Back in the 2009 Butler commencement, Mitch Daniels punched all of us parents in the nose with the declaration that it's all our fault.
His point was that we're the generation that basically caused all of today's problems. It was a strange speech for a graduation ceremony, but he was telling the truth.
It is pretty much our fault.
I'm not only a member of the guilty generation, I happen to be part of the year that happened to be the peak of the baby boom. I read somewhere a long time ago that there were more people born in America in 1957 than any other year on record.
Take the trip with me down memory lane, and I'll give you my perspective of what life is like for the peak of the baby boomers.
We grew up with intact families. Our fathers tended to hold principles like honor, faith, hard work, honesty, thrift, and responsibility. Our mothers tended to stay home with the kids, teach us those values they shared with our fathers and grandparents, make sure we did our homework, made sure we ate right and got plenty of exercise, and did their best to keep us out of trouble.
Where I grew up, we never locked the house or car, and even left the keys in the car not only in our own driveway, but even in the grocery store or school parking lot.
We went to church every Sunday and every Wednesday night, and the schools made sure not to schedule anything on Wednesday evenings to accomodate that schedule for everyone.
We had close friendships with other families who had children close in age to ours. It was common to have a house full of friends on the spur of the moment, enjoying games or even doing dorky stuff like singing and playing guitar.
Then we started to rebel. The older kids in High School and College were growing out their hair, dressing in ways intended to shock our staid parents, expressing anger and opposition to the war in Viet Nam, playing around with illegal drugs and experimenting with promiscuity.
High School expected criminally little of us. I had maybe two classes in my entire high school experience that asked anything the least bit challenging of me. Even so, I contented myself with a mixture of A's and B's, when all I needed to do to turn the B's into A's was crack a book now and then.
We went to college, where professors told us things like we were just more highly evolved forms of animals, God is a superstitious invention, white males are the root of all evil, communism is really a great idea but just hasn't been implemented right by the Soviets, we Americans are unfairly rich and selfishly taking all the earth's resources by force away from poor victims of other races and nations.
College offered a bit more of a challenge, where on average one class per term required my focused attention. On the other extreme, one class per term was so worthless as to provide no positive results other than pad the coffers of the bursar's office.
We entered the workforce having invented today's most popular form of godless, self-centered, narcissistic, amoral attitudes that tolerate pretty much anything as long as it feels good.
Even though we felt unlucky. I left my overcrowded and run-down "Junior High" school shortly before it got a major facelift. My sports teams in the "Junior High" didn't even have enough locker room space, so we had to dress on the stage in the gym with the curtain drawn until we achieved the seniority to move into the real locker room. I left my decrepit, falling-apart high school shortly before it got remodeled.
I started driving just as we hit the OPEC embargo, seeing gas prices double.
I entered the workforce in the worst economy since the great depression. I'm trying to figure out how it aligns with today's repeat of eerily similar conditions.
We're in charge now. Our president it the king of self-centered narcissism, evident in everything he says and does. We don't care, as long as we get ours. They can take away freedoms from other people, as long as they don't take away ours. They can tax "rich" people as much as they want, because they're just greedy b$^&*s who deserve it. We "deserve" things like free healthcare, tax credits for everything from computers to homes to cars, and even cash handouts from the government. Who cares who is paying for it. Who cares if it bankrupts the country and throws us all into multi-generational poverty.
We don't make anything anymore. GM and Chrysler only exist because the government has absorbed them and props them up with money they don't have. The rest of us don't want to work in dirty, noisy factories anyway. We want to do creative "service" businesses that aren't dirty or noisy or physically hard.
We don't take responsibility for our children. Let the government raise them so we can go out and do what we want to do.
Our last best hope is that our children will figure it out in time to reverse course on this disaster we created.
They will blame us.
We deserve it.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Controlling Others
Something I'm not very good at is getting control over the behavior of people when they aren't meeting requirements.
I think I'm pretty good at setting expectations and communicating requirements. When those who receive such information are motivated and able to complete the tasks, things go very well.
I'm currently experiencing stress over a project with a single resource who does not seem to be interested in accepting those requirements and expectations. Which has caused problems with the project and reflected on me.
So I brought in additional resources - I actually tried to replace the problem child completely, but the company wouldn't go along with that. The additional resources took the requirements and instructions, rolled up their sleeves and got it done.
Meanwhile the original person remained uncommunicative and non-productive. Today I presented for the fourth time the same issue that's been outstanding for 3 weeks. As with the previous three times, I have been promised a fix by morning. It seems I have a daily task of reviewing the "fix", saying "nope, that didn't work", and repeating.
Trying to do my best to understand, I figure there are only a few possible causes of these problems:
1. The person isn't really qualified to do the work, but doesn't want to admit it.
2. There is some sort of negative opinion of me and the result is either conscious or unconscious sabotage.
3. The person just doesn't care whether it gets done right or on time, and just tries to get paid as much as possible.
In this case, my working theory is #1. But it could just as easily be #2 or #3, or maybe a combination of all 3.
What can I do to avoid this problem in the future?
Well, I can guarantee I won't accept this particular person on any project I'm managing in the future.
But every project is a roll of the dice. I know some folks who do an excellent job and I would use them in a hearbeat. But of course, they're also the ones who are most in demand and may not be available when I need them.
So they give me the folks who aren't so busy.
Its a dilemma.
I think I'm pretty good at setting expectations and communicating requirements. When those who receive such information are motivated and able to complete the tasks, things go very well.
I'm currently experiencing stress over a project with a single resource who does not seem to be interested in accepting those requirements and expectations. Which has caused problems with the project and reflected on me.
So I brought in additional resources - I actually tried to replace the problem child completely, but the company wouldn't go along with that. The additional resources took the requirements and instructions, rolled up their sleeves and got it done.
Meanwhile the original person remained uncommunicative and non-productive. Today I presented for the fourth time the same issue that's been outstanding for 3 weeks. As with the previous three times, I have been promised a fix by morning. It seems I have a daily task of reviewing the "fix", saying "nope, that didn't work", and repeating.
Trying to do my best to understand, I figure there are only a few possible causes of these problems:
1. The person isn't really qualified to do the work, but doesn't want to admit it.
2. There is some sort of negative opinion of me and the result is either conscious or unconscious sabotage.
3. The person just doesn't care whether it gets done right or on time, and just tries to get paid as much as possible.
In this case, my working theory is #1. But it could just as easily be #2 or #3, or maybe a combination of all 3.
What can I do to avoid this problem in the future?
Well, I can guarantee I won't accept this particular person on any project I'm managing in the future.
But every project is a roll of the dice. I know some folks who do an excellent job and I would use them in a hearbeat. But of course, they're also the ones who are most in demand and may not be available when I need them.
So they give me the folks who aren't so busy.
Its a dilemma.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thought for the Day
Heard this today. I think I've heard it before, but it's especially appropriate in these times.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you receive the enthusiastic support of Paul.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you receive the enthusiastic support of Paul.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Pattern
Taken as a whole, does a pattern emerge from our current government that could be interpreted as even more disastrous than simply an acceleration of the slide into federally-mandated socialism?
Let's take some of the current stories to find out.
Remember Obama's angry insistence that the individual mandates of Healthcare Reform were not taxes? Well, I guess he was lying, because his administration's defense against the lawsuit brought to challenge those mandates is that it's indeed a tax.
Remember his promise to Bart Stupak that Abortion would not be covered by Healthcare Reform to purchase that badly needed vote? That would also seem to be a lie. Indeed, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Mexico have already moved forward to cover abortions under the new bills. Pennsylvania has backed off after their plans were revealed, earning the ire of the left-wing abortion rights crowd.
By the way, remember the whole promise that the plan would be deficit neutral? Did you happen to notice that was repudiated immediately after the bill passed? Besides the massive new taxes and mandates it attaches to the economy, it apparently is still likely to cost Americans another trillion dollars over the decade. And that's before reality sets in, as history proves that every similar entitlement program in the past has busted its projections in short order.
Remember the time when Obama and his fellow angry liberals railed against Bush's program of warrantless wiretaps? Shadowy charges that they engaged in horrible torture of terror suspects? Suggestions that a program called "Redition" sent suspected terrorist sympathizers secretly to other countries for torture? It seems Obama's taken it to the next level with something called the Presidential Assassination Program.
What about the Financial Reform bill? Did you fall for the line that it would fix the problems that caused the financial meltdown? That is another lie. Not only does it permanently entrench the policy of "too big to fail", it also favors the mega banks and disadvantages smaller regional banks. And it does nothing about the true root cause of the meltdown, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
In the meantime, the massive FinRef bill imposes burdensome regulations on non-financial businesses, with oppressive regulations on small business. And for dessert, it dictates that the army of new bureaucrats created by the bill will be discriminatory in its staffing, requiring quotas of minorities and women.
Have you noticed where the Obama government stands on illegal immigration? They like sanctuary cities, who thumb their noses at Federal immigration laws to obstruct enforcement, but bring a lawsuit against Arizona for simply trying to solve the problem the feds refuse to address.
Irony of ironies, the argument of the administration in the Arizona suit is that it's the Fed's "job" to enforce immigration laws, not Arizona's. Apparently from that we may infer that they're also saying that it's also their priviledge to choose not to enforce federal law at their own discretion. If a judge actually finds in favor of that ridiculous argument, that judge has no business holding so much as a Justice of the Peace position.
The big push continues for "Cap & Trade" legislation. Have you taken a moment to consider who benefits from this other massive new redistributionist program? Certainly not the climate - that's admitted by even those who support it. Not the poor - they won't be able to afford gas for their cars or heat for their homes when this program goes into effect.
