The front page photo in this morning's Republic newspaper sent a shiver down my spine. The image showed a baby lying in one of those infant carriers in the foreground, with a rank of infant cribs and a daycare worker sitting in a rocking chair with another infant in her arms.
The photo was intended by the newspaper to depict a positive image of the local daycare center that was the subject of the article. That made me shudder every bit as much as the image itself - most people seem oblivious to the terrible implications of these child warehouses.
The article itself decried the fact that this daycare center, perhaps the largest in Columbus, was closed indefinitely because of the recent flood. How were these mothers going to find "quality daycare" to replace what had previously been provided by the center?
My fervent hope is that at least some of these mothers will come to their senses and realize their children need them more than the big house and new car and fulfilling career.
I've blogged before about the epidemic level of narcissism we've reached in this country. This article hit me like a bolt of lightning with the primary root cause of our societal illness; children raised by minimum-wage workers in baby warehouses.
If there's one thing I know from my life experience, it's this simple fact. Children need their mothers. They need their mothers to feed them, teach them, protect them, love them.
What's the lesson a child learns when their mother races back to work within a few weeks of giving birth?
That Mom's car, the nice house, her career, the resort vacations, her social status, are all more important than you, her child. So you grow up ingrained with the idea that life means getting all you can for yourself. Children are inconvenient, so they must be warehoused in daycare, then preschool, then school, so you can be free to be, and get, all you can.
Relationships are fleeting, because there's no such thing as lifetime commitment to anybody else. Sacrificing for somebody else is unnecessary. Why commit to a husband (or wife) when somebody better might come along?
I grew up before this sickness took hold, but I fear my generation may be the the first to become infected with the narcissism virus. We were given prosperity by our parents and grandparents, who learned the importance of family and morality from the hard times of the Great Depression and WWII. But like the rebellious children we were, we rejected and ridiculed the lessons they tried to teach us and spawned the amoral "me first" disease with which the majority of Americans are now infected.
Those who run the child warehouses are nurturing the disease by teaching the children how to be good little narcissists so they can grow up to protect and nurture the virus for the next generation. These factory babies learn less about traditional skills like reading and math and history, and much more about celebrating diversity and Darwinian evolution and hatred for religion, capitalism, and the white male.
All the while their parents trade partners and pursue their next big house, nice car, expensive vacation, and are irritated that their children come out of the warehouse so unruly.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Marketing Genius
Recent events in the presidential campaign have led me to conclude that the Obama campaign may be the best-organized and well-conceived marketing campaign ever. The armies of adoring media types who represent the vanguard of Obama's army have created an amazing image-making machine that is now telling the world that the great and mighty BH Obama is already a shoo-in for January's inauguration.
By comparison, McCain's marketing seems inept. If you were visiting the US from another country where you didn't know or care anything about American politics, a few minutes watching TV news would convince you that OB was already the country's president. And McCain's some old coot who snipes at the Great and Powerful OB now and then.
Interestingly, the marketing campaign has been very careful and successful at avoiding specifics. Keeping it at the level of "Hope" and "Change" without getting into any specific message about whose "Hope", or what "Change" seems to be working marvelously.
Not to belabor the obvious, but it's become painfully obvious that the marketing wizards behind the campaign includes all the major Television and Newspaper "news" outlets. It seems they're all donating their own free services to the marketing juggernaut so determined to place the Great and Powerful OB on the throne.
The election has become not between the Great and Powerful OB and John McCain, but a simple referendum, yes or no, whether the American people (plus the illegal immigrants and dead people the Democrats can find to vote) want the Wizard of OB as president.
The marketing campaign says the "Yes" votes are leading.
By comparison, McCain's marketing seems inept. If you were visiting the US from another country where you didn't know or care anything about American politics, a few minutes watching TV news would convince you that OB was already the country's president. And McCain's some old coot who snipes at the Great and Powerful OB now and then.
Interestingly, the marketing campaign has been very careful and successful at avoiding specifics. Keeping it at the level of "Hope" and "Change" without getting into any specific message about whose "Hope", or what "Change" seems to be working marvelously.
Not to belabor the obvious, but it's become painfully obvious that the marketing wizards behind the campaign includes all the major Television and Newspaper "news" outlets. It seems they're all donating their own free services to the marketing juggernaut so determined to place the Great and Powerful OB on the throne.
The election has become not between the Great and Powerful OB and John McCain, but a simple referendum, yes or no, whether the American people (plus the illegal immigrants and dead people the Democrats can find to vote) want the Wizard of OB as president.
The marketing campaign says the "Yes" votes are leading.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
All Thumbs
I allowed myself to be cornered into a little home improvement project. Making the purchase of the needed materials at the local home improvement store, I spent the afternoon fretting over my usual fear that I would make a mess of the project.
And what a mess I made. Spending well into the evening, the project blunders got progressively worse. The only good news was that I had Chris to help me. With no experience with these things, he's already better at them than I. At least we got more accomplished than I would have on my own. Still, the project was a disaster. A day later, sitting at my computer, I'm still upset by the whole ordeal.
These little projects look easy when everybody else does them. Like on the TV home improvement shows, or when other people do it, or even when I help somebody else do it.
Not for me. I'm so horribly deficient in all things mechanical that I now have an ugly mess that I may have to pay somebody else to clean up. Nearly every step that looks so easy when done by others is for me a herculean task.
See, I married a fearless do-it-yourself-er who would never pay somebody to do anything to her home. But she'll happily browbeat her incompetent husband into making a fool of himself and making the project cost twice as much.
See, this is why I went to college (for 3 different degrees). So I wouldn't have to get stuck in these situations. So I could hire people who actually know how to do these things while I go to work pounding a computer keyboard and wrecking my eyesight all day.
Now I suppose anybody who happens to read this who also knows who I am now knows my terrible secret. I'm a mechanical idiot incompetent.
