So the Democrats in the statehouse have successfully derailed property tax reform. Nobody seems surprised.
If I understand it right, here's what happened.
The State Senate passed a bill pretty close to the one proposed by the Governor, capping property taxes at 1% for private homeowners. The narrowly Democrat-controlled House tabled it and decided to start over with their own bill.
The school superintendents and mayors have objected to the caps, claiming they will force them to cut local budgets. Rather than responding that a bit of belt-tightening is a pretty good idea, the state was working on a plan to make up the difference out of state revenues. That most likely included a 1% increase in the sales tax.
It's a fairly typical idea from the Dems. They have thrown out the cap. But they still eagerly accept the sales tax increase anyway. Their new idea comes from the Democrat playbook, which has two fundamentals:
1. Never cut taxes or social programs
2. Soak the rich
They've decided it would be better to eliminate the property tax caps but change the formula for homestead exemptions. The change would tie the homestead exemption to the income of the homeowner. In effect, it simply shifts the burden to the wealthy. Their version caps property taxes for lower-income folks but allows them to increase without limit on the higher-income taxpayers.
Wait a second - didn't the whole property tax mess begin with a court ruling that said the state's property tax system violated equal treatment by giving preferential treatment to some property owners over others? Doesn't the Democrat proposal do that all over again?
The end result is nothing gets done.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Trying to Understand
That sums up my feeling about the mess with Kelvin Sampson and the Indiana University basketball program. All told, I'm struggling to understand.
How is it that a coach that got caught making recruiting phone calls to high school recruits from his previous head coaching job at Oklahoma still is hired by Indiana, when Indiana knew all about the infractions?
Not only that, Indiana willingly accepted NCAA sanctions to its own program in order to hire the coach. Even though the sanctions were relatively light, it begs the question, why?
Now it comes out that Sampson continued talking to recruits on the phone at Indiana, even though he was clearly prohibited from doing so. If I read the report correctly, something like 10 times. Now 1 or 2 phone conversations could maybe be chalked up to a mistake, but 10?
Finally, the biggest question of all: Why would Kelvin Sampson throw away his coaching career for 10 telephone calls?
Was he the subject of some sort of NCAA witch hunt, where the accusations aren't true? Based on the reports, it sure doesn't appear so. His calls were verified and documented. Did he somehow misunderstand the phone restrictions placed on him by the NCAA? I sure don't see how; even I understood the restrictions, apparently better than he did.
Or did he simply think he could get away with it? How in the world did he think he would pull that off when he had to know he was under a microscope by the NCAA?
The tragedy is that a few phone calls can hardly be characterized as a huge case of cheating. Sampson's only public defense has been to deny he lied to the NCAA, which is the charge that has them more upset than the calls themselves.
But he knew he was under the sanctions and did it anyway. And that I still can't understand.
I feel for Dan Dakich. If he can actually pull off a good end to this disaster by winning the Big 10 and/or going deep into the NCAA tournament, he deserves all the accolades that could be given him. I can't imagine stepping into a more difficult situation. I wish him luck.
How is it that a coach that got caught making recruiting phone calls to high school recruits from his previous head coaching job at Oklahoma still is hired by Indiana, when Indiana knew all about the infractions?
Not only that, Indiana willingly accepted NCAA sanctions to its own program in order to hire the coach. Even though the sanctions were relatively light, it begs the question, why?
Now it comes out that Sampson continued talking to recruits on the phone at Indiana, even though he was clearly prohibited from doing so. If I read the report correctly, something like 10 times. Now 1 or 2 phone conversations could maybe be chalked up to a mistake, but 10?
Finally, the biggest question of all: Why would Kelvin Sampson throw away his coaching career for 10 telephone calls?
Was he the subject of some sort of NCAA witch hunt, where the accusations aren't true? Based on the reports, it sure doesn't appear so. His calls were verified and documented. Did he somehow misunderstand the phone restrictions placed on him by the NCAA? I sure don't see how; even I understood the restrictions, apparently better than he did.
Or did he simply think he could get away with it? How in the world did he think he would pull that off when he had to know he was under a microscope by the NCAA?
The tragedy is that a few phone calls can hardly be characterized as a huge case of cheating. Sampson's only public defense has been to deny he lied to the NCAA, which is the charge that has them more upset than the calls themselves.
But he knew he was under the sanctions and did it anyway. And that I still can't understand.
I feel for Dan Dakich. If he can actually pull off a good end to this disaster by winning the Big 10 and/or going deep into the NCAA tournament, he deserves all the accolades that could be given him. I can't imagine stepping into a more difficult situation. I wish him luck.
Friday, February 22, 2008
How to Solve Problems
It can be reasonably stated that my profession is one of problem solving. On a nearly daily basis I talk with clients about what they need and help find ways to meet the need in their use of software.
As a professional problem solver, I know intimately the cardinal rule of problem-solving. The problem cannot be solved unless or until it is well understood. In other words, before I can actually solve a problem, I must first understand what the problem is, why it is a problem, and how it became a problem.
Which brings us to one of my most frustrating political issues as demagogued by the Democrats in their presidential debate. There's a pretty major problem in our country's healthcare "system". Democrats promise to "solve" the problem through "Universal Healthcare". What frustrates me about Democrats is their inability to find a solution to any problem that doesn't involve a Federal Government taxpayer funded program.
Not that the Republicans don't also frustrate me in this area. Their solutions include some decent ideas, but would make very little difference in addressing the underlying problems.
I met a physician on my flight this week and had an interesting conversation. This individual is a surgeon and has never been hit with a malpractice suit. Even so, the malpractice insurance premiums ate one-third of total income from the practice. The doctor suggested that nobody should go into the profession if they are motivated by money; in addition to malpractice insurance, whatever comes in has to go toward maintaining medical records and insurance filing and collection efforts from the insurance companies or individuals. Add to this the spiraling incidence of uninsured patients who do not pay their bills, and it all adds up to the profession as a losing proposition.
Where physicians make their money is through business savvy. Many invest in high-tech equipment and diagnostic labs. The six-figure student loan debts nearly all of them have coming out of medical school have to be paid somehow.
Why can't we find leaders capable of understanding the problem and proposing solutions that are sensible? Because everybody's got to have the millions of dollars it takes to run the campaigns. And their best contributors are those who most want to keep the status quo.
So the problem won't be solved. I think Hillary or Barack (most likely Barack at this point) are more likely to make it worse. But they won't solve the problem, either because they don't understand it or because they want to gain and keep power for themselves more than they want to solve a problem for the people of the country.
Then there is the long-shot McCain candidate. If he's elected by some miracle, it doesn't appear that healthcare is close enough to the top of his list for anything other than one or two of the small steps would happen. Although there will certainly be enough Dems in congress to make sure nothing happens anyway.
As a professional problem solver, I know intimately the cardinal rule of problem-solving. The problem cannot be solved unless or until it is well understood. In other words, before I can actually solve a problem, I must first understand what the problem is, why it is a problem, and how it became a problem.
Which brings us to one of my most frustrating political issues as demagogued by the Democrats in their presidential debate. There's a pretty major problem in our country's healthcare "system". Democrats promise to "solve" the problem through "Universal Healthcare". What frustrates me about Democrats is their inability to find a solution to any problem that doesn't involve a Federal Government taxpayer funded program.
Not that the Republicans don't also frustrate me in this area. Their solutions include some decent ideas, but would make very little difference in addressing the underlying problems.
I met a physician on my flight this week and had an interesting conversation. This individual is a surgeon and has never been hit with a malpractice suit. Even so, the malpractice insurance premiums ate one-third of total income from the practice. The doctor suggested that nobody should go into the profession if they are motivated by money; in addition to malpractice insurance, whatever comes in has to go toward maintaining medical records and insurance filing and collection efforts from the insurance companies or individuals. Add to this the spiraling incidence of uninsured patients who do not pay their bills, and it all adds up to the profession as a losing proposition.
Where physicians make their money is through business savvy. Many invest in high-tech equipment and diagnostic labs. The six-figure student loan debts nearly all of them have coming out of medical school have to be paid somehow.
Why can't we find leaders capable of understanding the problem and proposing solutions that are sensible? Because everybody's got to have the millions of dollars it takes to run the campaigns. And their best contributors are those who most want to keep the status quo.
So the problem won't be solved. I think Hillary or Barack (most likely Barack at this point) are more likely to make it worse. But they won't solve the problem, either because they don't understand it or because they want to gain and keep power for themselves more than they want to solve a problem for the people of the country.
Then there is the long-shot McCain candidate. If he's elected by some miracle, it doesn't appear that healthcare is close enough to the top of his list for anything other than one or two of the small steps would happen. Although there will certainly be enough Dems in congress to make sure nothing happens anyway.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Dangerous Schools
Now a grad student stops taking his medication and guns down a half-dozen kids at Northern Illinois.
Why do the crazy shooters seem to be students these days? Will we have to worry about sending our kids to college these days? How likely is this school or that school to produce a homicidal maniac?
What can be done to stop this trend? What should be done?
The left says outlaw guns. Seems naive to me.
The right says allow concealed carry permits for professors, staff and students on campus. Evokes the wild west in a way.
How about armed security guards all over campus? Not a great image either.
There is plenty of violence in the public schools as well these days. High schools where the biggest student offenses in the 50's were gum chewing and running in the hallways have changed into places where students assault each other, take and sell illicit drugs, commit rape, steal, and do many other shocking and illegal things.
We don't hear as much about that, because school administrators have become quite skilled at keeping such events out of the news.
What's causing it all? Could it be rampant permissiveness? The "anything goes" philosophy that tells kids to explore their feelings. To experience life. To honor diverse beliefs and behaviors and never judge another.
Seen any studies comparing public places of learning to private, and the relative incidence of crime and violence among them? I wonder, would we find a correllation between a school's emphasis on morality and it's experience with student violence and criminality?
Will such studies be performed by academics who are monolithically liberal? Not as long as they don't want to know the answer.
Why do the crazy shooters seem to be students these days? Will we have to worry about sending our kids to college these days? How likely is this school or that school to produce a homicidal maniac?
What can be done to stop this trend? What should be done?