Have you guessed yet? That's right, the beneficiaries of "Cap & Trade" are the partnerships between the political class, wall street, and some well-connected corporations like GE (who happens to own NBC; isn't that interesting?).
Combine this with Obama's campaign promise to create a massive new "Civilian Security Force" that is bigger than the military, and does a pattern begin to emerge?
Notice that I went with left-wing links, just in case you think I'm being taken in by righties. All you have to do is read and understand what the articles are saying, and you can figure out the truth.
Frightened yet?
Let's take some of the current stories to find out.
Remember Obama's angry insistence that the individual mandates of Healthcare Reform were not taxes? Well, I guess he was lying, because his administration's defense against the lawsuit brought to challenge those mandates is that it's indeed a tax.
Remember his promise to Bart Stupak that Abortion would not be covered by Healthcare Reform to purchase that badly needed vote? That would also seem to be a lie. Indeed, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Mexico have already moved forward to cover abortions under the new bills. Pennsylvania has backed off after their plans were revealed, earning the ire of the left-wing abortion rights crowd.
By the way, remember the whole promise that the plan would be deficit neutral? Did you happen to notice that was repudiated immediately after the bill passed? Besides the massive new taxes and mandates it attaches to the economy, it apparently is still likely to cost Americans another trillion dollars over the decade. And that's before reality sets in, as history proves that every similar entitlement program in the past has busted its projections in short order.
Remember the time when Obama and his fellow angry liberals railed against Bush's program of warrantless wiretaps? Shadowy charges that they engaged in horrible torture of terror suspects? Suggestions that a program called "Redition" sent suspected terrorist sympathizers secretly to other countries for torture? It seems Obama's taken it to the next level with something called the Presidential Assassination Program.
What about the Financial Reform bill? Did you fall for the line that it would fix the problems that caused the financial meltdown? That is another lie. Not only does it permanently entrench the policy of "too big to fail", it also favors the mega banks and disadvantages smaller regional banks. And it does nothing about the true root cause of the meltdown, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
In the meantime, the massive FinRef bill imposes burdensome regulations on non-financial businesses, with oppressive regulations on small business. And for dessert, it dictates that the army of new bureaucrats created by the bill will be discriminatory in its staffing, requiring quotas of minorities and women.
Have you noticed where the Obama government stands on illegal immigration? They like sanctuary cities, who thumb their noses at Federal immigration laws to obstruct enforcement, but bring a lawsuit against Arizona for simply trying to solve the problem the feds refuse to address.
Irony of ironies, the argument of the administration in the Arizona suit is that it's the Fed's "job" to enforce immigration laws, not Arizona's. Apparently from that we may infer that they're also saying that it's also their priviledge to choose not to enforce federal law at their own discretion. If a judge actually finds in favor of that ridiculous argument, that judge has no business holding so much as a Justice of the Peace position.
The big push continues for "Cap & Trade" legislation. Have you taken a moment to consider who benefits from this other massive new redistributionist program? Certainly not the climate - that's admitted by even those who support it. Not the poor - they won't be able to afford gas for their cars or heat for their homes when this program goes into effect.
Have you guessed yet? That's right, the beneficiaries of "Cap & Trade" are the partnerships between the political class, wall street, and some well-connected corporations like GE (who happens to own NBC; isn't that interesting?).
Combine this with Obama's campaign promise to create a massive new "Civilian Security Force" that is bigger than the military, and does a pattern begin to emerge?
Notice that I went with left-wing links, just in case you think I'm being taken in by righties. All you have to do is read and understand what the articles are saying, and you can figure out the truth.
Frightened yet?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Defining Racism
Racism could be an ongoing issue in America, and it also would seem to be a bludgeon wielded by those who would silence critics of the President.
This week's news that the NAACP is determined to produce a resolution branding the Tea Party as a racist organization would appear to me to be the latter.
Ongoing charges of Tea Party racism are based on questionably marginal signs that those with hair-trigger race sensibilities might interpret as racist, while others like myself fail to connect them with any overtly racist messages.
Perhaps the only truthful statement about the racism charges leveled at the Tea Party was apparently given recently by a guest on MSNBC. The essential message she shared was that those who oppose liberal policies are inherently racist, because in her alternate universe, black folks are disproportionally benefitted by socialist redistrubution and harmed by capitalism. Ergo, conservatives are racist simply because their philosophies of limited government, low taxes, and free market capitalism harm the black community.
Perhaps the most prominent "proof" being offered by the Tea Party accusers is the outrageous and manufactured charge of black congressmen who accused protesters of spitting at them and using the "N" word as they walked through.
The problem with that widely reported event is that it's an overt lie. There were hundreds of witnesses, plus many video recordings of the event. None of the witnesses actually observed anything resembling what the congressmen charged, nor does a single video confirm it.
The entire incident was staged by a group of black congressmen, who purposely decided to walk through the Tea Party protest crowd after passing the Healthcare bill. The logical assumption behind the reason they chose to take a stroll through the crowd is that they hoped to receive some sort of racial abuse they could exploit.
The fact that the demonstrators certainly were vocal in expressing their opposition to the passage of the bill, but never hurled racial invectives in any way, failed to provide the evidence of Tea Party racism the congressmen hoped for.
So they decided to make it up. And the media has no interest in following up to find out whether or not their charges are true.
Power Line has a whole series of articles on that incident which is the root of the NAACP's resolution. The $100K reward for evidence proving the congressmen's charges remains unclaimed.
This week's news that the NAACP is determined to produce a resolution branding the Tea Party as a racist organization would appear to me to be the latter.
Ongoing charges of Tea Party racism are based on questionably marginal signs that those with hair-trigger race sensibilities might interpret as racist, while others like myself fail to connect them with any overtly racist messages.
Perhaps the only truthful statement about the racism charges leveled at the Tea Party was apparently given recently by a guest on MSNBC. The essential message she shared was that those who oppose liberal policies are inherently racist, because in her alternate universe, black folks are disproportionally benefitted by socialist redistrubution and harmed by capitalism. Ergo, conservatives are racist simply because their philosophies of limited government, low taxes, and free market capitalism harm the black community.
Perhaps the most prominent "proof" being offered by the Tea Party accusers is the outrageous and manufactured charge of black congressmen who accused protesters of spitting at them and using the "N" word as they walked through.
The problem with that widely reported event is that it's an overt lie. There were hundreds of witnesses, plus many video recordings of the event. None of the witnesses actually observed anything resembling what the congressmen charged, nor does a single video confirm it.
The entire incident was staged by a group of black congressmen, who purposely decided to walk through the Tea Party protest crowd after passing the Healthcare bill. The logical assumption behind the reason they chose to take a stroll through the crowd is that they hoped to receive some sort of racial abuse they could exploit.
The fact that the demonstrators certainly were vocal in expressing their opposition to the passage of the bill, but never hurled racial invectives in any way, failed to provide the evidence of Tea Party racism the congressmen hoped for.
So they decided to make it up. And the media has no interest in following up to find out whether or not their charges are true.
Power Line has a whole series of articles on that incident which is the root of the NAACP's resolution. The $100K reward for evidence proving the congressmen's charges remains unclaimed.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Recharge or Overload?
Getting time off without specific vacation plans is not something I'm looking forward to repeating anytime soon.
While there is no question I needed a break; I was on the road about 6 weeks straight, and have been fighting through a particularly troublesome project. But a vacation without specific plans only works for a couple of days, before I get restless.
Getting away to recharge was definitely the right prescription for the week of Independence Day. Even though folks tried their best to pull me back in while I was "away", I studiously worked to avoid or hold them off until my return to work.
One downside to the free time is my natural tendency to pay more attention to the news. Nearly every news item, by which I mean actual serious news, and not what team LeBron will pick or how long Lindsay Lohan is going to be in jail, affects my mood in a most negative manner.
Only one of many stories that cause blood boiling is the one about the New Black Panthers and the Attorney General of the United States. I suppose many people would do no more than raise an eyebrow when they heard (if they heard at all) that the Obama "Justice" department dropped all charges on the voter intimidation case, after the case was already won.
But now it dribbles out that the case is the tip of a frighteningly large iceberg, where the politically-driven law enforcement agency is pursuing an agenda designed to insure that Democrat-friendly voter fraud and intimidation activities are given free rein.
The whistle-blower Christian Adams testified that the DOJ officially goes much farther than simply dismissing an already-won suit against the criminal charges of voter intimidation with threats of violence. The official DOJ policy is to encourage maximum voter turnout by discouraging States from following laws related to purging voter rolls of the deceased, those who have moved way from a precinct, convicted felons, and other registered voters who are no longer qualified.
That's the scandal that is being studiously avoided by everybody but the conservative media. I don't know what's the bigger outrage - the scandal itself or the failure of the journalist fraternity to perform their public duty to expose such corruption as goes to the heart of the continued viability of our democratic republic.
Oops.
See what I mean about the double-edged sword that is too much free time?
Could it possibly be that I'm looking forward to getting back to work on Monday?
While there is no question I needed a break; I was on the road about 6 weeks straight, and have been fighting through a particularly troublesome project. But a vacation without specific plans only works for a couple of days, before I get restless.
Getting away to recharge was definitely the right prescription for the week of Independence Day. Even though folks tried their best to pull me back in while I was "away", I studiously worked to avoid or hold them off until my return to work.
One downside to the free time is my natural tendency to pay more attention to the news. Nearly every news item, by which I mean actual serious news, and not what team LeBron will pick or how long Lindsay Lohan is going to be in jail, affects my mood in a most negative manner.
Only one of many stories that cause blood boiling is the one about the New Black Panthers and the Attorney General of the United States. I suppose many people would do no more than raise an eyebrow when they heard (if they heard at all) that the Obama "Justice" department dropped all charges on the voter intimidation case, after the case was already won.
