I don't have occasion to listen to Public Radio very often. Having it on for awhile this morning turned into an astounding shock for me, giving me the idea I really have lost touch with the world.
NPR was doing a story about birth control. The focus of their story was on a product called Yaz (if I'm spelling it right). A birth control pill that I never heard of before the story, which I guess is my out of touch strike one.
So apparently it has really messed up some of the women who were taking it, and its producer was supposedly guilty of misleading their customers on its properties and benefits. Key among them a claim that it can not only help avoid pregnancy, but also clear up acne.
Then came the major shock. They brought in a subject of their story, a young woman who developed serious blood clots and claims to have nearly lost her life because of taking Yaz. But that's not the shocking part.
I was shocked when the young woman explained that she was 16 when she went to her Gynecologist and cajoled her into prescribing Yaz, because she believed the advertising that it would help clear up her acne.
Later, the woman's mother appeared in the interview to express her notion that the company misled her daughter about the acne and failed to properly communicate that those who have a high clotting factor shouldn't use it.
The program never once mentioned anything about the appropriateness of a sexually active 16 year old who goes to her gynecologist to demand the hip new birth control pill. Or why the mother seemed to support her daughter's behavior, which can reasonably be claimed to have proven dangerous to her health.
It felt like an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
How to Tell Who is Corrupt and Who Isn't
There was a very small and mostly unnoticed announcement that Tom Delay will not be charged with any violations stemming from the Jack Abramoff scandal of a few years back.
Apparently, Delay is still waiting for resolution on charges brought against him in Texas.
Apparently, he's been fighting these things for six years. The combination of them drove him from office and I would imagine has cost him a fortune on legal aid.
So the Justice Department, after six years, apparently just quietly said, "never mind".
And there's no progress on the Texas case in sight. That one brought by a Democrat activist named Ronnie Earle, who boasted to a group at a Democrat event that he was going to bring Delay down.
I never really did catch onto what that case was all about. Something about DeLay raising money and spreading it out to various Republican candidates. I remember being puzzled about the charge at the time, thinking, "haven't pols in both parties been doing that for years?".
So was DeLay corrupt, or was he victimized by unethical persecution by Democrats in positions of power? How can we find out? Does the announcement by the Justice Department give us a hint?
So I was thinking about other cases. Blago for example - all that fuss about him trying to sell Obama's Senate seat, and he gets convicted on one count of lying to prosecutors. I'm confused - did he try to sell the seat or not? What was he offered for it, and by whom? If all he did was crudely complain to people on wiretapped phone calls that he should get something for the seat, does that by itself qualify as a crime?
Most of all, the deal-making obviously involved some people I would like to have heard from, including the current President, his Chief of Staff, and the person he wanted to take over that seat, Ms. Jarrett. Then there was Jesse Jackson Junior, who was supposedly trying to make his own deal to snag the appointment. Blago made a big fuss about calling them as witnesses, but somehow changed his mind when the trial actually came about.
Then he didn't even get on the stand himself, because he didn't need to.
Did Blago break the law or didn't he? If he didn't, why did the government spend all that time and money to prosecute him? If he did, why didn't the government uncover the evidence of who offered how much and when?
So was a deal cut to protect the President? Will we ever find out?
Then there's Rangel and Waters, and apparently more to come. Rangel and Waters sound pretty guilty, based on the information made public so far, but both are fighting to the end. Will they make a deal and go free, or will they face the music?
There are supposed to be several others on the list. Will we find out their names and what they did? Will they face justice? Will whether or not they face justice depend on their party affiliation?
The reason Sarah Palin cited for quitting her job as Alaska Governor early was the lawsuit and investigation mania that surrounded her during and after the presidential campaign. Nothing stuck, so they all seemed pretty obviously politically motivated.
How can we ever know whether a corruption charge and investigation is legitimate or a political vendetta? How many innocent politicians can be destroyed by false charges, versus how many corrupt politicians skate because they happen to belong to the party in power?