And what a mess I made. Spending well into the evening, the project blunders got progressively worse. The only good news was that I had Chris to help me. With no experience with these things, he's already better at them than I. At least we got more accomplished than I would have on my own. Still, the project was a disaster. A day later, sitting at my computer, I'm still upset by the whole ordeal.
These little projects look easy when everybody else does them. Like on the TV home improvement shows, or when other people do it, or even when I help somebody else do it.
Not for me. I'm so horribly deficient in all things mechanical that I now have an ugly mess that I may have to pay somebody else to clean up. Nearly every step that looks so easy when done by others is for me a herculean task.
See, I married a fearless do-it-yourself-er who would never pay somebody to do anything to her home. But she'll happily browbeat her incompetent husband into making a fool of himself and making the project cost twice as much.
See, this is why I went to college (for 3 different degrees). So I wouldn't have to get stuck in these situations. So I could hire people who actually know how to do these things while I go to work pounding a computer keyboard and wrecking my eyesight all day.
Now I suppose anybody who happens to read this who also knows who I am now knows my terrible secret. I'm a mechanical idiot incompetent.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Our Societal Epidemic
Narcissism. Selfishness and self-centeredness. Ruthless and heartless disregard for others. Always asking, "What's in it for me?".
The somewhat sobering realization that has been taking hold of me lately is that it's not just a phenomena of the younger generation. Nor is it just the atheistic and non-religious. It seems just about everybody has contracted the disease.
It's understandable that the large and growing anti-religious crowd would tend to be self-indulgent. After all, where there is no morality there is nothing more important than oneself.
But these days it seems this disease also infects the religious. This is just an individual's observation, certainly completely absent any sort of scientific study, but it seems the more someone wears their religion on their sleeve, the more likely they are infected.
My own lifelong study in the Christian faith informs me that the behavior of those professing the faith is far more important than the act of profession itself. Those uber-Christians (or uber-Catholics) I encounter these days have confused Christian Witness with Pharisaic elitism. They show off their piety and austerity and moral superiority, while separating themselves from the world full of people less worthy. And in so doing, they lose the entire point of the Gospel.
Unfortunately, I have seen and experienced firsthand more backstabbing, slander, gossip, and plain meanness from the Pharisaic Christians than those without faith. It seems to come from the elitist attitude that gives them license to mistreat others whom they deem inferior.
The lesson I will try to reflect in my own dealings with others is simply to abide by the golden rule. I will neither bury my faith nor wear it on my sleeve, hoping that my decent behavior will somehow counterbalance that of my Pharisaic brethren.
The only hope for our way of life is that the citizens rediscover the light of faith and truth, and thus inoculate themselves against the epidemic of narcissism. To do so, the light must be rekindled by the few remaining who can reflect it.
The somewhat sobering realization that has been taking hold of me lately is that it's not just a phenomena of the younger generation. Nor is it just the atheistic and non-religious. It seems just about everybody has contracted the disease.
It's understandable that the large and growing anti-religious crowd would tend to be self-indulgent. After all, where there is no morality there is nothing more important than oneself.
But these days it seems this disease also infects the religious. This is just an individual's observation, certainly completely absent any sort of scientific study, but it seems the more someone wears their religion on their sleeve, the more likely they are infected.
My own lifelong study in the Christian faith informs me that the behavior of those professing the faith is far more important than the act of profession itself. Those uber-Christians (or uber-Catholics) I encounter these days have confused Christian Witness with Pharisaic elitism. They show off their piety and austerity and moral superiority, while separating themselves from the world full of people less worthy. And in so doing, they lose the entire point of the Gospel.
Unfortunately, I have seen and experienced firsthand more backstabbing, slander, gossip, and plain meanness from the Pharisaic Christians than those without faith. It seems to come from the elitist attitude that gives them license to mistreat others whom they deem inferior.
The lesson I will try to reflect in my own dealings with others is simply to abide by the golden rule. I will neither bury my faith nor wear it on my sleeve, hoping that my decent behavior will somehow counterbalance that of my Pharisaic brethren.
The only hope for our way of life is that the citizens rediscover the light of faith and truth, and thus inoculate themselves against the epidemic of narcissism. To do so, the light must be rekindled by the few remaining who can reflect it.
Monday, July 14, 2008
History
Maybe it's a sign of age, but my interest in history grows in direct relationship to my advance in age. I have been reading some historical books, and find it remarkable how little things have changed. Particularly remarkable is how people learn nothing from the experience of their forefathers.
The ancient Greeks were being invaded by the Medes and Persians. They had a sort of political party back then that strongly protested going to war against the invaders, preferring to negotiate peace. They didn't want to fight, did not believe their democratic society deserved to survive the invaders, and some of their numbers actually allied themselves with the invaders. Only the strong leadership and heroic exploits of some notable generals saved them from slavery and domination by the repressive rule of Darius.
But of course the Greeks still eventually lost their civilization to an increasingly comfortable and slothful population that was easily defeated later. But that civilization became at least an inspiration for the Romans, who of course also lost their empire due to the same sorts of sloth and decadence that brought down the Greeks.
The parallels with today's America are striking, and the enemies who would destroy this country all too evident. They may not be massing as armies along our borders this time, but with the technology of nuclear and biological weaponry, they don't need an army. And we have an entire political party that hopes to negotiate peace rather than fight for our continued freedom. Even some notable advocates in that party have gone so far as to ally themselves with the country's declared enemies while the government fears to even speak out against their seditious rhetoric.
America has reached the depths of the same sloth and decadence that led to the destruction of the Greeks and Romans. Citizens are no longer permitted to speak out against such things, lest they be persecuted as "intolerant". The decadent plurality now in charge of the government will not tolerate any call for return to the core values that founded America, nor will they tolerate any military action against the country's declared enemies.
The destruction of America and enslavement to a totalitarian government seems imminent. It may come to pass before I pass.
All substantially because the citizens have been systematically brainwashed by government schools that fail to teach history. In its place they teach a socialistic version of history that calls western society evil and repressive to all those who are not members of their race and religion.