But now it dribbles out that the case is the tip of a frighteningly large iceberg, where the politically-driven law enforcement agency is pursuing an agenda designed to insure that Democrat-friendly voter fraud and intimidation activities are given free rein.
The whistle-blower Christian Adams testified that the DOJ officially goes much farther than simply dismissing an already-won suit against the criminal charges of voter intimidation with threats of violence. The official DOJ policy is to encourage maximum voter turnout by discouraging States from following laws related to purging voter rolls of the deceased, those who have moved way from a precinct, convicted felons, and other registered voters who are no longer qualified.
That's the scandal that is being studiously avoided by everybody but the conservative media. I don't know what's the bigger outrage - the scandal itself or the failure of the journalist fraternity to perform their public duty to expose such corruption as goes to the heart of the continued viability of our democratic republic.
Oops.
See what I mean about the double-edged sword that is too much free time?
Could it possibly be that I'm looking forward to getting back to work on Monday?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Evolution of Awareness
When I was younger, I didn't really pay much attention to politics. Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat - none of those labels meant a whole lot to me.
Until my mid-twenties, I generally thought of myself as moderate. I followed the popular notion that it was best to vote for the best person, not the party.
Today I can't tell for certain whether that philosophy was a good one, because I was mostly ignorant about the important issues of the day.
It was when I began to be responsible for myself and my family and understood how government policies can impact my life directly that I gradually became aware. And the more I learned, the more I found myself identifying with conservatives.
Today the choices could not be more stark.
Clearly, the Democrats have slid close to the extreme left of the spectrum. Every solution they push to implement requires government intervention and control.
In the meantime, we find that a frigheningly declining proportion of producers are seeing their wealth confiscated to prop up the political class and the consumers.
We've reached the tipping point, where it appears we now don't have enough producers with wealth to raid to keep the government class and their consuming consituents solvent.
The party in power wants to take more from the producers to reduce the alarming deficits, but have no realistic plan to reverse the trend. How can they not be aware that producers will change their behavior to protect themselves to whatever extent they can?
Wherever Obama's cap settles in, defining the cutoff point for the "rich", his plan is to take everything earned by the producers in excess of that number. Producers in turn will simply cut back their income to fall just below that line. Which means more jobs lost, more businesses shutting down, and more suffering across the board.
On the other hand, I am not encouraged that the conservatives will have the will or the courage to do what must be done to reverse the trend. While November's elections might help a bit, without leadership and a clear sales job to the masses, the problems aren't likely to be solved.
When we live in a world where expression of common sense ideas means volunteering to become a target for personal destruction, totalitarian rule cannot be far behind.
Until my mid-twenties, I generally thought of myself as moderate. I followed the popular notion that it was best to vote for the best person, not the party.
Today I can't tell for certain whether that philosophy was a good one, because I was mostly ignorant about the important issues of the day.
It was when I began to be responsible for myself and my family and understood how government policies can impact my life directly that I gradually became aware. And the more I learned, the more I found myself identifying with conservatives.
Today the choices could not be more stark.
Clearly, the Democrats have slid close to the extreme left of the spectrum. Every solution they push to implement requires government intervention and control.
In the meantime, we find that a frigheningly declining proportion of producers are seeing their wealth confiscated to prop up the political class and the consumers.
We've reached the tipping point, where it appears we now don't have enough producers with wealth to raid to keep the government class and their consuming consituents solvent.
The party in power wants to take more from the producers to reduce the alarming deficits, but have no realistic plan to reverse the trend. How can they not be aware that producers will change their behavior to protect themselves to whatever extent they can?
Wherever Obama's cap settles in, defining the cutoff point for the "rich", his plan is to take everything earned by the producers in excess of that number. Producers in turn will simply cut back their income to fall just below that line. Which means more jobs lost, more businesses shutting down, and more suffering across the board.
On the other hand, I am not encouraged that the conservatives will have the will or the courage to do what must be done to reverse the trend. While November's elections might help a bit, without leadership and a clear sales job to the masses, the problems aren't likely to be solved.
When we live in a world where expression of common sense ideas means volunteering to become a target for personal destruction, totalitarian rule cannot be far behind.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
My Delta Story
I long for the good old days before Delta swallowed Northwest. It's never been more painfully evident than my experience with this week's trip.
In general, since Delta absorbed Northwest, I've seen a number of changes, all of them for the worse.
Delta uses more commuter flights, even on routes like Indy to Atlanta. Those small planes mostly don't have a first class, and those that do have a very limited number of seats and they're not that much better than the coach seats.
All of a sudden the status level I had achieved as a frequent flyer on Northwest seems to be no big deal on Delta. With Northwest, when the flight had a first class cabin, I always got upgraded. Well, maybe not always, but I can't tell you the last time I was on a Northwest flight where I qualified for an upgrade and didn't get it.
With Delta, it happens about half of the time. Partly because of the little commuter planes and partly because the combined pool of frequent flyers are competing for fewer seats.
Then there's the customer service. Northwest had a labor issue before the merger, so there were a lot of bitter and unhappy flight attendants. But the old Northwest beats Delta in customer service hands-down and across the board. In every conceivable customer-facing experience I can report.
So that brings me to this week's trip.
Took off from Indy on time in the little commuter plane with no first class that was overbooked. Northwest used to run the route with a slightly larger plane and guaranteed first class upgrade. OK, that's just me bellyaching.
Got to the intermediate airport, and found out as I approached the gate for my next flight that it had been cancelled.
Waited about 20 minutes to talk to an agent, who couldn't help me. Apparently all of the flights to my destination the rest of the day, including those that connect through other cities, were oversold. There was no way I could get to that airport until the next day.
But the agent suggested that if I wanted to switch my destination to another city nearby, that could still get me there in the same day. So I called my client to confirm I could get picked up at that airport, then used my cell to call the booking line to avoid having to stand in line another 20 minutes for an agent.
Booking line said, sure, if you head for gate 25 now, you can hop on the flight to the nearby destination. She told me she had me rebooked, and all I had to do was get the boarding pass from the gate agent.
Well, I got to the gate, and the gate agent was flustered. See, she had about a dozen of us who were trying to catch this same flight, because we all were on the original flight that got cancelled. And she could not get the computer to process our rebookings. And she could not figure out why.
So she had us each give her our original boarding passes, and two of the passengers worked! So she gave them boarding passes and sent them to the plane. The rest of us she still tried various things to get ours rebooked, but the system just refused to work with her.
She somehow managed to get one more passenger cleared and sent him through the gate. He came back 2 minutes later to tell her they'd already closed the door and wouldn't let him on.
So she finally gave up, and told the rest of us to try the booking line.
I called them again, and they rebooked me for the next flight to the alternate city, leaving about 4 and a half hours later. I asked about my bag, can they make sure it follows me?
She said, "No problem, that's automatic". Right.
I get on that flight, arrive at the destination, and you guessed it - no bag.
So of course I went to the agent, who was the only agent taking care of all 8 of us (the same group of folks from the original cancelled flight), but was also the only agent on duty and had to check in folks arriving for other flights. So it took awhile.
Then, she couldn't get the computer to accept our baggage claims. She was puzzled by that, but actually was the first person who was able to get somewhat creative. She gave us all her direct number, took down our information, and promised she'd get our claims in the system just as soon as she could.
From the hotel, I called her. She confirmed that the claim had been filed, but so far nobody had updated anything. I asked if the bag was still in Memphis, or maybe had it been sent to the original destination? She didn't know. Could I call the other airport to find out if it was there? No, the system doesn't allow for that.
So I waited a couple of hours and called the 800 baggage number. The person who took my call also told me that so far there was no information about the bag. She couldn't give me any information, because nobody had updated the record in the system yet. Again I asked if there was a way to track it down by calling somebody and got the same answer as before.
She clearly didn't care in the slightest whether I ever got my bag.
I went to work the next day in my shorts and golf shirt. The client was great about it.
The bag showed up at my hotel late the next night, about 36 hours after my flight arrived.
I would bet that the other 8 who got re-routed with me had a very similar experience. Of course, I already know they all didn't get their bags rerouted with them.
So we're down to Delta, United, American. All three have no apparent interest in or understanding of the concept of customer service.
I want to start a new airline. I could do a better job running mine than whoever's running those big three. But then again, it's not like that would be very hard.
In general, since Delta absorbed Northwest, I've seen a number of changes, all of them for the worse.
Delta uses more commuter flights, even on routes like Indy to Atlanta. Those small planes mostly don't have a first class, and those that do have a very limited number of seats and they're not that much better than the coach seats.
All of a sudden the status level I had achieved as a frequent flyer on Northwest seems to be no big deal on Delta. With Northwest, when the flight had a first class cabin, I always got upgraded. Well, maybe not always, but I can't tell you the last time I was on a Northwest flight where I qualified for an upgrade and didn't get it.
With Delta, it happens about half of the time. Partly because of the little commuter planes and partly because the combined pool of frequent flyers are competing for fewer seats.
Then there's the customer service. Northwest had a labor issue before the merger, so there were a lot of bitter and unhappy flight attendants. But the old Northwest beats Delta in customer service hands-down and across the board. In every conceivable customer-facing experience I can report.
So that brings me to this week's trip.
Took off from Indy on time in the little commuter plane with no first class that was overbooked. Northwest used to run the route with a slightly larger plane and guaranteed first class upgrade. OK, that's just me bellyaching.
Got to the intermediate airport, and found out as I approached the gate for my next flight that it had been cancelled.