The left says outlaw guns. Seems naive to me.
The right says allow concealed carry permits for professors, staff and students on campus. Evokes the wild west in a way.
How about armed security guards all over campus? Not a great image either.
There is plenty of violence in the public schools as well these days. High schools where the biggest student offenses in the 50's were gum chewing and running in the hallways have changed into places where students assault each other, take and sell illicit drugs, commit rape, steal, and do many other shocking and illegal things.
We don't hear as much about that, because school administrators have become quite skilled at keeping such events out of the news.
What's causing it all? Could it be rampant permissiveness? The "anything goes" philosophy that tells kids to explore their feelings. To experience life. To honor diverse beliefs and behaviors and never judge another.
Seen any studies comparing public places of learning to private, and the relative incidence of crime and violence among them? I wonder, would we find a correllation between a school's emphasis on morality and it's experience with student violence and criminality?
Will such studies be performed by academics who are monolithically liberal? Not as long as they don't want to know the answer.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Quick Hits
It's over. Obama will be President. Just get used to the idea. Tell me in 2010 how that worked out for you.
I don't understand Kelvin Sampson. Getting slapped for illegal recruiting calls at Oklahoma, then going right ahead and violating his probation by setting up 3-way calls. And how is it he thought he would get away with that?
Obviously he seems to be a very good coach. The team and its record don't lie. But what was the guy thinking?
O boy, maybe I'll get a tax rebate check. That is, if I didn't make too much money last year. Anybody think that will result in a miraculous turnaround to the slumping economy?
Me neither.
So Russia decided to go back to the bad old Cold War days. Iran and North Korea are building nukes and thumbing their noses at us with the tacit support of the rest of the world. The Central American and Caribbean Communist Dictators Club, led by Hugo Chavez, are hatching plans to inflict as much damage as they can to our country. Anybody can cross the border and bring whatever nasty stuff they want to wreak havoc within our borders.
And America elects leaders who would dismantle the military, throw the borders open wider, and redistribute the money earned by hard work to their bureaucrat minions and those who won't work.
Like I said, in 2010 please visit my blog and tell me how that worked out for you.
I don't understand Kelvin Sampson. Getting slapped for illegal recruiting calls at Oklahoma, then going right ahead and violating his probation by setting up 3-way calls. And how is it he thought he would get away with that?
Obviously he seems to be a very good coach. The team and its record don't lie. But what was the guy thinking?
O boy, maybe I'll get a tax rebate check. That is, if I didn't make too much money last year. Anybody think that will result in a miraculous turnaround to the slumping economy?
Me neither.
So Russia decided to go back to the bad old Cold War days. Iran and North Korea are building nukes and thumbing their noses at us with the tacit support of the rest of the world. The Central American and Caribbean Communist Dictators Club, led by Hugo Chavez, are hatching plans to inflict as much damage as they can to our country. Anybody can cross the border and bring whatever nasty stuff they want to wreak havoc within our borders.
And America elects leaders who would dismantle the military, throw the borders open wider, and redistribute the money earned by hard work to their bureaucrat minions and those who won't work.
Like I said, in 2010 please visit my blog and tell me how that worked out for you.
Friday, February 08, 2008
City Slickers and Country Bumpkins
Ruminating on the stark relationship between political attitudes and geography, I've reached some fairly obvious, if unscientific conclusions.
The most liberal citizens are generally found in the big cities. Places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Conversely, the most conservative folks tend to live far away from the big cities.
It evokes the old caricatures of the city slicker and the country bumpkin. The city slicker is smug, self-absorbed, superior, worldly. The country bumpkin is simple, unfashionable, unsophisticated, and to the city slicker, rather ignorant.
These attitudes are directly related to the great political divide. I have spent a lot of time in both worlds, but I am most comfortable with country bumpkins. I live on a small farm in Indiana, so I think I qualify as a member of the bumpkin club.
Which brings me to the fundamental question: why are slickers nearly all liberal and bumpkins mostly conservative? It's all about their environments and daily experience.
Slickers are either city dwellers or commute to the city center every day for work. In the city, they see plenty of evidence of poverty. Panhandlers are on every street corner begging for spare change. Their daily commute probably takes them through some terribly run-down slum areas. These sights are offensive to slickers, who think daily that something should be done about these people! But slickers, a self-absorbed lot, don't think to make an effort to get involved themselves and try to understand the problem and help those poor homeless and slum dwellers. Rather, they vote Democrat, then congratulate themselves on caring enough to elect people who promise to use the government to help out those poor folks.
Interesting how that still hasn't worked after all these years.
Slickers also see the polluted river flowing through and the smog blanketing the city. This naturally makes them environmentalists. They see folks in the traffic jams riding alone in their Hummers and become angry, thinking those arrogant fools are polluting the city and they don't need to drive that big tank. Why don't they ride the subway like we do?
Slickers see the daily press of masses of people and traffic jams every day and think there are way too many people on this planet. That, along with the fact that single slickers (and sometimes married slickers as well) tend to be somewhat promiscuous, makes them "pro-choice".
Slickers were in favor of battling terrorists after 9-11, but after six and a half years without another attack, they're anti-war. Partly because everybody they know in the city is also anti-war, and besides, they passionately hate that bumpkin president who their friends say started the war for his own and his friends' benefit. They hope the next Democrat president will stop the war and reallocate the war funds to clean up the slums and get the panhandlers off the streets.
Slickers feel superior to non-slickers, and look with disdain on religious bumpkins. They might discuss some deep pantheistic cosmic philosophies with their friends over drinks after work, but otherwise just think religion is for the weak-minded. They're offended by their perception that religious bumpkins have a sinister goal to control their lives by outlawing abortion and birth control and even maybe sending storm troopers to arrest them if they're having sex with somebody outside a traditional marriage relationship. Slickers have lots of gay friends, who they find to be funny and delightful people. They are offended in their belief that religious bumpkins want to persecute gays and prevent them from marrying each other.
Bumpkins live in a far different world. They drive to work every day, or go out to work on the farm. Bumpkins don't encounter panhandlers much, and the closest thing to a slum where they live is the occasional run-down trailer park.
As far as the poor, bumpkins see it as their responsibility to help folks get on their feet. They volunteer and contribute to their church and other charitable organizations. They help find jobs for those who need them, and don't have much respect for the poor that won't take a job to support themselves.
Bumpkins view government as an obstacle. They prefer to be left alone to work or build their small businesses, and chafe at the constantly growing tax burden and list of regulations.
Bumpkins are religious. They believe that there's a higher authority and that humans are on this planet for a purpose beyond simple self-aggrandizement. They belong to the local churches, spend free time helping out charitable causes, and hope someday the holocaust of abortion is ended. They see slicker campaigns to make gay marriage equivalent to God's sacred sacramental foundation of the family as obscene.
They often need the big truck for their farms that slickers want to outlaw or tax heavily. They need the large van or SUV to carry their family safely through snow-covered country roads. They understand that high gas prices are caused by oil cartels run by middle-eastern sheiks and communist dictators who hold down production to enrich themselves with American dollars. At the same time, they are puzzled by the slickers' powerful opposition to developing new oil reserves and refinery capacity within our own borders.
Bumpkins are true environmentalists. They live in the country, and know and care a great deal about keeping the waterways clean and the game plentiful but not overpopulated for hunters. Bumpkins don't see much smog, and sometimes wonder what the slickers are so upset about.
It's the bumpkins whose sons and daughters make up the majority of the military. Bumpkins don't like war, and certainly are frightened that their sons and daughters might be killed by a terrorist bomb somewhere in Iraq. But they understand that the country must be protected from enemies who wish to destroy it. They don't understand the slickers' war protests, when the slickers mostly don't have family members fighting. They are upset by slickers' accusations that bumpkins serving in the military are bloodthirsty torturers and murderers.
I'm proud to be a bumpkin. I would like to invite all slickers to come to the country and stay awhile. Maybe we'll become a bit less polarized if they accepted the invitation.
The most liberal citizens are generally found in the big cities. Places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Conversely, the most conservative folks tend to live far away from the big cities.
It evokes the old caricatures of the city slicker and the country bumpkin. The city slicker is smug, self-absorbed, superior, worldly. The country bumpkin is simple, unfashionable, unsophisticated, and to the city slicker, rather ignorant.
These attitudes are directly related to the great political divide. I have spent a lot of time in both worlds, but I am most comfortable with country bumpkins. I live on a small farm in Indiana, so I think I qualify as a member of the bumpkin club.
Which brings me to the fundamental question: why are slickers nearly all liberal and bumpkins mostly conservative? It's all about their environments and daily experience.
Slickers are either city dwellers or commute to the city center every day for work. In the city, they see plenty of evidence of poverty. Panhandlers are on every street corner begging for spare change. Their daily commute probably takes them through some terribly run-down slum areas. These sights are offensive to slickers, who think daily that something should be done about these people! But slickers, a self-absorbed lot, don't think to make an effort to get involved themselves and try to understand the problem and help those poor homeless and slum dwellers. Rather, they vote Democrat, then congratulate themselves on caring enough to elect people who promise to use the government to help out those poor folks.
Interesting how that still hasn't worked after all these years.
Slickers also see the polluted river flowing through and the smog blanketing the city. This naturally makes them environmentalists. They see folks in the traffic jams riding alone in their Hummers and become angry, thinking those arrogant fools are polluting the city and they don't need to drive that big tank. Why don't they ride the subway like we do?
Slickers see the daily press of masses of people and traffic jams every day and think there are way too many people on this planet. That, along with the fact that single slickers (and sometimes married slickers as well) tend to be somewhat promiscuous, makes them "pro-choice".
Slickers were in favor of battling terrorists after 9-11, but after six and a half years without another attack, they're anti-war. Partly because everybody they know in the city is also anti-war, and besides, they passionately hate that bumpkin president who their friends say started the war for his own and his friends' benefit. They hope the next Democrat president will stop the war and reallocate the war funds to clean up the slums and get the panhandlers off the streets.