The ancient Greeks were being invaded by the Medes and Persians. They had a sort of political party back then that strongly protested going to war against the invaders, preferring to negotiate peace. They didn't want to fight, did not believe their democratic society deserved to survive the invaders, and some of their numbers actually allied themselves with the invaders. Only the strong leadership and heroic exploits of some notable generals saved them from slavery and domination by the repressive rule of Darius.
But of course the Greeks still eventually lost their civilization to an increasingly comfortable and slothful population that was easily defeated later. But that civilization became at least an inspiration for the Romans, who of course also lost their empire due to the same sorts of sloth and decadence that brought down the Greeks.
The parallels with today's America are striking, and the enemies who would destroy this country all too evident. They may not be massing as armies along our borders this time, but with the technology of nuclear and biological weaponry, they don't need an army. And we have an entire political party that hopes to negotiate peace rather than fight for our continued freedom. Even some notable advocates in that party have gone so far as to ally themselves with the country's declared enemies while the government fears to even speak out against their seditious rhetoric.
America has reached the depths of the same sloth and decadence that led to the destruction of the Greeks and Romans. Citizens are no longer permitted to speak out against such things, lest they be persecuted as "intolerant". The decadent plurality now in charge of the government will not tolerate any call for return to the core values that founded America, nor will they tolerate any military action against the country's declared enemies.
The destruction of America and enslavement to a totalitarian government seems imminent. It may come to pass before I pass.
All substantially because the citizens have been systematically brainwashed by government schools that fail to teach history. In its place they teach a socialistic version of history that calls western society evil and repressive to all those who are not members of their race and religion.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
My Chicago Adventure
I snagged a ticket to the Cubs versus Reds since I was in Chicago anyway. It turned into an interesting adventure that I mostly enjoyed, even the parts that I normally wouldn't normally find enjoyable.
About an hour before gametime, I went down to the hotel lobby and asked the bellman how to get to Wrigley field. He pointed to the stairway right outside the door and told me to take that train north. Wow, that was too easy.
The underground train station was like an urban cave. It was dirty, smelly, and full of a mix of other fans going to the game with businesspeople and others headed to their own destinations.
The train arrived, the doors opened, and people crowded in. I held back a bit, and feared I wouldn't make the train because it didn't look like there was room for everyone on the platform. But somehow, right before the doors closed, I saw a small gap and jumped in.
The ride was maybe 20 minutes, and I stood in the aisle with the crowds the entire way. If a seat opened up, I tried to be chivalrous and help any nearby woman take over the seat. Handholds were minimal, and it was challenging at times to stay on my feet when the train rounded corners, accelerated, or braked. At the same time I had to focus on keeping my big feet from stepping on the feet of the seated passengers.
Arriving at the Addison Street stop, I emerged from the train station to find the stadium only a block away. I found the ticket window and picked up my "Will-Call" ticket and proceeded to my seat on the lower level, third base side.
The stadium was packed. I didn't see a single empty seat anywhere, including the rooftops outside the stadium. I wondered how that worked, buildings outside the Wrigley outfield placing bleachers on their roofs and selling tickets. I wonder how much the building owners have to pay to the Cubs for selling tickets to their rooftop bleachers.
The game was fairly entertaining, with some highlight-quality defensive plays and a couple of home runs. The fans were enthusiastic, and more into the game than any other sporting event I can recall attending.
Remarkably, as the game approached its end with the Cubs leading 7-1, I looked around and saw very few heading to the exits. The vast majority of the crowd stayed to the last pitch. Another unique observation, as pretty much every other professional sporting event will see the stadium or arena empty out as soon as the outcome is settled.
Then there's the singing. The CSI actor William Peterson led the crowd in "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh inning stretch, and it was remarkable to hear the whole stadium singing the song loudly and enthusiastically. And as soon as the last out was made in the 9th inning, a Cubs song began, and I was astounded to find nearly everyone around me singing it loudly, with many dancing to the song. And the crowd began moving toward the exits, but there was no sense of any racing to be first out of the park.
The huge crowd jamming into the train station caused me to wonder how long it was going to take for me to get a spot on the train. Surprisingly, it wasn't as long as I expected, and once again I was jammed into a train car where I tried to keep from stepping or falling on someone as it transported me back to my hotel.
I think I'd do it again. It would be a lot more fun if somebody was with me next time, but I still enjoyed my little Chicago adventure.
About an hour before gametime, I went down to the hotel lobby and asked the bellman how to get to Wrigley field. He pointed to the stairway right outside the door and told me to take that train north. Wow, that was too easy.
The underground train station was like an urban cave. It was dirty, smelly, and full of a mix of other fans going to the game with businesspeople and others headed to their own destinations.
The train arrived, the doors opened, and people crowded in. I held back a bit, and feared I wouldn't make the train because it didn't look like there was room for everyone on the platform. But somehow, right before the doors closed, I saw a small gap and jumped in.
The ride was maybe 20 minutes, and I stood in the aisle with the crowds the entire way. If a seat opened up, I tried to be chivalrous and help any nearby woman take over the seat. Handholds were minimal, and it was challenging at times to stay on my feet when the train rounded corners, accelerated, or braked. At the same time I had to focus on keeping my big feet from stepping on the feet of the seated passengers.
Arriving at the Addison Street stop, I emerged from the train station to find the stadium only a block away. I found the ticket window and picked up my "Will-Call" ticket and proceeded to my seat on the lower level, third base side.
The stadium was packed. I didn't see a single empty seat anywhere, including the rooftops outside the stadium. I wondered how that worked, buildings outside the Wrigley outfield placing bleachers on their roofs and selling tickets. I wonder how much the building owners have to pay to the Cubs for selling tickets to their rooftop bleachers.
The game was fairly entertaining, with some highlight-quality defensive plays and a couple of home runs. The fans were enthusiastic, and more into the game than any other sporting event I can recall attending.