Waited about 20 minutes to talk to an agent, who couldn't help me. Apparently all of the flights to my destination the rest of the day, including those that connect through other cities, were oversold. There was no way I could get to that airport until the next day.
But the agent suggested that if I wanted to switch my destination to another city nearby, that could still get me there in the same day. So I called my client to confirm I could get picked up at that airport, then used my cell to call the booking line to avoid having to stand in line another 20 minutes for an agent.
Booking line said, sure, if you head for gate 25 now, you can hop on the flight to the nearby destination. She told me she had me rebooked, and all I had to do was get the boarding pass from the gate agent.
Well, I got to the gate, and the gate agent was flustered. See, she had about a dozen of us who were trying to catch this same flight, because we all were on the original flight that got cancelled. And she could not get the computer to process our rebookings. And she could not figure out why.
So she had us each give her our original boarding passes, and two of the passengers worked! So she gave them boarding passes and sent them to the plane. The rest of us she still tried various things to get ours rebooked, but the system just refused to work with her.
She somehow managed to get one more passenger cleared and sent him through the gate. He came back 2 minutes later to tell her they'd already closed the door and wouldn't let him on.
So she finally gave up, and told the rest of us to try the booking line.
I called them again, and they rebooked me for the next flight to the alternate city, leaving about 4 and a half hours later. I asked about my bag, can they make sure it follows me?
She said, "No problem, that's automatic". Right.
I get on that flight, arrive at the destination, and you guessed it - no bag.
So of course I went to the agent, who was the only agent taking care of all 8 of us (the same group of folks from the original cancelled flight), but was also the only agent on duty and had to check in folks arriving for other flights. So it took awhile.
Then, she couldn't get the computer to accept our baggage claims. She was puzzled by that, but actually was the first person who was able to get somewhat creative. She gave us all her direct number, took down our information, and promised she'd get our claims in the system just as soon as she could.
From the hotel, I called her. She confirmed that the claim had been filed, but so far nobody had updated anything. I asked if the bag was still in Memphis, or maybe had it been sent to the original destination? She didn't know. Could I call the other airport to find out if it was there? No, the system doesn't allow for that.
So I waited a couple of hours and called the 800 baggage number. The person who took my call also told me that so far there was no information about the bag. She couldn't give me any information, because nobody had updated the record in the system yet. Again I asked if there was a way to track it down by calling somebody and got the same answer as before.
She clearly didn't care in the slightest whether I ever got my bag.
I went to work the next day in my shorts and golf shirt. The client was great about it.
The bag showed up at my hotel late the next night, about 36 hours after my flight arrived.
I would bet that the other 8 who got re-routed with me had a very similar experience. Of course, I already know they all didn't get their bags rerouted with them.
So we're down to Delta, United, American. All three have no apparent interest in or understanding of the concept of customer service.
I want to start a new airline. I could do a better job running mine than whoever's running those big three. But then again, it's not like that would be very hard.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Defining Leadership
The conversation about the gulf oil disaster has been centered on Obama, and whether or not he's shown leadership in dealing with the disaster.
If you read me much, you probably already guessed my answer. So instead of the direct answer, let me go directly into definitions of leadership.
Leadership is about getting things done and solving problems.
Obama is about getting political power done and solving problems of recalcitrant democrats who might hold up his political priorities.
So when a real-world problem arises, such as the collapse of the economy, various terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, or the oil disaster Obama's version of leadership is to try to turn the problem into impetus to accelerate his political agenda.
A leader faced with the Gulf disaster would first of all have made sure the department charged with inspecting and regulating offshore oil rigs was doing its job. Failing that, a great leader would have sprung into action decisively and directly as soon as the rig explosion occurred.
A great leader would have immediately called together a team to assess the accident, find out what impact it might have, and begin developing recommendations for solutions. He would have met with BP executives and engineers, along with any experts he can recruit from the industry, to talk about the problem and possible solutions.
Then he would have recruited all available resources, whether from BP, the military, or other Oil Company engineers and experts to work together aggressively toward stopping the oil. In a parallel effort, he would work with the gulf coast state governors to take all possible steps to protect the coastline from the oil.
Obama did none of that.
The economic problem that met him when he entered office was clearly defined by his chief of staff, who wanted to make sure they didn't let a good disaster go to waste. Thus came the "bailouts" and rush to pay off everyone in the left-wing constituency with public funds.
The current oil crisis is another disaster too good to waste. Obama's instincts lead him into a two-pronged response: First, destroy British Petroleum. Second, use the disaster to push through a massive redistributionist policy called "Cap and Trade".
A thinking person would need only a moment to understand that Cap and Trade has nothing to do with what its' sponsors promise (reducing dependence on foreign oil, moving us into a "clean energy" economy). It is designed simply to drive all "dirty" energy costs through the roof, make a select group of Democrats led by Al Gore (and Obama himself) richer and more powerful than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and redistribute some of the money to pay energy bills for poor countries, and if they are lucky, maybe a few poor Americans.
When will enough people wake up and realize what's happening? When will the poor finally realize that the party in power won't help them get out of poverty, but make sure they stay there? When will the middle class realize that the current power brokers in Washington are remaking America into one where the priviledged elite are simply shifted from the Corporate barons to the politically connected, all at the expense of the middle class? When will all of us realize that we're all on the brink of permanently losing our standard of living, lowering the bar for everyone from the most wealthy to the poorest?
What I actually find shocking isn't that the president's 46 percent approval rating is so low, but that it's still so high. Unfortunately, that means there are still nearly half of the people that still haven't figured it out.
If they don't figure it out by November, I think we're toast.
If you read me much, you probably already guessed my answer. So instead of the direct answer, let me go directly into definitions of leadership.
Leadership is about getting things done and solving problems.
Obama is about getting political power done and solving problems of recalcitrant democrats who might hold up his political priorities.
So when a real-world problem arises, such as the collapse of the economy, various terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, or the oil disaster Obama's version of leadership is to try to turn the problem into impetus to accelerate his political agenda.
A leader faced with the Gulf disaster would first of all have made sure the department charged with inspecting and regulating offshore oil rigs was doing its job. Failing that, a great leader would have sprung into action decisively and directly as soon as the rig explosion occurred.
A great leader would have immediately called together a team to assess the accident, find out what impact it might have, and begin developing recommendations for solutions. He would have met with BP executives and engineers, along with any experts he can recruit from the industry, to talk about the problem and possible solutions.
Then he would have recruited all available resources, whether from BP, the military, or other Oil Company engineers and experts to work together aggressively toward stopping the oil. In a parallel effort, he would work with the gulf coast state governors to take all possible steps to protect the coastline from the oil.
Obama did none of that.
The economic problem that met him when he entered office was clearly defined by his chief of staff, who wanted to make sure they didn't let a good disaster go to waste. Thus came the "bailouts" and rush to pay off everyone in the left-wing constituency with public funds.
The current oil crisis is another disaster too good to waste. Obama's instincts lead him into a two-pronged response: First, destroy British Petroleum. Second, use the disaster to push through a massive redistributionist policy called "Cap and Trade".
A thinking person would need only a moment to understand that Cap and Trade has nothing to do with what its' sponsors promise (reducing dependence on foreign oil, moving us into a "clean energy" economy). It is designed simply to drive all "dirty" energy costs through the roof, make a select group of Democrats led by Al Gore (and Obama himself) richer and more powerful than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and redistribute some of the money to pay energy bills for poor countries, and if they are lucky, maybe a few poor Americans.
When will enough people wake up and realize what's happening? When will the poor finally realize that the party in power won't help them get out of poverty, but make sure they stay there? When will the middle class realize that the current power brokers in Washington are remaking America into one where the priviledged elite are simply shifted from the Corporate barons to the politically connected, all at the expense of the middle class? When will all of us realize that we're all on the brink of permanently losing our standard of living, lowering the bar for everyone from the most wealthy to the poorest?
What I actually find shocking isn't that the president's 46 percent approval rating is so low, but that it's still so high. Unfortunately, that means there are still nearly half of the people that still haven't figured it out.
If they don't figure it out by November, I think we're toast.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
So Many Thoughts
Religion and Politics.
A common bit of advice heard often in my lifetime was that these two topics should be avoided in social conversation. Basically because they're the two subjects that engender the greatest amount of passion among people.
If you want to win friends and influence people, stick to topics like sports, the weather, family, friends, vacations.
Lately I'm wondering whether it's such good advice after all.
Religious conversation used to consist of arguments about Catholics vs. Protestants, or Baptists vs. Lutherans. Whether salvation is through grace or works, how the Virgin Mary should or should not be revered, stuff like that.
Now religious conversations are nothing like that; instead, they're mostly about attacks from the atheists and the "social justice" crowd, who either reject the faith entirely or would reframe it to fit their "modern" worldview.
Should one avoid the topic if the arguers are misrepresenting and/or demonizing the faith held so dearly? Perhaps it's the duty of a person of faith to speak up, not stridently or argumentatively, but patiently and gently to point out the fallacy of the anti-Christian argument.
Political conversation has always been about degree. Degree of socialism vs degree of free-market capitalism. Degree of government regulation vs. laissez-faire policy.
Now the conversation seems more about personalities than policy. Both sides seem to enjoy calling the other fascist, which has lost all meaning in the process. Therefore, if someone uses "Socialist" or "Marxist" to label the current government leaders, the terms are discarded by those who they would hope to convince as nothing but more name-calling.
Perhaps rather than avoiding the subject, political discussions should be focused on fact rather than personality. Rather than denouncing the president, his cabinet, and the leaders in congress generally, how about talking about what new laws and regulations they are intent on pushing through and whether or not they are good for the nation as a whole?
