The various companies I visit in the course of my profession range across the entire spectrum when it comes to granting employees access to the internet.
At one extreme, I have a client that only allows web access to Managers and above. They won't even give email to the rest of their staff.
At the other extreme are clients who place no restrictions at all on their employees related to internet activities. However, I believe some of those clients do monitor web activities of employees and will deal with excessive browsing or visits to inappropriate sites.
For me, the restrictive companies seem counterproductive. I've directly observed the inefficiency of being unable to communicate with staff members in the company that denies all web access to employees.
Many companies restrict access to certain types of sites, such as game sites, porn sites, social networking sites and blogs.
It reminds me of when an old employer of mine implemented a no-smoking policy. Employees could not smoke in the office, but could only smoke in designated outdoor smoking areas.
There was a high percentage of smokers in the operations department. Since it was a trucking company, those employees were responsible for taking customer and driver calls, coordinating pickups and deliveries and giving instructions to drivers.
So the smoking ban sent those folks outside for their nicotine fix. Problem was that they were spending almost as much time away from their post on smoke breaks as at their desk performing their duties. Naturally, their non-smoking co-workers became offended by a perceived special treatment that allowed the smokers much longer and more frequent breaks.
Of course, technically those smokers were not permitted any more or longer breaks than anyone else. They simply were taking them on their own initiatives to feed their nicotine addictions.
So rather than dealing with the problem by cracking down on enforcement of scheduled breaks, their managers decided to rescind the non-smoking policy for that department. By allowing the smokers to resume their habits at their desks, important calls were no longer missed and business went back to normal.
One little problem with their approach to that problem: People were hired during the non-smoking policy under the promise of a smoke-free workplace. Some of those people were intolerant of cigarette smoke with specific respiratory problems. Guess what happened when the managers of the operations department rescinded the non-smoking policy.
I think restriction of web access for employees is something of a parallel to the smoking ban. Shutting down web access is lazy management. Managers don't want the responsibility or the conflict of having to deal with an employee who might be abusing the priviledge of web access at work, so they choose to shut it down completely.
I like to listed to web radio at work, which is blocked by many companies. Perhaps if it's blocked due to a possible bandwidth problem, I could see the logic of that policy.
But otherwise, employees should be treated like adults. Tell them up-front that they will have web access, but are expected to limit web browsing and avoid inappropriate sites. If they visit inappropriate sites or their web browsing affects their job performance, they will be verbally warned the first time, receive a written warning to go into their Personnel file the second time, and will be terminated the third time.
Very simple, but lazy managers don't want to be bothered.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Supreme Insight
What was most troubling for me about the Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's voting identification law was that three justices actually dissented.
As I do with any issue, I searched for arguments on the side against the law, which simply requires voters to present a photo ID when they arrive at the precinct to vote in an election. If someone shows up without a photo ID, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the individual shows up at the courthouse within 10 days to prove they are who they claim and are indeed eligible to vote. In addition, anyone who doesn't have a drivers licence may obtain a free photo ID from the BMV with proof of citizenship.
The ACLU and their Democrat Party allies brought the suit against Indiana, claiming it would disenfranchise a substantial number of poor voters who don't have a valid photo ID.
Naturally, my question for them was, who exactly? I searched in vain for an answer to that simple question. The only people I could think of that could possibly be affected negatively by the law are the Amish, who have a religious objection to having their photos taken. Since Indiana dealt with that issue long ago when it came up in a licensing law for their buggies, I'm pretty sure the Amish issue is addressed. Even if it's not, my knowledge of the Amish would seem to indicate they would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, so I'm also pretty sure the ACLU wasn't trying to protect their voting rights.
So the court essentially said that there was no evidence presented that identified a single voter who was unreasonably denied their right to vote because of this law.
News reports also said there also was very little evidence presented suggesting any widespread voter fraud, which the voter ID law was designed to stop. I am curious about that, but suspect the reason is because any effort to find voter fraud is certain to result in angry charges of "disenfranchisement" and "harrassment".
Stories have abounded here in Indiana for years about busloads of people in Indianapolis and Gary and East Chicago being ferried around to the various precincts by Democrat Party officials. According to the stories, at each precinct, each person on the bus is handed a name, which is the name they assume when they enter and sign in at the precinct. They cast their votes and move on to the next precinct, where the process is repeated.
Also often repeated are the stories about Democrats registering illegal immigrants and taking them to the polls to vote as well. Poll workers often report hispanics who obviously can't speak English signing in and voting. It's not too difficult to figure out that someone who can't speak English is almost certainly not a citizen.
So the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the real objection to Indiana's voter ID law is that these longtime Democrat practices of fraudulent voting will be mostly stopped.
Which is the reason I'm very troubled that 3 Supreme Court justices actually dissented. What that tells me is that those 3 justices could care less about the constitution or rule of law, and are unqualified to hold their positions on the court.
