Environmentalism

The innocuous-sounding "Cap and Trade" bill wending its way through congress presents a timely opportunity for a discussion of the larger topic of environmentalism.

Cap and Trade is designed to inflict so much pain on consumers that, according to the liberal theology, they will respond with energy conservation and demand their power companies provide cheaper energy from government-endorsed "clean and renewable" sources.

The party in power, led by the recently crowned President, have declared a global crisis, which was first trumpeted by their former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, as "Global Warming". Due to recent inconvenient climate cooling trends, the crisis has been re-labeled "Global Climate Change".

The message to all of is goes something like this: We Americans are living too high on the hog. We use too much energy, in fact way more than our share. We live in houses that are too big, drive vehicles that guzzle too much petroleum, buy too much unnecessary stuff from industries that spew pollution into the atmosphere. Our spoiled behavior is wrecking the planet, and it's far past time for the government to step in and force us to be good stewards of the environment.

Shrinking polar ice caps will raise the sea level and cause whole coastal states to slip beneath the waves. Catastrophic storms, failed crops, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, and other unspoken consequences will make the planet uninhabitable.

Anyone with the temerity to argue with these self-righteous "greens" is a member of the flat-earth society. They're called "ignorant", "oil company toadies", and "Climate Change Deniers". The science on this subject is "settled", and no competent climate scientist would dare challenge the tenets of the Church of Global Climate Change.

The topic holds some interest for me, so I've tried to learn whatever I can. I'm certainly no climate scientist, and am willing to approach the whole environmental topic with an open mind. I certainly think it's a good idea to do what we can to protect our natural resources, keep our water and air clean, and protect wildlife.

But the more I delve into the "science" behind the whole climate change question, the more I question the true motives of its proponents. Since a main conclusion I've reached is that those pushing hardest on the Cap and Trade bill are doing so based on a fervor that more resembles a cultish religion than science, I will refer to their crusade as part of the Church of Global Climate Change.

The High Priest of this movement is Al Gore, the former liberal Vice-President who has long carried the environmentalist banner, writing a couple of decades ago something about the most evil invention ever created by the human race being the internal combustion engine.

Now Gore has positioned himself to make billions of dollars when congress passes the Cap and Trade bill, which will make him one of the most powerful individuals in the world. Which seems to be his alternative strategy for achieving such power after losing the Presidency to George W Bush in 2000. While he jets around the world on his private plane and lives it up on his country estate, dwarfing the so-called "carbon footprint" created by about 99.9% of the rest of us, I can't help but suspect he may be more of a false prophet than a High Priest of Global Climate Change.

The other way I evaluate this whole topic is by simply listen to its most ardent disciples. They are appalled at American prosperity, believing it's somehow unfair to the rest of the world. They think it's wrong that Americans can live in nice houses with manicured lawns and raise children in suburbia, ferrying them to soccer matches in the family Suburban.

My conclusion is that while many of these folks may indeed be true believers in the Church of Global Climate Change, they have a larger agenda in mind. They think there are too many people crowding the planet, and want to force the rest of us to limit our families to 1 child. It seems to fit nicely with their equally ardent support of abortion, and many (like Hillary, for example) have admitted an admiration for China's government-enforced one child policy.

They think we all should live in small apartments in the city and ride the train and/or ride a bicycle to and from work every day. They think everyone should make about the same salary, except for their leaders, who somehow deserve special perks and priviledges like those enjoyed by their High Priest because they're such awesome protectors of the environment.

They want the government to provide cradle-to-grave matermalistic oversight in every aspect of our lives, from where we live to where we work to what we eat to what we drive (if we must drive) to what medical care we may or may not receive.

I visited the Soviet Union in the 70's, and interestingly the above describes that society pretty accurately. Rather than go into the human misery and hopelessness I witnessed there, I'll summarize the trip in this manner: It made me appreciate my American way of life in a way I'd never considered before making that trip.

So it's becoming obvious to me that Cap and Trade, along with Healthcare Reform, are not working their way through congress to improve the environment or increase access of Americans to medical care. They are about transforming America from the Land of the Free to the Socialist States of America.

My Most Popular Postings

If you've stumbled across the blog recently, I got the idea to create this post with the most popular articles to date.

Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.

Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.

Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close

Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.

Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.

The best of the rest go something like this:

Musings on Fiddler on the Roof

A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.

My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.

Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.

Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.

Thanks for reading!

Prisms

The story of the Massachusetts cop who arrested the black professor gave us an interesting example of the different prisms people use to look out on the world. What should have been a routine check on a homeowner to make sure his home had not been burglarized became an ugly incident because of the distortion of a predisposed racial prism.

For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".

What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.

Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.

The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.

I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.

Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.

What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".

Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.

Core Values and Healthcare

So the big fuss is about the push led by Obama and his minions to impose a massive government bureaucracy on us all in the name of providing everyone with healthcare.

If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:

Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.

Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.

Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.

Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.

Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.

From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.

Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.

May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?

1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.

When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!

These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.

There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.

Questioning Motives

I just saw this article about Jimmy Carter, who has left his Southern Baptist church. For me, it just adds fuel to my increasing speculation about the motives of the broader group of Leftist America in which he values his membership over that of the Baptists.

Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.

So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?

It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.

The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?

The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?

It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.

Simple Solutions

The proposition: Nearly every major issue in America would be solved if only a plurality of the population found a basic moral code.

Healthcare could be solved if

Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.

The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if

People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.

Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if

People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.

The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.

But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.

So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.

Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.

What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.

The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.

Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.

How to Solve the Gay Marriage Problem

This is my brilliant plan for solving the Gay Marriage problem in a way that may not please anybody, but at the same should stop the public argument about the subject.

It's simply this: Take the institution of Marriage away from the government.

The idea is to eliminate all the government benefits extended to married couples, thus putting the whole institution back where it belongs; as a sacramental commitment.