I get a bit weary hearing the back-and-forth between the representatives of the Left and Right. If the Right throws in Harry Reid, the Left comes back with Newt Gingerich. Nancy Pelosi countered with Sarah Palin. Barack Obama with George W Bush.
It seems the Left has no particular issue with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but hold a visceral hatred of Gingerich, Palin, and Bush. The Right are appalled by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but don't see a problem with Gingerich, Palin, and Bush.
Stop focusing on the standard-bearers of the parties, and start focusing on what the country needs during this terrible time of economic and moral decline and corruption.
Simply stated, there has never been an example where government-imposed redistribution of wealth led to widespread prosperity. Conversely, prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world came about courtesy of the grand experiment called the United States of America.
A common bit of advice heard often in my lifetime was that these two topics should be avoided in social conversation. Basically because they're the two subjects that engender the greatest amount of passion among people.
If you want to win friends and influence people, stick to topics like sports, the weather, family, friends, vacations.
Lately I'm wondering whether it's such good advice after all.
Religious conversation used to consist of arguments about Catholics vs. Protestants, or Baptists vs. Lutherans. Whether salvation is through grace or works, how the Virgin Mary should or should not be revered, stuff like that.
Now religious conversations are nothing like that; instead, they're mostly about attacks from the atheists and the "social justice" crowd, who either reject the faith entirely or would reframe it to fit their "modern" worldview.
Should one avoid the topic if the arguers are misrepresenting and/or demonizing the faith held so dearly? Perhaps it's the duty of a person of faith to speak up, not stridently or argumentatively, but patiently and gently to point out the fallacy of the anti-Christian argument.
Political conversation has always been about degree. Degree of socialism vs degree of free-market capitalism. Degree of government regulation vs. laissez-faire policy.
Now the conversation seems more about personalities than policy. Both sides seem to enjoy calling the other fascist, which has lost all meaning in the process. Therefore, if someone uses "Socialist" or "Marxist" to label the current government leaders, the terms are discarded by those who they would hope to convince as nothing but more name-calling.
Perhaps rather than avoiding the subject, political discussions should be focused on fact rather than personality. Rather than denouncing the president, his cabinet, and the leaders in congress generally, how about talking about what new laws and regulations they are intent on pushing through and whether or not they are good for the nation as a whole?
I get a bit weary hearing the back-and-forth between the representatives of the Left and Right. If the Right throws in Harry Reid, the Left comes back with Newt Gingerich. Nancy Pelosi countered with Sarah Palin. Barack Obama with George W Bush.
It seems the Left has no particular issue with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but hold a visceral hatred of Gingerich, Palin, and Bush. The Right are appalled by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but don't see a problem with Gingerich, Palin, and Bush.
Stop focusing on the standard-bearers of the parties, and start focusing on what the country needs during this terrible time of economic and moral decline and corruption.
Simply stated, there has never been an example where government-imposed redistribution of wealth led to widespread prosperity. Conversely, prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world came about courtesy of the grand experiment called the United States of America.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Any Sane People Out There?
More and more I'm not so sure.
Let's see if I can catalog some of the latest examples of mass insanity.
Finding out more than half of babies born in the county last year were paid for by Medicaid. Am I the only one who draws a logical and extremely disturbing conclusion about what that says about the state of our society?
The country's rulers are favoring Israel's enemies, who happen to also be our own enemies. Am I the only one who sees the inevitable outcome as a smoking hole in the ground that was once a country called Israel?
The American rulers are hammering Arizona for trying to do something about illegal immigration. Where did I miss the part about it being a fundamental human right to live in America, whether invited or not?
The American rulers are pushing ahead with their ingenious plan to decide for every citizen how big their "carbon footprint" is allowed to be. If you want more energy than you are allocated, you have to "buy" the rights to that energy from people who don't use their share (read: poor), with the well-connected folks with names like Obama and Gore pocketing a commission on each transaction. Who exactly thinks this sounds like a great idea, other than those well-connected leaders who get to pocket the commissions?
A deep-sea oil well explodes, the rulers ignore it for a month, then tell everyone they've been "in charge since day one". The only visible action they've taken is to threaten the oil company, shut down all offshore drilling, and build a small army of lawyers to figure out all the ways the oil company can be sued. This is what they call leadership?
The rulers made sure to push through a huge new healthcare entitlement that is paid for by borrowing from China. Only the self-employed and the unemployed actually have trouble getting health insurance, and nobody is denied care. And even those folks can still sign up for insurance through a hodgepodge of state and federal programs. Am I getting the message right, "you may not have a job, but you will eventually have health insurance"?
The president is the first leader of the country I know of who said, (paraphrasing) "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her to be punished with a baby". Children are now mistakes for which women are punished? When did that happen?
Oh yeah, see the first example.
Either the world has gone insane or I need to be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. Hmm, weren't those also called "re-education camps"?
Let's see if I can catalog some of the latest examples of mass insanity.
Finding out more than half of babies born in the county last year were paid for by Medicaid. Am I the only one who draws a logical and extremely disturbing conclusion about what that says about the state of our society?
The country's rulers are favoring Israel's enemies, who happen to also be our own enemies. Am I the only one who sees the inevitable outcome as a smoking hole in the ground that was once a country called Israel?
The American rulers are hammering Arizona for trying to do something about illegal immigration. Where did I miss the part about it being a fundamental human right to live in America, whether invited or not?
The American rulers are pushing ahead with their ingenious plan to decide for every citizen how big their "carbon footprint" is allowed to be. If you want more energy than you are allocated, you have to "buy" the rights to that energy from people who don't use their share (read: poor), with the well-connected folks with names like Obama and Gore pocketing a commission on each transaction. Who exactly thinks this sounds like a great idea, other than those well-connected leaders who get to pocket the commissions?
A deep-sea oil well explodes, the rulers ignore it for a month, then tell everyone they've been "in charge since day one". The only visible action they've taken is to threaten the oil company, shut down all offshore drilling, and build a small army of lawyers to figure out all the ways the oil company can be sued. This is what they call leadership?
The rulers made sure to push through a huge new healthcare entitlement that is paid for by borrowing from China. Only the self-employed and the unemployed actually have trouble getting health insurance, and nobody is denied care. And even those folks can still sign up for insurance through a hodgepodge of state and federal programs. Am I getting the message right, "you may not have a job, but you will eventually have health insurance"?
The president is the first leader of the country I know of who said, (paraphrasing) "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her to be punished with a baby". Children are now mistakes for which women are punished? When did that happen?
Oh yeah, see the first example.
Either the world has gone insane or I need to be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. Hmm, weren't those also called "re-education camps"?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
My Take on the Oil Spill
What shouldn't be a political football at all of course is, given our polarized partisan country.
As is my custom, I try to sift through what information is available and figure out what seems most likely to be true.
In this case, it would seem that these contributing factors are more likely true than false:
The accident probably could have been prevented or at least mitigated had BP been more responsible with safety standards.
Since there has never been an accident on this scale with a deepwater rig, BP was caught flat-footed without a clear plan to deal with it.
The President didn't even pay attention to the problem until the oil started washing up on gulf coast shores.
The ususal left-wing zealots, who hold themselves up as the protectors of the environment, cheered the disaster, proclaiming that "God must be a Democrat!". Pretty heartless toward the rig workers who died and the thousands of gulf coast folks who will be harmed by the whole event.
Some of the things I wonder about, being a lay person who knows next to nothing about deep sea oil rigs:
The "Top Kill" approach, which may or may not be working to stop the oil spill today, is something even I would have at least suggested. It isn't a hard concept to understand. So why did it take over a month for one of the "geniuses" down in the gulf to suggest it?
A moratorium on further deep water drilling would seem to be a reasonable response. But when issued by Obama, the suspicion is that he'll simply make it permanent because he will claim that the oil companies never satisfactorily proved to him they've learned from the accident and know how to make sure it never happens again.
Of course, if Bush were still president and made the same decision, the Right would be OK with it, but the Left would assume he will wait a few weeks or month before lifting the moratorium, whether or not BP learned from their mistakes.
Is it possible both might have some truth to them?
Obama dithered, of course. If the "Top Kill" works, he's already positioned himself to take credit for it, despite the obvious fact he had nothing to do with it.
The MMS and Interior Departments proved themselves to be incompetent bureaucrats. What exactly is new there? The attempts by Dems to try to suggest that's Bush's fault, in the face of the facts that the agencies are led and staffed by Obama appointees is jaw-droppingly ludicrous.
What a decent President, who is a true leader would have done:
Within the first 24 hours, he would have immediately convened experts from the industry to analyze the accident and work on strategies to minimize its impact.
He would have created a team to immediately commence containment operations while preparing for the "Top Kill" procedure.
Much of the oil would now be contained, and the leak plugged weeks ago.
But Obama's clearly not that kind of leader.
He ignored it for a couple of weeks, then when he did start paying any attention at all, it was only to threaten BP.
How much longer until we see $4 or $5 gas?
Probably very soon.
As is my custom, I try to sift through what information is available and figure out what seems most likely to be true.
In this case, it would seem that these contributing factors are more likely true than false:
The accident probably could have been prevented or at least mitigated had BP been more responsible with safety standards.
Since there has never been an accident on this scale with a deepwater rig, BP was caught flat-footed without a clear plan to deal with it.
The President didn't even pay attention to the problem until the oil started washing up on gulf coast shores.
The ususal left-wing zealots, who hold themselves up as the protectors of the environment, cheered the disaster, proclaiming that "God must be a Democrat!". Pretty heartless toward the rig workers who died and the thousands of gulf coast folks who will be harmed by the whole event.