Remarkably, as the game approached its end with the Cubs leading 7-1, I looked around and saw very few heading to the exits. The vast majority of the crowd stayed to the last pitch. Another unique observation, as pretty much every other professional sporting event will see the stadium or arena empty out as soon as the outcome is settled.
Then there's the singing. The CSI actor William Peterson led the crowd in "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh inning stretch, and it was remarkable to hear the whole stadium singing the song loudly and enthusiastically. And as soon as the last out was made in the 9th inning, a Cubs song began, and I was astounded to find nearly everyone around me singing it loudly, with many dancing to the song. And the crowd began moving toward the exits, but there was no sense of any racing to be first out of the park.
The huge crowd jamming into the train station caused me to wonder how long it was going to take for me to get a spot on the train. Surprisingly, it wasn't as long as I expected, and once again I was jammed into a train car where I tried to keep from stepping or falling on someone as it transported me back to my hotel.
I think I'd do it again. It would be a lot more fun if somebody was with me next time, but I still enjoyed my little Chicago adventure.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Trying to Buck Up
Hopelessness, helplessness, a little fear. All of it I'm feeling lately. Because apparently it's true that ignorance is bliss, as a plurality of Americans appear to be in a state of pure bliss. That bliss named Barack Obama, of course.
My discomfort comes from many areas of observation and conversation, what I read, and what I experience directly. For the first time in my adult life, I truly believe we have reached a crossroads. To the right lies freedom and security and continued prosperity. To the left lies misery, war, and oppression.
Don't get me wrong, as I'm neither a McCain supporter nor an Obama detractor. The bottom line is that both are poor choices for the most powerful office in the world. It's not just those two individuals, though. The fact is that our entire democratic system of government has been co-opted. It has been taken over by the elites in both political parties who, I am now convinced, are driven by a long-term vision of a single, socialist, worldwide government.
No more pride in American exceptionalism. No more freedom. America will become indistinguishable from Canada or Europe. The European Union started something that will gradually lead to the North American Union, African Union, Far East Union, and eventually the model of global governance. Which will be oppressive, restrictive, and brutal to its detractors.
And political talk around this presidential election centers around whether McCain is too old (maybe) or whether his captivity and torture in Viet Nam is an asset or detriment to his ability to hold the presidency (I think asset); or whether Obama is a "flip-flopper" on issues like Iraq (I think he said whatever made his audience happy) or if his association with Rev. Wright is an indication that he shares his pastor's rather extreme anti-American views (I think he pretty much does).
Nobody has much of anything to say about actual policy. And the news there is bad. Both are open borders advocates, both are globalists, both are environmentalists demonstrably willing to destroy the economy in the name of stopping the mythical "global warming". And, as far as I can tell, both are socialists. McCain just a bit less than Obama.
But nobody seems to understand issues and ramifications. Those who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq are naieve both about what such an action will cause in terms of terrorism and war and genocide, but also naieve that their candidate (Obama) will grant their wish. Those who think we can somehow eliminate oil as a source of energy in the forseeable future are jaw-droppingly naieve, and unfortunately both candidates and a plurality in Congress share in that mass stupidity.
Of course, when the topic of the war on terror comes up, an entire political party says either "what war? there's no terrorism." or "America is the real terrorist!".
It doesn't take much. All anybody has to do is a bit of reading. It is possible to find facts, as long as you exercise a bit of discernment between fact and spin (or lie). Then just apply a bit of logic and common sense to carry forward the facts and analyze the political positions and figure out how they'll impact the country and its citizens.
Evidence is clear. We are in for an extremely painful, expensive, difficult, divisive, and possibly disastrous next four years. Almost certainly under President Obama. Very probably also under President McCain.
My discomfort comes from many areas of observation and conversation, what I read, and what I experience directly. For the first time in my adult life, I truly believe we have reached a crossroads. To the right lies freedom and security and continued prosperity. To the left lies misery, war, and oppression.
Don't get me wrong, as I'm neither a McCain supporter nor an Obama detractor. The bottom line is that both are poor choices for the most powerful office in the world. It's not just those two individuals, though. The fact is that our entire democratic system of government has been co-opted. It has been taken over by the elites in both political parties who, I am now convinced, are driven by a long-term vision of a single, socialist, worldwide government.
No more pride in American exceptionalism. No more freedom. America will become indistinguishable from Canada or Europe. The European Union started something that will gradually lead to the North American Union, African Union, Far East Union, and eventually the model of global governance. Which will be oppressive, restrictive, and brutal to its detractors.
And political talk around this presidential election centers around whether McCain is too old (maybe) or whether his captivity and torture in Viet Nam is an asset or detriment to his ability to hold the presidency (I think asset); or whether Obama is a "flip-flopper" on issues like Iraq (I think he said whatever made his audience happy) or if his association with Rev. Wright is an indication that he shares his pastor's rather extreme anti-American views (I think he pretty much does).
Nobody has much of anything to say about actual policy. And the news there is bad. Both are open borders advocates, both are globalists, both are environmentalists demonstrably willing to destroy the economy in the name of stopping the mythical "global warming". And, as far as I can tell, both are socialists. McCain just a bit less than Obama.
But nobody seems to understand issues and ramifications. Those who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq are naieve both about what such an action will cause in terms of terrorism and war and genocide, but also naieve that their candidate (Obama) will grant their wish. Those who think we can somehow eliminate oil as a source of energy in the forseeable future are jaw-droppingly naieve, and unfortunately both candidates and a plurality in Congress share in that mass stupidity.
Of course, when the topic of the war on terror comes up, an entire political party says either "what war? there's no terrorism." or "America is the real terrorist!".
It doesn't take much. All anybody has to do is a bit of reading. It is possible to find facts, as long as you exercise a bit of discernment between fact and spin (or lie). Then just apply a bit of logic and common sense to carry forward the facts and analyze the political positions and figure out how they'll impact the country and its citizens.
Evidence is clear. We are in for an extremely painful, expensive, difficult, divisive, and possibly disastrous next four years. Almost certainly under President Obama. Very probably also under President McCain.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Defining Social Justice
As the left continues its political ascendancy, their boldness increases to the point where I'm hearing more and more about how they plan to wield their power. One of the catch-phrases I keep hearing is Social Justice.