Suppose you could file a joint tax return with any other adult, where there's no reference to "Married filing jointly", just merely "Filing jointly". You could file jointly with a parent, sibling, spouse, or roommate - the government doesn't care.

You buy your insurance for yourself only or yourself plus one other adult. The other adult could be anybody, as long as he or she lives in your household. Even more importantly, whether or not you and the other adult are having sex is irrelevant to the relationship.  Employers would provide health insurance options for Employee Only, Employee Plus One Adult, or Employee Plus Family (including one adult).

You can name anybody you want in your will, partner with anybody you want for all financial transactions, even name anybody you want as a surviving beneficiary for your Social Security death benefits.

If you have children, you will always be financially responsible for them. Whether you are married to the other parent or not. That goes for adopted as well as natural children.

If you live with someone under a spousal-type arrangement, a civil contract must be in place that defines what happens if the two of you split up. Then instead of divorce court, the only legal activity would be suits brought by one party or the other to enforce the civil contract - whatever it says.

So churches remain free to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex "marriages". Everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether to enter into the civil and sacramental marriage contract.

I do think adoption agencies should be free to decide their own screening process for adoptive parents. If an agency discriminates against single adoptive parents or same-sex partners or wierd people, that's their right.

It won't make the gay activists happy, because for some of them the agenda is less about an actual "marriage right" and more about getting government to force those who think it's aberrant to shut up and give them preferencial treatment.

It may not make religious conservatives happy, who believe traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the foundation of a moral and harmonious society. But they can't argue that this plan forces them to support gay marriage in any specific way.

Wouldn't this make for an interesting debate? I know, dream on.

Irrational Hatred

I had an interesting conversation with someone this week about the divisiveness and hatred apparent in the political system. We agreed that each side of the political divide strive to paint their opponents as evil personified.

Naturally, the first case in point was President Bush, who was demonized by the Left even when he did things they would otherwise support. Also noted is the hypocrisy, as we recalled, the Left was apoplectic with the terrorist surveillance program, which they were absolutely certain was designed to listen in on their Bush-hating telephone rants with like-minded irrationals. But now that their messianic president has Homeland Security openly surveilling "potential terrorists" like pro-lifers, NRA members, and, well, conservatives, they agree wholeheartedly.

The latest example is Sarah Palin. We agreed that leftist hatred for her and its accompanying meanness is baffling. What is it about the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska that sends left-wingers and especially radical feminists off the cliff?

Interestingly, when she abruptly announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, the usual kooky lefts in the blogs and MSNBC automatically dreamed up all sorts of nasty fantasies in explanation. Which of course are all patently false, but when has that ever stopped folks like the straightjacket-needing Olberman.

Even David Letterman famously got in the act, trashing Palin at every turn with unfunny "jokes" and crossing the line with a particularly crude one about her daughter. What exactly is it about Sarah that drives even Dave running down the road to the funny farm?

Does the hatred come from her looks? That she's demonstrated solid pro-life values? That she's attractive? Could it be it's just because she's conservative?

From Katie Couric to Dave Letterman to the entire lineup on MSNBC to even some Republican pundits, the mere mention of Sarah makes veins pop out on their foreheads and vile words pour out of their mouths.

Maybe it's a female thing we men (at least conservative or moderate men) will never understand. I sure don't.

Hill Responds

So I got an answer from congressman Hill on my letter pleading with him to vote against the Cap & Trade bill. If anybody happens to read this and got the same letter, I'd appreciate it if you leave a comment and let me know. I really want to know whether this was a response to my letter or a form letter he sent to everybody.

Draw your own conclusions on the main question; is he a "true believer", had his head turned by The Great and Powerful OB, been threatened by Boss Pelosi, or all of the above?

Dear Mr. S******,

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.

We cannot continue to push the issue of addressing climate change onto future generations. It would be a complete shirking of my responsibilities as your Member of Congress to do that. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently moving forward to regulate green house gases as a pollutant, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA.

It is important that Congress set up a reasonable system to regulate emissions from all sectors of our economy, and ensure that targets and timetables included are feasible. Yes, this is a complex issue, and with something of this magnitude the details are absolutely critical. In fact, the original proposal was simply not achievable for Indiana. But, I worked with the Committee to significantly change the bill into a more realistic plan, and that process will continue as the bill moves through Congress. I believe that, although it is not currently a perfect product, the issue is too important to stop the legislative process.

I believe we made several important improvements to the draft. First, in order to cushion our transition to a clean energy economy, the majority of allowances were given to affected industries. These allowances, given to regulated entities, will ensure that prices do not spike and that companies do not receive windfall profits. Second, manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance, and countries that do not adopt green house gas standards will face trade consequences from the United States to ensure the continued competitiveness of American manufacturing. Third, the original renewable energy standard was not practicable for Indiana, but it was moderated to a level at which Indiana can achieve results.

Regarding the details, I have worked diligently to safeguard the taxpayers' of Southern Indiana from being unfairly penalized by the bill. For example, I secured language in the legislation that will allow waste-to-energy to count as a source of renewable energy, thus making the overall Renewable Electricity Standard more attainable for Indiana. In addition, I was able to get a provision in the bill that develops a rebate program to make the purchase of energy-efficient manufactured homes more affordable and accessible.

Southern Indiana possesses the tools to play a key role in this process, and I believe our manufacturing base will attract clean energy jobs. Technological advances in clean energy, such as carbon capture and storage technology, can and will be exported all over the world. Our agriculture community will play a vital role in offsetting green house gases, and will also play a crucial role in cost containment. Finally, our universities, such as Indiana University, are well poised to be at the leading edge of our technological future.