Washington, do you have any clue yet why all of us folks out in the countryside have lost faith in you?
Apparently, Delay is still waiting for resolution on charges brought against him in Texas.
Apparently, he's been fighting these things for six years. The combination of them drove him from office and I would imagine has cost him a fortune on legal aid.
So the Justice Department, after six years, apparently just quietly said, "never mind".
And there's no progress on the Texas case in sight. That one brought by a Democrat activist named Ronnie Earle, who boasted to a group at a Democrat event that he was going to bring Delay down.
I never really did catch onto what that case was all about. Something about DeLay raising money and spreading it out to various Republican candidates. I remember being puzzled about the charge at the time, thinking, "haven't pols in both parties been doing that for years?".
So was DeLay corrupt, or was he victimized by unethical persecution by Democrats in positions of power? How can we find out? Does the announcement by the Justice Department give us a hint?
So I was thinking about other cases. Blago for example - all that fuss about him trying to sell Obama's Senate seat, and he gets convicted on one count of lying to prosecutors. I'm confused - did he try to sell the seat or not? What was he offered for it, and by whom? If all he did was crudely complain to people on wiretapped phone calls that he should get something for the seat, does that by itself qualify as a crime?
Most of all, the deal-making obviously involved some people I would like to have heard from, including the current President, his Chief of Staff, and the person he wanted to take over that seat, Ms. Jarrett. Then there was Jesse Jackson Junior, who was supposedly trying to make his own deal to snag the appointment. Blago made a big fuss about calling them as witnesses, but somehow changed his mind when the trial actually came about.
Then he didn't even get on the stand himself, because he didn't need to.
Did Blago break the law or didn't he? If he didn't, why did the government spend all that time and money to prosecute him? If he did, why didn't the government uncover the evidence of who offered how much and when?
So was a deal cut to protect the President? Will we ever find out?
Then there's Rangel and Waters, and apparently more to come. Rangel and Waters sound pretty guilty, based on the information made public so far, but both are fighting to the end. Will they make a deal and go free, or will they face the music?
There are supposed to be several others on the list. Will we find out their names and what they did? Will they face justice? Will whether or not they face justice depend on their party affiliation?
The reason Sarah Palin cited for quitting her job as Alaska Governor early was the lawsuit and investigation mania that surrounded her during and after the presidential campaign. Nothing stuck, so they all seemed pretty obviously politically motivated.
How can we ever know whether a corruption charge and investigation is legitimate or a political vendetta? How many innocent politicians can be destroyed by false charges, versus how many corrupt politicians skate because they happen to belong to the party in power?
Washington, do you have any clue yet why all of us folks out in the countryside have lost faith in you?
Monday, August 16, 2010
This is Pretty Close
This article is pretty close to my views on the solutions to our economic problems.
Where I would tend to differ a bit from this economist are in two fundamental areas:
First, although I support the idea that we should end our foreign adventures and the whole nation-building nonsense, I would not support an abrupt withdrawal of forces. That's a humanitarian position, as it seems more than apparent that abrupt withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan will be a death sentence for untold thousands of Afghanis that supported or cooperated with us during our occupation. I also believe it would signal to our jihadist enemies that we've tucked our tails and run away, emboldening them to ratchet up their attacks on us.
Second, none of it works unless we rediscover the basic foundational values that made America great in the first place. Without self-reliance, work ethic, morality, strong families, and honest government, nothing will help us return to our traditions of exceptionalism, innovation, and prosperity.
It's all up to the new generation, in my view. The young people have to drive this revolution, or it simply won't happen. Because it will take a generation to reverse the course we've spent over a generation traveling.
I know they can do it, but I don't know whether they will want to.
Where I would tend to differ a bit from this economist are in two fundamental areas:
First, although I support the idea that we should end our foreign adventures and the whole nation-building nonsense, I would not support an abrupt withdrawal of forces. That's a humanitarian position, as it seems more than apparent that abrupt withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan will be a death sentence for untold thousands of Afghanis that supported or cooperated with us during our occupation. I also believe it would signal to our jihadist enemies that we've tucked our tails and run away, emboldening them to ratchet up their attacks on us.