Just a brief reminder to those who are ready to vote for Hillary or Barack; those 3 unqualified justices will almost certainly be joined by 2 to 3 more just like them within the next few years should either of those Democrats win the Presidency. If they can't get a clear-cut ruling like this one right, imagine what havoc they can create for our country if they are able to become the majority of the court.
As I do with any issue, I searched for arguments on the side against the law, which simply requires voters to present a photo ID when they arrive at the precinct to vote in an election. If someone shows up without a photo ID, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the individual shows up at the courthouse within 10 days to prove they are who they claim and are indeed eligible to vote. In addition, anyone who doesn't have a drivers licence may obtain a free photo ID from the BMV with proof of citizenship.
The ACLU and their Democrat Party allies brought the suit against Indiana, claiming it would disenfranchise a substantial number of poor voters who don't have a valid photo ID.
Naturally, my question for them was, who exactly? I searched in vain for an answer to that simple question. The only people I could think of that could possibly be affected negatively by the law are the Amish, who have a religious objection to having their photos taken. Since Indiana dealt with that issue long ago when it came up in a licensing law for their buggies, I'm pretty sure the Amish issue is addressed. Even if it's not, my knowledge of the Amish would seem to indicate they would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, so I'm also pretty sure the ACLU wasn't trying to protect their voting rights.
So the court essentially said that there was no evidence presented that identified a single voter who was unreasonably denied their right to vote because of this law.
News reports also said there also was very little evidence presented suggesting any widespread voter fraud, which the voter ID law was designed to stop. I am curious about that, but suspect the reason is because any effort to find voter fraud is certain to result in angry charges of "disenfranchisement" and "harrassment".
Stories have abounded here in Indiana for years about busloads of people in Indianapolis and Gary and East Chicago being ferried around to the various precincts by Democrat Party officials. According to the stories, at each precinct, each person on the bus is handed a name, which is the name they assume when they enter and sign in at the precinct. They cast their votes and move on to the next precinct, where the process is repeated.
Also often repeated are the stories about Democrats registering illegal immigrants and taking them to the polls to vote as well. Poll workers often report hispanics who obviously can't speak English signing in and voting. It's not too difficult to figure out that someone who can't speak English is almost certainly not a citizen.
So the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the real objection to Indiana's voter ID law is that these longtime Democrat practices of fraudulent voting will be mostly stopped.
Which is the reason I'm very troubled that 3 Supreme Court justices actually dissented. What that tells me is that those 3 justices could care less about the constitution or rule of law, and are unqualified to hold their positions on the court.
Just a brief reminder to those who are ready to vote for Hillary or Barack; those 3 unqualified justices will almost certainly be joined by 2 to 3 more just like them within the next few years should either of those Democrats win the Presidency. If they can't get a clear-cut ruling like this one right, imagine what havoc they can create for our country if they are able to become the majority of the court.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Academic Freedom?
I had a chance to see the Ben Stein film, Expelled.
Rather than summarizing the film here, I'll just suggest you go see it yourself. For me it clarified an issue that had intrigued and puzzled me before.
Now that I know what Intelligent Design actually is, I have perhaps a better perspective on why it is so loudly vilified and excoriated by academics.
The larger story is about academic intolerance. Academia has become the home for left-wing radicalism, and Ben Stein's exploration of the big flap about ID is merely a single example.
How many times have you heard the phrase,
The science on this matter is settled.
or
This is the consensus of the scientific community.
If you are a scientist who dares question one of these "settled" or "consensus" hot button issues, you do so at the risk of your career.
How can you be denied tenure? By sexual harrassment of students in your class? Probably not. By pointing out the flaws in Darwin's Origin of the Species? In a heartbeat.
How can you be fired from your position in government or even The Weather Channel? By pointing out the flaws in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Unemployment line, here we come.
How many scientists have lost tenure or research funding at our universities only because they've tried to stay true to the mission of science; which is to always question and explore? I'm not sure anybody knows for sure, but Ben Stein seems to suggest it's widespread and endemic.
I wonder how much this academic intolerance spills over into other courses of study? If biologists and climatologists are not permitted to pursue their professions unless they toe the party line, how about others? Are musicians, historians, engineers, chemists also required to fall into lockstep with the Marxist politics of today's universities if they hope to attain and keep their tenured positions?
It would seem so.
Rather than summarizing the film here, I'll just suggest you go see it yourself. For me it clarified an issue that had intrigued and puzzled me before.
Now that I know what Intelligent Design actually is, I have perhaps a better perspective on why it is so loudly vilified and excoriated by academics.
The larger story is about academic intolerance. Academia has become the home for left-wing radicalism, and Ben Stein's exploration of the big flap about ID is merely a single example.
How many times have you heard the phrase,
The science on this matter is settled.
or
This is the consensus of the scientific community.
If you are a scientist who dares question one of these "settled" or "consensus" hot button issues, you do so at the risk of your career.