I have been in touch with stakeholders in Southern Indiana, working to ensure that our goals and aspirations in this bill are both well intentioned and achievable. I am happy to report that a major power supplier in Indiana is supportive of the bill continuing to make its way through the legislative process. Again, this bill is at the start of a long process. I look forward to making additional improvements to this bill that will strengthen protections for Hoosier families, our agriculture community and local industries.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.

Analyzing the Supreme Court Firefighter Decision

The general topic is fascinating, as is what has become all too routine in the Supreme Court; a 5-4 decision. My interest in this particular case includes several facets, from the law, what is fair or unfair about the case, and the remarkable tendency of the court to split along ideological lines on nearly every major decision these days.

So if you don't already know the basics of the case, here's what I've gathered from my reading about it:

The case arose when the city of New Haven, Connecticut, chose to deny promotions for qualified people within it's fire department. The specific reason for denying those promotions was that there were not enough minorities qualified for promotion, therefore the city would not promote anyone. The reason given was fear of legal action by minority firefighters, as no blacks and two hispanics passed the qualification examination.

So the firefighters who passed the examination and reportedly qualified in every objective measure for promotion to leadership positions in the department filed suit.

What makes the case interesting to many is the involvement of Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a summary judgement in favor of the City. In other words, she essentially decided without any hearing or serious review of the facts of the case that it did not have merit.

So what did the court say about the law? Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that the court narrowly struck down Sotomayor's appeals court ruling because the Civil Rights Act does not permit such public employee policies being denied simply because of a fear of a lawsuit. Unless the testing and qualifications process in place at New Haven is found to unfairly favor majority candidates (which was never alleged), the City cannot arbitrarily refuse to promote the candidates who qualified for promotion under the City's own criteria.

The court steered clear of the larger constitutional issue, which of course most conservatives have hoped to see addressed for years; the 14th amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Affirmative Action programs across the country are designed not to provide equal opportunity, but instead preference in hiring, promotions, and university admissions to members of racial minorities. The left-wing argument for this practice is that such preferences are remedies for past discrimination.

So even though the law seemingly could not have been clearer on the subject, Judge Sotomayor and the 4 liberal justices who banded together in support of Justice Ginsberg's dissent would prefer to ignore the law in favor of their ideology.

As a simple matter of fairness, it is astounding to me that anyone would think it fair to slam the door on the most qualified candidates for promotion in any situation for the plain and simple reason that the candidate does not have the right skin color or ethnic background. It seems to me that such discrimination is always unfair, regardless of the individual victimized by it.

What other conclusion can any resonable observer reach from this decision, other than this: Barack Obama, Sonya Sotomayor, and the 4 liberal justices on the court, are driven by political and left-wing ideological priorities only. When the law on a specific issue before the court is crystal clear and without ambiguity, they will manufacture their own logical pretzels in pursuit of an outcome that fits their ideology.

That's what is called "Judicial Activism". And that's one more item on the Obama agenda to remake America. Apparently part of remaking America is destroying its constitution and rule of law. I'm not even certain the objective is their socialist utopia, but it seems more likely that dream is absolute power.

Thus my somewhat mixed feelings on this judgement, somewhere between relief that reason and sound interpretation of the law prevailed and disappointment that the court failed to address the underlying constitutional issue.

Do I think Sotomayor should be stopped from taking her seat on the court? Actually, I wish it were possible, but it's not. There aren't enough senators with the courage to stop her, the President was elected and has the right to pick his appointments, my interpretation of the constitutional role of the Senate to "advise and consent" doesn't mean blocking a nominee on ideological grounds, and blocking Sotomayor will simply lead to Obama naming another justice just as bad or worse.

Then again, if she can be proven to be incompetent, unqualified, or openly hostile to the oath of preserving and protecting the constitution of the United States, then shame on any senator who allows her nomination to be approved.

He probably will ignore me, but I wrote this anyway.

Dear Congressman Hill:

I recognize that my position on the healthcare reform initiatives currently pushed by the White House is not consistent with yours. So I hope you will consider my argument that other reforms can be much more effective than the proposed government-centered proposals.

I believe that as a small business owner who has struggled to obtain and keep a painfully expensive health insurance plan that has to date paid almost nothing for my actual healthcare services, I have standing to make a case in this area.

The fundamental problem with the system today boils down to cost. Physician friends tell me the biggest drivers of cost in their businesses are malpractice insurance premiums, patients who fail to pay, Medicare and Medicaid payments that are often late and more often not enough to cover the actual costs of care, and filing claims with many insurance companies with a different form or requirement for each and hounding them for late payments.

In business, we solve problems in a very different way from government. Since we don't have unlimited taxpayer resources to build a bureaucracy and task it to "solve" the problem, we actually have to understand and solve it on our own. The standard approach is to define the problem, identify alternative solutions, then implement those solutions.

So instead of a government healthcare takeover, why not simply help solve the problems?
Implement a serious Tort Reform that requires malpractice suits actually demonstrate that malpractice has occurred before the case actually gets heard.

Get the insurers to form an industry standards group that establishes a universal electronic claims reporting system, so any provider can simply submit online claims in the same way for all insurers. Permit providers to charge insurers interest on past-due payments, so they stop playing the float on the backs of the providers.

Let private insurers play in the Medicare and Medicaid space, so those who qualify can choose the plan that works best for them individually. My preference would be to outsource Medicare and Medicaid entirely, changing it to a simple voucher that allows qualified families to buy their own insurance in the market.

I believe a bold plan would propose detaching health insurance from employers. Everyone should be free to choose their own health plans on the open market, where insurers may not pick and choose only the healthiest for their plans. In other words, everyone buys their health insurance just like they buy auto insurance. If they want a major medical plan only to save cost, they simply pay cash for routine services.