Second, none of it works unless we rediscover the basic foundational values that made America great in the first place. Without self-reliance, work ethic, morality, strong families, and honest government, nothing will help us return to our traditions of exceptionalism, innovation, and prosperity.
It's all up to the new generation, in my view. The young people have to drive this revolution, or it simply won't happen. Because it will take a generation to reverse the course we've spent over a generation traveling.
I know they can do it, but I don't know whether they will want to.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Stunning Facts about ICE
You have to track back from this PowerLine post to the original article to learn the extent of government malfeasance in the illegal immigration (non) enforcement issue.
It's stunning.
It's stunning.
Monday, August 09, 2010
A Curious Report
In the airport this weekend, I caught a bit of Wolf Blitzer on CNN. They were covering a Court-Martial case against a Lt. Colonel who refused his deployment orders on the grounds that the President has not proven his eligibility to hold the post of Commander-in-Chief.
His one-man protest is either very brave or very stupid, depending on your point of view of his particular line of reasoning.
But my post isn't so much about the defendant as it is about the reporting.
Based on the apparent fact that Lou Dobbs lost his job at CNN for covering the "Birther" story, it would seem to be dangerous for the Wolf's career to do any story at all that touched on the topic.
But the report actually delved into the story enough to get into why this guy, who doesn't seem the least bit crazy, would be making such an outrageous stand against the President. They interviewed his lawyer, asking why his client was taking this stand, given that the Birth Certificate has been posted online since the Obama campaign?
His answer was that the birth certificate posted online is not the "long form" version, and actually does not qualify as the official certificate required for things like joining the US Military, getting a drivers' license, or applying for a US Passport.
I was pretty amazed that Wolf dared to go that far with the story. But then he failed to ask the obvious question of the reporter:
"So why won't the President simply put this controversy to rest once and for all by permitting the release of the official, long-form birth certificate?"
Even though I am not all that engaged in this particular crusade against the President, I do think that is a legitimate question. I wonder why Wolf couldn't come up with that question himself? Isn't that what a "real" journalist would do?
Will we ever see anybody actually work to get an answer to that question? It would appear there are either no journalists left with the courage to ask the question, or perhaps they're all too invested in this President to allow anything that might harm him to come to light.
His one-man protest is either very brave or very stupid, depending on your point of view of his particular line of reasoning.
But my post isn't so much about the defendant as it is about the reporting.
Based on the apparent fact that Lou Dobbs lost his job at CNN for covering the "Birther" story, it would seem to be dangerous for the Wolf's career to do any story at all that touched on the topic.
But the report actually delved into the story enough to get into why this guy, who doesn't seem the least bit crazy, would be making such an outrageous stand against the President. They interviewed his lawyer, asking why his client was taking this stand, given that the Birth Certificate has been posted online since the Obama campaign?
His answer was that the birth certificate posted online is not the "long form" version, and actually does not qualify as the official certificate required for things like joining the US Military, getting a drivers' license, or applying for a US Passport.
I was pretty amazed that Wolf dared to go that far with the story. But then he failed to ask the obvious question of the reporter:
"So why won't the President simply put this controversy to rest once and for all by permitting the release of the official, long-form birth certificate?"
Even though I am not all that engaged in this particular crusade against the President, I do think that is a legitimate question. I wonder why Wolf couldn't come up with that question himself? Isn't that what a "real" journalist would do?
Will we ever see anybody actually work to get an answer to that question? It would appear there are either no journalists left with the courage to ask the question, or perhaps they're all too invested in this President to allow anything that might harm him to come to light.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Time to Recap
My posts tend to be topical. But I don't do much in the way of outlining my overall worldview. So, if anybody's interested in what little ol' me thinks about today's hottest arguments, here's a recap.