Slickers feel superior to non-slickers, and look with disdain on religious bumpkins. They might discuss some deep pantheistic cosmic philosophies with their friends over drinks after work, but otherwise just think religion is for the weak-minded. They're offended by their perception that religious bumpkins have a sinister goal to control their lives by outlawing abortion and birth control and even maybe sending storm troopers to arrest them if they're having sex with somebody outside a traditional marriage relationship. Slickers have lots of gay friends, who they find to be funny and delightful people. They are offended in their belief that religious bumpkins want to persecute gays and prevent them from marrying each other.
Bumpkins live in a far different world. They drive to work every day, or go out to work on the farm. Bumpkins don't encounter panhandlers much, and the closest thing to a slum where they live is the occasional run-down trailer park.
As far as the poor, bumpkins see it as their responsibility to help folks get on their feet. They volunteer and contribute to their church and other charitable organizations. They help find jobs for those who need them, and don't have much respect for the poor that won't take a job to support themselves.
Bumpkins view government as an obstacle. They prefer to be left alone to work or build their small businesses, and chafe at the constantly growing tax burden and list of regulations.
Bumpkins are religious. They believe that there's a higher authority and that humans are on this planet for a purpose beyond simple self-aggrandizement. They belong to the local churches, spend free time helping out charitable causes, and hope someday the holocaust of abortion is ended. They see slicker campaigns to make gay marriage equivalent to God's sacred sacramental foundation of the family as obscene.
They often need the big truck for their farms that slickers want to outlaw or tax heavily. They need the large van or SUV to carry their family safely through snow-covered country roads. They understand that high gas prices are caused by oil cartels run by middle-eastern sheiks and communist dictators who hold down production to enrich themselves with American dollars. At the same time, they are puzzled by the slickers' powerful opposition to developing new oil reserves and refinery capacity within our own borders.
Bumpkins are true environmentalists. They live in the country, and know and care a great deal about keeping the waterways clean and the game plentiful but not overpopulated for hunters. Bumpkins don't see much smog, and sometimes wonder what the slickers are so upset about.
It's the bumpkins whose sons and daughters make up the majority of the military. Bumpkins don't like war, and certainly are frightened that their sons and daughters might be killed by a terrorist bomb somewhere in Iraq. But they understand that the country must be protected from enemies who wish to destroy it. They don't understand the slickers' war protests, when the slickers mostly don't have family members fighting. They are upset by slickers' accusations that bumpkins serving in the military are bloodthirsty torturers and murderers.
I'm proud to be a bumpkin. I would like to invite all slickers to come to the country and stay awhile. Maybe we'll become a bit less polarized if they accepted the invitation.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Hardly a Pundit, but this is easy
Amidst all the conservative angst over McCain all but locking up the GOP nomination, I'm amazed that the professional pundits don't seem to have a clue. Democrat pundits gleefully proclaim the Republicans to be demoralized and fractured, and the big radio talkers irrelevant. Republican pundits plead with their base to get behind McCain, and don't seem to understand why so many conservatives won't support him.
Both are partially right, but mostly wrong. From my perch as an observer without any punditry credentials, I think the big picture is pretty easy to understand.
The Republican field started out with some "real" conservatives in the field, namely Tancredo and Hunter. Later, many conservatives were excited when Fred Thompson joined the field. The moderates had Sam Brownback, the evangelicals had Mike Huckabee, and the liberal-leaning Republicans had a choice between McCain and Giuliani.
Why didn't I mention Mitt Romney? Because nobody knew for sure where he fit. Many were uncomfortable, fairly or unfairly, with his Mormonism. Nobody knew for sure whether he was truly a social conservative or not, because he ran as a social liberal for Massachusetts governor. He projected an image as a rich corporate bigshot, and I never really felt he connected with ordinary people in his television and debate appearances.
So the networks made sure the public never found out who Hunter and Tancredo were. So those guys were gone. Brownback went pretty much the same way.
Thompson thought he could win just by putting together a good website and being the low-key no-nonsense guy. People don't bother reading policy statements for the most part, and didn't get to see him speak outside the debates, so he's gone.
Giuliani became nearly indistinguishable from McCain, and waited for Florida to kick his campaign into gear. Too late. He's gone.
So Super Tuesday came along. There were four candidates left; Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul. Paul's got a dedicated bunch of followers but will never attract enough support to win anything. So people essentially had to choose between the other three.
McCain now had the liberal and moderate wings of the party pretty much in his pocket, now that Giuliani was out. So where does everybody else (other than the Paul folks) go?
Many voted for Romney despite his liabilities. Those who put values first went for Huckabee, along with those who just weren't convinced Romney really did convert as he claims. National Security voters felt they had no real choice but to join the liberals and moderates and vote for McCain.
So why are the true blue conservatives so upset? If they don't like McCain, they had plenty of opportunity to get behind Thompson or Hunter early. They didn't. I noticed that Democrats are already throwing the message out there on their media megaphones that McCain will be just like Bush. In many ways, they're kind of right about that. McCain's fundamental policies, including the ones conservatives most dislike about Bush, are pretty much the same.
So the Republicans will have to decide whether to vote for McCain in November, who is somewhere between Bush and Clinton politically, stay home and grumble, or vote for the Democrat. We already know the Democrat will be either Clinton or Obama, and there seems to be a strong possiblity both will be on that ticket.
If conservatives really don't want McCain as their president, they could throw support behind Huckabee. But they won't.
Maybe the GOP decided a long time ago to let the Democrats have the presidency this time around. They certainly seem to be acting like that's the case.
I'm bored with the subject. Let's see how things worked out for everyone about 2 to 3 years from now.
Both are partially right, but mostly wrong. From my perch as an observer without any punditry credentials, I think the big picture is pretty easy to understand.
The Republican field started out with some "real" conservatives in the field, namely Tancredo and Hunter. Later, many conservatives were excited when Fred Thompson joined the field. The moderates had Sam Brownback, the evangelicals had Mike Huckabee, and the liberal-leaning Republicans had a choice between McCain and Giuliani.
Why didn't I mention Mitt Romney? Because nobody knew for sure where he fit. Many were uncomfortable, fairly or unfairly, with his Mormonism. Nobody knew for sure whether he was truly a social conservative or not, because he ran as a social liberal for Massachusetts governor. He projected an image as a rich corporate bigshot, and I never really felt he connected with ordinary people in his television and debate appearances.
So the networks made sure the public never found out who Hunter and Tancredo were. So those guys were gone. Brownback went pretty much the same way.
Thompson thought he could win just by putting together a good website and being the low-key no-nonsense guy. People don't bother reading policy statements for the most part, and didn't get to see him speak outside the debates, so he's gone.
Giuliani became nearly indistinguishable from McCain, and waited for Florida to kick his campaign into gear. Too late. He's gone.
So Super Tuesday came along. There were four candidates left; Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul. Paul's got a dedicated bunch of followers but will never attract enough support to win anything. So people essentially had to choose between the other three.
McCain now had the liberal and moderate wings of the party pretty much in his pocket, now that Giuliani was out. So where does everybody else (other than the Paul folks) go?
Many voted for Romney despite his liabilities. Those who put values first went for Huckabee, along with those who just weren't convinced Romney really did convert as he claims. National Security voters felt they had no real choice but to join the liberals and moderates and vote for McCain.
So why are the true blue conservatives so upset? If they don't like McCain, they had plenty of opportunity to get behind Thompson or Hunter early. They didn't. I noticed that Democrats are already throwing the message out there on their media megaphones that McCain will be just like Bush. In many ways, they're kind of right about that. McCain's fundamental policies, including the ones conservatives most dislike about Bush, are pretty much the same.
So the Republicans will have to decide whether to vote for McCain in November, who is somewhere between Bush and Clinton politically, stay home and grumble, or vote for the Democrat. We already know the Democrat will be either Clinton or Obama, and there seems to be a strong possiblity both will be on that ticket.
If conservatives really don't want McCain as their president, they could throw support behind Huckabee. But they won't.
Maybe the GOP decided a long time ago to let the Democrats have the presidency this time around. They certainly seem to be acting like that's the case.
I'm bored with the subject. Let's see how things worked out for everyone about 2 to 3 years from now.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
America's Pravda
Back in Canada, where the only news I can see is on CNN. I should stop watching, because increasingly I find the network to be the near equivalent of the old Soviet Union's official news outlet. Except the weird twist is they're actually virulently opposed to the country's current President.
They're mostly talking election politics today, which of course is "Super Tuesday". Their coverage is about 70 percent cheerleading for Barack Obama. They're clearly excited by the guy, but are also very friendly toward Hillary Clinton. They openly express their hope for their "dream ticket" (yes, this is their term), which of course is either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
The 30 percent of the time they talk about Republicans is generally split between trashing the President, strangely even though he's not running, and cheerleading for John McCain. They were discussing the angst by the right wing of the GOP who don't want McCain in a way that sort of reminded my of National Geographic adventurers trying to understand some isolated native culture in the wilds of a remote jungle somewhere.
Their attempts to analyze Republicans are so ridiculously ignorant they're actually funny. To these guys, liberalism isn't just a political philosophy; it's the only political philosophy. For them, "evangelical Christians" are some sort of obscure tribal culture that needs to be kept as far away from politics as possible. Anybody who is socially conservative, supports lower taxes and less government, and doesn't want the Federal Government imposing healthcare on them are viewed by the CNN talking heads as the equivalent of Nazis or KKK members.
I'm rather stunned to discover that, according to CNN, I'm a right-winger who is way out of the mainstream. It seems that faith and common sense are no longer mainstream.
They're mostly talking election politics today, which of course is "Super Tuesday". Their coverage is about 70 percent cheerleading for Barack Obama. They're clearly excited by the guy, but are also very friendly toward Hillary Clinton. They openly express their hope for their "dream ticket" (yes, this is their term), which of course is either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
The 30 percent of the time they talk about Republicans is generally split between trashing the President, strangely even though he's not running, and cheerleading for John McCain. They were discussing the angst by the right wing of the GOP who don't want McCain in a way that sort of reminded my of National Geographic adventurers trying to understand some isolated native culture in the wilds of a remote jungle somewhere.