How can you be denied tenure? By sexual harrassment of students in your class? Probably not. By pointing out the flaws in Darwin's Origin of the Species? In a heartbeat.
How can you be fired from your position in government or even The Weather Channel? By pointing out the flaws in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Unemployment line, here we come.
How many scientists have lost tenure or research funding at our universities only because they've tried to stay true to the mission of science; which is to always question and explore? I'm not sure anybody knows for sure, but Ben Stein seems to suggest it's widespread and endemic.
I wonder how much this academic intolerance spills over into other courses of study? If biologists and climatologists are not permitted to pursue their professions unless they toe the party line, how about others? Are musicians, historians, engineers, chemists also required to fall into lockstep with the Marxist politics of today's universities if they hope to attain and keep their tenured positions?
It would seem so.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Messianic
Starting Saturday, when I returned home from my last work trip, through today, the local Republic newspaper has been running one fawning story after another on Barack Obama. The candidate visited Columbus last Friday and spoke at East High School.
All the newspaper articles, dominating the front page through the weekend and continuing to take space on Monday and Tuesday, have been uniform in their worship of the Democrat candidate from Illinois. They feature quotes from teachers and students, local Democrat politicians and activists, all gushing over Senator Obama. The praise for the candidate is so over the top that one would believe he is a Messianic figure. The star-struck supporters believe he will end war, end poverty, end racial divisions, and right all wrongs.
What's interesting is that there is not a single word in any of the articles from Obama's opponents, whether from supporters of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Which brings me to wish for a visit from John McCain.
If such a visit were to take place, how much would you be willing to bet on something I think would be inevitable? That the Republic's coverage of the event would be remarkably different. I'd bet that the newspaper would first of all restrict their coverage to the day after the event, rather than the next 5 days. I'd also bet that the articles would be much less star-struck, and would be salted heavily with negative comments from local Democrat Party activists.
Too bad it's an empirical study that won't be possible. But I'm guessing nobody will be willing to take me up on my bet.
The other striking observation I made after reading every one of the newpaper articles was their total lack of coverage of Obama's actual policy proposals. I found it hilarious that one of the Obama worshippers interviewed gushed about how clearly he stated his positions on important issues. The natural question arising from that quote was, "and what positions were those, exactly?".
All that newsprint, and somehow the Republic managed to forget to share with us the specifics of Obama's policies. Aside from the famous Obama stuff about "hope" and "change". Or was it "change" and "hope"?
Have we really become so shallow and ignorant as a people?
All the newspaper articles, dominating the front page through the weekend and continuing to take space on Monday and Tuesday, have been uniform in their worship of the Democrat candidate from Illinois. They feature quotes from teachers and students, local Democrat politicians and activists, all gushing over Senator Obama. The praise for the candidate is so over the top that one would believe he is a Messianic figure. The star-struck supporters believe he will end war, end poverty, end racial divisions, and right all wrongs.
What's interesting is that there is not a single word in any of the articles from Obama's opponents, whether from supporters of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Which brings me to wish for a visit from John McCain.
If such a visit were to take place, how much would you be willing to bet on something I think would be inevitable? That the Republic's coverage of the event would be remarkably different. I'd bet that the newspaper would first of all restrict their coverage to the day after the event, rather than the next 5 days. I'd also bet that the articles would be much less star-struck, and would be salted heavily with negative comments from local Democrat Party activists.
Too bad it's an empirical study that won't be possible. But I'm guessing nobody will be willing to take me up on my bet.
The other striking observation I made after reading every one of the newpaper articles was their total lack of coverage of Obama's actual policy proposals. I found it hilarious that one of the Obama worshippers interviewed gushed about how clearly he stated his positions on important issues. The natural question arising from that quote was, "and what positions were those, exactly?".
All that newsprint, and somehow the Republic managed to forget to share with us the specifics of Obama's policies. Aside from the famous Obama stuff about "hope" and "change". Or was it "change" and "hope"?
Have we really become so shallow and ignorant as a people?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Thought Police
Homosexual behavior is deviant and morally wrong.
By posting the above statement in this public forum, I have now subjected myself to the sanctions of a very real Thought Police.
If I were a holder of public office, I could be driven from that office because I wrote that sentence. If I were to decide to run for public office in the future, that sentence in the blog post would most certainly be used against me by political rivals to ascribe a wide range of horrible and untrue characterizations of my beliefs.
If I were an employee of one of a list of certain corporations, I would be subject to sanctions or possibly termination, should a co-worker report my posting of that sentence to management. A gay co-worker would likely be successful in charging me with sexual harassment for that one-sentence statement.
It is even conceivable that this blog could be blocked or flagged as one containing offensive material because of that sentence.
For evidence, a relevant case. It's from Canada, which is admittedly well to the left of the United States on the liberal scale.
During my rather long wait for my flight out of Toronto yesterday, I spent some time watching the news reports on the flat screen television next to my gate. The lead story was about a member of the Canadian parliament who had been embarrassed by a 17 year old video in which he reportedly made offensive remarks about homosexuals.