Economy:
I believe that business and free enterprise are the engine that drives prosperity. To the extent they are given the freedom to innovate and compete with the goal of making a profit by attracting enough customers, everyone wins.
I think the current government is made up of leftist idealists who hold a disdain for business and free enterprise. They believe it is unfair for anyone to profit and become wealthier than everybody else. They think it is fair to take those profits from business to "spread the wealth" to those who have not been able to reach their success.
Basically I believe that in our current environment, the best possible economic stimulus plan would be to lock in current tax rates across the board, repeal the healthcare law, drop "Cap & Trade", and scale back the bureaucracy.
Not that I think business should be completely unfettered. I believe firmly in trade agreements that require trading partners' markets to be equally open to US goods & services as our market is to theirs. I believe government policies should incentivize US companies to keep their operations here, rather than moving them offshore. I believe workers are entitled to basic protections in commonsense regulations of wages & hours and workplace safety.
Healthcare
I remain strongly opposed to "ObamaCare". Socialized medicine is not the right answer to spiraling healthcare costs.
I believe the problem can be solved with a commonsense, long=term plan with these principles: Insurance is for serious illness or injury only.
Routine medical care and prescription drugs should be paid out-of-pocket by the patient.
Employers should not be the primary source of Health Insurance. Everyone should purchase their Health plans on the open market, just like they purchase their auto, life, real estate, and other policies.
Closing the borders and solving the illegal immigration problem is part of the solution, as is
Reforming the Tort system to work for those who were truly harmed by negligence, while punishing abulance-chasers who bring frivolous suits against good physicians.
Social Policy
I'm opposed to Gay Marriage, on the grounds that it actively seeks to destroy one of the most important of God's institutions. But I'm not singling out homosexuals. I am equally opposed to affording special recognition and benefits to any sexual partnerships, whether common-law marriage and cohabitation or bigamy.
I fear I will soon be treated as a criminal for holding the simple moral viewpoint that any kind of sexual promiscuity is wrong. Not for solely religious reasons, but practical reasons as well.
No, I'm not advocating laws that require those breaking these moral laws be arrested or prosecuted, or even fined. But I strongly object to the campaign by those who engage in such behaviors to marginalize and possibly even criminalize me for my beliefs on the subject.
Obviously I'm strongly Pro Life. Not that I don't understand how difficult it certainly is for young unwed mothers, especially teens, who have learned too soon one of the consequences of that promiscuous behavior I discussed previously.
I believe strongly that the first and foremost solution to the abortion problem is better parenting by the adult generation. Besides the media glorification and obsession with promiscuity, parents have too often abdicated their most basic responsibilities. If parents simply taught their children right and wrong, monitored and restricted their activities in a reasonable way, and stayed engaged with their children instead of abdicating control to an amoral secular educational institution, perhaps we wouldn't be in quite this mess.
Then again, the real education that has to take place from coast-to-coast is all about the facts of child development. Instead of teaching kids how to use condoms and that it's fine otherwise to do whatever you want with whomever you want, how about teaching them about the development of a baby in the womb? And tied it in with the simple fact that, if you're an average female having intercourse with an average male, you're almost guaranteed to get a baby out of the process.
We need to wake up as a society to a very simple truth. The truth of the abortion argument, when you get past all the overwrought rhetoric, is that the so-called "woman's right to choose" is about a sort of sexual license. Proponents of abortion must admit, if they choose to be truthful, that they're support for infanticide is based on the fact that they want the option open to themselves because of their own irresponsible lifestyle.
Immigration
I believe it is far overdue to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
For those who want to argue about how many poor folks from south of the border should be permitted into the country to "do the jobs American's won't do", that's an argument we can have later.
First we need to build a dam and stop the flood that is drowning us. Once the flooding is stopped, then we can talk about how many folks from foreign lands can and should be allowed to come to our country to work.
My solution has been posted before in this blog. The simple recap is this: January 1st of 2011, the media airwaves are flooded with the message, "if you are in this country illegally, regardless of where you're from or your circumstances, you have 6 months to return to your home country."
