don't matter; only political power for the party matters. It saddens me.
Candidates win by saying nothing of substance. When they speak in vague, blue sky utopian dreams, they can make people feel good. People vote for who makes them feel good. The last thing a presidential candidate wants to do is take an actual clear position on some issue. Because whatever the issue and whatever the position, half the voters won't like it.
We're in the most partisan and acrimonious time since the Civil War. All that's missing is the shooting. I wonder if the shooting will start after next year's elections? I'm not sure, but I am nearly sure that the freedoms of speech, religion, and possibly arms will be denied us very soon. I'm also pretty sure that government bureaucrats will make our healthcare decisions for all of us within the next decade.
The path is set. The next decade will be interesting, to say the least.
All I can do is stay positive. It helps to limit time spent watching television news, which drives up blood pressure. Better yet, football season is starting, creating my favorite diversion from more serious things.
Will the Colts win their opening game against the Saints? Too early to tell, but my early bet is no. Maybe when I have a chance, I'll post my preseason football thoughts.
Lately I've found new perspectives and continue to learn. Some things fascinate me, and when I pick up new perspectives that deepen understanding, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction.
Frustration with things political has almost led me to give up caring. For example, I recently heard a member of the Dem leadership admit that the party will attempt to force an exit from Iraq regardless of progress that will be reported next month. In other words, facts don't matter, security and stability don't matter; only political power for the party matters. It saddens me.
Candidates win by saying nothing of substance. When they speak in vague, blue sky utopian dreams, they can make people feel good. People vote for who makes them feel good. The last thing a presidential candidate wants to do is take an actual clear position on some issue. Because whatever the issue and whatever the position, half the voters won't like it.
We're in the most partisan and acrimonious time since the Civil War. All that's missing is the shooting. I wonder if the shooting will start after next year's elections? I'm not sure, but I am nearly sure that the freedoms of speech, religion, and possibly arms will be denied us very soon. I'm also pretty sure that government bureaucrats will make our healthcare decisions for all of us within the next decade.
The path is set. The next decade will be interesting, to say the least.
All I can do is stay positive. It helps to limit time spent watching television news, which drives up blood pressure. Better yet, football season is starting, creating my favorite diversion from more serious things.
Will the Colts win their opening game against the Saints? Too early to tell, but my early bet is no. Maybe when I have a chance, I'll post my preseason football thoughts.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Predicting the Future
My predictions are logical conclusions based on today's trends. Everyone says it's a foregone conclusion that the Democrat left will control the Federal Government after the next election. A simple analysis of their own words results in the following predictions.
The economy will go into the tank sometime in the next 3-4 years. Unions will regain the power they lost in the 70's and will drive many companies out of business and/or out of the country. Unemployment will skyrocket, and the move to socialism will be complete.
Healthcare will be free or very cheap from the government, which means every visit to the doctor's office requires several hours waiting to be seen. Surgeries won't be accessible for many months, and many people will die awaiting the surgery they need to save their lives.
High marginal tax rates on income over $100K could reach 70 or 80 percent. Taxes will increase for everyone else less dramatically but just as certainly.
Gas will rise above $4 a gallon, maybe even $5. Part of the increase will come from expanded federal gasoline taxes at the pump. Imports of oil and refined fuels will skyrocket as domestic production will be discouraged through high targeted taxes on the industry and additional restructions on domestic exploration and production.
Policies will be implemented that punish families with more than 2 children. With taxes at first, growing into serious proposals to follow China's forceable abortion policies. Abortions will be widely available and federally funded for anyone seeking one. Pro Life activists will be arrested and prosecuted wherever they are found demonstrating, and their pregnancy crisis centers will be forced to close through edict of the federal judiciary.
Public schools will descend to unprecedented depths, with violence and failing academic performance spreading to nearly all communities. Priorities in public schools will be to drive out all religious speech and increasing sex education, particularly focusing on teaching a gay-friendly agenda.
Domestic terrorism will explode across the country, as the war on terror is abandoned and jihadists aggressively pursue the bombing and killing of as many American infidels as they can. Political leaders will blame George Bush for the terrorism while trying to appease radical Islamists by choosing negotiation over military power.