Their attempts to analyze Republicans are so ridiculously ignorant they're actually funny. To these guys, liberalism isn't just a political philosophy; it's the only political philosophy. For them, "evangelical Christians" are some sort of obscure tribal culture that needs to be kept as far away from politics as possible. Anybody who is socially conservative, supports lower taxes and less government, and doesn't want the Federal Government imposing healthcare on them are viewed by the CNN talking heads as the equivalent of Nazis or KKK members.
I'm rather stunned to discover that, according to CNN, I'm a right-winger who is way out of the mainstream. It seems that faith and common sense are no longer mainstream.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Entirely Worthwhile
I just moved into my new office space. Same building and a few dollars more per month, but I've been bowled over by how well worthwhile this decision has proven.
The old space was a dungeon-like windowless room near the building's loading dock. It had old dingy mismatched tile on the floor, walls in need of paint, and big standpipes in the corner. Add to that the uninsulated walls that let me hear everything happening outside at the dock, and it was a generally gloomy place to work.
Now I'm in a pleasant space on the second floor. It's quiet, carpeted, well-lit, and has a huge 12-foot window. Carpeting, nicely paneled walls, and a drop ceiling with florescent lighting make me feel comfortable, relaxed, and perhaps even more productive.
It may wear off quickly, but I'm actually looking forward to going into the office in the morning. There's still plenty to file and put away to complete the move, but I expect to have that handled relatively soon.
Amazing how your workspace can make such a dramatic difference in attitude and productivity.
The old space was a dungeon-like windowless room near the building's loading dock. It had old dingy mismatched tile on the floor, walls in need of paint, and big standpipes in the corner. Add to that the uninsulated walls that let me hear everything happening outside at the dock, and it was a generally gloomy place to work.
Now I'm in a pleasant space on the second floor. It's quiet, carpeted, well-lit, and has a huge 12-foot window. Carpeting, nicely paneled walls, and a drop ceiling with florescent lighting make me feel comfortable, relaxed, and perhaps even more productive.
It may wear off quickly, but I'm actually looking forward to going into the office in the morning. There's still plenty to file and put away to complete the move, but I expect to have that handled relatively soon.
Amazing how your workspace can make such a dramatic difference in attitude and productivity.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
A Population of Fools
Watching the GOP debate last night was terribly discouraging. A huge chunk of valuable time that could have been used learning about specific policy ideas from the candidates was wasted in the spat between the two front-runners about McCain's misleading charge that Romney called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Meantime, the other two candidates, Huckabee and Paul, sat and fumed about being mostly ignored. If CNN didn't intend to let them speak, they should not have invited them to participate. It was the most poorly moderated debate I've ever seen.
The saddest realization for me was that we will most likely have to choose between the Democrat Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket and a McCain/?Huckabee? ticket. There is really no substantive difference between McCain and Clinton, other than McCain might be less corrupt than Hillary.
There is no candidate for me in this race. If Indiana was involved in Super Tuesday, I'd probably consider casting a protest vote for Huckabee. Not that it would matter.
How is it that Republicans are getting behind a candidate that is only Republican in the sense that he's hawkish on Iraq. In most other matters, McCain's mostly a Democrat. Not to mention part of the Washington establishment we're all so incensed about being out of touch. McCain's the poster child for out-of-touch senators.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrat nominee, whether it's Clinton or Obama, will win in the fall because Democrats are energized and Republicans are demoralized. I'm thinking that's probably true.
The country's about to re-learn a painful lesson most people seem to have forgotten from the Jimmy Carter days. I'm actually hearing some who actually are suggesting that's the only way to wake up the population.
Disappointing.
Meantime, the other two candidates, Huckabee and Paul, sat and fumed about being mostly ignored. If CNN didn't intend to let them speak, they should not have invited them to participate. It was the most poorly moderated debate I've ever seen.
The saddest realization for me was that we will most likely have to choose between the Democrat Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket and a McCain/?Huckabee? ticket. There is really no substantive difference between McCain and Clinton, other than McCain might be less corrupt than Hillary.
There is no candidate for me in this race. If Indiana was involved in Super Tuesday, I'd probably consider casting a protest vote for Huckabee. Not that it would matter.
How is it that Republicans are getting behind a candidate that is only Republican in the sense that he's hawkish on Iraq. In most other matters, McCain's mostly a Democrat. Not to mention part of the Washington establishment we're all so incensed about being out of touch. McCain's the poster child for out-of-touch senators.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrat nominee, whether it's Clinton or Obama, will win in the fall because Democrats are energized and Republicans are demoralized. I'm thinking that's probably true.
The country's about to re-learn a painful lesson most people seem to have forgotten from the Jimmy Carter days. I'm actually hearing some who actually are suggesting that's the only way to wake up the population.
Disappointing.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
How Much Tax?
One of those confluences of events merged President Bush's final State of the Union address with news of the Property Tax Reform efforts now underway in the Indiana statehouse. Both brought out the fundamental questions of taxes and government.
How much tax is enough?
How much government is really needed?
The consistent theme on taxes both nationally and locally clearly breaks along party lines. Democrats fret that lower taxes must translate to fewer government services. Republicans maintain that government is bloated and is overdue for some belt-tightening, plus taxpayers who get to keep more of their own money will use it to grow the economy.
Property Taxes went through a reassessment, which increased the tax bill for every property owner. Some poor homeowners were hit with new property tax bills double or even triple their previous obligations. Most everybody else saw increases of about one third. It resulted in a citizen tax revolt, which has driven Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson out of office and threatens to do the same for a wide range of state and local officials.
So the Indiana legislature is working on a bill proposed by Governor Daniels to cap property tax rates at 1% for homeowners, 2% for landlords, and 3% for businesses. The bill looked like it would sail through until local officials began an impassioned opposition. They checked their budgets and found out their tax revenue would be reduced if this law is passed. That means they would have to cut their budgets.
It seems that those areas in the state hit hardest by the property tax mess were where school boards approved major construction projects without really considering the tax impact of those projects. It's a case of communities spending beyond their means for ostentatious school buildings. Now they're paying for their irresponsible decisions with an outraged citizenry.
Likewise at the national level, President Bush appealed to the congress to make his tax cuts permanent. Even though any serious analysis of the tax cuts has to conclude they were very effective in the very strong economy the country has enjoyed for the past seven years, Democrats made their intentions clear. The Democrats expect to control the government beginning next year, and have made it clear they not only plan to cancel the Bush tax cuts, but also plan to increase taxes.
Government is inherently an inefficient provider of services. The Federal Government consists of huge and cumbersome bureaucracies that would not survive the first month if their services were offered for profit in the private sector. Bureaucrats build empires that accomplish little and are not held accountable for results.
If the government, whether federal or state, really wanted to serve the public, they would eliminate earmarks and political favors and patronage. An even better idea would be to require every social program cooked up by politicians to prove every 5 years that they are meeting their mission, or the program will be defunded.
Maybe instead of spending so much time talking about how much tax should be paid by the "rich", the focus should be more toward what can we accomplish with the limited resources available to government?
If only.
How much tax is enough?
How much government is really needed?
The consistent theme on taxes both nationally and locally clearly breaks along party lines. Democrats fret that lower taxes must translate to fewer government services. Republicans maintain that government is bloated and is overdue for some belt-tightening, plus taxpayers who get to keep more of their own money will use it to grow the economy.
Property Taxes went through a reassessment, which increased the tax bill for every property owner. Some poor homeowners were hit with new property tax bills double or even triple their previous obligations. Most everybody else saw increases of about one third. It resulted in a citizen tax revolt, which has driven Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson out of office and threatens to do the same for a wide range of state and local officials.
So the Indiana legislature is working on a bill proposed by Governor Daniels to cap property tax rates at 1% for homeowners, 2% for landlords, and 3% for businesses. The bill looked like it would sail through until local officials began an impassioned opposition. They checked their budgets and found out their tax revenue would be reduced if this law is passed. That means they would have to cut their budgets.
It seems that those areas in the state hit hardest by the property tax mess were where school boards approved major construction projects without really considering the tax impact of those projects. It's a case of communities spending beyond their means for ostentatious school buildings. Now they're paying for their irresponsible decisions with an outraged citizenry.
Likewise at the national level, President Bush appealed to the congress to make his tax cuts permanent. Even though any serious analysis of the tax cuts has to conclude they were very effective in the very strong economy the country has enjoyed for the past seven years, Democrats made their intentions clear. The Democrats expect to control the government beginning next year, and have made it clear they not only plan to cancel the Bush tax cuts, but also plan to increase taxes.
Government is inherently an inefficient provider of services. The Federal Government consists of huge and cumbersome bureaucracies that would not survive the first month if their services were offered for profit in the private sector. Bureaucrats build empires that accomplish little and are not held accountable for results.
If the government, whether federal or state, really wanted to serve the public, they would eliminate earmarks and political favors and patronage. An even better idea would be to require every social program cooked up by politicians to prove every 5 years that they are meeting their mission, or the program will be defunded.
Maybe instead of spending so much time talking about how much tax should be paid by the "rich", the focus should be more toward what can we accomplish with the limited resources available to government?
If only.
Monday, January 28, 2008
New Perspectives on Healthcare
Last week was spent working with a group of people who work for a healthcare organization in Canada. Although the subject of my visit wasn't related to healthcare policy, I was drawn into some interesting discussions on the topic.
As a group, the Canadians seem to believe every citizen should have access to healthcare. They have a sense of security in the fact that they will never have to face the possibility of being turned away from treatment for any illness or injury, since their government-controlled system will provide the care they need. The people I was working with are somewhat appalled at their media-induced vision of U.S. healthcare as available only to the rich and those lucky enough to be employed by companies who provide them with good insurance.
I explained that while it is true that a very high number of U.S. citizens are not covered by any sort of health insurance, that doesn't mean they all do not have access to healthcare. In fact, most places in the country are prohibited by law from denial of emergency medical treatment to anyone, insured or not.
Many uninsured simply pay for their own healthcare. Many providers offer substantial discounts to their uninsured customers who pay for their own care.
The poor are covered by the version of Medicaid provided by their state.
So those who are suffering the most right now are people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, not quite wealthy enough to pay for their own care, and not employed by a company that provides them with good health insurance.