Ultimately, giving people more control is better than giving them less control (per the government model). The market will compete, people will discover that changing their lifestyles can help them cut their premiums, and insurers will have to compete for customers.

Thank you for considering my ideas, and my hope is that you will vote against any plan that promises a federal bureaucracy that imposes their healthcare decisions on all of us.

Doomed to Repeat?

The exact quote escapes me, as does its attribution, but it's something along the lines of, "Those who do not understand History are doomed to repeat it."

Boy is it ever true!

Here we are repeating history in so many ways. I have to wonder, is the Great and Powerful OB really aware of what utter failures his policies were in the past? Does he know that and just not care, because power is his ambition? Or does he think they somehow did it wrong back then, and he knows how to do it right this time? Or is he simply ignorant and dismissive of history?

I can't think of any alternatives to those questions, which gives me heartburn.

Let's go back.

FDR took office shortly after the economic collapse that spurred the Great Depression. His response was to implement massive new socialist programs. Many citizens apparently loved him for that, but did they actually work? As far as I can tell, and from what a pretty high number of economists smarter than I have determined, they did not. In fact, they served to deepen and entrench the Depression. It took World War II and the optimism in its aftermath that turned things around.

Now some say that the GI Bill was responsible for that turnaround, and perhaps it had a positive impact. But raising taxes on the rich to an 80% top marginal rate and giving it to politicians and bureaucrats to dole out a small sliver to the needy obviously did much more damage.

What about LBJ and his Great Society? Did it work? Definitively not. Welfare programs that hand out a subsistence-level lifestyle create a permanent underclass of dependents. It's so amazingly clear, yet so many refuse to acknowledge the truth of it.

Then there's Jimmy Carter and his weak, naive foreign policy. There's no way to spin the fact that Jimmy's weakness led to the regime change in Iran that's front and center in today's immediate threats to our own security.

So the Great and Powerful OB is eager to assume the mantle of FDR, LBJ, and the peanut farmer. Luckily his poll numbers are falling, indicating more Americans are catching on. But it seems still over half the population is happily skipping behind his pied piper tune toward the cliff.

Next up, 10% unemployment. Devalued Dollar. Federal bankruptcy, along with bankruptcy in many states. Attacks on the homeland by nuclear Iran and North Korea, not to mention the odd terrorist bombings. Illegal immigrants flooding over open borders to either accept under-the-table jobs or terrorize the citizenry with drug trafficing and gang violence. All while the military and defense systems are de-funded to clear the way for federal socialized medicine.

Our only hope is that those Emerald City OB worshippers awaken from their trance in time.

Base Discourse

There are a number of examples of the most base forms of discourse in the country lately. Rather than improving, it seems to be getting worse, as disgusting and demeaning language is used to destroy people who are guilty of nothing more than having a particular worldview.

The David Letterman "jokes" about Sarah Palin and her daughter illustrate this point. Calling Palin a "slutty flight attendant" is certainly disgusting and disrespectful, not only to her but to women in general. Then going after her daughter, regardless of which daughter he actually meant to insult, was out of bounds.

The best way to answer his semi-apology splitting hairs about which daughter he was trashing is this simple question: Dave, would you have ever in a thousand years considered telling the same or a similarly vile joke about Chelsea Clinton? Or the Obama daughters?

We all know the answer. Somehow in the leftwing mindset of which Dave is clearly a member, only members of your own ideology deserve respect. As the MSNBC pundits and Bill Maher are saying, Sarah and her daughters are "fair game". Sure, and just imagine Rush Limbaugh saying anything remotely similar about a prominent daughter of a Democrat politician. I wonder what the same folks on the Left would have to say about that. The answer's pretty obvious to anybody who would be honest.

Then there's the story about the Inspector General that got fired by Obama for doing his job. Apparently he uncovered corruption and misappropriation of funds in Sacramento. But the culprit was a good friend of the President. We couldn't have that, so he was unceremoniously fired without notice, which just happens to be against the law.

So how does the Obama team respond to questions about this firing? Well, the guy's an old geezer who is losing his mind. Rather than answering the question truthfully, they chose to add insult to injury by destroying the poor guy's reputation. Does this really happen in America?

Even the CBS Evening News anchor recently got in the act at a College Commencement, where she trashed Sarah Palin. This is what passes for the head of the objective journalism at a major network news organization? A rabid partisan basking in left-wing adoration by personally attacking a conservative politician is supposed to be credible the next day on the Evening News? And they wonder why nobody watches CBS News anymore?

My third example is a PBS special I happened upon recently about the murder of Dr. Tiller. The program made me physically nauseous, and so upset I turned off the television for the night. The entire "documentary" was designed as an undisguised propaganda piece to deliver a horrible message: Tiller and his colleagues are heroes and martyrs for the cause of women's health and even women's rights. Their services are necessary for women, as if somehow if Tiller and his ilk were not there for women, they might just die from some horrible disease (is a baby some sort of tumor now?). And those Anti-Abortion fanatics (no mention of Pro-Life allowed here) are all nothing but hypocrites and murderers who can't wait to shoot down all the doctors who so compassionately and bravely provide healing healthcare for women. The explicit message from this sickening propaganda piece was that all pro-life activists must be locked up. It added more fuel to my ongoing concern that I may yet become imprisoned, along with many like me, for simply refusing to abandon my faith and moral code.

What is it with everybody? When did it become OK to demean and spread evil lies and rumors and launch baseless investigations against people just because they happen to express a certain political point of view, mostly from a conservative perspective?

Who decided that the best way to make an argument was to destroy the credibility of the person making the opposing argument? How many times must we be subjected to the canard, "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party". He's no more the leader of that party than I am. It's as ridiculous as a Republican going in front of the press and proclaiming that Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann or Michael Moore is the leader of the Democrat party. I'm guessing there would be as many Democrats offended by that suggestion as most Republicans are by the Limbaugh stuff. It is as untrue as it is meaningless.