Christianity will be driven underground. Any church that insists on discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of moral principals will lose their tax exempt status, then be prosecuted for violating federal civil rights laws. Mainline denominations will remain in place, but will abandon all moral teachings and abandon the basic tenets of the faith. Their services will become concerts with sermons about tolerance and diversity and self-discovery.
Crime will spiral out of control, as drug laws are relaxed or left unenforced and people lose jobs. Convicted criminals will spend increasingly less time in prison, instead receiving counseling and drug treatment in the misguided belief they will reform and can be released back to a vulnerable public that can not protect themselves due to new laws criminalizing the possession of firearms.
Will Americans figure it out in time to change this future? Right now it doesn't appear likely.
The economy will go into the tank sometime in the next 3-4 years. Unions will regain the power they lost in the 70's and will drive many companies out of business and/or out of the country. Unemployment will skyrocket, and the move to socialism will be complete.
Healthcare will be free or very cheap from the government, which means every visit to the doctor's office requires several hours waiting to be seen. Surgeries won't be accessible for many months, and many people will die awaiting the surgery they need to save their lives.
High marginal tax rates on income over $100K could reach 70 or 80 percent. Taxes will increase for everyone else less dramatically but just as certainly.
Gas will rise above $4 a gallon, maybe even $5. Part of the increase will come from expanded federal gasoline taxes at the pump. Imports of oil and refined fuels will skyrocket as domestic production will be discouraged through high targeted taxes on the industry and additional restructions on domestic exploration and production.
Policies will be implemented that punish families with more than 2 children. With taxes at first, growing into serious proposals to follow China's forceable abortion policies. Abortions will be widely available and federally funded for anyone seeking one. Pro Life activists will be arrested and prosecuted wherever they are found demonstrating, and their pregnancy crisis centers will be forced to close through edict of the federal judiciary.
Public schools will descend to unprecedented depths, with violence and failing academic performance spreading to nearly all communities. Priorities in public schools will be to drive out all religious speech and increasing sex education, particularly focusing on teaching a gay-friendly agenda.
Domestic terrorism will explode across the country, as the war on terror is abandoned and jihadists aggressively pursue the bombing and killing of as many American infidels as they can. Political leaders will blame George Bush for the terrorism while trying to appease radical Islamists by choosing negotiation over military power.
Christianity will be driven underground. Any church that insists on discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of moral principals will lose their tax exempt status, then be prosecuted for violating federal civil rights laws. Mainline denominations will remain in place, but will abandon all moral teachings and abandon the basic tenets of the faith. Their services will become concerts with sermons about tolerance and diversity and self-discovery.
Crime will spiral out of control, as drug laws are relaxed or left unenforced and people lose jobs. Convicted criminals will spend increasingly less time in prison, instead receiving counseling and drug treatment in the misguided belief they will reform and can be released back to a vulnerable public that can not protect themselves due to new laws criminalizing the possession of firearms.
Will Americans figure it out in time to change this future? Right now it doesn't appear likely.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Junk Science
Judge science by application of its own method. Those who hoist the banner of science to support political activism on issues like global warming and evolution should be judged on facts and observable data. The scientific method demands that any theory be supportable or refutable on the empirical data.
Which brings us to a new revelation in the global warming arena. It would appear that the measurements used to support noted climate scientist Al Gore's chicken little act were flawed.
When science is trotted out by politicians to make a case for social policy, I get extremely skeptical. The Kyoto climate treaty so touted by the left was little more than an extortion scheme designed to extract hefty payments from the US to other countries to punish us for our prosperity. Al's solutions run in a similar vein; his euphemistic "Carbon Credit" scam is nothing more than a back-door tax that solves not a single environmental problem.
A telling sign for me of scientific quackery is the language I hear from the Al Gore acolytes. Those who don't "believe" in global warming are called "Global Warming Deniers", an ingenious wordplay that subtly suggests such "deniers" are the equivalent of Nazi symphathizers who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever took place.