I've been hearing the term for just about as long as I can remember, but never really figured out how it was defined. My vague understanding was that it must have something to do with treating everyone fairly and not allowing the poor to be abused by evildoers.
Ask me to define Social Justice, and I might suggest it might be efforts at insuring that everyone have fair access to freedom and the American Dream. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere, told where or when to travel, what to eat or drink (aside from reasonable restrictions on public drunkenness), what they read or believe, or with whom they associate. Pretty much the Bill of Rights.
But as I've come to understand it, the prevalent definition of Social Justice by the Left is simply Socialism. They seem to be saying that Socialism is the only "fair" path to Social Justice. But Socialism by its very nature is opposed to freedom.
When the government bestows the "rich" label on certain citizens and proclaims all "rich" are evil and deserve to have their wealth confiscated, that's antithetical to Justice. When the government takes over half the income of the majority of its citizens, keeps most of it, and gives the rest to those who do not produce anything, that's not Justice.
When the government decides to give special privileges to certain people based on their skin color or behavior, threatening to prosecute churches who preach the behavior is immoral and businessmen who don't hire specific quotas of those groups regardless of qualifications and suitability for the jobs, that certainly isn't Justice.
We will always have poor. It seems to me that Socialism simply makes the poor minimally less poor in return for complete and total dependence on the government, while making everyone else much more poor by confiscating their wealth and taking their freedom.
It seems to me that instead of promoting Socialism and its direct opposition to the American Constitution, maybe government should focus on working with the citizenry to make sure the doors are open for anyone from any race, class, or gender to walk through if they're willing to work hard and prove themselves. Then perhaps others would be inspired to achievement based on the pioneering example of those who successfully pulled themselves up from poverty to success and happiness.
Sadly, it seems that most of our citizens have decided they are willing to lose their constitution, freedom and wealth to a corrupt Socialist government that will become the new "rich". And by then it will be too late to go back.
I've been hearing the term for just about as long as I can remember, but never really figured out how it was defined. My vague understanding was that it must have something to do with treating everyone fairly and not allowing the poor to be abused by evildoers.
Ask me to define Social Justice, and I might suggest it might be efforts at insuring that everyone have fair access to freedom and the American Dream. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere, told where or when to travel, what to eat or drink (aside from reasonable restrictions on public drunkenness), what they read or believe, or with whom they associate. Pretty much the Bill of Rights.
But as I've come to understand it, the prevalent definition of Social Justice by the Left is simply Socialism. They seem to be saying that Socialism is the only "fair" path to Social Justice. But Socialism by its very nature is opposed to freedom.
When the government bestows the "rich" label on certain citizens and proclaims all "rich" are evil and deserve to have their wealth confiscated, that's antithetical to Justice. When the government takes over half the income of the majority of its citizens, keeps most of it, and gives the rest to those who do not produce anything, that's not Justice.
When the government decides to give special privileges to certain people based on their skin color or behavior, threatening to prosecute churches who preach the behavior is immoral and businessmen who don't hire specific quotas of those groups regardless of qualifications and suitability for the jobs, that certainly isn't Justice.
We will always have poor. It seems to me that Socialism simply makes the poor minimally less poor in return for complete and total dependence on the government, while making everyone else much more poor by confiscating their wealth and taking their freedom.
It seems to me that instead of promoting Socialism and its direct opposition to the American Constitution, maybe government should focus on working with the citizenry to make sure the doors are open for anyone from any race, class, or gender to walk through if they're willing to work hard and prove themselves. Then perhaps others would be inspired to achievement based on the pioneering example of those who successfully pulled themselves up from poverty to success and happiness.
Sadly, it seems that most of our citizens have decided they are willing to lose their constitution, freedom and wealth to a corrupt Socialist government that will become the new "rich". And by then it will be too late to go back.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Stream of Consciousness
Even though I have work to do, it's mid-evening and I'm avoiding it.
So here I am on my blog, but I don't really have any burning topics to write about.
There's the flight yesterday where I was stuck on the plane while it sat on the tarmac in Indy for about 3 hours. Believe it or not, I actually arrived at my destination, even though it was about midnight.
TV is the default passive activity for the evenings out of town. But the primetime lineup is inane, and baseball's the only sport available. And I care about baseball, well, not really at all.
Something that worries me lately is that I find most of the people I meet on the road nice enough, but mostly stupid. Today I had a sort of secret panic that I might somehow let that attitude show, which doesn't bode well for a consultant. Are people really getting more stupid, or am I just getting intolerant? I really don't know.
Something sort of related to that last ramble is that lately everything has taken on a certain clarity. I feel like I understand things on an incredibly deep level, and suspect nobody else has a clue. It's not some sort of sudden arrogance; I despise arrogant people and hope never to come across as such. But I seem to have gained some weird insight on the world and God and history and people. But at the same time I feel constrained against sharing it.
I was really hungry last night. Probably from traveling 12 hours without the benefit of a meal. But tonight my survival instinct must have kicked in, because I've had dinner but still think I could eat another one. So part of the blogging is trying to stop thinking about eating, but you can see how well that's working.
Many times I have thought, wouldn't it be cool if I could go back to about age 14 and relive my life knowing everything I know now? But that's not the way life works, and instead of thinking about that, maybe I should start thinking about living the rest of my life the way I could look back and be pleased about. So when I realize how difficult that is, at least for me, I realize the whole going back to childhood idea wouldn't work.
Iyam what Iyam and thats All that Iyam. - Popeye the Sailor Man.
So here I am on my blog, but I don't really have any burning topics to write about.
There's the flight yesterday where I was stuck on the plane while it sat on the tarmac in Indy for about 3 hours. Believe it or not, I actually arrived at my destination, even though it was about midnight.
TV is the default passive activity for the evenings out of town. But the primetime lineup is inane, and baseball's the only sport available. And I care about baseball, well, not really at all.