"During this 6 month period, you may make application for a legal temporary work visa. If you demonstrate that you have an Employer sponsor or independent means of support for you and your family, you may acquire your work visa and re-enter the country."
In the meantime, the borders are secure. Employers are required to use e-Verify for all hires, and will be subject to severe fines on the first and second offense, and imprisonment on the third offense of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Foreign Relations
The Iraq war was either a good idea or it was not. We're almost beyond the point of arguing any more. It happened, the majority of Americans supported it initially, then many of them forgot that fact. Now it would appear it was successful, with a semi-stable government in place and our gradual draw-down in forces.
We face many existential challenges from outside our borders, and some now within our borders. Our current President would seem to prefer a pacifist approach, offering unilateral peace to enemies that revile us and our way of life.
I strongly disagree. I've always believed that our country is the only hope for peace and security for not only our own citizens, but the rest of the world as well.
My foreign policy would be based on a very simple message, extended to every country on the planet:
"We want to be your friend. If you accept our friendship, you will find us to be the best friend you could ever have imagined. We can offer you unlimited markets for your products, protection from those who may want to do you harm, and our technology and knowledge to help your country grow."
"However, if you choose to be our enemy, we will be your worst nightmare. We and our friends will make sure you are isolated, and you lose access to those things you cannot acquire inside your own borders. If you strike at us militarily or through terrorism, we will annihilate you. That is, if your own citizens don't revolt and remove you from power first."
The current policy that seems to offer friendship to our enemies (Iran, Russia, Venezuela) while slapping away the hands of our real friends (Britian, Israel) only makes us more vulnerable and destroys our coalition.
However, we must ask our friends to step up and partner with us. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman, with our mighty and overpowering military allowing places like Europe and Canada to disarm and trust us to protect them with our own money and resources. It's time those partners began taking on more of their own responsibilities for self-defense.
Overall, some might find my opinions a bit tough. They may sound strong, but really they aren't. I feel a great deal of compassion for the plight of people. But then again, I believe their plight is fundamentally self-inflicted. From the bad decisions that lead to abortions and welfare mothers to the bad decisions that put Marxist idealogues in office who grasp at their personal power over the well-being of their citizens, we as a nation are in a well-deserved fix.
And only we can get ourselves out of it. By overcoming governments that would oppress, by taking responsibility for our actions and behaviors, and by rediscovering our own abilities and pride in work, family, and faith.
Economy:
I believe that business and free enterprise are the engine that drives prosperity. To the extent they are given the freedom to innovate and compete with the goal of making a profit by attracting enough customers, everyone wins.
I think the current government is made up of leftist idealists who hold a disdain for business and free enterprise. They believe it is unfair for anyone to profit and become wealthier than everybody else. They think it is fair to take those profits from business to "spread the wealth" to those who have not been able to reach their success.
Basically I believe that in our current environment, the best possible economic stimulus plan would be to lock in current tax rates across the board, repeal the healthcare law, drop "Cap & Trade", and scale back the bureaucracy.
Not that I think business should be completely unfettered. I believe firmly in trade agreements that require trading partners' markets to be equally open to US goods & services as our market is to theirs. I believe government policies should incentivize US companies to keep their operations here, rather than moving them offshore. I believe workers are entitled to basic protections in commonsense regulations of wages & hours and workplace safety.
Healthcare
I remain strongly opposed to "ObamaCare". Socialized medicine is not the right answer to spiraling healthcare costs.
I believe the problem can be solved with a commonsense, long=term plan with these principles: Insurance is for serious illness or injury only.
Routine medical care and prescription drugs should be paid out-of-pocket by the patient.
Employers should not be the primary source of Health Insurance. Everyone should purchase their Health plans on the open market, just like they purchase their auto, life, real estate, and other policies.
Closing the borders and solving the illegal immigration problem is part of the solution, as is
Reforming the Tort system to work for those who were truly harmed by negligence, while punishing abulance-chasers who bring frivolous suits against good physicians.