The report showed clips from the video without sound, but did not provide any information about what the unfortunate politician actually said. His remarks from the old video were simply characterized as insensitive, intolerant, hurtful, and offensive. The reporter, who could be reasonably described as exhibiting the appearance and mannerisms consistent with the homosexual community, seemed emotionally involved in the story, reporting that "people" were terribly upset by the remarks and wanted the offending politician to resign his office.
The politician made a very public, very humble apology on the floor in front of the entire assembly, but of course it made little or no difference to his political foes and the reporter.
A contextual hint in the story was that the video was made during a party 17 years ago. Although no attempt was made in the report to put the fellow's comments in context, it seems reasonable to consider they could have been an off-color joke or a drunken faux-pas. Maybe he was simply stating something similar to the opening sentence in this post. The reporters of the story have no curiosity about any of that.
Here's where we've arrived. We live in a society where one is more likely to be severely punished for their words than for their actions. The idea is further illustrated by the modern prevalence of "Hate Crime" laws, where a crime is punished severely only if the perpetrator can be presumed to have committed the crime because of hatred of the victim because the victim belonged to a specific interest group.
Have sex with an intern, commit perjury about it and persuade others to lie about it in court? No problem, assuming you're of Liberal persuasion. Say something that might offend someone who is a member of an aggrieved interest group? Off with his head! (Assuming you're of Conservative persuasion.)
Gotta go now. I think the cops are knocking on my door.
By posting the above statement in this public forum, I have now subjected myself to the sanctions of a very real Thought Police.
If I were a holder of public office, I could be driven from that office because I wrote that sentence. If I were to decide to run for public office in the future, that sentence in the blog post would most certainly be used against me by political rivals to ascribe a wide range of horrible and untrue characterizations of my beliefs.
If I were an employee of one of a list of certain corporations, I would be subject to sanctions or possibly termination, should a co-worker report my posting of that sentence to management. A gay co-worker would likely be successful in charging me with sexual harassment for that one-sentence statement.
It is even conceivable that this blog could be blocked or flagged as one containing offensive material because of that sentence.
For evidence, a relevant case. It's from Canada, which is admittedly well to the left of the United States on the liberal scale.
During my rather long wait for my flight out of Toronto yesterday, I spent some time watching the news reports on the flat screen television next to my gate. The lead story was about a member of the Canadian parliament who had been embarrassed by a 17 year old video in which he reportedly made offensive remarks about homosexuals.
The report showed clips from the video without sound, but did not provide any information about what the unfortunate politician actually said. His remarks from the old video were simply characterized as insensitive, intolerant, hurtful, and offensive. The reporter, who could be reasonably described as exhibiting the appearance and mannerisms consistent with the homosexual community, seemed emotionally involved in the story, reporting that "people" were terribly upset by the remarks and wanted the offending politician to resign his office.
The politician made a very public, very humble apology on the floor in front of the entire assembly, but of course it made little or no difference to his political foes and the reporter.
A contextual hint in the story was that the video was made during a party 17 years ago. Although no attempt was made in the report to put the fellow's comments in context, it seems reasonable to consider they could have been an off-color joke or a drunken faux-pas. Maybe he was simply stating something similar to the opening sentence in this post. The reporters of the story have no curiosity about any of that.
Here's where we've arrived. We live in a society where one is more likely to be severely punished for their words than for their actions. The idea is further illustrated by the modern prevalence of "Hate Crime" laws, where a crime is punished severely only if the perpetrator can be presumed to have committed the crime because of hatred of the victim because the victim belonged to a specific interest group.
Have sex with an intern, commit perjury about it and persuade others to lie about it in court? No problem, assuming you're of Liberal persuasion. Say something that might offend someone who is a member of an aggrieved interest group? Off with his head! (Assuming you're of Conservative persuasion.)
Gotta go now. I think the cops are knocking on my door.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Throwing things at CNN
Why do I let it get to me? Whenever I go to Canada, my only source for news is CNN. Even knowing that CNN is the United States' modern equivalent to the Soviet Pravda, I watch anyway. Eventually after awhile I can't stand it anymore and turn it off or turn to something else.
This week I decided to try an experiment. On the news programs, whenever they did a segment on politics and the presidential race, I decided to try keeping track of some basic questions:
Did they spend more time on Democrats or Republicans?
Did they present any usable information about candidates' stands on issues?
Did they tend to be positive or negative in reporting about each candidate?
Here's what I gathered, between their morning program with John Roberts and Kieren Chetra (sp?) and Wolf Blitzer's program in the evening.
From a time perspective, they spend more time talking about Hillary and Barack than about McCain. My estimate on the ratio is about 4 to 1.
Issues? No. I learned nothing about any candidates' positions on issues. With the two Democrats all they talked about the fighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and fretted about how it was bad for the Democrat party. I laughed in one segment where they had all their "policital analysts" on, not one of them a conservative, and the "analysts" let slip more than once an "us" or "our" when referring to the Democrat party.