The problem for these folks tends to be that if they encounter a major injury or illness that requires surgery and hospitalization, they are effectively bankrupt as soon as the diagnosis is made. The doctors and therapists and radiologists and labs and hospitals will certainly sue them for payment of medical bills they cannot possibly pay. Therefore, they lose everything, go bankrupt, and must concern themselves with both their physical recovery and starting over from zero financially.
Personally, although I am paying huge premiums for a health insurance plan that has never contributed a penny of benefits, I fear even having the insurance will not protect me from bankruptcy if I become seriously ill or injured. Because such an event would mean I would be unable to work during whatever period of time I am undergoing treatment for whatever might occur, which after some period of time would find me bankrupt anyway.
But that does not mean I support the Democrat goal of socialized medicine. First of all, such healthcare is not "free". It will most certainly involve an increase in the percentage of my earnings confiscated by the government to pay for their grand industry takeover.
Next, the same goverment will seek to control costs by implementing several policies that will ultimately harm the patients they claim to want to help. They will arbitrarily reduce the fees providers will be allowed to bill for patient care, which will make such care scarce as the providers close or sell their businesses because they can no longer make a profit.
As healthcare providers become more and more scarce, access to those remaining will become increasingly difficult. Patients will be forced to wait weeks or months for an appointment. As we've found with the recent addition of prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, bureaucrats will deny medications to patients based on arbitrary rules designed to save money.
Government control isn't the answer. I think the answer is only partially offered by Republicans, who continue to stress the expansion of healthcare savings accounts. Those are great for small business people or others who actually have the ability to save enough money to cover their care. But it doesn't help the bigger majority of uninsured, who just can't earn enough to save the kind of money they need for healthcare.
If the government wants to help, they should address the root causes of our healthcare problems:
Wait until those people find out just how "free" their new healthcare program is.
As a group, the Canadians seem to believe every citizen should have access to healthcare. They have a sense of security in the fact that they will never have to face the possibility of being turned away from treatment for any illness or injury, since their government-controlled system will provide the care they need. The people I was working with are somewhat appalled at their media-induced vision of U.S. healthcare as available only to the rich and those lucky enough to be employed by companies who provide them with good insurance.
I explained that while it is true that a very high number of U.S. citizens are not covered by any sort of health insurance, that doesn't mean they all do not have access to healthcare. In fact, most places in the country are prohibited by law from denial of emergency medical treatment to anyone, insured or not.
Many uninsured simply pay for their own healthcare. Many providers offer substantial discounts to their uninsured customers who pay for their own care.
The poor are covered by the version of Medicaid provided by their state.
So those who are suffering the most right now are people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, not quite wealthy enough to pay for their own care, and not employed by a company that provides them with good health insurance.
The problem for these folks tends to be that if they encounter a major injury or illness that requires surgery and hospitalization, they are effectively bankrupt as soon as the diagnosis is made. The doctors and therapists and radiologists and labs and hospitals will certainly sue them for payment of medical bills they cannot possibly pay. Therefore, they lose everything, go bankrupt, and must concern themselves with both their physical recovery and starting over from zero financially.
Personally, although I am paying huge premiums for a health insurance plan that has never contributed a penny of benefits, I fear even having the insurance will not protect me from bankruptcy if I become seriously ill or injured. Because such an event would mean I would be unable to work during whatever period of time I am undergoing treatment for whatever might occur, which after some period of time would find me bankrupt anyway.
But that does not mean I support the Democrat goal of socialized medicine. First of all, such healthcare is not "free". It will most certainly involve an increase in the percentage of my earnings confiscated by the government to pay for their grand industry takeover.
Next, the same goverment will seek to control costs by implementing several policies that will ultimately harm the patients they claim to want to help. They will arbitrarily reduce the fees providers will be allowed to bill for patient care, which will make such care scarce as the providers close or sell their businesses because they can no longer make a profit.
As healthcare providers become more and more scarce, access to those remaining will become increasingly difficult. Patients will be forced to wait weeks or months for an appointment. As we've found with the recent addition of prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, bureaucrats will deny medications to patients based on arbitrary rules designed to save money.
Government control isn't the answer. I think the answer is only partially offered by Republicans, who continue to stress the expansion of healthcare savings accounts. Those are great for small business people or others who actually have the ability to save enough money to cover their care. But it doesn't help the bigger majority of uninsured, who just can't earn enough to save the kind of money they need for healthcare.
If the government wants to help, they should address the root causes of our healthcare problems:
- Tort Reform
- Standardization of Electronic Insurance Claims & Payments
- Competition in Diagnostic Services
- Making Medical School less expensive so graduating physicians don't have six-figure debts to pay off
- Availability of affordable Major Medical insurance for the uninsured.
- Simple dollar-for-dollar tax deductions or credits for actual out-of-pocket expenses
Wait until those people find out just how "free" their new healthcare program is.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thoughts on Racism
Since there's been a lot of racial and racism talk lately because of the Martin Luther King holiday and the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's given me occasion to think about the overall racism issue.
What is racism, who is a racist and who is not, to what extent does it remain as a social problem in the United States?
How about starting with the definition. Here's what I found at Dictionary.com
rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
Based on the above definition, am I racist? Let's see: I don't believe that any one race is superior or has an inherent right to rule others, I don't support government systems that foster racial discrimination, and I don't find myself feeling hatred or intolerance of other races.
So I'm not a racist, right?
Well, there may be some who look at my actual political beliefs and say I am racist.
For example, I don't believe in affirmative action or racial preference programs in hiring, college admission, or government contracts. I believe such government policies actually violate part #2 of the above definition, because they place race above merit in such decisions.
The difference between my philosophy and those of our liberal folks is that I believe in equality of opportunity, while they hope to enact laws that seek equality of outcomes. Such policies don't work, but are still pursued with religious fervor by the Left.
Remember when the courts went beyond the very good civil rights laws that outlawed discrimination in education with racially segregated public schools to creating laws out of the ether for enforced desegregation through something called busing?
The theory was that if schools were desegregated, inequalities of outcomes between the mostly white suburban schools and the mostly black urban schools would be remedied. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The actual result of this social experiment forced upon the population by liberal elites was a drastic reduction in outcomes from all of the schools. The inner-city schools got worse and the suburban schools got worse.
Those who could afford to left the public schools for private and parochial schools. Today it's hard to find excellence in public schools, which in many urban areas are not only poor performers but dangerous places for the students.
By the way, I'm not blaming any race for the decline. I blame the liberal establishment who enacted laws reflecting their well-meaning but misguided ideas about racial reconciliation. Racial peace can't be accomplished with heavy-handed court orders and legislation from elite ivory towers, but have to be accomplished by influencing hearts and minds of people of each race, one at a time.
Finally, would I vote for Barack Obama? No.
But the reason has nothing to do with his race. I'd actually prefer him as President to Hillary. Because even though I disagree almost completely with those policy statements he has made, I believe he's sincere and a genuinely nice guy. Does that make me a sexist? That's a question for another day.
Actually, I'd happily vote for a black presidential candidate. Tony Dungy could easily get my vote if he were qualified and running (by the way, I'm happy to learn he decided to come back for another season with the Colts after all). Condi Rice could get my vote (does that answer the sexist question?) I'm also a huge admirer of Clarence Thomas.
I can't tell what will happen in this year's Presidential campaign. But I do think the Democrats might be a bit overconfident in their belief that either Hillary or Barack will win easily. Half the country will never vote for Hillary, and her supporters might stay home if Obama gets the nomination. If the Republican nominee runs an effective campaign, I think he could win, although I'm not naive enough to predict it will be easy.
What is racism, who is a racist and who is not, to what extent does it remain as a social problem in the United States?
How about starting with the definition. Here's what I found at Dictionary.com
rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun | 1. | a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. |
| 2. | a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. |
| 3. | hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. |
Based on the above definition, am I racist? Let's see: I don't believe that any one race is superior or has an inherent right to rule others, I don't support government systems that foster racial discrimination, and I don't find myself feeling hatred or intolerance of other races.
So I'm not a racist, right?
Well, there may be some who look at my actual political beliefs and say I am racist.
For example, I don't believe in affirmative action or racial preference programs in hiring, college admission, or government contracts. I believe such government policies actually violate part #2 of the above definition, because they place race above merit in such decisions.
The difference between my philosophy and those of our liberal folks is that I believe in equality of opportunity, while they hope to enact laws that seek equality of outcomes. Such policies don't work, but are still pursued with religious fervor by the Left.
Remember when the courts went beyond the very good civil rights laws that outlawed discrimination in education with racially segregated public schools to creating laws out of the ether for enforced desegregation through something called busing?
The theory was that if schools were desegregated, inequalities of outcomes between the mostly white suburban schools and the mostly black urban schools would be remedied. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The actual result of this social experiment forced upon the population by liberal elites was a drastic reduction in outcomes from all of the schools. The inner-city schools got worse and the suburban schools got worse.
Those who could afford to left the public schools for private and parochial schools. Today it's hard to find excellence in public schools, which in many urban areas are not only poor performers but dangerous places for the students.
By the way, I'm not blaming any race for the decline. I blame the liberal establishment who enacted laws reflecting their well-meaning but misguided ideas about racial reconciliation. Racial peace can't be accomplished with heavy-handed court orders and legislation from elite ivory towers, but have to be accomplished by influencing hearts and minds of people of each race, one at a time.
Finally, would I vote for Barack Obama? No.
But the reason has nothing to do with his race. I'd actually prefer him as President to Hillary. Because even though I disagree almost completely with those policy statements he has made, I believe he's sincere and a genuinely nice guy. Does that make me a sexist? That's a question for another day.
Actually, I'd happily vote for a black presidential candidate. Tony Dungy could easily get my vote if he were qualified and running (by the way, I'm happy to learn he decided to come back for another season with the Colts after all). Condi Rice could get my vote (does that answer the sexist question?) I'm also a huge admirer of Clarence Thomas.