Some of the things I wonder about, being a lay person who knows next to nothing about deep sea oil rigs:
The "Top Kill" approach, which may or may not be working to stop the oil spill today, is something even I would have at least suggested. It isn't a hard concept to understand. So why did it take over a month for one of the "geniuses" down in the gulf to suggest it?
A moratorium on further deep water drilling would seem to be a reasonable response. But when issued by Obama, the suspicion is that he'll simply make it permanent because he will claim that the oil companies never satisfactorily proved to him they've learned from the accident and know how to make sure it never happens again.
Of course, if Bush were still president and made the same decision, the Right would be OK with it, but the Left would assume he will wait a few weeks or month before lifting the moratorium, whether or not BP learned from their mistakes.
Is it possible both might have some truth to them?
Obama dithered, of course. If the "Top Kill" works, he's already positioned himself to take credit for it, despite the obvious fact he had nothing to do with it.
The MMS and Interior Departments proved themselves to be incompetent bureaucrats. What exactly is new there? The attempts by Dems to try to suggest that's Bush's fault, in the face of the facts that the agencies are led and staffed by Obama appointees is jaw-droppingly ludicrous.
What a decent President, who is a true leader would have done:
Within the first 24 hours, he would have immediately convened experts from the industry to analyze the accident and work on strategies to minimize its impact.
He would have created a team to immediately commence containment operations while preparing for the "Top Kill" procedure.
Much of the oil would now be contained, and the leak plugged weeks ago.
But Obama's clearly not that kind of leader.
He ignored it for a couple of weeks, then when he did start paying any attention at all, it was only to threaten BP.
How much longer until we see $4 or $5 gas?
Probably very soon.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Hitler Insult
Editorials in the local newspaper have been angrily denouncing a tea-party type who allegedly appeared in a local rally carrying a sign depicting Obama with the little Hitler mustache. Letter writers who are presumably supporters of the president expressed outrage at such unfair and uncivil misrepresentations.
It got me thinking about how the most popular insult of politicians these days involves comparisons to Hitler. Such comparisons are no more valid for Obama than for his predecessor, but it's interesting to note that they were made far more viciously and frequently against Bush. It certainly is a valid question to pose with these outraged editorialists, whether they were also outraged when the left side of the political spectrum continually invoked Hitler, even going beyond that to openly advocating or hoping for Bush's assassination.
National Socialists probably had more in common politically with Democrats than Republicans. They were, in fact, socialist, which is anathema to American Conservatives. They believed in centralized government control over the means of production, which is a hallmark of current Democrat philosophy.
It's Hitler's idea of the Aryan supremacy and his desire to purge the Jewish people from the face of the earth that makes him the most hated figure in modern history. Of course, no one can reasonably charge the Right with anything close to these attitudes, but Leftists love to try. Their twisted logic suggests that because the Right opposes socialist policies and those policies "help" the poor, and a large proportion of the poor are racial minorities, then the Right must be somehow Aryan supremacists.
The current president is showing hostility to Israel, but even that doesn't necessarily meet the Hitler standard of working for the destruction of the entire Jewish population.
Such name-calling by either side is counterproductive. While some fellow travelers might cheer Hitler comparisons of those they oppose, such comparisons have nothing but negative impact on those who are on the fence. And considering both sides understand that it's the fence-sitters they need to court to attain political power, they would be wise to abandon the Hitler references.
I don't get overly exercised when either side puts up a picture of their opponent with the little mustache added by a Sharpie pen. It's juvenile and silly, and means little. I do think the Tea Party should try to exert some control over their members and stop them from giving their opponents the opportunity to change the subject by painting the entire group with a broad brush, based on one guy carrying around the Obama poster with the Hitler mustache.
Perhaps the most accurate insult someone could make of Obama is to depict him as Jimmy Carter, who is his closest political twin. But I suppose only Conservatives would get it.
It got me thinking about how the most popular insult of politicians these days involves comparisons to Hitler. Such comparisons are no more valid for Obama than for his predecessor, but it's interesting to note that they were made far more viciously and frequently against Bush. It certainly is a valid question to pose with these outraged editorialists, whether they were also outraged when the left side of the political spectrum continually invoked Hitler, even going beyond that to openly advocating or hoping for Bush's assassination.
National Socialists probably had more in common politically with Democrats than Republicans. They were, in fact, socialist, which is anathema to American Conservatives. They believed in centralized government control over the means of production, which is a hallmark of current Democrat philosophy.
It's Hitler's idea of the Aryan supremacy and his desire to purge the Jewish people from the face of the earth that makes him the most hated figure in modern history. Of course, no one can reasonably charge the Right with anything close to these attitudes, but Leftists love to try. Their twisted logic suggests that because the Right opposes socialist policies and those policies "help" the poor, and a large proportion of the poor are racial minorities, then the Right must be somehow Aryan supremacists.
The current president is showing hostility to Israel, but even that doesn't necessarily meet the Hitler standard of working for the destruction of the entire Jewish population.
Such name-calling by either side is counterproductive. While some fellow travelers might cheer Hitler comparisons of those they oppose, such comparisons have nothing but negative impact on those who are on the fence. And considering both sides understand that it's the fence-sitters they need to court to attain political power, they would be wise to abandon the Hitler references.
I don't get overly exercised when either side puts up a picture of their opponent with the little mustache added by a Sharpie pen. It's juvenile and silly, and means little. I do think the Tea Party should try to exert some control over their members and stop them from giving their opponents the opportunity to change the subject by painting the entire group with a broad brush, based on one guy carrying around the Obama poster with the Hitler mustache.
Perhaps the most accurate insult someone could make of Obama is to depict him as Jimmy Carter, who is his closest political twin. But I suppose only Conservatives would get it.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Historical Perspective
History is a great teacher for those willing to learn its lessons. That's not a very popular idea these days, as evidenced by those running the government.
For most of history, tribes battled each other for land and game, then as technology advanced, for treasure. Kings and tribal chiefs attained power over their land and subjects by offering protection and prosperity to their subjects. All walked a fine knife edge, balancing between the need for enough resources to raise armies to protect and expand their kingdom and the need to keep their subjects content enough to minimize those who would rise up and throw them out of power.
The Greeks were the first to innovate a new idea of civilization, the idea of self-governance through representation. The Greeks were hugely successful, but eventually crumbled as their citizens became complacent and overindulgent.
The Romans tried to apply the Greek ideal, but in relatively short order lost it to strong emperors who grew increasingly vile and corrupt with each generation, until the Roman empire crumbled under its own weight of debauched corruption.
Until the United States of America threw off the British to establish the modern version of the Greek model, the world mostly reverted to the age-old system of tribal chieftans and monarchies.
Then came Karl Marx, who dreamed of a collective society that pretends to distribute all goods equally among the citizens. The ideas were embraced brutally by revolutionary regimes in Russia and China. The Russian version crumbled, but China has so far adapted to become a world power.
In the meantime, a steady drumbeat has sounded in America over the last 200 years in the form of a movement euphemistically called "Progressivism". Which is Marxism disguised by an attractive name. The Progressive movement took full power over the American goverment in 2008, but has been gaining power for generations.
The Progressives are represented by specific, identifiable groups: Labor Unions, Government Bureucrats, Academics, Trial Lawyers, and those who consider themselves disenfranchised by the Capitalist system.
Their ascendancy took place incrementally, as government expanded, people were encouraged to believe they were disenfranchised by faceless capitalists who they believe selfishly deny them opportunity, and big business was allowed to consolidate into "too big to fail" status.
Ironically, the toppling of the system that permitted a Progressive takeover had at its core a Progressive program, named from acronyms that sound like "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac". Where Progressivism demanded that everyone has a "right" to decent housing, and therefore the government should guarantee mortgages to help them obtain such housing.
Then when energy prices spiked, many of these marginal folks could no longer keep afloat financially, and defaulted in unprecedented numbers.
So the Progressives rose to power on citizen anger over an intractable war against terrorism and a belief that the unsustainable energy costs were deliberately driven up by evil and greedy capitalists. People voted in the Progressives, thinking "let's let somebody else try to save us, they can't be any worse than these guys".
But they are worse. Much worse. The Progressives are in power and taking advantage of every moment. They have already imposed a socialist healthcare program that promises to bankrupt the system without delivering its false promise of quality, affordable healthcare for everyone. They are using all available power to shut down domestic energy production, while shifting huge sums of borrowed money into the pockets of their progressive cronies to build boondoggle windmills and solar panels while they lie to the public.
They ram through "financial reform" regulation under the facade of "fixing" the problems that led to our economic destruction, while the reality of that regulation is further consolidation of raw power into the Progressive bureaucracy. As evidence, just consider the fact that the new regulations and agencies do nothing to address any of the causal factors in the economic meltdown.
They are committed to dismantling the military to shift those resources into their social programs. They change foreign policy into one that is obsequiously seeking to pacify enemies while insulting and abandoning allies. They break laws with impunity, knowing they have the power to stop any investigations or prosecutions of their over-the-top corruption.
They plot to impose massive new taxes from the Value-Added Tax to Carbon Taxes. Simply defined, these brand new taxes are on everything we make and everything we put into the air. All of course earmarked to enrich their Progressive cronies at the expense of all productive citizens not part of thier "in" crowd.
Some citizens are waking up to their agenda, but it may be too late. Ordinary people can't get loans even when they qualify. The government controls the largest domestic automobile manufacturer. The government owns or controls much of the financial industry. The government seeks to own or control the energy industry.
In the meantime, real unemployment is above 17 percent and continues to rise. The proportion of citizens dependent on government for their very existence has reached critical mass. Illegal immigration is encouraged to put the size of the government-dependent citizenry into a position to insure permanent Progressive power over the country.
Thus does the latest, greatest society in human history topple.