When they talk about the flaps over Barack's pastor or Hillary's big Bosnia lie, they are mostly focused on urging the campaigns and the rest of the media to shut up about both. They fret openly that the big fights on the Democrat side might open the door to a McCain victory, which they have made clear is their vision of Hell on Earth.
Interestingly, the only policy stuff I got to hear was a sound bite from McCain. He was talking about why he feels it is so important not to abandon Iraq at this critical time. I thought, "wait for it..." and they didn't disappoint. They brought in their "panel", the most vocal of whom was their own communist curmudgeon Cafferty, who pretty much just made fun of McCain's stance and denounced him as just another George W. Bush. With nobody even giving a thought to offering a counter argument to his rants.
Policy information about Obama and Clinton? None. Nada. Oh sure, platitudes like Obama's continued themes on "hope" and "change". And general vague statements about Hillary's wonderful plan to fix Healthcare. Nothing of substance.
No wonder Canadians have such a skewed view of the US. CNN being their only source for US news, they have no idea how badly CNN and their media cousins distort things, let alone that there are actually points of view on current events that strongly differ from those so carefully propagandized at CNN 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
This week I decided to try an experiment. On the news programs, whenever they did a segment on politics and the presidential race, I decided to try keeping track of some basic questions:
Did they spend more time on Democrats or Republicans?
Did they present any usable information about candidates' stands on issues?
Did they tend to be positive or negative in reporting about each candidate?
Here's what I gathered, between their morning program with John Roberts and Kieren Chetra (sp?) and Wolf Blitzer's program in the evening.
From a time perspective, they spend more time talking about Hillary and Barack than about McCain. My estimate on the ratio is about 4 to 1.
Issues? No. I learned nothing about any candidates' positions on issues. With the two Democrats all they talked about the fighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and fretted about how it was bad for the Democrat party. I laughed in one segment where they had all their "policital analysts" on, not one of them a conservative, and the "analysts" let slip more than once an "us" or "our" when referring to the Democrat party.
When they talk about the flaps over Barack's pastor or Hillary's big Bosnia lie, they are mostly focused on urging the campaigns and the rest of the media to shut up about both. They fret openly that the big fights on the Democrat side might open the door to a McCain victory, which they have made clear is their vision of Hell on Earth.
Interestingly, the only policy stuff I got to hear was a sound bite from McCain. He was talking about why he feels it is so important not to abandon Iraq at this critical time. I thought, "wait for it..." and they didn't disappoint. They brought in their "panel", the most vocal of whom was their own communist curmudgeon Cafferty, who pretty much just made fun of McCain's stance and denounced him as just another George W. Bush. With nobody even giving a thought to offering a counter argument to his rants.
Policy information about Obama and Clinton? None. Nada. Oh sure, platitudes like Obama's continued themes on "hope" and "change". And general vague statements about Hillary's wonderful plan to fix Healthcare. Nothing of substance.
No wonder Canadians have such a skewed view of the US. CNN being their only source for US news, they have no idea how badly CNN and their media cousins distort things, let alone that there are actually points of view on current events that strongly differ from those so carefully propagandized at CNN 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Nobody Left for Hoosiers
It was exciting to have four Indiana schools in the NCAA basketball men's tournament. Unfortunately with the end of Easter weekend, none of the four have made it through to the Sweet 16.
Least surprising to me was Indiana University. The wheels came off that team when the Sampson scandal broke, and the team that played Arkansas this weekend barely resembled the team we saw pre-scandal. That team would have beaten Arkansas soundly, although they would have needed an inspired game to advance past North Carolina.
But the Indiana team that took the court against Arkansas probably didn't even deserve an entry into the tournament. They flatly aren't very good. They lost their energy and aggressiveness, which shows up on both defense and offense. Defensively they were disappointingly easy for Arkansas to break down for wide open baskets. Offensively most of the team stood around and waited for DJ White or Eric Gordon to make a play. DJ made his share, but Gordon has looked shellshocked over the last half-dozen games.
Purdue had a very nice outing for their first game, but their talented freshmen couldn't catch up with a very good Xavier team. The future is bright for Purdue, which I expect to contend for the Big Ten title next season and probably go farther in the tournament.
Notre Dame had a disappointing collapse, dropping their second-round game to Washington State by 20 points. It's hard to say what happened to the Irish, which I believed to be a better team than they showed in that game. Nerves, perhaps?
Finally, the team with the best chance of the four to make it through to next weekend was Butler. Butler's effort against Tennessee cannot be faulted, but I was surprised at the number of missed layups by Butler in the second half. Sometimes it's possible to give too much effort, which results in things like missed layups.
It was still a great and exciting game to watch, with Tennessee matching Butler's intensity. So close, but Butler just caught some bad breaks, missed some layups, and had a critical non-call on what looked like a goaltend late in the overtime period.