Something that worries me lately is that I find most of the people I meet on the road nice enough, but mostly stupid. Today I had a sort of secret panic that I might somehow let that attitude show, which doesn't bode well for a consultant. Are people really getting more stupid, or am I just getting intolerant? I really don't know.
Something sort of related to that last ramble is that lately everything has taken on a certain clarity. I feel like I understand things on an incredibly deep level, and suspect nobody else has a clue. It's not some sort of sudden arrogance; I despise arrogant people and hope never to come across as such. But I seem to have gained some weird insight on the world and God and history and people. But at the same time I feel constrained against sharing it.
I was really hungry last night. Probably from traveling 12 hours without the benefit of a meal. But tonight my survival instinct must have kicked in, because I've had dinner but still think I could eat another one. So part of the blogging is trying to stop thinking about eating, but you can see how well that's working.
Many times I have thought, wouldn't it be cool if I could go back to about age 14 and relive my life knowing everything I know now? But that's not the way life works, and instead of thinking about that, maybe I should start thinking about living the rest of my life the way I could look back and be pleased about. So when I realize how difficult that is, at least for me, I realize the whole going back to childhood idea wouldn't work.
Iyam what Iyam and thats All that Iyam. - Popeye the Sailor Man.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What I Know
Given the many years I've been around so far, there are a few things I know.
People are capable of great good or great evil. Most of us are a little bit of both.
There is a God. Everybody knows it; some merely spend their lives hating or avoiding Him.
The world is an incredibly beautiful and amazing place.
Everybody mostly wants intimacy. I don't mean sex. Happiness is family and close friends.
Careers don't matter, unless you have one that impacts people in a significant positive way. Most of us have jobs to provide our family a roof, food, clothing, and hopefully a decent education and occasional nice vacation.
People live until they're done. Somehow it makes sense for most I've known who have passed.
We don't mourn our dead. We mourn for ourselves because we miss them terribly. Or didn't say or do something we should have before they passed.
Hatred is born of misunderstanding. Hateful people usually are too proud to put it aside.
Women and men are quite different. By design, to complement each other, not to fight over dominance.
Life is hard. If it were not, what would be the point? Then again, if we think we have it tough, we should try living 200 years ago. Or 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000.
Even those who reject God adopt their own religions. Atheism seems the most dogmatic of religions.
Conflict is inevitable. It exists everywhere, only separated by degree. Conflicts cannot be resolved when the resolution chooses a winner and loser. We model conflict through sport, where each participant gives their all in a fair arena and the best competitor wins. The loser is able to say, "we'll get them next time". More serious conflicts don't offer that option.
The best legacy most of us could ever leave behind are our children. We don't take enough time to realize this fact and act accordingly.
People are capable of great good or great evil. Most of us are a little bit of both.
There is a God. Everybody knows it; some merely spend their lives hating or avoiding Him.
The world is an incredibly beautiful and amazing place.
Everybody mostly wants intimacy. I don't mean sex. Happiness is family and close friends.
Careers don't matter, unless you have one that impacts people in a significant positive way. Most of us have jobs to provide our family a roof, food, clothing, and hopefully a decent education and occasional nice vacation.
People live until they're done. Somehow it makes sense for most I've known who have passed.
We don't mourn our dead. We mourn for ourselves because we miss them terribly. Or didn't say or do something we should have before they passed.
Hatred is born of misunderstanding. Hateful people usually are too proud to put it aside.
Women and men are quite different. By design, to complement each other, not to fight over dominance.
Life is hard. If it were not, what would be the point? Then again, if we think we have it tough, we should try living 200 years ago. Or 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000.
Even those who reject God adopt their own religions. Atheism seems the most dogmatic of religions.
Conflict is inevitable. It exists everywhere, only separated by degree. Conflicts cannot be resolved when the resolution chooses a winner and loser. We model conflict through sport, where each participant gives their all in a fair arena and the best competitor wins. The loser is able to say, "we'll get them next time". More serious conflicts don't offer that option.
The best legacy most of us could ever leave behind are our children. We don't take enough time to realize this fact and act accordingly.
Monday, June 09, 2008
America the Mental Hospital
Things continue to spiral out of control in this country, and it seems most of the citizenry is enjoying the ride.
Not me. It's already having an effect on my livelihood. Six months ago I had more work than I could accept. Suddenly I have to take less attractive assignments and go digging to just try to keep my calendar full enough to make ends meet.
Who is at fault? Our very own elected government. Yes, the same government that responds to $4 gas by promising to confiscate the profits of the oil companies while they stand guard over fields of oil and gas reserves within our own borders. They promise to raise taxes on me so everybody else can have free healthcare and college and whatever else buys them the votes of the ignorant.
Oh well, pretty soon there won't be anything left of me to tax. I suspect the same will be true of lots of other evil businesspersons. The cynic in me wonders whether it's all by design - once we're all forced to place ourselves at the mercy of our government for our very lives, they have achieved their objective.
Why, except for the price of gas, aren't millions of Americans converging on Washington to surround Capitol Hill to blockade congress until they come to their senses? Like opening up every possible source of energy to drilling and mining. Like allowing new refineries to be built across the country to meet the needs of our citizens and economics. Like putting a stop to the ridiculous spending that's killing every one of us.
Instead I see the masses of zombies drooling at the very sight of Barack Obama. They cannot possibly be using any faculties of reason, or they would understand he promises to make our lives much worse, not better.
Zombies, a few basic questions. Are you better off having your healthcare paid for by other people, but being unable to afford the car that would take you to the hospital? Are you better off having more of your paycheck confiscated by the government than already is today? Are you better off with all the new rules about what you can drive, eat, drink, do with your property, what ideas you may see on TV or listen to on the radio, or even where and when you can travel?
How do you like the ideas of illegal immigrants being given special rights, possibly even taking your job? In a broader sense, how do you like the idea of people getting preference over you for jobs and benefits based on their skin color or sexual orientation? How do you feel about new laws that punish your church for its "intolerant" teachings?