When they talk about a belief in global warming, it makes me want to ask, "I thought Global Warming was based on science - belief is about faith in something that can't be objectively proven. So are you suggesting that it requires a leap of faith to accept that there is a developing planetary climate crisis?"
Also, Gore and his followers like to claim that human-induced global warming is "Settled Science". That all the scientists who matter have formed a consensus, and the argument is over. It's strange, because I read stuff all the time from people who seem to be highly credible and well-credentialled climate scientists, who are increasingly contradicting Al Gore's expert analysis. These scientists point out problems with the data collection; the fact that data can be and often is manipulated to "prove" a preconceived outcome; and that the planet always has and always will go through cyclical climate changes, and human effect on such macro climate trends is negligible at best.
Moving on to another science-related subject, I recently saw a story about the discovery that two ancient hominid finds were discovered to be contemporaries. That appears to blow their previous idea that the two pre-human species represented evidence of human evolution. Creationists of course were happy to say, "I told you so", while the evolutionists sniffed, "This in no way casts any doubt on the reality of evolution".
Which I find kind of laughable. The most ardent apologists for Darwin's macro evolutionary theories sound just like (and might be the same people) those who call human-caused global warming "settled science". Last time I heard, Darwin's theory of evolution was still a "theory". That means it seems as good a guess as any, since we can't really objectively explain the origin of the species on this planet any other way.
It seems pretty simple to me. It's long been observable that species adapt to their environment. The problem is, nobody has ever observed that adaptation extending to the emergence of a brand new species. The old poster showing the amoeba morphing into a fish morphing into an amphibian morphing into a small mammal morphing to a chimp morphing to a neanderthal morphing into a modern human cannot be demonstrated either with a fossil record or laboratory observation.
So being a macro evolutionist requires just as much faith as being a creationist. So this whole argument is not about science versus faith. It's about faith versus faith. Faith in a godless world populated by creatures that appeared completely at random versus faith in an unseen God who created all life. Both sides are so deeply invested in their brand of faith that they must fight their ideological foes with everything they have, because if one side or the other could be objectively proven wrong, the losing side would have their entire existence shattered.
All I ask is that science do what science does well, and be humble enough to admit that some answers remain elusive. For the religion side of the aisle, go ahead and believe as you do, but recognize that science is not necessarily an adversary to faith. I rather think current theories about the formation of the universe are fairly consistent with the Bible's account. But none of us was there, and we really can't do more than theorize and wonder.
Maybe if we understand each other just a bit better, we all can get along.
Which brings us to a new revelation in the global warming arena. It would appear that the measurements used to support noted climate scientist Al Gore's chicken little act were flawed.
When science is trotted out by politicians to make a case for social policy, I get extremely skeptical. The Kyoto climate treaty so touted by the left was little more than an extortion scheme designed to extract hefty payments from the US to other countries to punish us for our prosperity. Al's solutions run in a similar vein; his euphemistic "Carbon Credit" scam is nothing more than a back-door tax that solves not a single environmental problem.
A telling sign for me of scientific quackery is the language I hear from the Al Gore acolytes. Those who don't "believe" in global warming are called "Global Warming Deniers", an ingenious wordplay that subtly suggests such "deniers" are the equivalent of Nazi symphathizers who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever took place.
When they talk about a belief in global warming, it makes me want to ask, "I thought Global Warming was based on science - belief is about faith in something that can't be objectively proven. So are you suggesting that it requires a leap of faith to accept that there is a developing planetary climate crisis?"
Also, Gore and his followers like to claim that human-induced global warming is "Settled Science". That all the scientists who matter have formed a consensus, and the argument is over. It's strange, because I read stuff all the time from people who seem to be highly credible and well-credentialled climate scientists, who are increasingly contradicting Al Gore's expert analysis. These scientists point out problems with the data collection; the fact that data can be and often is manipulated to "prove" a preconceived outcome; and that the planet always has and always will go through cyclical climate changes, and human effect on such macro climate trends is negligible at best.