So I've got no teams left in the tournament to follow. Although I've considered a temporary adoption of Davidson. There's an underdog team that's been fun to watch.
The sports desert of spring and summer is otherwise here. I lost interest in baseball after their last strike, and no other summer sports appeal. So there's not much for me to follow in sports until football starts again at summer's end.
Least surprising to me was Indiana University. The wheels came off that team when the Sampson scandal broke, and the team that played Arkansas this weekend barely resembled the team we saw pre-scandal. That team would have beaten Arkansas soundly, although they would have needed an inspired game to advance past North Carolina.
But the Indiana team that took the court against Arkansas probably didn't even deserve an entry into the tournament. They flatly aren't very good. They lost their energy and aggressiveness, which shows up on both defense and offense. Defensively they were disappointingly easy for Arkansas to break down for wide open baskets. Offensively most of the team stood around and waited for DJ White or Eric Gordon to make a play. DJ made his share, but Gordon has looked shellshocked over the last half-dozen games.
Purdue had a very nice outing for their first game, but their talented freshmen couldn't catch up with a very good Xavier team. The future is bright for Purdue, which I expect to contend for the Big Ten title next season and probably go farther in the tournament.
Notre Dame had a disappointing collapse, dropping their second-round game to Washington State by 20 points. It's hard to say what happened to the Irish, which I believed to be a better team than they showed in that game. Nerves, perhaps?
Finally, the team with the best chance of the four to make it through to next weekend was Butler. Butler's effort against Tennessee cannot be faulted, but I was surprised at the number of missed layups by Butler in the second half. Sometimes it's possible to give too much effort, which results in things like missed layups.
It was still a great and exciting game to watch, with Tennessee matching Butler's intensity. So close, but Butler just caught some bad breaks, missed some layups, and had a critical non-call on what looked like a goaltend late in the overtime period.
So I've got no teams left in the tournament to follow. Although I've considered a temporary adoption of Davidson. There's an underdog team that's been fun to watch.
The sports desert of spring and summer is otherwise here. I lost interest in baseball after their last strike, and no other summer sports appeal. So there's not much for me to follow in sports until football starts again at summer's end.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
More on Root Causes
I've been on this theme lately of boiling problems down to their root causes. The mental exercise keeps expanding until I get to the root of all root causes. And the most obvious root causes for most of our modern problems can be found in our culture.
So much is evident from just simply reading the newspaper or watching television. Our society is now driven on a cultural phenomenon of narcissism.
Just a few examples.
The typical Obama supporter is drawn to the man's charisma. Some support him because of his race. But most support him because they think they'll get something for themselves out of his presidency. They hope it will be "free" healthcare, or higher wages, or debt forgiveness, or just simply the prospect he will slap rich people with high taxes to cut them down to size, then somehow give the money to those more deserving. Like the Obama supporters.
I read an article the other day about religion. It said most Americans still believe generally in the Judeo-Christian God, and consider themselves Christian. But an incredibly high percentage of Americans don't belong to a church. Many others have "shopped" churches until they find the one most palatable to their needs and desires. It seems to begin to explain the rise of the non-denominational megachurches, which don't adhere to any specific doctrine, but preach feel-good sermons about self-actualization.
Christians often call this massive and growing group "Cafeteria Christians". They like to choose just those elements of faith that make them feel good. Love and fellowship and forgiveness are embraced, but put aside uncomfortable things like sin and charity.
Then there's the occasional interview with some celebrity or another talking about their latest divorce. It fascinates me to hear them speak of ending a marriage as if they merely replaced an old pair of shoes.
A very apt observation I was given is that people used to pursue a profession to make a living. Now they pursue their professions to get rich.
It is an historical truth that when societies reach a high level of prosperity and peace, they tend to abandon the virtues that bought them that prosperity. Eventually the barbarians invade and the society is ruined.
It seems to me the question is not whether this will happen. In fact, the barbarians are already knocking at the gates. I find it fascinating that so many are either ignoring that fact or even campaigning to open the gates wide and let them all in. They actually desire the destruction of our country, but somehow think they can escape such destruction unscathed.
There are tough times ahead.
So much is evident from just simply reading the newspaper or watching television. Our society is now driven on a cultural phenomenon of narcissism.
Just a few examples.
The typical Obama supporter is drawn to the man's charisma. Some support him because of his race. But most support him because they think they'll get something for themselves out of his presidency. They hope it will be "free" healthcare, or higher wages, or debt forgiveness, or just simply the prospect he will slap rich people with high taxes to cut them down to size, then somehow give the money to those more deserving. Like the Obama supporters.
I read an article the other day about religion. It said most Americans still believe generally in the Judeo-Christian God, and consider themselves Christian. But an incredibly high percentage of Americans don't belong to a church. Many others have "shopped" churches until they find the one most palatable to their needs and desires. It seems to begin to explain the rise of the non-denominational megachurches, which don't adhere to any specific doctrine, but preach feel-good sermons about self-actualization.