Social Policy
I'm opposed to Gay Marriage, on the grounds that it actively seeks to destroy one of the most important of God's institutions. But I'm not singling out homosexuals. I am equally opposed to affording special recognition and benefits to any sexual partnerships, whether common-law marriage and cohabitation or bigamy.
I fear I will soon be treated as a criminal for holding the simple moral viewpoint that any kind of sexual promiscuity is wrong. Not for solely religious reasons, but practical reasons as well.
No, I'm not advocating laws that require those breaking these moral laws be arrested or prosecuted, or even fined. But I strongly object to the campaign by those who engage in such behaviors to marginalize and possibly even criminalize me for my beliefs on the subject.
Obviously I'm strongly Pro Life. Not that I don't understand how difficult it certainly is for young unwed mothers, especially teens, who have learned too soon one of the consequences of that promiscuous behavior I discussed previously.
I believe strongly that the first and foremost solution to the abortion problem is better parenting by the adult generation. Besides the media glorification and obsession with promiscuity, parents have too often abdicated their most basic responsibilities. If parents simply taught their children right and wrong, monitored and restricted their activities in a reasonable way, and stayed engaged with their children instead of abdicating control to an amoral secular educational institution, perhaps we wouldn't be in quite this mess.
Then again, the real education that has to take place from coast-to-coast is all about the facts of child development. Instead of teaching kids how to use condoms and that it's fine otherwise to do whatever you want with whomever you want, how about teaching them about the development of a baby in the womb? And tied it in with the simple fact that, if you're an average female having intercourse with an average male, you're almost guaranteed to get a baby out of the process.
We need to wake up as a society to a very simple truth. The truth of the abortion argument, when you get past all the overwrought rhetoric, is that the so-called "woman's right to choose" is about a sort of sexual license. Proponents of abortion must admit, if they choose to be truthful, that they're support for infanticide is based on the fact that they want the option open to themselves because of their own irresponsible lifestyle.
Immigration
I believe it is far overdue to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
For those who want to argue about how many poor folks from south of the border should be permitted into the country to "do the jobs American's won't do", that's an argument we can have later.
First we need to build a dam and stop the flood that is drowning us. Once the flooding is stopped, then we can talk about how many folks from foreign lands can and should be allowed to come to our country to work.
My solution has been posted before in this blog. The simple recap is this: January 1st of 2011, the media airwaves are flooded with the message, "if you are in this country illegally, regardless of where you're from or your circumstances, you have 6 months to return to your home country."
"During this 6 month period, you may make application for a legal temporary work visa. If you demonstrate that you have an Employer sponsor or independent means of support for you and your family, you may acquire your work visa and re-enter the country."
In the meantime, the borders are secure. Employers are required to use e-Verify for all hires, and will be subject to severe fines on the first and second offense, and imprisonment on the third offense of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Foreign Relations
The Iraq war was either a good idea or it was not. We're almost beyond the point of arguing any more. It happened, the majority of Americans supported it initially, then many of them forgot that fact. Now it would appear it was successful, with a semi-stable government in place and our gradual draw-down in forces.
We face many existential challenges from outside our borders, and some now within our borders. Our current President would seem to prefer a pacifist approach, offering unilateral peace to enemies that revile us and our way of life.
I strongly disagree. I've always believed that our country is the only hope for peace and security for not only our own citizens, but the rest of the world as well.
My foreign policy would be based on a very simple message, extended to every country on the planet:
"We want to be your friend. If you accept our friendship, you will find us to be the best friend you could ever have imagined. We can offer you unlimited markets for your products, protection from those who may want to do you harm, and our technology and knowledge to help your country grow."
"However, if you choose to be our enemy, we will be your worst nightmare. We and our friends will make sure you are isolated, and you lose access to those things you cannot acquire inside your own borders. If you strike at us militarily or through terrorism, we will annihilate you. That is, if your own citizens don't revolt and remove you from power first."