There is talk of a groundswell of backlash against the extremes of the leftist power base that's taken over our government and society. We can only hope that the movement succeeds in recruiting fresh talent for our elective offices and sweeps aside the totalitarian Left before they are able to harden the foundation of permanent iron-fisted rule.

No Psychic Powers Required

It doesn't take psychic powers to predict what's going to happen as a direct result of the Obama-led redefinition of America into a socialist utopia. In fact, all it takes is a modest understanding of history. Who was it that said, "There's nothing new under the sun"? There's nothing new about Obama's socialist agenda, nor will there be anything new about its result.

Let's start with taxing the rich and giving to the poor. The poor generally see that as a pretty good idea, but what if they knew the real consequences of that part of the plan?

Although the number seems to keep coming down, let's just use Obama's original number of $250K. The idea is, if an individual earns more than $250K, somehow that's not good citizenship. Therefore, the government has the right to confiscate most of the earnings in excess of that amount.

So, let's say I've got my small business going great guns, and am on track to earn $500K this year. But Obama's new tax plan will take 70 cents on the dollar for the second $250K. Adding in State & Local Taxes, I would end up keeping a tiny fraction of those earnings for myself; possibly approaching 10%.

Being a rational person, I will do whatever I must to avoid those confiscatory taxes. Since I'm a consultant, with earnings based on hourly fees, once I realize there's no profit in working for that second $250K, I just won't. I'll cut my hours in half, or I'll work until I've earned $250K and take the rest of the year off. Then I'll resign myself to the fact that my earnings will be capped at $250K, at least until somebody from the conservative philosophy takes office. And I'll continue limiting my efforts to earning $250K and only $250K.

The Obama crowd might say that's a good thing. More work for other consultants, and isn't it great for me to earn so much money and still be able to get so much time off?

Maybe there's a personal attraction to making pretty decent money and still having lots of free time. But compare that to what I would have done without the confiscation:

I would have looked at expanding my business or investing in another business. After all, what if I could invest that second $250K into something that might pay off in bringing me an additional $250K a couple of years down the road?

Having the freedom and incentive to invest the profits from my success opens all sorts of possibilities. Maybe I am able to open a new business that employs lots of people. Maybe I'm able to invest in the development and sale of a new invention that makes everybody's lives better. I certainly will contribute a nice chunk of that income toward my church and favorite charities.

All it takes is the smallest bit of thought, which even the tiniest mind would be able to grasp. Obama thinks he will get 70% of that second $250K to pay for his universal healthcare and general income redistribution. But in reality, all he'll get is the 35 or 40% of the first $250K. Because it's not worth anybody's time to simply have the fruits of their labor confiscated by the government, which will waste most of it anyway on the bureaucracy and lining pockets of Democrat cronies.

It didn't work in the Jimmy Carter 70's. And it won't work in the Barack Obama 00's and 10's.

And the worst part, I'm pretty sure he knows it. What conclusion might that thought lead you to?

Me too.

Observable Results of Racial Preference

Commencement season has just ended. I attended two, for a child and for a nephew. To deny an evident fact of those commencement ceremonies would be to feign blindness.

The freshmen gathered to begin their undergraduate journeys four years ago. The incoming class was plainly racially diverse, proving the success of the university's efforts to attract and recruit students of various backgrounds.

Four years later, how diverse was the graduating class? If you count the Asian, Indian, and to a lesser extent Hispanic graduates, you might say pretty diverse. But what about Black?

The entering freshmen had a significant population of black students, perhaps close to a third of the matriculating class. But the graduating seniors were missing most of them. Sure, there were Black graduates, but as a percentage of the whole could not have been more than a low single-digit. And surnames of those graduates strongly suggested a significant part of that small successful group were from countries other than the United States.

Which naturally leads to the question: How does the practice of giving preferences and lowering admission standards for the purpose of building diverse university classes help those in the preferred group succeed, if obvious success rates for those students are so dismally small?

Would it not be better to make university admissions color-blind? Would it not be better to focus our efforts on improving education at the lower levels? If a racially identified sub-culture in America has rejected the education system as run by racist white guys, and shuns anyone in their group daring to excel in school, calling him "Uncle Tom"?

We should strive to support success not for a single racial group, but for all who grow up in poverty and without strong adult role models. We should focus on positive messages that tell young people they can succeed beyond their wildest dreams, if they only show up and study hard in school. We should encourage young women to pursue an education and career as the far superior option to dropping out and having babies out of wedlock.

This is why I could never be a politician in today's world. When you dare speak the truth, especially about issues such as this one, those who prefer the status quo will attack you personally and viciously.

But truth is.

Things I Will Never Understand

My brain just doesn't work the way so many others seem to these days. Here's a quick list of things I won't ever understand.

The idea that we're all entitled to healthcare paid for by someone else. I do understand the frustration with the high cost, but that's a different and solvable problem.

The argument that courts can make law on their own authority.

The idea that the US Constitution is a musty and obsolete old 18th century document that has no relevance to second millennium society.

The idea that it's OK to impose discrimination in hiring or higher education if the discrimination is in favor of members of selective racial, gender, or deviant behavioral groups.

The idea that harsh sentences must be meted out only for offenders who seem to have committed the violent offense based on the victim's membership in one of those favored groups.

The strident demands that those who dare oppose candidates for the country's highest positions on grounds of merit and constitutional principles must remain silent or be persecuted as racists/bigots/homophobes.

Instead of keeping sexual behavior private, we're asked to embrace and give special protection to practitioners of a myriad of deviancy.

Free speech only applies to the Left. Christians, radio talk-show hosts, and one cable television news network must be silenced.

American prosperity must be destroyed for the good of the planet.