Christians often call this massive and growing group "Cafeteria Christians". They like to choose just those elements of faith that make them feel good. Love and fellowship and forgiveness are embraced, but put aside uncomfortable things like sin and charity.
Then there's the occasional interview with some celebrity or another talking about their latest divorce. It fascinates me to hear them speak of ending a marriage as if they merely replaced an old pair of shoes.
A very apt observation I was given is that people used to pursue a profession to make a living. Now they pursue their professions to get rich.
It is an historical truth that when societies reach a high level of prosperity and peace, they tend to abandon the virtues that bought them that prosperity. Eventually the barbarians invade and the society is ruined.
It seems to me the question is not whether this will happen. In fact, the barbarians are already knocking at the gates. I find it fascinating that so many are either ignoring that fact or even campaigning to open the gates wide and let them all in. They actually desire the destruction of our country, but somehow think they can escape such destruction unscathed.
There are tough times ahead.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Economic Cycles
There is a natural cycle that trends up and down in the economy, which I've observed several times over my lifetime. Now that it's the political season, we hear lots of doom and gloom over the current slump.
The news media, shallow partisans as they happen to be these days, would have us believe the economic problems should all be hung on their public enemy #1, George Bush. But as we analyze some of the root cause problems, how many of them are Bush's fault?
Energy Prices. Why is oil over $100 a barrel and gas over $3 at the pump? Because of the Iraq war?
Partly, but it's a much deeper problem than that. I caught a report yesterday that basically said there isn't a supply and demand problem, but a problem with the US Dollar. So if you want to blame Iraq as a contributory factor to the out-of-control spending of our government that has weakened the dollar significantly, you would be partly right. But to do so would fairly need to include the Senate and House, where both Republicans and Democrats have spent wildly and irresponsibly over the past decade and contributed to the currency problem.
Credit Crisis. Why the big crisis that started with mortgage defaults and is apparently now extending into consumer credit? Is Bush responsible?
If you consider Bush's clearly stated goals of opening home ownership to the population as the reason, that might be partly correct. But did he force lenders to open up the subprime market as they did, leading to mortgages granted to a huge population that truly could not qualify? Who is really culpable in the mess, where unqualified borrowers were given adjustable and teaser rate mortgages that would increase beyond their ability to pay in two or three years?
Sure, the lenders are culpable. So are the borrowers, who should have known better. And even the government, which put pressure on lenders to make loans to high-risk borrowers because of their race.
Consumer Confidence. Who created the fear among consumers that has caused most of them to reduce spending? High energy prices contributed. But the biggest contributor was the media, so anxious to report hour-by-hour for the last two years that the economy's headed for the tank. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? This is a terrific example.
You may recall there was a short recession at the end of the Clinton presidency, although it received almost no press coverage until after Bush was inaugurated. Then, of course, they immediately began hammering Bush as if he caused the recession instead of inherited it.
Then you also might recall that Bush got his tax cuts through congress and the economy improved dramatically. That also was barely reported. Just in time for 9-11. The economic slump that resulted from that event was very predictable, but again, we recovered in remarkable fashion.
Can the next president impact the length and depth of this recession?
I think only on the margins. If the president can get congress to spend less and tax less, that should improve the value of the dollar. Also, if the president can inspire confidence among the population to go out and start buying things again, that will help as well. But that's about it.
The news media, shallow partisans as they happen to be these days, would have us believe the economic problems should all be hung on their public enemy #1, George Bush. But as we analyze some of the root cause problems, how many of them are Bush's fault?
Energy Prices. Why is oil over $100 a barrel and gas over $3 at the pump? Because of the Iraq war?
Partly, but it's a much deeper problem than that. I caught a report yesterday that basically said there isn't a supply and demand problem, but a problem with the US Dollar. So if you want to blame Iraq as a contributory factor to the out-of-control spending of our government that has weakened the dollar significantly, you would be partly right. But to do so would fairly need to include the Senate and House, where both Republicans and Democrats have spent wildly and irresponsibly over the past decade and contributed to the currency problem.
Credit Crisis. Why the big crisis that started with mortgage defaults and is apparently now extending into consumer credit? Is Bush responsible?
If you consider Bush's clearly stated goals of opening home ownership to the population as the reason, that might be partly correct. But did he force lenders to open up the subprime market as they did, leading to mortgages granted to a huge population that truly could not qualify? Who is really culpable in the mess, where unqualified borrowers were given adjustable and teaser rate mortgages that would increase beyond their ability to pay in two or three years?
Sure, the lenders are culpable. So are the borrowers, who should have known better. And even the government, which put pressure on lenders to make loans to high-risk borrowers because of their race.
Consumer Confidence. Who created the fear among consumers that has caused most of them to reduce spending? High energy prices contributed. But the biggest contributor was the media, so anxious to report hour-by-hour for the last two years that the economy's headed for the tank. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? This is a terrific example.