Unless those of us who understand can find a way to reverse the Progressive juggernaut.
For most of history, tribes battled each other for land and game, then as technology advanced, for treasure. Kings and tribal chiefs attained power over their land and subjects by offering protection and prosperity to their subjects. All walked a fine knife edge, balancing between the need for enough resources to raise armies to protect and expand their kingdom and the need to keep their subjects content enough to minimize those who would rise up and throw them out of power.
The Greeks were the first to innovate a new idea of civilization, the idea of self-governance through representation. The Greeks were hugely successful, but eventually crumbled as their citizens became complacent and overindulgent.
The Romans tried to apply the Greek ideal, but in relatively short order lost it to strong emperors who grew increasingly vile and corrupt with each generation, until the Roman empire crumbled under its own weight of debauched corruption.
Until the United States of America threw off the British to establish the modern version of the Greek model, the world mostly reverted to the age-old system of tribal chieftans and monarchies.
Then came Karl Marx, who dreamed of a collective society that pretends to distribute all goods equally among the citizens. The ideas were embraced brutally by revolutionary regimes in Russia and China. The Russian version crumbled, but China has so far adapted to become a world power.
In the meantime, a steady drumbeat has sounded in America over the last 200 years in the form of a movement euphemistically called "Progressivism". Which is Marxism disguised by an attractive name. The Progressive movement took full power over the American goverment in 2008, but has been gaining power for generations.
The Progressives are represented by specific, identifiable groups: Labor Unions, Government Bureucrats, Academics, Trial Lawyers, and those who consider themselves disenfranchised by the Capitalist system.
Their ascendancy took place incrementally, as government expanded, people were encouraged to believe they were disenfranchised by faceless capitalists who they believe selfishly deny them opportunity, and big business was allowed to consolidate into "too big to fail" status.
Ironically, the toppling of the system that permitted a Progressive takeover had at its core a Progressive program, named from acronyms that sound like "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac". Where Progressivism demanded that everyone has a "right" to decent housing, and therefore the government should guarantee mortgages to help them obtain such housing.
Then when energy prices spiked, many of these marginal folks could no longer keep afloat financially, and defaulted in unprecedented numbers.
So the Progressives rose to power on citizen anger over an intractable war against terrorism and a belief that the unsustainable energy costs were deliberately driven up by evil and greedy capitalists. People voted in the Progressives, thinking "let's let somebody else try to save us, they can't be any worse than these guys".
But they are worse. Much worse. The Progressives are in power and taking advantage of every moment. They have already imposed a socialist healthcare program that promises to bankrupt the system without delivering its false promise of quality, affordable healthcare for everyone. They are using all available power to shut down domestic energy production, while shifting huge sums of borrowed money into the pockets of their progressive cronies to build boondoggle windmills and solar panels while they lie to the public.
They ram through "financial reform" regulation under the facade of "fixing" the problems that led to our economic destruction, while the reality of that regulation is further consolidation of raw power into the Progressive bureaucracy. As evidence, just consider the fact that the new regulations and agencies do nothing to address any of the causal factors in the economic meltdown.
They are committed to dismantling the military to shift those resources into their social programs. They change foreign policy into one that is obsequiously seeking to pacify enemies while insulting and abandoning allies. They break laws with impunity, knowing they have the power to stop any investigations or prosecutions of their over-the-top corruption.
They plot to impose massive new taxes from the Value-Added Tax to Carbon Taxes. Simply defined, these brand new taxes are on everything we make and everything we put into the air. All of course earmarked to enrich their Progressive cronies at the expense of all productive citizens not part of thier "in" crowd.
Some citizens are waking up to their agenda, but it may be too late. Ordinary people can't get loans even when they qualify. The government controls the largest domestic automobile manufacturer. The government owns or controls much of the financial industry. The government seeks to own or control the energy industry.
In the meantime, real unemployment is above 17 percent and continues to rise. The proportion of citizens dependent on government for their very existence has reached critical mass. Illegal immigration is encouraged to put the size of the government-dependent citizenry into a position to insure permanent Progressive power over the country.
Thus does the latest, greatest society in human history topple.
Unless those of us who understand can find a way to reverse the Progressive juggernaut.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Searching for Balance
Stepping back a bit and trying to be objective, I realize I'm guilty of inconsistent self-expectations.
When I'm busy, it should be great. After all, I'm making money, have almost more work than I can handle, and should be ecstatic.
So why don't I feel ecstatic?
When I'm not so busy, it should be fine. As long as I'm earning enough to stay afloat, why not kick back and enjoy a bit of free time?
So why can't I just relax and enjoy the downtime?
I need to learn to be happy, whatever my situation.
When I'm busy, it should be great. After all, I'm making money, have almost more work than I can handle, and should be ecstatic.
So why don't I feel ecstatic?
When I'm not so busy, it should be fine. As long as I'm earning enough to stay afloat, why not kick back and enjoy a bit of free time?
So why can't I just relax and enjoy the downtime?
I need to learn to be happy, whatever my situation.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Why I Believe
For a generation that has lost faith, my small contribution can only be to explain why I have not.
History
It cannot be reasonably disputed that there was such a person on earth a couple thousand-plus years ago, who we know as Jesus Christ. His existence and fundamental story is corroborated by a variety of sources, both biblical and secular.
Even the secular sources confirm that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who traveled the middle-eastern countryside spreading his message and performing miraculous healings.
Also mostly undisputed is that he suffered the brutal Roman method of execution, crucifixion.
Had that been all there is to the story, his followers would have simply dispersed and gone on with their lives. The story may have lived on as a terrible tragedy and example of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who feared a challenge to their power. But it would not have given rise to the worldwide religion called Christianity.
As Paul himself said, if Jesus Christ did not rise from death, then there is no Christian faith.
After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty. Nobody disputed that fact; indeed, the Jewish leaders attempted to spread a story that his disciples simply stole the body to manufacture the myth of his resurrection.
But if that were true, it would seem that at least one of the disciples would have recanted in the face of their own torture and cruel death. But all 11 held fast to their faith, so that 10 of them suffered horrific executions while the 11th spent his last years in hiding and exile.
Then there were the more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ after his crucifixion, and that was only counting the men. There were at least as many women who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection as well.
The Church established by Jesus spread like wildfire, fanned by the apostles and those hundreds of eyewitnesses to the point that untold thousands of early Christians were subjected to torture and death they could have avoided by simply recanting their faith. Do any of us today believe in anything strongly enough to give ourselves up to tortures and execution rather than recant?
Personal
God has made himself known to me in many ways and on many occasions.
Not by appearing in some sort of miraculous heavenly glory and speaking to me in a thunderous voice, but by revealing truth to me in personal revelations and life experiences.
I know that sounds strange and vague. But that's sort of the function of individual enlightenment, which doesn't happen in a blaze of glory but in small experiences which add up over a lifetime to create a body of evidence that give me the satisfaction and assurance that there is a God, He loves us, and all He wants from us is our love for Him and each other.
OK, want some examples? I've been blessed with these personal revelations:
History
It cannot be reasonably disputed that there was such a person on earth a couple thousand-plus years ago, who we know as Jesus Christ. His existence and fundamental story is corroborated by a variety of sources, both biblical and secular.
Even the secular sources confirm that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who traveled the middle-eastern countryside spreading his message and performing miraculous healings.
Also mostly undisputed is that he suffered the brutal Roman method of execution, crucifixion.
Had that been all there is to the story, his followers would have simply dispersed and gone on with their lives. The story may have lived on as a terrible tragedy and example of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who feared a challenge to their power. But it would not have given rise to the worldwide religion called Christianity.
As Paul himself said, if Jesus Christ did not rise from death, then there is no Christian faith.
After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty. Nobody disputed that fact; indeed, the Jewish leaders attempted to spread a story that his disciples simply stole the body to manufacture the myth of his resurrection.
But if that were true, it would seem that at least one of the disciples would have recanted in the face of their own torture and cruel death. But all 11 held fast to their faith, so that 10 of them suffered horrific executions while the 11th spent his last years in hiding and exile.
Then there were the more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ after his crucifixion, and that was only counting the men. There were at least as many women who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection as well.
The Church established by Jesus spread like wildfire, fanned by the apostles and those hundreds of eyewitnesses to the point that untold thousands of early Christians were subjected to torture and death they could have avoided by simply recanting their faith. Do any of us today believe in anything strongly enough to give ourselves up to tortures and execution rather than recant?
Personal
God has made himself known to me in many ways and on many occasions.
Not by appearing in some sort of miraculous heavenly glory and speaking to me in a thunderous voice, but by revealing truth to me in personal revelations and life experiences.
I know that sounds strange and vague. But that's sort of the function of individual enlightenment, which doesn't happen in a blaze of glory but in small experiences which add up over a lifetime to create a body of evidence that give me the satisfaction and assurance that there is a God, He loves us, and all He wants from us is our love for Him and each other.
OK, want some examples? I've been blessed with these personal revelations:
- A fleeting vision of heaven (in what some would call a Near-Death Experience)
- Visions of future events (my mother's passing)
- Clear messages (some would call them inner locutions)
You might say these are all tricks of the sub-conscious, and perhaps some may be. But only I had these experiences, you did not, so only I can judge whether they were tricks played in my own brain or supernatural.
But as dramatic as those experiences may seem, on their own they do not form the foundation of my faith. That foundation is actually based on a lifetime of study, seeking God where He may be found. And the wonder of experiencing the miracles of our world, such as the miraculous birth of three children, and seeing one of those children survive and thrive when it seemed almost impossible given his much-too-early arrival.