No criminal deserves capital punishment, but abortion is nothing more than one of many effective methods of birth control.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment between a man and woman creating a foundation for the nuclear family; instead it's an open partnership between any two individuals that provides special benefits from employers and the government. And any marriage may be dissolved and transferred on the whim of the partners.

Keeping the people safe isn't a military function; instead our leaders need to show the world we mean no harm, so they'll like us and will no longer threaten us.

Anybody who smokes tobacco or is overweight must be marginalized, but tokers are only using alternative medicine. Those hooked on "recreational" drugs deserve compassion not earned by the smokers and overweight, but must be given free access to drug rehab programs.

Terrorists who have actually committed violent terrorist acts are only responding to the abuse of American criminal politicians of the past. The "real" terrorists are Christians, NRA Members, military veterans, and Ron Paul supporters.

The definition of "Economic Stimulus" is giving billions of dollars to individuals and groups that will help make sure the party in power stays in power.

There's more, but I can't continue or I'll bring my mood down too low.

Basketball Coach

Lately I've thought a bit about my favorite sport, and considered what my philosophy and strategy would be if I happened to become a high school basketball coach. Not that there's even the most remote possibility that would ever happen - in fact, I don't believe I have the right personality to be successful in the job.

Even so, it's sort of fun to ruminate on what I might do to build a program. The local high school presents an interesting challenge. There hasn't been a winning basketball program there in decades. In my opinion not because of a lack of talent, but a lack of the kind of program that identifies and develops the players that can result in a competitive team.

The program has to start with development. One of the first things I'd do as the new coach is go meet the coaches from the feeder schools. I'd talk with them about a vision for the program that starts in the 5th grade, even though at least half of the best prospects will choose the other local high school.

Currently the coaches in the early grades are free to build their own teams without regard for how their choices impact the eventual high school rosters. Good basketball teams need height, speed, and athleticism. Slow little guys who happened to develop basketball skills, did so either from a natural talent and love of the game or because gung-ho parents got them to camps and clinics and even private coaching.

But those little slow guys aren't the ones who will make your team successful when they get to the 11th and 12th grades.

The tall kids are gangly and uncoordinated. When the coaches have tryouts in the 5th or 6th or 7th grade, those tall kids who can't dribble, can't shoot, and trip over their big feet barely get a look. What the leader of a successful basketball program needs to recognize is that boys develop at very different rates. That gangly tall kid who doesn't get a second look in the 7th grade has the potential to blossom into a Division I college prospect by the time he's a Senior. That super fast kid who can't dribble or shoot very well has the potential to become the best point guard in the conference by the time he's a Junior.

So I'd plead with the coaches in the lower grades to do the following:

• Take at least 3 or 4 of the tall, uncoordinated kids on your 15-member roster.
  
• Take one or two of the super fast kids who can't dribble or shoot.
• Then go ahead and take the best 10 of the rest.
• But encourage those who didn't make the roster not to give up. Create and support an intramural program, encourage kids to play in the PAL or FFY leagues. Get Senior players from the High School to coach those kids and keep the coaches informed on which kids are beginning to show promise.
• Get an assistant coach on those lower grade teams that works specifically with the big men, teaching them the fundamentals. Give the big men a taste entering games whenever possible to get some experience and motivation.
• Emphasize summer camps to bring out the local kids. The primary goal of the summer camps should be finding and developing the local talent, not making extra money for yourself.
  
• Stay engaged, and get to know every kid playing basketball in the community, whether on the school teams or the other programs.

As far as the first year at the high school, I'd start with the call-out meeting within the first couple weeks after school starts in August or September. I'd roam the halls looking for the tall kids. I'd talk to the football, baseball, and track coaches about the most athletic kids in those programs. I'd invite every one of them to the basketball tryout.

At the call-out meeting I'd make it clear that the roster is wide open. We will take the best 12 players on the varsity roster. We'll take up to 15 of the best players on the junior varsity roster, and up to 15 of the best freshmen for the freshman roster. Nobody who played last year is guaranteed a spot.

After picking the rosters for the 3 high school squads, I'd help organize an intramural league and encourage those who didn't make it to participate. I'd keep an eye on the kids in that league to look for young up-and-coming prospects.

My emphasis for building a competitive team would be on practice. I would not be a great game coach, and am not a great motivator. But I can be methodical and intelligent about focusing on the keys to success:

• Fitness: Everybody on the team will find games to be physically like a vacation compared to practice. No rubber legs in the fourth quarter will ever be blamed for a loss.
• Fundamentals: Every team member will go through very structured drills every day to develop their fundamentals. Dribbling, footwork, shooting, passing, rebounding, discipline. No loss will ever be blamed on a lack of discipline or poor fundamentals.
• Standards: Strict rules will be established and enforced uniformly on standards of appearance, sportsmanship, language, and conduct. This will be a class program.

I would assign assistant coaches to primary duties: One in charge of post player development, another in charge of guards. Post players will become outstanding defenders, experts at blocking out and controlling rebounds and near-perfect shooting inside 6 feet. Guards and small forwards must be quick, have great hands, and great passers. Only the sharpshooters will be allowed to take open 3-pointers. Everybody will shoot 200 free throws every day.

Practice will be sort of like learning to play the piano. Every fundamental will start with the simple and build up to more and more complex skills. For example, players will learn to shoot by starting under the basket and gradually moving out. When a player can dribble with the left hand, they'll be challenged to learn behind-the-back and between-the-legs. The same approach to learning the offense - start with the simple placement and options, and gradually introduce more and more wrinkles.

I'd use mostly a man-to-man defense, relying on the players' speed and conditioning. Zone defenses will be used either to confuse the opponent or when matchups make it a more effective strategy.