Don't believe me? Try reading some stuff. Not just blogs like mine, but actual statements by people like Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the gang on Capitol Hill.
Or you can continue the zombie thing. Maybe somebody from the government will take pity on you someday and reward you with a free appendectomy. Or lobotomy.
Not me. It's already having an effect on my livelihood. Six months ago I had more work than I could accept. Suddenly I have to take less attractive assignments and go digging to just try to keep my calendar full enough to make ends meet.
Who is at fault? Our very own elected government. Yes, the same government that responds to $4 gas by promising to confiscate the profits of the oil companies while they stand guard over fields of oil and gas reserves within our own borders. They promise to raise taxes on me so everybody else can have free healthcare and college and whatever else buys them the votes of the ignorant.
Oh well, pretty soon there won't be anything left of me to tax. I suspect the same will be true of lots of other evil businesspersons. The cynic in me wonders whether it's all by design - once we're all forced to place ourselves at the mercy of our government for our very lives, they have achieved their objective.
Why, except for the price of gas, aren't millions of Americans converging on Washington to surround Capitol Hill to blockade congress until they come to their senses? Like opening up every possible source of energy to drilling and mining. Like allowing new refineries to be built across the country to meet the needs of our citizens and economics. Like putting a stop to the ridiculous spending that's killing every one of us.
Instead I see the masses of zombies drooling at the very sight of Barack Obama. They cannot possibly be using any faculties of reason, or they would understand he promises to make our lives much worse, not better.
Zombies, a few basic questions. Are you better off having your healthcare paid for by other people, but being unable to afford the car that would take you to the hospital? Are you better off having more of your paycheck confiscated by the government than already is today? Are you better off with all the new rules about what you can drive, eat, drink, do with your property, what ideas you may see on TV or listen to on the radio, or even where and when you can travel?
How do you like the ideas of illegal immigrants being given special rights, possibly even taking your job? In a broader sense, how do you like the idea of people getting preference over you for jobs and benefits based on their skin color or sexual orientation? How do you feel about new laws that punish your church for its "intolerant" teachings?
Don't believe me? Try reading some stuff. Not just blogs like mine, but actual statements by people like Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the gang on Capitol Hill.
Or you can continue the zombie thing. Maybe somebody from the government will take pity on you someday and reward you with a free appendectomy. Or lobotomy.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Fooling People is Easy
While at lunch yesterday, I happened on a speech Barack Obama was giving, I believe in Troy, Michigan. And I got a first-hand reminder of what serves as a winning strategy for winning the Presidency these days.
Speak clearly, sound intelligent, look good, and most importantly, promise heaven on earth.
Barack's message is simple. End war, improve education, give healthcare to everyone, give jobs to those who don't have one and higher wages to those who do, give every child a great education and pay for their college tuition, solve energy and environmental problems, right every wrong and punish every evildoer.
It's mesmerizing and easy to be fooled by a smooth-talking candidate. He tells us it won't cost us anything - the money will come from ending war and making the evil rich pay taxes.
I imagine that's the sort of rhetoric that led to the rise of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Since they don't really teach history in the schools anymore, I suppose most of the foolish people worshiping at Obama's feet don't know anything about such things.
It seems we're all about to get a firsthand look at what happens when Socialist/Communist politicians take control of government. Maybe I'll get to spend my golden years in some Alaskan Gulag where the Obama government hopes to get my mind right.
Sounds chilly.
Speak clearly, sound intelligent, look good, and most importantly, promise heaven on earth.
Barack's message is simple. End war, improve education, give healthcare to everyone, give jobs to those who don't have one and higher wages to those who do, give every child a great education and pay for their college tuition, solve energy and environmental problems, right every wrong and punish every evildoer.
It's mesmerizing and easy to be fooled by a smooth-talking candidate. He tells us it won't cost us anything - the money will come from ending war and making the evil rich pay taxes.
I imagine that's the sort of rhetoric that led to the rise of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Since they don't really teach history in the schools anymore, I suppose most of the foolish people worshiping at Obama's feet don't know anything about such things.
It seems we're all about to get a firsthand look at what happens when Socialist/Communist politicians take control of government. Maybe I'll get to spend my golden years in some Alaskan Gulag where the Obama government hopes to get my mind right.
Sounds chilly.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Stupid Pop Culture
While flying home this weekend, the flight attendants were discussing the Sex in the City movie that must have just hit theatres. They were gushing over it, talking about how the women cheered and clapped. They also said the vast majority of people in the theatre were women, with only a few unhappy boyfriends that got dragged in and some gays.
As an actual guy, I clearly don't get it. And if you're guessing I won't be caught anywhere near that movie, you can bank on it.
I admit I've never invested time in the HBO series on which this thing was based, other than surfing past it enough to pick up my perception that it's a shallow, amoral, hedonistic and narcissistic portrayal of single women in New York. If it's anything close to an accurate portrayal of actual women in New York or anywhere else, well, I'm glad I'm not young and single.
Why can't there be movies that both men and women can see where they're cheering and applauding heroic or uplifting stories instead of a gang of NYC rich single sluts?
Just asking.
As an actual guy, I clearly don't get it. And if you're guessing I won't be caught anywhere near that movie, you can bank on it.
I admit I've never invested time in the HBO series on which this thing was based, other than surfing past it enough to pick up my perception that it's a shallow, amoral, hedonistic and narcissistic portrayal of single women in New York. If it's anything close to an accurate portrayal of actual women in New York or anywhere else, well, I'm glad I'm not young and single.
Why can't there be movies that both men and women can see where they're cheering and applauding heroic or uplifting stories instead of a gang of NYC rich single sluts?
Just asking.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Misplaced Anger
Tell me whether any of this is factually untrue:
The United States has vast untapped oil reserves in Alaska and just off our coastlines.
We also have vast coal reserves that can be converted to a synthetic oil for well under half of today's market price.