I can't tell what will happen in this year's Presidential campaign. But I do think the Democrats might be a bit overconfident in their belief that either Hillary or Barack will win easily. Half the country will never vote for Hillary, and her supporters might stay home if Obama gets the nomination. If the Republican nominee runs an effective campaign, I think he could win, although I'm not naive enough to predict it will be easy.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Defining Mental Illness
Picking up some groceries last night, I noticed one of the supermarket tabloids had a headline that was something like, "Britney's Mental Illness". It got me thinking, how do they know she's mentally ill?
Expanding on my line of thought, it seems that whenever someone exhibits aberrant behavior, everyone just assumes they're mentally ill. Perhaps it's a good assumption, but I wonder. In Britney's case, does her bizarre behavior indicate she has some sort of chemical imbalance, injury, or illness affecting her brain?
Or is it something much more simple? Could it be that Britney's simply a spoiled, narcissistic brat child who is acting out with a litany of bizarre behaviors just because she wants attention? Could it be that she's acting like the rebellious teenager who thinks she's punishing her parents and other adults who have placed restrictions on her?
Consider that her mindset might go something like this: My (parents, managers, etc) controlled every aspect of my life from the time I was ten years old. Now that I'm an adult and free to do whatever I want, I'll show them! No more wholesome, virginal Britney - I'll shock them! I'll shock the world!
Just wondering, is Britney, and by extension her friends and contemporaries Paris and Lindsey, simply a rich, spoiled brat who has made her own bad choices and should be allowed to suffer whatever the consequences?
I know the drugs can certainly contribute to an artificially induced mental illness, but it's temporary and can be overcome by simply stopping the drugs. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think she's not mentally ill, unless we decide that extreme narcissism is a mental illness.
Generally, my reaction to all the stories swirling around Britney and the other starlets is disgust. But I can see how they pull people in, sort of like rubbernecking a gruesome accident on the highway. You shouldn't look, but it's hard not to.
I think she'll drop out of sight one of these days, when the media gets tired of covering her antics. Then after a few years, she'll reappear in a story that could go one of two ways: She's sent to prison or is found dead of an overdose, or she cleaned up and maybe found God and is working to start fresh on a new career.
Perhaps a law should be passed that forbids children from being used as movie or music stars. Most of their stories don't end well.
Expanding on my line of thought, it seems that whenever someone exhibits aberrant behavior, everyone just assumes they're mentally ill. Perhaps it's a good assumption, but I wonder. In Britney's case, does her bizarre behavior indicate she has some sort of chemical imbalance, injury, or illness affecting her brain?
Or is it something much more simple? Could it be that Britney's simply a spoiled, narcissistic brat child who is acting out with a litany of bizarre behaviors just because she wants attention? Could it be that she's acting like the rebellious teenager who thinks she's punishing her parents and other adults who have placed restrictions on her?
Consider that her mindset might go something like this: My (parents, managers, etc) controlled every aspect of my life from the time I was ten years old. Now that I'm an adult and free to do whatever I want, I'll show them! No more wholesome, virginal Britney - I'll shock them! I'll shock the world!
Just wondering, is Britney, and by extension her friends and contemporaries Paris and Lindsey, simply a rich, spoiled brat who has made her own bad choices and should be allowed to suffer whatever the consequences?
I know the drugs can certainly contribute to an artificially induced mental illness, but it's temporary and can be overcome by simply stopping the drugs. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think she's not mentally ill, unless we decide that extreme narcissism is a mental illness.
Generally, my reaction to all the stories swirling around Britney and the other starlets is disgust. But I can see how they pull people in, sort of like rubbernecking a gruesome accident on the highway. You shouldn't look, but it's hard not to.
I think she'll drop out of sight one of these days, when the media gets tired of covering her antics. Then after a few years, she'll reappear in a story that could go one of two ways: She's sent to prison or is found dead of an overdose, or she cleaned up and maybe found God and is working to start fresh on a new career.
Perhaps a law should be passed that forbids children from being used as movie or music stars. Most of their stories don't end well.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Bogeyman
He is now very different, depending on each person's political beliefs and affiliations. Both sides have them, but neither has any in common.
Democrat Bogeymen:
Right-Wing Radical Christians
George W. Bush
Oil Companies
Corporate CEO's (Excepting some they like who happen to share their leftist views)
Republican Bogeymen:
Radical Islamic Terrorists
Iran and Ahmadinejad
Communists (often a synonym for Democrats)
Hillary Clinton (hmm, would that be Bogeywoman?)
Whom do you fear the most?
Just saying -
Which group has killed more innocent people in the last 10 years? Islamic terrorists or Right-Wing Christians?
Yeah, I'm frustrated by high gas prices too. But what is it Democrats want to do about it? Levy punitive taxes on Oil Companies, as far as I can tell. So that brings my gasoline prices down exactly how?
Hillary or Bush: Who would be the worse President? Does it frighten you that we might actually get to find out? Sorta scares me.
Just wondering about the whole rich leftist thing. So actors who make millions of dollars per movie - should they pay more, less, or the same taxes as the evil corporate CEO's the Democrats are so ready to punish? Let's put it in real terms:
A CEO and movie star both make $10 Million in 2009 after Hillary becomes President. How much Federal Income Tax should be taken from them? Following the rhetoric of the left, I'm guessing the CEO will have about $7 Million confiscated, but the Democrat movie star who gave a bunch of money to Hillary's campaign would only pay, what, about $2 Million?
See, back in the dark days of Jimmy Carter, which amazingly seem to be the golden age by Democrats, the $7 Million number is exactly what would have been taken from the CEO and the Hollywood actor. Unless, of course, they found a loophole in the tax code that let them hide some of that money. Democrats back then thought that was perfectly OK - their argument was something along the line of, "3 Million is plenty of money! Allowing anybody to have 10 Million dollars is just obscene and unfair."
The idea is that anyone who earns that kind of money, no matter how they did so, can't possibly deserve it. They must have cheated somebody or paid underlings slave wages to get it. So they deserve to have it taken away from them by the benevolent government to give to some poor person. Said poor person theoretically is so grateful to the government for the handout, they become a life-long Democrat voter.
If we're headed back to a repeat of the Jimmy Carter era, I just have one request: Please wait just a few more years until I retire. Then I'll let you pay me to sit at home and live off your Social Security benefits and let somebody else struggle to find a job and make a decent living off their after-tax income.
Democrat Bogeymen:
Right-Wing Radical Christians
George W. Bush
Oil Companies
Corporate CEO's (Excepting some they like who happen to share their leftist views)
Republican Bogeymen:
Radical Islamic Terrorists
Iran and Ahmadinejad
Communists (often a synonym for Democrats)
Hillary Clinton (hmm, would that be Bogeywoman?)
Whom do you fear the most?
Just saying -
Which group has killed more innocent people in the last 10 years? Islamic terrorists or Right-Wing Christians?
Yeah, I'm frustrated by high gas prices too. But what is it Democrats want to do about it? Levy punitive taxes on Oil Companies, as far as I can tell. So that brings my gasoline prices down exactly how?
Hillary or Bush: Who would be the worse President? Does it frighten you that we might actually get to find out? Sorta scares me.
Just wondering about the whole rich leftist thing. So actors who make millions of dollars per movie - should they pay more, less, or the same taxes as the evil corporate CEO's the Democrats are so ready to punish? Let's put it in real terms:
A CEO and movie star both make $10 Million in 2009 after Hillary becomes President. How much Federal Income Tax should be taken from them? Following the rhetoric of the left, I'm guessing the CEO will have about $7 Million confiscated, but the Democrat movie star who gave a bunch of money to Hillary's campaign would only pay, what, about $2 Million?
See, back in the dark days of Jimmy Carter, which amazingly seem to be the golden age by Democrats, the $7 Million number is exactly what would have been taken from the CEO and the Hollywood actor. Unless, of course, they found a loophole in the tax code that let them hide some of that money. Democrats back then thought that was perfectly OK - their argument was something along the line of, "3 Million is plenty of money! Allowing anybody to have 10 Million dollars is just obscene and unfair."
The idea is that anyone who earns that kind of money, no matter how they did so, can't possibly deserve it. They must have cheated somebody or paid underlings slave wages to get it. So they deserve to have it taken away from them by the benevolent government to give to some poor person. Said poor person theoretically is so grateful to the government for the handout, they become a life-long Democrat voter.
If we're headed back to a repeat of the Jimmy Carter era, I just have one request: Please wait just a few more years until I retire. Then I'll let you pay me to sit at home and live off your Social Security benefits and let somebody else struggle to find a job and make a decent living off their after-tax income.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Coach Dungy Retiring
It's not official yet, in fact the last report said an announcement would be made on Monday. But reports are out already with the news that Tony Dungy is retiring.
There have been previous reports that his children have already been enrolled in Tampa schools, which made it seem pretty definite that Tony was going to go ahead with his retirement. Colts fans can hope the report is false, but it seems more likely to be correct.
Apparently the Colts have already decided to name the assistant head coach Caldwell to replace him. That would seem to provide continuity that may not shake up the team as much as hiring a new head coach from outside who might bring in a brand new staff.
That makes two very disappointing events for Colts fans this week. They blew the game against the Chargers, then lost perhaps the best human being in the league with Dungy's retirement. If nothing else, he will be missed as a beacon of light in an otherwise disappointing world of drug abuse, cheating, felons, and miscreants.
Tony Dungy did it right.
So long, coach. Happy Retirement.
There have been previous reports that his children have already been enrolled in Tampa schools, which made it seem pretty definite that Tony was going to go ahead with his retirement. Colts fans can hope the report is false, but it seems more likely to be correct.
Apparently the Colts have already decided to name the assistant head coach Caldwell to replace him. That would seem to provide continuity that may not shake up the team as much as hiring a new head coach from outside who might bring in a brand new staff.
That makes two very disappointing events for Colts fans this week. They blew the game against the Chargers, then lost perhaps the best human being in the league with Dungy's retirement. If nothing else, he will be missed as a beacon of light in an otherwise disappointing world of drug abuse, cheating, felons, and miscreants.
Tony Dungy did it right.
So long, coach. Happy Retirement.
Sticky Internet Issues
Lately the significant and growing issues with the internet have become hot topics, both in news reports and personal experience. The benefits of the internet, which has given the world so much in terms of communication and access to information, carry a heavy cost and many serious problems.