I'd utilize a motion offense with lots of screens, constant player cutting, and an emphasis on playing fast and finding the highest percentage open shot. I'd have the basic motion offense with multiple options against man-to-man, and an inside-out offense with lots of options against zone. I'd look for big and dominant big men in the middle with quick, sharpshooting guards and small forwards that will force opponents to pick their poison; let the big man score under the basket or let the sharpshooters pop from outside - you can stop one but not the other.

I'd implement a rigorous offseason training program, designed for speed, agility, and max verticals. Players who show up for tryouts out of shape risk their spot on the roster, regardless of natural talent. I wouldn't necessarily run a lot of fullcourt press, unless I felt it gave us a definitive advantage against a slower or lesser conditioned team.

I'd foster team unity with time spent outside of practice, but be careful not to overdo it so players still have quality family time at home. Every player will know exactly where they stand with the coaches and their role on the team, and any attitude problems with their role won't be tolerated. On the other hand, every bench player will understand that they can earn their way onto the court during games through exhibiting outstanding effort in practice.

A special reward for one Junior Varsity player allowed to dress with the Varsity will be based on practice effort. One JV player will dress for each regular season varsity game, chosen the day before each game and based solely on the coaches' choice of which player exhibited the best attitude and gave the best effort for the given week of practice.

The day after each game (typically Saturday morning) will be a light workout and film session. Reviewing game film will identify the most critical problems in that game, and the specific fundamental skills will become the primary emphasis for the next week of practice.

The basic philosophies of cultivating talent and recognizing that boys develop physically at different rates will ensure the best possible roster each season. A strong conditioning program will ensure that physical stamina is never a reason for losing a game. Players will respect themselves, their coaches, and each other, and will be models for the rest of the school.

I'd try to find assistant coaches who are good at the things I'm not good at. Starting with great motivators. But I also need assistants who know how to teach, since they'll be tasked with player skill development.

I think it's a pretty good strategy. If the local high school gets a coach who lasts more than 2 years, maybe they'll land one that would use something similar. Maybe someday I could catch on as an assistant somewhere, maybe when I don't have to work as much.

The Healthcare Post

The President asked for ideas that might help solve the healthcare problem. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, so I know any ideas I would present would be the last ever to be considered by someone of his leftist and power-mad bent.

All the same, I have a lot of insight on the topic. My business is closely tied to consulting with companies on their employee benefit programs, so I know a lot about how most people get health insurance. I am a small independent businessman, so I know a lot about the difficulties involved in obtaining healthcare for anything close to a reasonable cost.

So, based on my own life and business experience, here's how I think the healthcare problem might be solved.

1. Break health insurance away from employer plans and transfer it to each individual or family. I think employers in general would be happy to get the monkey off their back, allowing their employees to simply purchase their own health plans on the open market. If employers want to subsidize health insurance and/or help collect premiums through payroll deductions, fine. But make health insurance work for everyone the same way as auto or life or homeowner's insurance. Everybody just goes out and buys their own. Employers would then naturally increase employee salaries by the amount they're saving by getting employees off their insurance rolls.
2. Let insurance companies compete for the business. They can bundle the health insurance with auto, home, and life. They can sell products like healthcare savings accounts or combine healthcare and life insurance into new blended plans. What they can't do is turn down anyone. The only rule for purchasing health insurance is that someone can be denied a new policy with another company if they're currently in treatment for a major disease that's covered under their current policy.
3. Health insurance for the majority of people would likely be focused on a Major Medical plan. In other words, routine exams, treatment for common conditions, and routine prescription drugs would be paid out-of-pocket unless the individual chooses a plan that covers those expenses. Full coverage of such expenses would be available, probably with choices to blend medical savings accounts and insurance.
4. Insurance filing by medical providers will use a standardized electronic form. The insurance industry will be asked to form a standards board to define the electronic standard, which is provided by any of a wide choice of commercially-available software packages used by the providers.
5. For low-income individuals and families, a revamped MedicAid program administered by the states can be accessed. Application can be made to the program for assistance with medical bills and insurance premiums. A low-interest loan program will also be available for anyone faced with a budget-busting medical bill, that can be paid off when the borrower is more financially able.
6. Tort Reform, specifically MalPractice Reform, would generally work as follows: Medical Review Boards would be formed in each state, charged with a review of the facts surrounding a possible malpractice case. If the board, made up of an impartial group of professionals and non-professionals, finds the case has merit, it can be referred to civil litigation, or the parties involved can utilize mediation with the review board before moving into court.
7. All medical costs, including fee-for-service, prescription drugs, and insurance premiums, are fully tax deductible for all individuals and families. The 10% threshold will be eliminated. Medical Savings Accounts can be funded with pre-tax earnings, and are not taxed when used for medical expenses. Tax on earnings from medical savings investment accounts is only assessed on money taken out of the accounts for non-medical use.
8. The government has a very limited role in this proposal. They will make sure insurance companies agree on an electronic standard, enforce rules around universal eligibility, administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the Medicaid Loan program, and provide regulatory oversight to make sure insurers treat their clients fairly.

I think this framework will result in lower costs, better accessibility, and a healthier population. Rather than allowing insurers to punish clients for bad health habits, they would be permitted to offer rebates or prizes to their clients for things like losing weight, stopping smoking and drinking, lowering blood pressure, controlling diabetes, etc.

If the onerous burdens on providers are reduced, specifically malpractice lawsuit threats, 20 different insurance filing forms, having to constantly negotiate rates with every insurance provider, having to treat one-third of patients without collecting any fees, etc., the cost of treatments will go down.

If an office visit costs $30 to $40 instead of $60 to $80, most people will be able to pay out of pocket. If diagnostic testing costs less than $100 instead of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, again more people will be able to pay.