There's oil shale in the west ready to be dug up and added to the oil supply.
Refinery capacity has been exceeded, forcing the US to import refined gasoline to make up the difference in demand.
I think I've got the facts right.
So why aren't we exploiting every possible option like those listed above to ease the burden on every one of us of $4 a gallon gas?
Because our own Congress won't allow it.
OK, so why haven't millions of Americans marched on Washington and blockaded Capitol Hill until our elected representatives finally pass changes to the laws that would permit us to use our own country's oil reserves?
Could it be because the country is populated by idiots who think the high prices are nothing more than "big oil" greed? The same idiots that will vote for Barack Obama, thinking when he slaps down those greedy oil companies with confiscatory "windfall profits taxes", that will somehow bring back $1 gasoline?
In the meantime, the same congress mandates most of our food go to making ethanol, driving food prices through the roof and starving people all over the third world. And they're proud of that!?
The congress and their elitist minders try to tell us that we will just stop using gasoline when the new "alternative" fuels are ready? Does anybody out there drive a car or truck that will run on any of these mythical "alternative" fuels? No, the only way we get to move to, say, a Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Electric vehicle is to buy one after they come on the market.
Who but the elites will have the cash to pay, what, double? triple? the price of a gas-powered new car if and when these amazing new vehicles appear?
Does anybody out there have a brain?
The United States has vast untapped oil reserves in Alaska and just off our coastlines.
We also have vast coal reserves that can be converted to a synthetic oil for well under half of today's market price.
There's oil shale in the west ready to be dug up and added to the oil supply.
Refinery capacity has been exceeded, forcing the US to import refined gasoline to make up the difference in demand.
I think I've got the facts right.
So why aren't we exploiting every possible option like those listed above to ease the burden on every one of us of $4 a gallon gas?
Because our own Congress won't allow it.
OK, so why haven't millions of Americans marched on Washington and blockaded Capitol Hill until our elected representatives finally pass changes to the laws that would permit us to use our own country's oil reserves?
Could it be because the country is populated by idiots who think the high prices are nothing more than "big oil" greed? The same idiots that will vote for Barack Obama, thinking when he slaps down those greedy oil companies with confiscatory "windfall profits taxes", that will somehow bring back $1 gasoline?
In the meantime, the same congress mandates most of our food go to making ethanol, driving food prices through the roof and starving people all over the third world. And they're proud of that!?
The congress and their elitist minders try to tell us that we will just stop using gasoline when the new "alternative" fuels are ready? Does anybody out there drive a car or truck that will run on any of these mythical "alternative" fuels? No, the only way we get to move to, say, a Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Electric vehicle is to buy one after they come on the market.
Who but the elites will have the cash to pay, what, double? triple? the price of a gas-powered new car if and when these amazing new vehicles appear?
Does anybody out there have a brain?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
What, me worry?
Worry is a waste of emotional energy, but many of us do it anyway.
How much time is spent stewing about things that might or might not happen? I wonder, if someone were to keep track of everything they worried about for a year, what percentage of those worries actually came to pass? And those that did, were the consequences worthy of the amount of time and emotional energy spent worrying about them?
I wonder how often our worries become self-fulfilling prophecies?
Sure, it's easy for me to point out a number of very legitimate worries in my own life. After all, I'm self-employed with no guarantee I'll have enough work to pay the bills. Health insurance is a nightmare. I'm one lawsuit or accident or illness away from bankruptcy.
I'm pretty sure this year's elections will install a government that will be hostile to business. The new President and congress are most likely going to be socialists who may damage the economy enough to dry up my business, not to mention will probably raise taxes to a level I can't sustain.
But do I lose sleep over all that? Ha! Me, lose sleep? You probably don't know me if you think that.
Sure, I think about those things sometimes. I also have a variety of concerns about my family. But I don't let any of it dominate my thoughts or interfere with my day.
I've learned this simple truth about worrying. There's absolutely nothing worry can do to help avoid something bad. If you work hard and pay attention to detail, you've already done all you can to keep the bad things you can control from happening. All that's left are the bad things you can't control. If those happen, you just deal with them. Worrying didn't help.
So now the economy has slowed considerably, and it's beginning to show in my business activity. Sure, I'm concerned, and it is only prudent to begin thinking about what options I should consider if things slow down to the point where I have to close down. But I'm not worrying or stressing over any of it.
Maybe it's time to think about getting a job to tide me through to retirement anyway. All will work itself out in time.
How much time is spent stewing about things that might or might not happen? I wonder, if someone were to keep track of everything they worried about for a year, what percentage of those worries actually came to pass? And those that did, were the consequences worthy of the amount of time and emotional energy spent worrying about them?
I wonder how often our worries become self-fulfilling prophecies?
Sure, it's easy for me to point out a number of very legitimate worries in my own life. After all, I'm self-employed with no guarantee I'll have enough work to pay the bills. Health insurance is a nightmare. I'm one lawsuit or accident or illness away from bankruptcy.
I'm pretty sure this year's elections will install a government that will be hostile to business. The new President and congress are most likely going to be socialists who may damage the economy enough to dry up my business, not to mention will probably raise taxes to a level I can't sustain.
But do I lose sleep over all that? Ha! Me, lose sleep? You probably don't know me if you think that.
Sure, I think about those things sometimes. I also have a variety of concerns about my family. But I don't let any of it dominate my thoughts or interfere with my day.
I've learned this simple truth about worrying. There's absolutely nothing worry can do to help avoid something bad. If you work hard and pay attention to detail, you've already done all you can to keep the bad things you can control from happening. All that's left are the bad things you can't control. If those happen, you just deal with them. Worrying didn't help.
So now the economy has slowed considerably, and it's beginning to show in my business activity. Sure, I'm concerned, and it is only prudent to begin thinking about what options I should consider if things slow down to the point where I have to close down. But I'm not worrying or stressing over any of it.
Maybe it's time to think about getting a job to tide me through to retirement anyway. All will work itself out in time.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Web Control
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)