The current policy that seems to offer friendship to our enemies (Iran, Russia, Venezuela) while slapping away the hands of our real friends (Britian, Israel) only makes us more vulnerable and destroys our coalition.
However, we must ask our friends to step up and partner with us. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman, with our mighty and overpowering military allowing places like Europe and Canada to disarm and trust us to protect them with our own money and resources. It's time those partners began taking on more of their own responsibilities for self-defense.
Overall, some might find my opinions a bit tough. They may sound strong, but really they aren't. I feel a great deal of compassion for the plight of people. But then again, I believe their plight is fundamentally self-inflicted. From the bad decisions that lead to abortions and welfare mothers to the bad decisions that put Marxist idealogues in office who grasp at their personal power over the well-being of their citizens, we as a nation are in a well-deserved fix.
And only we can get ourselves out of it. By overcoming governments that would oppress, by taking responsibility for our actions and behaviors, and by rediscovering our own abilities and pride in work, family, and faith.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Black-Robed Tyrants
The Senate confirmed an unqualified nominee to the Supreme Court today. It was disappointing to see that Dick Lugar from my own home state joined the Democrats to vote 'Yes'. Apparently his argument is something along the lines that if Republican presidents want the Dems to allow their nominees to take the bench, somehow Dick's willingness to allow Obama's picks confirmation is enough goodwill to get Dems to vote for the next Roberts or Alito.
I considered it a priviledge to be able to see much of John Roberts' confirmation hearings. I learned more than I ever had about constitutional law in that session. Especially enjoyable was the way he made the Senators on the committee reveal themselves for the incompetent and ignorant fools they really are. The funniest part was they didn't even know how incredily clueless they were proving themselves to be with their inane questions.
I don't really get Dick's argument at all. I certainly see no evidence that Democrat Senators will use Dick's example to vote for a future Republican president's nominee.
Should Kagan have been voted down on the basis of her political views? No.
She should have been voted down based on her (lack of) qualifications. She's never been a judge, she's reported to have never written anything of substance about the law, and she has no apparent experience that would qualify her to sit in judgement of cases brought to the highest court in the land.
Then there's her attitudes and knowable beliefs about the US Constitution and the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It's pretty clear that her judgements on the court will reflect her personal preferences and ideas, and not any interpretation of the Law or the Constitution.
To Kagan and her compatriots, the Constitution is irrelevant. It's how she feels about the issue before the court that matters most. How much she identifies with the principals on one side or the other will hold more sway in her decision than what the Law says.
Just like the recent Arizona Immigration decision. And the California Proposition 8 decision. Neither decision seemed to even make an attempt to understand or apply legal principles, precedent, or Consititutional frameworks. The excerpts I've read from both decisions read more like a Democrat candidate speech.
When the courts become run by these agenda-driven political hacks, our very freedoms and protections are destroyed.
And Dick Lugar is an enabler.
I considered it a priviledge to be able to see much of John Roberts' confirmation hearings. I learned more than I ever had about constitutional law in that session. Especially enjoyable was the way he made the Senators on the committee reveal themselves for the incompetent and ignorant fools they really are. The funniest part was they didn't even know how incredily clueless they were proving themselves to be with their inane questions.
I don't really get Dick's argument at all. I certainly see no evidence that Democrat Senators will use Dick's example to vote for a future Republican president's nominee.
Should Kagan have been voted down on the basis of her political views? No.
She should have been voted down based on her (lack of) qualifications. She's never been a judge, she's reported to have never written anything of substance about the law, and she has no apparent experience that would qualify her to sit in judgement of cases brought to the highest court in the land.
Then there's her attitudes and knowable beliefs about the US Constitution and the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It's pretty clear that her judgements on the court will reflect her personal preferences and ideas, and not any interpretation of the Law or the Constitution.
To Kagan and her compatriots, the Constitution is irrelevant. It's how she feels about the issue before the court that matters most. How much she identifies with the principals on one side or the other will hold more sway in her decision than what the Law says.