Moving on to another science-related subject, I recently saw a story about the discovery that two ancient hominid finds were discovered to be contemporaries. That appears to blow their previous idea that the two pre-human species represented evidence of human evolution. Creationists of course were happy to say, "I told you so", while the evolutionists sniffed, "This in no way casts any doubt on the reality of evolution".
Which I find kind of laughable. The most ardent apologists for Darwin's macro evolutionary theories sound just like (and might be the same people) those who call human-caused global warming "settled science". Last time I heard, Darwin's theory of evolution was still a "theory". That means it seems as good a guess as any, since we can't really objectively explain the origin of the species on this planet any other way.
It seems pretty simple to me. It's long been observable that species adapt to their environment. The problem is, nobody has ever observed that adaptation extending to the emergence of a brand new species. The old poster showing the amoeba morphing into a fish morphing into an amphibian morphing into a small mammal morphing to a chimp morphing to a neanderthal morphing into a modern human cannot be demonstrated either with a fossil record or laboratory observation.
So being a macro evolutionist requires just as much faith as being a creationist. So this whole argument is not about science versus faith. It's about faith versus faith. Faith in a godless world populated by creatures that appeared completely at random versus faith in an unseen God who created all life. Both sides are so deeply invested in their brand of faith that they must fight their ideological foes with everything they have, because if one side or the other could be objectively proven wrong, the losing side would have their entire existence shattered.
All I ask is that science do what science does well, and be humble enough to admit that some answers remain elusive. For the religion side of the aisle, go ahead and believe as you do, but recognize that science is not necessarily an adversary to faith. I rather think current theories about the formation of the universe are fairly consistent with the Bible's account. But none of us was there, and we really can't do more than theorize and wonder.
Maybe if we understand each other just a bit better, we all can get along.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Short Subjects
I've lost patience with all the "Yellow Page" advertisers. This week I've been in the office, so I get two or three calls a day from them. I'm now hanging up on them, because I've had it with people from India calling to "verify my information".
They're wasting my time, for one. The whole thing is a racket, for another. If it's legal for all these bogus companies to pose as the "Yellow Pages" and send out bogus invoices for listings never ordered, it shouldn't be. As a green new business owner I got taken by one of their scams. I got what looked like an invoice for a yellow page ad, which I thought was for the ad I took out in the local telephone directory. So I paid it. A few weeks later I found out I paid the wrong company.
I tried to get a refund, but couldn't even get anybody to take a call or respond to my email. It would have been too difficult and time-consuming to badger them for my money back, which would never have been probable anyway, so I gave up and chalked it up to experience. I think that's the whole idea of these rogue companies to rip off small businesses that haven't caught on to their game.
It wasn't my local "Yellow Pages", but some other rip-off company touting some other directory called "Yellow Pages" that had nothing to do with the local phone company. I was scammed. These days I don't bother to buy any listing in any Yellow Page directory, not even the local book. It doesn't bring me business anyway, so there is no point.
The car lot on the corner has this on their sign:
Beware of becoming too open-minded; your brains might fall out.
Exactly.
They're wasting my time, for one. The whole thing is a racket, for another. If it's legal for all these bogus companies to pose as the "Yellow Pages" and send out bogus invoices for listings never ordered, it shouldn't be. As a green new business owner I got taken by one of their scams. I got what looked like an invoice for a yellow page ad, which I thought was for the ad I took out in the local telephone directory. So I paid it. A few weeks later I found out I paid the wrong company.
I tried to get a refund, but couldn't even get anybody to take a call or respond to my email. It would have been too difficult and time-consuming to badger them for my money back, which would never have been probable anyway, so I gave up and chalked it up to experience. I think that's the whole idea of these rogue companies to rip off small businesses that haven't caught on to their game.
It wasn't my local "Yellow Pages", but some other rip-off company touting some other directory called "Yellow Pages" that had nothing to do with the local phone company. I was scammed. These days I don't bother to buy any listing in any Yellow Page directory, not even the local book. It doesn't bring me business anyway, so there is no point.
The car lot on the corner has this on their sign:
Beware of becoming too open-minded; your brains might fall out.
Exactly.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Let Me Try
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)