Recent news stories have highlighted efforts to solve the problem of sexual predators lurking in social networking sites. Some are introducing legislation that would attempt to deny access to those sites, or perhaps even the internet itself, to convicted sexual predators.
Scammers and spammers have grown to epidemic proportions. The personal impact of this hits me every day, with two of my email accounts filling up with hundreds of spam emails every week. My email accounts segregate what spam they can identify into a separate folder I can clear, but many make it through to my inbox. My daily ritual now begins with deleting all the spam so I can read the "real" emails.
There is one email account that is heavily filtered, in which I have never seen a piece of spam. But that's a mixed blessing, because I often hear from clients who wonder why I didn't respond to an email I never actually received. Aggressive spam filters often end up blocking legitimate email messages.
Companies are building highly restrictive firewalls that trap their employees from being able to access the web. A paranoia at many companies over the potential of an employee visiting a site that could infect the network, plus the assumption that employees would waste valuable work hours surfing the web, have virtually locked employees out of important and helpful internet resources.
Today, part of the reason I'm posting is my web-based training class had to be cancelled. Half of the students scheduled to attend my online class were unable to access the training site, and were unable to find timely IT support to solve the problem. So we rescheduled today's session for Friday.
The internet has become both an invaluable resource and a dangerous path through a medieval forest full of marauders who will steal your identity and your money, vandalize your computer and enslave it to vandalize others', surreptitiously install software on your system to spy on everything you do, and flood your email with unwanted advertisements and pornographic materials.
Legislatures don't seem concerned about solving the real problems of the web, but rather seem more focused on finding ways to tax our use of it and protect the movie and music industries from internet-based copyright infringement. A cynic might suggest that congress is doing their best to arrest 17-year-olds for downloading a music file while ignoring the pedophiles who entice children to meetings that will end up scarring their psyche forever.
But what can really be done? I have some ideas.
Rather than looking to the government to solve the problem which always seems to result in high taxes, bureaucracy, and loss of freedom, why not let the users of the internet solve the problem? Here's how:
1. If you are sending advertising email, you must register with an internet-based clearinghouse. If you are not registered, your email will be flagged as such when it is sent through the web to the recipient address. The flag can then be read by the receiving email program, which can be configured to reject or segregate those emails as spam. This way, no unwanted or unsolicited email has to ever make it through.
2. With registered advertisers, consumers have the ability to easily report them as spammers. This would result in a rating that is also placed in the emails sent from the advertiser, say 1 to 5, where 1 indicates little or no spamming complaints and 5 indicates this is a major spammer. Email systems could be configured to accept or reject these emails based on the rating.
3. Users of social networking sites can already simply report those they suspect of being predators or of misusing the site. The site managers can then act on those reports by suspending access to the predators.
4. Companies should loosen their restrictions on employee web surfing. There's nothing wrong with an employee reading a news site in the morning or shopping on ebay during their lunch break. If an employee is wasting valuable work time surfing the net, that's a management issue that should be addressed by the supervisor with the offending employee. Shutting down internet access for employees simply equates with lazy managers who don't want to deal with the problem directly.
I think that if everyone who uses the net has the opportunity and ability to stop abuse with an easy reporting mechanism, we could all solve most of the problems ourselves.
Recent news stories have highlighted efforts to solve the problem of sexual predators lurking in social networking sites. Some are introducing legislation that would attempt to deny access to those sites, or perhaps even the internet itself, to convicted sexual predators.
Scammers and spammers have grown to epidemic proportions. The personal impact of this hits me every day, with two of my email accounts filling up with hundreds of spam emails every week. My email accounts segregate what spam they can identify into a separate folder I can clear, but many make it through to my inbox. My daily ritual now begins with deleting all the spam so I can read the "real" emails.
There is one email account that is heavily filtered, in which I have never seen a piece of spam. But that's a mixed blessing, because I often hear from clients who wonder why I didn't respond to an email I never actually received. Aggressive spam filters often end up blocking legitimate email messages.
Companies are building highly restrictive firewalls that trap their employees from being able to access the web. A paranoia at many companies over the potential of an employee visiting a site that could infect the network, plus the assumption that employees would waste valuable work hours surfing the web, have virtually locked employees out of important and helpful internet resources.
Today, part of the reason I'm posting is my web-based training class had to be cancelled. Half of the students scheduled to attend my online class were unable to access the training site, and were unable to find timely IT support to solve the problem. So we rescheduled today's session for Friday.
The internet has become both an invaluable resource and a dangerous path through a medieval forest full of marauders who will steal your identity and your money, vandalize your computer and enslave it to vandalize others', surreptitiously install software on your system to spy on everything you do, and flood your email with unwanted advertisements and pornographic materials.
Legislatures don't seem concerned about solving the real problems of the web, but rather seem more focused on finding ways to tax our use of it and protect the movie and music industries from internet-based copyright infringement. A cynic might suggest that congress is doing their best to arrest 17-year-olds for downloading a music file while ignoring the pedophiles who entice children to meetings that will end up scarring their psyche forever.
But what can really be done? I have some ideas.
Rather than looking to the government to solve the problem which always seems to result in high taxes, bureaucracy, and loss of freedom, why not let the users of the internet solve the problem? Here's how:
1. If you are sending advertising email, you must register with an internet-based clearinghouse. If you are not registered, your email will be flagged as such when it is sent through the web to the recipient address. The flag can then be read by the receiving email program, which can be configured to reject or segregate those emails as spam. This way, no unwanted or unsolicited email has to ever make it through.
2. With registered advertisers, consumers have the ability to easily report them as spammers. This would result in a rating that is also placed in the emails sent from the advertiser, say 1 to 5, where 1 indicates little or no spamming complaints and 5 indicates this is a major spammer. Email systems could be configured to accept or reject these emails based on the rating.
3. Users of social networking sites can already simply report those they suspect of being predators or of misusing the site. The site managers can then act on those reports by suspending access to the predators.
4. Companies should loosen their restrictions on employee web surfing. There's nothing wrong with an employee reading a news site in the morning or shopping on ebay during their lunch break. If an employee is wasting valuable work time surfing the net, that's a management issue that should be addressed by the supervisor with the offending employee. Shutting down internet access for employees simply equates with lazy managers who don't want to deal with the problem directly.
I think that if everyone who uses the net has the opportunity and ability to stop abuse with an easy reporting mechanism, we could all solve most of the problems ourselves.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Two Worldviews
The striking thing about watching the debates with the presidential candidates is the very different worldviews of the candidates from each party. It seems after watching the Democrats debate, then the Republicans, that there are two different countries electing a president.
In the Republican world, the most important issues are national security, the economy, taxes, and illegal immigration.
In the alternative universe occupied by the Democrats, the most important issues are healthcare, foreign policy, and absolute destruction of George W. Bush.
I've been struck by the misleading simplicity of candidates' so-called "solutions". On the GOP side, candidates play king of the hill trying to prove who will be the toughest in solving the illegal immigration problem. The problem is, from McCain to Giuliani to Romney to Huckabee, most of them have identifiable past records that belie their newfound commitment to the issue.
On the Democrat side, the success of the Iraq Surge has them looking rather foolish in continuing to promise to destroy that success with an immediate and abrupt withdrawal of troops. Or is that really what they plan to do? The front-runners, Hillary and Barack, actually have indicated they wouldn't abruptly remove the troops. So they're lying about it one way or the other - we just can't tell which way.
But I'm especially disturbed by the demagoguery of Democrats on Healthcare and economic policy. They either aren't smart enough or are too power-hungry to recognize that a federal government takeover of healthcare would be disastrous; I'm the first to admit that healthcare is a major problem for the country, but simply funding it for everyone through taxation and government micromanagement won't solve it.
Their economic policy seems to be little more than punitive. They appeal to the masses with their class envy message that the "rich" have had a free ride for too long and need to be punished with much higher taxes. The logic-defying approach goes like this:
Oil companies are making billions of dollars and deserve to be punished with a Jimmy Carter style "windfall profits tax". OK, so how is it exactly that an attempt by the government to confiscate a major percentage of profits from global oil companies going to lower gas prices at the pump? Better yet, since Jimmy Carter tried it back in the 70's, how did that work out?
Not well, as I recall.
There are very simple choices coming up in this presidential election.
Vote for the Democrat (Hillary or Barack, there's not much difference) if you:
Think Christians are a major problem in America whose influence needs to be lessened or eliminated,
Think it's a great idea to tax rich people, defined as everyone who makes more than you do. I wonder, how much should they pay? The 70% they paid under Jimmy Carter? How much should the government confiscate from Americans?
Think the only solution to the healthcare mess in the country is government-run healthcare paid for by taxes levied on everybody who makes more than you do. I wonder, how do you feel about a bureaucrat in Washington, DC deciding whether or not you need a certain surgery or treatment or prescription drug instead of your doctor? How would you feel about fat people and smokers being denied healthcare entirely because of their unhealthy behavior (This is actually being proposed by some on your side).
Think that we should just pull the troops out of Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well. Then let the new Democrat president work his or her magic through negotiations and diplomacy and the United Nations to achieve world peace. While we're at it, I've got a bridge in New York I can sell you - hurry before somebody else jumps on this deal!
Vote for a Republican if you:
Think the status quo is best and don't want anything changed substantially in government.
Think healthcare is fine as it is and doesn't need any solutions.
Think free trade is the single most important value to be protected by government; even if it entails importation of foreign workers, legal and illegal, and indiscriminate closings of US-based businesses to move the operations to a third-world country where they can make their products much more cheaply.
Sorry, you don't have any candidate to vote for if you:
Think illegal immigration is a major problem and needs to be solved through aggressive border enforcement and deportations.
Think terrorism is a real threat and rogue nations developing nuclear weapons must be stopped before they detonate one in Israel, Europe, or here in the US.
Think the tax code is outrageously corrupt and should be scrapped and rewritten based on a simple law: No tax can be levied unless it applies to everyone - no exceptions allowed.
Think fiscal responsibility and openness is important, and the practices of earmarks and political payoffs with taxpayer funds should be eliminated.