Providers have much less paperwork and get to collect most of their fees immediately, while patients know what things cost, can afford them, and will ask better questions and be able to work with their physicians to avoid unnecessary and defensive diagnostic testing.

Finally, everyone will have at least a Major Medical plan, that pays for all hospitalization, trauma treatments, cancer treatments, rehabilitation, and any costs related to a critical disease or injury. Spreading the risk across the entire population lowers the cost for everyone, and protects the providers from today's high percentage of uninsured who pay little or no part of the cost.

I'm absolutely against the idea that the government needs to take over, building a bureaucracy to decide what treatments people can and cannot have, adding a layer of cost without addressing root causes of already out-of-control costs, and trying to build punitive taxes on the "rich" to pay for free healthcare for everybody else.

The Terrorism Post

The whole topic of terrorism, national security, 9/11, Gitmo, interrogations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, etc., is one that hasn't really been a major theme for me in this blog. But the dueling speeches yesterday offered such a clear demonstration of the near opposite approaches from the two administrations that it seemed to present a good opportunity for me to add my two cents.

Cheney and Obama were about as different from each other in their passionate rhetoric on this topic as could be imagined. Cheney is a no-nonsense, unapologetic believer, and many suggest architect, of President Bush's strategies in the War on Terror. Obama is fond of vague rhetorical flourishes, always seeking the oohs and aahs from his adoring fans.

Cheney was the same guy that drove the left crazy with his unflinching commitment to an offensive strategy to root out terrorists where they live so they can never again repeat devastation like 9/11. He refuses to apologize for that strategy, denying that "enhanced interrogation techniques" even approximate torture, and pointing out that those techniques were used only rarely and on a small number of high-ranking al-Quaeda members to obtain information that helped stop planned terrorist attacks, saving thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

Obama is dismayed by the aggressive approach so vigorously defended by Cheney. Aside from asserting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, he has outlawed all use of the phrase, "war on terror". He claims that aggressive pursuit of terrorists only creates more terrorists, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indeed torture and illegal, and those interrogations, along with the very existince of Gitmo, make our country less safe.

The big difference between the two, from my perspective, is that one is open, honest, and very specific about what was done and how it succeeded in averting all terrorist attacks that were planned after 9/11. The other uses vague rhetoric about American values and unsupported claims that his predecessor's tactics made us less safe.

Either Cheney's right about the interrogations helping avert more terrorist attacks or he's not. Since Obama offers no evidence to the contrary, we must accept Cheney's very specific case.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are designed to instill fear, discomfort, and humiliation on those captured terrorists we know have information that can be used to save lives. I don't think fear, discomfort, and humiliation are torture. I think attempting to criminalize everyone involved over a disagreement over interrogation methods is dangerous banana republic politics.

But mainly, it is easy for me to break the interrogation down into a simple analogy. One I wish someone would pose to President Obama to get his response. Mr. President, suppose your lovely daughters were kidnapped by a ring of ruthless rapists and murderers, and one of the leaders of that ring were captured. If you were allowed a half hour alone in an interrogation room with him, what would you be willing to do to make him disclose all the information he has about the location and condition of your daughters?

I know what my answer to that question will always be. And I think those "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the memos stupidly made public by the President would be a day at the beach compared to what I'd be willing to do to save my kids.

Cheney is right about his characterization of Obama on this issue. Obama cares more about his own political power and aggrandizement than the security of his country.

The only other explanations are too frightening to contemplace. Because if it's not just about him, then he's either incompetent and stupid, or he's an agent of our enemies.

I don't need the powers of Nostradamus to see what's coming. We will be struck again, and soon. Israel will be attacked by Iran soon, possibly with a nuclear bomb. Our country will be broken and bankrupt, watching hopelessly as the world explodes and our President continues to appease and hope he can stop the carnage by force of his personality.

Had Enough Yet?

Sometimes I've just got to vent.

How has it happened, that seemingly intelligent people refuse to acknowledge the irreparable harm being done to them and their way of life because they are hypnotized by the messianic President?

He goes to Notre Dame, which defied its own Roman Catholic benefactors to honor him and gasp at his awesomeness while he condescended and chided those who are appalled at his callous disregard for human life. Implicit in his speech was the message that he was the reasonable one on issues of life, while they (and I) are the shrill and ignorant radicals.

He has taken control of banking and automobile manufacturing, and can't wait to do the same with healthcare. He's declared war on the greedy, selfish rich capitalists but is best bud of greedy, selfish rich socialist elites.

He's singlehandedly dictating what cars we will be allowed to drive, in effect making only the ugly motorized rollerskates like the stupid "Smart Car" the sole and costly vehicle available.

He has stolen profitable auto dealerships in order to give them to other dealers he decided to spare. That happens in communist countries, not in America.

He has red-flagged conservatives for surveillance by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists. Offices are reportedly being opened and staffed right now by Obama's brownshirts who will be ready to move in on folks who are military vets, NRA members, pro-life advocates, even Ron Paul supporters. Yes, conservatives. How soon before people we know begin to disappear? Will they be checked into asylums, re-education camps, prison? Or will they simply disappear.

He has allocated billions for his personal army of "community organizers", aka ACORN. Any guesses how they plan to use that money?

He has co-opted the press. Unfettered corruption, from his own illegal relationship with ACORN, to sweetheart deals for friends and relatives of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jack Murtha, and many others, to tax evaders like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and about two-thirds of his cabinet nominees go unremarked and uninvestigated by the slavishly loyal third estate.

He will impose draconian taxes on energy that will make $4 gas seem cheap, freeze average families to death in their homes next February for lack of means to pay their heating bill, and cause commerce to grind to a stop as companies can no longer afford to make and ship products due to skyrocketing energy costs.

Please, somebody tell me you're not some sort of zombie, drugged out on this Obama worship happy gas to which only I seem immune.