Just like the recent Arizona Immigration decision. And the California Proposition 8 decision. Neither decision seemed to even make an attempt to understand or apply legal principles, precedent, or Consititutional frameworks. The excerpts I've read from both decisions read more like a Democrat candidate speech.
When the courts become run by these agenda-driven political hacks, our very freedoms and protections are destroyed.
And Dick Lugar is an enabler.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Weekend Quick Thoughts
A prayer offered in Church this weekend was "for the more equitable distribution of wealth". I'm very uncomfortable with the wording of that one, and wonder who wrote it, and what he/she was thinking. I think there's a sort of dangerous movement that's co-opting churches to think Christianity is called to socialism, when clearly we're called as individuals to be charitable - not to encourage our government to take money from other people to give to the poor.
Was reminded of something from the days of the crumbling Roman Empire. They successfully kept their citizens' minds off the corruption and abuses of their government by feeding and entertaining them. Bread and Circuses. Isn't that sort of what our own government is doing to keep us pacified right now?
Left the cellphone at home. Must have been half-asleep going out the door to the airport at 5AM, and didn't notice it was gone until I was almost to the airport. Gonna be a difficult week.
Reading interesting books by Lee Strobel, making pretty good arguments about the evidence for real existence of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, resurrection, and why the Christian faith has endured for over 2,000 years. I don't need such evidence to bolster my own faith, but find it helpful to learn more about the positive arguments in favor of Christ being real and tangible, and more likely than not to have pretty much done what the gospels report.
Admittedly not a legal scholar, it still seems painfully obvious to me that the judge that stopped Arizona's immigration law did so for political, not legal reasons. And of course the 9th circuit rejected the appeal for the same reasons. Is the Supreme Court the only hope left for States' ability to protect themselves when the Feds refuse to do so? Or has the Left successfully packed the courts with judges who will reliably put leftist politics above the Law?
I noticed the President was touting GM (Government Motors?) and the new Volt electric car. If I get this straight, it's a car that goes 40 miles on a charge, costs something like $41,000, and when the battery wears out, you have to replace it and it's hazardous waste. And to charge it, you have to plug it in for four hours to be charged by your electrical service that comes from coal-powered plants, which Obama has promised to put out of business as soon as he gets his energy bills passed.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who wonders if there are any sane people left.
Was reminded of something from the days of the crumbling Roman Empire. They successfully kept their citizens' minds off the corruption and abuses of their government by feeding and entertaining them. Bread and Circuses. Isn't that sort of what our own government is doing to keep us pacified right now?
Left the cellphone at home. Must have been half-asleep going out the door to the airport at 5AM, and didn't notice it was gone until I was almost to the airport. Gonna be a difficult week.
Reading interesting books by Lee Strobel, making pretty good arguments about the evidence for real existence of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, resurrection, and why the Christian faith has endured for over 2,000 years. I don't need such evidence to bolster my own faith, but find it helpful to learn more about the positive arguments in favor of Christ being real and tangible, and more likely than not to have pretty much done what the gospels report.
Admittedly not a legal scholar, it still seems painfully obvious to me that the judge that stopped Arizona's immigration law did so for political, not legal reasons. And of course the 9th circuit rejected the appeal for the same reasons. Is the Supreme Court the only hope left for States' ability to protect themselves when the Feds refuse to do so? Or has the Left successfully packed the courts with judges who will reliably put leftist politics above the Law?
I noticed the President was touting GM (Government Motors?) and the new Volt electric car. If I get this straight, it's a car that goes 40 miles on a charge, costs something like $41,000, and when the battery wears out, you have to replace it and it's hazardous waste. And to charge it, you have to plug it in for four hours to be charged by your electrical service that comes from coal-powered plants, which Obama has promised to put out of business as soon as he gets his energy bills passed.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who wonders if there are any sane people left.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
My Generation
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.
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.
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"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)