Sorry, the best presidential candidate will never be elected. There are too many people with too much power and money because of the current system who will never allow it.
In the Republican world, the most important issues are national security, the economy, taxes, and illegal immigration.
In the alternative universe occupied by the Democrats, the most important issues are healthcare, foreign policy, and absolute destruction of George W. Bush.
I've been struck by the misleading simplicity of candidates' so-called "solutions". On the GOP side, candidates play king of the hill trying to prove who will be the toughest in solving the illegal immigration problem. The problem is, from McCain to Giuliani to Romney to Huckabee, most of them have identifiable past records that belie their newfound commitment to the issue.
On the Democrat side, the success of the Iraq Surge has them looking rather foolish in continuing to promise to destroy that success with an immediate and abrupt withdrawal of troops. Or is that really what they plan to do? The front-runners, Hillary and Barack, actually have indicated they wouldn't abruptly remove the troops. So they're lying about it one way or the other - we just can't tell which way.
But I'm especially disturbed by the demagoguery of Democrats on Healthcare and economic policy. They either aren't smart enough or are too power-hungry to recognize that a federal government takeover of healthcare would be disastrous; I'm the first to admit that healthcare is a major problem for the country, but simply funding it for everyone through taxation and government micromanagement won't solve it.
Their economic policy seems to be little more than punitive. They appeal to the masses with their class envy message that the "rich" have had a free ride for too long and need to be punished with much higher taxes. The logic-defying approach goes like this:
Oil companies are making billions of dollars and deserve to be punished with a Jimmy Carter style "windfall profits tax". OK, so how is it exactly that an attempt by the government to confiscate a major percentage of profits from global oil companies going to lower gas prices at the pump? Better yet, since Jimmy Carter tried it back in the 70's, how did that work out?
Not well, as I recall.
There are very simple choices coming up in this presidential election.
Vote for the Democrat (Hillary or Barack, there's not much difference) if you:
Think Christians are a major problem in America whose influence needs to be lessened or eliminated,
Think it's a great idea to tax rich people, defined as everyone who makes more than you do. I wonder, how much should they pay? The 70% they paid under Jimmy Carter? How much should the government confiscate from Americans?
Think the only solution to the healthcare mess in the country is government-run healthcare paid for by taxes levied on everybody who makes more than you do. I wonder, how do you feel about a bureaucrat in Washington, DC deciding whether or not you need a certain surgery or treatment or prescription drug instead of your doctor? How would you feel about fat people and smokers being denied healthcare entirely because of their unhealthy behavior (This is actually being proposed by some on your side).
Think that we should just pull the troops out of Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well. Then let the new Democrat president work his or her magic through negotiations and diplomacy and the United Nations to achieve world peace. While we're at it, I've got a bridge in New York I can sell you - hurry before somebody else jumps on this deal!
Vote for a Republican if you:
Think the status quo is best and don't want anything changed substantially in government.
Think healthcare is fine as it is and doesn't need any solutions.
Think free trade is the single most important value to be protected by government; even if it entails importation of foreign workers, legal and illegal, and indiscriminate closings of US-based businesses to move the operations to a third-world country where they can make their products much more cheaply.
Sorry, you don't have any candidate to vote for if you:
Think illegal immigration is a major problem and needs to be solved through aggressive border enforcement and deportations.
Think terrorism is a real threat and rogue nations developing nuclear weapons must be stopped before they detonate one in Israel, Europe, or here in the US.
Think the tax code is outrageously corrupt and should be scrapped and rewritten based on a simple law: No tax can be levied unless it applies to everyone - no exceptions allowed.
Think fiscal responsibility and openness is important, and the practices of earmarks and political payoffs with taxpayer funds should be eliminated.
Sorry, the best presidential candidate will never be elected. There are too many people with too much power and money because of the current system who will never allow it.
Monday, January 07, 2008
More Football
Can't help myself; I'm just a fan.
The NFL is shaking out toward the interesting playoff weekend, with the intriguing questions to be answered:
Do the Jaguars have a prayer of knocking out the perfect Patriots in bad weather in Massachusetts?
Can the Chargers knock off the Colts in Indy? Was their victory over Indy in San Diego an indicator of what could happen this weekend, or did the Chargers simply catch a battered Colts team after their physically and emotionally damaging loss to the Patriots less than a week before?
Can the Seahawks follow up their pounding of Washington to upset Brett Favre and the Packers? Have the Packers been slumping with late-season losses, or were they just keeping their powder dry for the playoffs?
Are the Cowboys still the anointed favorites of the NFC for the Super Bowl, or are they vulnerable with a missing or weakened T.O.? Can anything be made of the Cowboys' late-season slump and the corresponding Giants surge? Can Eli Manning play well enough to beat the Cowboys in their stadium?
As a fan, I'm hoping for a Colts-Packers Super Bowl. Barring that, I could also enjoy a Colts-Giants Super Bowl with the Manning brothers in a repeat of the season opener.
The worst case scenario is the Patriots and Cowboys, as far as I'm concerned. Even though the national sports networks might view that as the dream matchup, I'd be extremely disappointed to see it come about.
I think the Colts will have little trouble with the Chargers, and will most likely have to face the Patriots for the AFC Championship. The Colts have a chance to beat the Pats, but they will have to play their best game of the year to do so. I think the Colts beat the Chargers about 28-13.
I think the Patriots will beat Jacksonville, but in a very close game. My prediction is a fourth-quarter touchdown drive engineered by Tom Brady to come from behind to beat the Jags. Score in this one I think will be 21-17.
I don't think the Giants will have enough firepower to beat the Cowboys, as much as I'd like to see it happen. It could be a close, low-scoring game. Score 17-14.
And I'm counting on the home-field frozen tundra advantage to propel the Packers over the Seahawks. If the weather's bad, I think it will be 20-10.
We'll see how my predictions hold up this weekend.
The NFL is shaking out toward the interesting playoff weekend, with the intriguing questions to be answered:
Do the Jaguars have a prayer of knocking out the perfect Patriots in bad weather in Massachusetts?
Can the Chargers knock off the Colts in Indy? Was their victory over Indy in San Diego an indicator of what could happen this weekend, or did the Chargers simply catch a battered Colts team after their physically and emotionally damaging loss to the Patriots less than a week before?
Can the Seahawks follow up their pounding of Washington to upset Brett Favre and the Packers? Have the Packers been slumping with late-season losses, or were they just keeping their powder dry for the playoffs?
Are the Cowboys still the anointed favorites of the NFC for the Super Bowl, or are they vulnerable with a missing or weakened T.O.? Can anything be made of the Cowboys' late-season slump and the corresponding Giants surge? Can Eli Manning play well enough to beat the Cowboys in their stadium?
As a fan, I'm hoping for a Colts-Packers Super Bowl. Barring that, I could also enjoy a Colts-Giants Super Bowl with the Manning brothers in a repeat of the season opener.
The worst case scenario is the Patriots and Cowboys, as far as I'm concerned. Even though the national sports networks might view that as the dream matchup, I'd be extremely disappointed to see it come about.
I think the Colts will have little trouble with the Chargers, and will most likely have to face the Patriots for the AFC Championship. The Colts have a chance to beat the Pats, but they will have to play their best game of the year to do so. I think the Colts beat the Chargers about 28-13.
I think the Patriots will beat Jacksonville, but in a very close game. My prediction is a fourth-quarter touchdown drive engineered by Tom Brady to come from behind to beat the Jags. Score in this one I think will be 21-17.
I don't think the Giants will have enough firepower to beat the Cowboys, as much as I'd like to see it happen. It could be a close, low-scoring game. Score 17-14.
And I'm counting on the home-field frozen tundra advantage to propel the Packers over the Seahawks. If the weather's bad, I think it will be 20-10.
We'll see how my predictions hold up this weekend.
Friday, January 04, 2008
And the Winner is ... Oprah?
As I watched the results from the Iowa caucuses last night, I just found it interesting that Obama broke away from the 3-way pack to win over Edwards and Hillary. I figured he must have had a good campaign in Iowa to get so many to support him over the other two Democrats.
After all, Edwards has virtually lived in Iowa the last four years, and it seems in that time he must have met virtually every Democrat in the state. And Hillary's formidable machine with its inexhaustible millions from MoveOn and China would seem to have made her inevitable.
But then I heard something that explained it all. Who came out to the caucuses in Iowa in record numbers? Middle-aged women. As I understand the story behind the Iowa caucus story, the Democrat caucus sites were jammed with unprecedented numbers, almost all of them 50-60 year old women.
What could possibly have motivated so many middle-aged women to turn out in such record-breaking numbers to support Barack Obama for President?
Oprah, of course!
Middle-aged women watch Oprah. They love Oprah. They watch her TV show. They subscribe to her magazine. Those who read buy the books she recommends.
So, when Oprah tells them to get out and vote for Obama, what do these women do? See Iowa.
Think Rush Limbaugh is the most influential Republican? Nah, he doesn't even like Huckabee, who won big in Iowa. He can't hold a candle to Oprah.
Could it be, that our next president will be chosen by a TV talk show host?
Interesting. And a bit frightening.
After all, Edwards has virtually lived in Iowa the last four years, and it seems in that time he must have met virtually every Democrat in the state. And Hillary's formidable machine with its inexhaustible millions from MoveOn and China would seem to have made her inevitable.
But then I heard something that explained it all. Who came out to the caucuses in Iowa in record numbers? Middle-aged women. As I understand the story behind the Iowa caucus story, the Democrat caucus sites were jammed with unprecedented numbers, almost all of them 50-60 year old women.
What could possibly have motivated so many middle-aged women to turn out in such record-breaking numbers to support Barack Obama for President?
Oprah, of course!
Middle-aged women watch Oprah. They love Oprah. They watch her TV show. They subscribe to her magazine. Those who read buy the books she recommends.
So, when Oprah tells them to get out and vote for Obama, what do these women do? See Iowa.
Think Rush Limbaugh is the most influential Republican? Nah, he doesn't even like Huckabee, who won big in Iowa. He can't hold a candle to Oprah.
Could it be, that our next president will be chosen by a TV talk show host?
Interesting. And a bit frightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)