Those who scoff at people like me and sneeringly call us "weak-minded" or "superstitious" are missing something that goes to the core of our very existence. I feel sorry for these atheists, who like petulant children rebel against their heavenly Father just like my own children would rebel and throw tantrums against their earthly father when he disciplined them or denied them their desires.
I firmly believe every one of us has an innate knowledge of God, but we reject Him because of either personal pride, base desires, or anger with a God who doesn't give us what we want.
The non-believer tries to use two common themes in what they think are disproving the faith of believers.
The first theme is Science and Evolution. Atheists make the argument that evolution represents sufficient "proof" that there is no God. They sneer at evangelicals who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis origins story, throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting no reasonable person could conclude the earth is only 6500 years old.
I simply find it ironic that those most fervently opposed to religion place a religious fervor into their faith in scientific theories, especially the unobserved and unreplicated theory that somehow bringing some of the right elements together will magically create the building blocks of life.
Secondly, the non-believer points to Christians acting Un-Christian as justification for their lack of faith.
That is the most troubling, and certainly there are people who call themselves Christian who treat others worst than many non-Christians. From the well-publicized problem Catholics have with pedophile priests to fallen preachers like Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard, too often Christians fail to meet perhaps one of the most important responsibilities of a Christian.
On the other hand, I know that it's pretty much impossible for any Christian person to achieve perfection in matters of consistent morality. We all fall short, but the point is there is still salvation for us if we simply confront our failings, express true regret, and constantly try to be a better person.
That's what sets Christianity apart from any man-made religion. Jesus asked us for only those two things: Love God and each other. He didn't tell anyone to give him money, make human sacrifices, or force anyone else to "convert" to his religion. Rather, he challenged us to strive to be better people.
There is so much more I could never fit into a blog post, but the best closing argument I can think of is this:
Consider the alternative, which is already visible as our own society descends into anti-religious secularism.
What I know without a doubt is that a moral, righteous man of integrity will never:
Demand someone else give him housing, food, medical care, a living
Leave his wife and children alone to fend for themselves in poverty
Take the government handouts in form of Unemployment and not bother looking for gainful employment
Sell a home mortgage to someone he knows cannot afford the payments
Take out a home mortgage he knows he cannot afford
Sell financial derivative investments he knows will soon be worth zero
Expect a Physician to treat him and his family for free
Provide medical care only to those who have insurance or the cash
Brings lawsuits against people who were not negligent but have plenty of cash or insurance
Engage in extramarital and/or homosexual relations without restraint, then demand special privileges and transfer payments in honor of his "alternative lifestyle"
Lie and cheat for personal gain or to destroy a rival
If at least a majority of men were to choose to be men of honor, would our current societal meltdown have happened? I would say no.
Honorable men are becoming difficult to find.
You see, I'd rather believe and never discover that I was wrong, than not believe and find out much too late that I was horribly wrong.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Elections Have Consequences
As is evident in the latest Supreme Court nominee. Kagan is clearly a leftist, and the only real question is just exactly how far left.
Did anybody expect Obama to nominate a Conservative? Even a Moderate? I don't think so. Conservatives only hoped for a nominee who isn't a raging radical.
What would a Conservative in the Senate do with such a nominee? Line up in opposition? Or go along in hopes the other side might show the same consideration for the next Conservative President's nominee?
When people talk about the polarization between Left and Right (read: Republicans and Democrats), it's truly ideologically based. The argument already being made out front of any Republican opposition to the nominee is that they will oppose her on strictly partisan grounds.
Well, let's see if there are some objective factors that can be used to oppose this nominee.
She has never actually been a judge
She has never practiced law, at least before she was appointed to her current job by Obama
She thumbed her nose at the law when she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard
She's apparently never even written anything of importance on consititutional law
Her only qualifications for the job seem to be that she's a woman, a liberal, and a career academic. How does that translate into Obama's criteria that she "understands the struggles of ordinary people", exactly? Would anyone characterize her as an "ordinary American"?
May I humbly suggest that she's less qualified for the job than, say, Harriet Myers.
Did anybody expect Obama to nominate a Conservative? Even a Moderate? I don't think so. Conservatives only hoped for a nominee who isn't a raging radical.
What would a Conservative in the Senate do with such a nominee? Line up in opposition? Or go along in hopes the other side might show the same consideration for the next Conservative President's nominee?
When people talk about the polarization between Left and Right (read: Republicans and Democrats), it's truly ideologically based. The argument already being made out front of any Republican opposition to the nominee is that they will oppose her on strictly partisan grounds.
Well, let's see if there are some objective factors that can be used to oppose this nominee.
She has never actually been a judge
She has never practiced law, at least before she was appointed to her current job by Obama
She thumbed her nose at the law when she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard
She's apparently never even written anything of importance on consititutional law
Her only qualifications for the job seem to be that she's a woman, a liberal, and a career academic. How does that translate into Obama's criteria that she "understands the struggles of ordinary people", exactly? Would anyone characterize her as an "ordinary American"?
May I humbly suggest that she's less qualified for the job than, say, Harriet Myers.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Finding Truth About AZ Immigration Bill
I spent some time looking for the content of the actual bill online, and failed. It may be out there somewhere, but nowhere it can easily be accessed.
Instead, all I found were pages and pages of links to articles and blogs that decry the law as heavy-handed or fascist. Such overwrought propaganda is clearly designed to paint a frightening picture of a law that offends civil liberties, whether or not such charges are true.
Trying the second-best option, I found this article from NPR. Some might be surprised that a reasonable and analytical argument on the pro side of the issue would be given air by what many on the Right call National Proletariat Radio.
The information in this article refutes all of the paranoid rhetoric posed by the 3 out of 4 articles on the net and the President, who suggested a family going out for ice cream could be randomly pulled over and arrested for not taking their "papers" along.
The key phrase seems to be "lawful contact". In other words, nobody can be pulled over and harrassed based on a simple visual profile or an offier hearing them speaking Spanish. Lawful contact means the encounter was based on a routine encounter due to a traffic violation or other complaint requiring law enforcement contact.
There's also the important phrase "reasonable suspicion", which also has years of very clear definition. Reasonable suspicion is not defined by what's in the officer's mind at the time, but by clearly defined parameters that represent reasonable suspicion that the person detained for whatever violation may not be legally present. Things like no drivers licence, no proof of insurance, refusal to provide identification.
The outraged argument against the law seems to suggest that it gives license to law enforcement to harrass innocent people without cause. Where it is true that some rogue officers will do so for their own illegitimate reasons, that does not mean the law tolerates such behavior.
The bottom line of the law, as far as I can tell, is to simply allow police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE when they encounter them along the course of their normal enforcement activities.
And I don't have a problem with that.
Instead, all I found were pages and pages of links to articles and blogs that decry the law as heavy-handed or fascist. Such overwrought propaganda is clearly designed to paint a frightening picture of a law that offends civil liberties, whether or not such charges are true.
Trying the second-best option, I found this article from NPR. Some might be surprised that a reasonable and analytical argument on the pro side of the issue would be given air by what many on the Right call National Proletariat Radio.
The information in this article refutes all of the paranoid rhetoric posed by the 3 out of 4 articles on the net and the President, who suggested a family going out for ice cream could be randomly pulled over and arrested for not taking their "papers" along.
The key phrase seems to be "lawful contact". In other words, nobody can be pulled over and harrassed based on a simple visual profile or an offier hearing them speaking Spanish. Lawful contact means the encounter was based on a routine encounter due to a traffic violation or other complaint requiring law enforcement contact.
There's also the important phrase "reasonable suspicion", which also has years of very clear definition. Reasonable suspicion is not defined by what's in the officer's mind at the time, but by clearly defined parameters that represent reasonable suspicion that the person detained for whatever violation may not be legally present. Things like no drivers licence, no proof of insurance, refusal to provide identification.
The outraged argument against the law seems to suggest that it gives license to law enforcement to harrass innocent people without cause. Where it is true that some rogue officers will do so for their own illegitimate reasons, that does not mean the law tolerates such behavior.
The bottom line of the law, as far as I can tell, is to simply allow police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE when they encounter them along the course of their normal enforcement activities.
And I don't have a problem with that.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Immigration Misinformation
Even the President, who if it were anybody else would be above the fray, is right in there with the irresponsible left-wing gangs who are baldly and openly lying about the immigration bill in Arizona.
My own analysis is that the Arizona law does nothing more than permit police to check immigration status on people they encounter in routine traffic stops and investigation of criminal complaints. There's really nothing dramatic about the bill, and the characterization from the President and his media machine are incendiary and shameful.
If reported polls are any indication, it seems a very large majority of people get that point. Which probably is the source of the shouted misinformation by those who follow the old Stalinist theme - repeat a lie often enough, and eventually people will accept it as the truth.
Everybody who isn't misled would have to hold only one of two positions:
My own analysis is that the Arizona law does nothing more than permit police to check immigration status on people they encounter in routine traffic stops and investigation of criminal complaints. There's really nothing dramatic about the bill, and the characterization from the President and his media machine are incendiary and shameful.
If reported polls are any indication, it seems a very large majority of people get that point. Which probably is the source of the shouted misinformation by those who follow the old Stalinist theme - repeat a lie often enough, and eventually people will accept it as the truth.
Everybody who isn't misled would have to hold only one of two positions:
- You think everyone in the country illegally should be allowed to stay, unless they're guilty of some heinous crime, or
- You think illegal means illegal, and anybody in the country without permission is breaking the law and should simply go home.
As I've maintained always on this issue, my siding with position #2 has nothing to do with race or country of origin. Either we are a nation of laws that puts protection of its citizens above all else, or we're no nation at all. I don't care if the person here illegally came from Mexico, Africa, Asia, or Scandanavia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)