You may recall there was a short recession at the end of the Clinton presidency, although it received almost no press coverage until after Bush was inaugurated. Then, of course, they immediately began hammering Bush as if he caused the recession instead of inherited it.
Then you also might recall that Bush got his tax cuts through congress and the economy improved dramatically. That also was barely reported. Just in time for 9-11. The economic slump that resulted from that event was very predictable, but again, we recovered in remarkable fashion.
Can the next president impact the length and depth of this recession?
I think only on the margins. If the president can get congress to spend less and tax less, that should improve the value of the dollar. Also, if the president can inspire confidence among the population to go out and start buying things again, that will help as well. But that's about it.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Discrimination
A topic came up this week discussing discrimination. The discussion was centered around the typical message which says it's bad to discriminate against people based on their appearance.
I wanted to ask my questions about that to the speaker, but of course didn't want to cause trouble and stayed silent. But I can ask my questions here.
In the context of the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of appearance, it's fairly easy to agree that people should not be excluded from a job, housing, a loan, or a school based on their race. Sure, if you have good credit you should get the loan or mortgage or be able to rent the apartment regardless of how you look. If you are the most qualified for the job among the applicants, you should get the job.
Here's where I have an issue. Discrimination happens every day and for a multitude of reasons. Who hasn't been in the market for a new job and found out they can't get many jobs for which they are highly qualified because the company decides to hire a friend or relative of a manager or executive?
When I was in college during the tight job market and awful Jimmy Carter economy, I had a couple of friends who lost great jobs simply because the company was under pressure to comply with affirmative action. Later, a terribly unqualified person was hired in the computer lab in which I worked because she threatened to bring a discrimination suit against the college for having no black employees in that department.
If I am interviewing applicants for a job, I would tend to discriminate against these types of people:
obese?
a smoker?
a harelip or cleft palate?
bad acne?
bad breath?
discolored, broken, or missing teeth?
a deformity or birthmark?
poor personal hygiene?
a 70's style wardrobe?
What if the person is -
a fundamentalist evangelical Christian?
a Muslim?
a Mormon?
a Catholic?
a Buddist?
an Atheist?
a variant of Paganism, like Wicca?
Back to the basics, is it OK to discriminate based on race if
Is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals if it's combined with other factors like inappropriate dress and behavior?
What's the point I'm trying to make?
Discrimination happens every day. Many times we can all agree that the discrimination in company hiring is unfair.
The problem is that when the government is asked to step in and force it to be fair, it can never work. Because the government then gets into the business of choosing winners and losers.
I wanted to ask my questions about that to the speaker, but of course didn't want to cause trouble and stayed silent. But I can ask my questions here.
In the context of the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of appearance, it's fairly easy to agree that people should not be excluded from a job, housing, a loan, or a school based on their race. Sure, if you have good credit you should get the loan or mortgage or be able to rent the apartment regardless of how you look. If you are the most qualified for the job among the applicants, you should get the job.
Here's where I have an issue. Discrimination happens every day and for a multitude of reasons. Who hasn't been in the market for a new job and found out they can't get many jobs for which they are highly qualified because the company decides to hire a friend or relative of a manager or executive?
When I was in college during the tight job market and awful Jimmy Carter economy, I had a couple of friends who lost great jobs simply because the company was under pressure to comply with affirmative action. Later, a terribly unqualified person was hired in the computer lab in which I worked because she threatened to bring a discrimination suit against the college for having no black employees in that department.
If I am interviewing applicants for a job, I would tend to discriminate against these types of people:
- Women that wear too much perfume or men too much cologne (I'm allergic)
- Anyone who does not wear clean and professional clothing to the interview
- Anyone who cannot speak clearly using proper English grammar
- Anyone who is militantly __________(fill in the blank)
- Those with personalities I don't like (extreme arrogance, fail to make eye contact, foul-mouthed, etc.)
obese?
a smoker?
a harelip or cleft palate?
bad acne?
bad breath?
discolored, broken, or missing teeth?
a deformity or birthmark?
poor personal hygiene?
a 70's style wardrobe?
What if the person is -
a fundamentalist evangelical Christian?
a Muslim?
a Mormon?
a Catholic?
a Buddist?
an Atheist?
a variant of Paganism, like Wicca?
Back to the basics, is it OK to discriminate based on race if
- it's combined with other factors like appropriate dress and speech?
- the intent is to give underprivileged minorities an opportunity?
- the company is owned by a racial minority who wants to hire just members of his own race?
- the company is owned by an immigrant who hires only other immigrants from his country of origin?
Is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals if it's combined with other factors like inappropriate dress and behavior?
What's the point I'm trying to make?
Discrimination happens every day. Many times we can all agree that the discrimination in company hiring is unfair.
The problem is that when the government is asked to step in and force it to be fair, it can never work. Because the government then gets into the business of choosing winners and losers.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
What Tax Relief?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)