Going into October, I did a quick projection for 2010. And it would appear this may be the best year since I became an independent businessman. At least in terms of gross revenue.
It got me thinking, was this a good year?
The earnings haven't made a difference in my life in any way I can identify. I suppose it's helped me cover the spiking healthcare expenses and some home repairs, which were all just things that were needed regardless.
I haven't spent anything on myself. Actually, I've been hoarding cash like a miser because it's scary to watch the overall economy tank.
There hasn't been much free time, because of course I can't have a great earnings year without working. And I've been working much harder than normal this year. Summer went past and I barely noticed.
That hoard of cash (don't get any ideas that it's such a big hoard, because it's not) is going to have to take a really big hit, because I also just realized I'm going to have to send a major percentage of it to the government this month or they'll be coming after me. So even that's not such a great thing.
It seems I should feel great about my successful business year.
Instead I feel guilty.
Guilty for failing to appreciate being busy when so many are out of work.
Guilty for being absent.
Guilty for losing track of what's really important.
Maybe I need to force a break in my work schedule to re-evaluate. Or should I just toughen up, keep making hay while the sun shines, and put enough back to relax when the tough times hit?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Balanced News
On a rare occasion, I took in the Fox News Sunday program this weekend. For those who would claim Fox News is merely the conservative opposite of MSNBC, Chris Wallace proved that false; at least when it comes to Sunday shows.
Wallace had Boehner on to talk about their newly released outline of promises if the GOP gets returned to power. He was tough on Boehner, asking good questions that Boehner mostly ducked.
Then he had on the Democrat Hoyer, and proceeded to ask him equally tough questions. And of course got Democrat talking points in return.
So neither really answered the questions; Boehner ducked them and Hoyer prevaricated.
The panel discussion was balanced with representatives of both sides of the political divide, which was actually fairly interesting.
It's simply wrong to suggest Fox is the same as MSNBC, just the other side of the same coin. MSNBC is populated with certifiable crazies and offers little to no balance. Every Fox program, except maybe Beck, brings on people to express both sides of most every issue. (And Beck's program is really not comparable to anything anywhere else)
Wallace should have a higher profile. I want someone who doesn't take sides, and asks tough questions that need to be asked no matter who comes in.
We can learn from that.
Wallace had Boehner on to talk about their newly released outline of promises if the GOP gets returned to power. He was tough on Boehner, asking good questions that Boehner mostly ducked.
Then he had on the Democrat Hoyer, and proceeded to ask him equally tough questions. And of course got Democrat talking points in return.
So neither really answered the questions; Boehner ducked them and Hoyer prevaricated.
The panel discussion was balanced with representatives of both sides of the political divide, which was actually fairly interesting.
It's simply wrong to suggest Fox is the same as MSNBC, just the other side of the same coin. MSNBC is populated with certifiable crazies and offers little to no balance. Every Fox program, except maybe Beck, brings on people to express both sides of most every issue. (And Beck's program is really not comparable to anything anywhere else)
Wallace should have a higher profile. I want someone who doesn't take sides, and asks tough questions that need to be asked no matter who comes in.
We can learn from that.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Missing the Point
It seems like most everybody's missing the point. It's sort of disappointing, because those missing the point are the ones who are being hurt most by everything that's happening.
What point am I talking about?
Well, primarily it's morality. But it's also common sense.
What's better for everyone -
Being sensitive to gay people's feelings or securing the country against its enemies?
Rewarding and honoring those who behave irresponsibly and neglect the next generation, or rewarding the nuclear family, from which come the most responsible and productive citizens?
Confiscating hard-earned dollars from people who work to give it to people who dont?
Disrespecting Christians and making sure all our students are converted to the religion of Atheism, or honoring our First Amendment freedoms that built the foundation of solid families and honorable citizens?
Trying to impose goverment control over every aspect of our lives, including what we can eat, drive, where we live, and what we can do with our own property; or giving us the freedom to live our lives as we choose without bureaucratic interference?
Are business people to be regarded as greedy money-grubbers who abuse the poor, or the engine of a vibrant economy who need to be encouraged to innovate and expand?
Hasn't anybody these days read anything about the fall of the Roman Empire? History is indeed repeating itself.
What point am I talking about?
Well, primarily it's morality. But it's also common sense.
What's better for everyone -
Being sensitive to gay people's feelings or securing the country against its enemies?
Rewarding and honoring those who behave irresponsibly and neglect the next generation, or rewarding the nuclear family, from which come the most responsible and productive citizens?
Confiscating hard-earned dollars from people who work to give it to people who dont?
Disrespecting Christians and making sure all our students are converted to the religion of Atheism, or honoring our First Amendment freedoms that built the foundation of solid families and honorable citizens?
Trying to impose goverment control over every aspect of our lives, including what we can eat, drive, where we live, and what we can do with our own property; or giving us the freedom to live our lives as we choose without bureaucratic interference?
Are business people to be regarded as greedy money-grubbers who abuse the poor, or the engine of a vibrant economy who need to be encouraged to innovate and expand?
Hasn't anybody these days read anything about the fall of the Roman Empire? History is indeed repeating itself.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Poison Pills in Politics
Harry Reid used a cynical and obvious ploy his position as Senate Majority Leader permits to stuff unrelated poison pills into the Defense Authorization Bill. The DREAM Act and repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
Harry knows he's going to lose if he can't figure out a way to energize the Democrat base. So his desperate attempt to prod gays and hispanics to the Nevada polls is an example of why people across the country are sick of the process.
Unfortunately, Indiana's own Dick Lugar is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which serves as further evidence that Lugar is out of touch. It seems he's either been in Washington so long that he doesn't even know how folks in Indiana think anymore, or he's old and senile and his office is being run by insider Washington staffers who couldn't find Indiana on a map.
The DREAM Act is merely a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants combined with financial benefits for their offspring. An aspect that would seem to be unpalatable to Liberals and Conservatives alike is the promise it makes to illegals who sign up for the military.
"Hey, illegal immigrant, want a chance to become an American citizen? Go fight in Afghanistan for a few years, and you've got it!"
Then of course it forces the dwindling numbers of us who still pay taxes to cover college tuition for illegals.
Who supports this law actually? Maybe just those who don't know about it?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a Clinton-era policy that represented a compromise. Prior to that policy, the military simply would not allow homosexuals to serve. It's perhaps a simple way of avoiding the obvious problems that can happen with a bunch of guys in close quarters and in combat.
Gays have been pushing in the years since to repeal the policy, because they want to be allowed to serve in the military and be open about their orientation. I don't really understand why, since acting out sexually in the military, no matter what your orientation, will get you busted and dishonorably discharged if it continues.
My reading of the current military practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is pretty loose. The military won't discharge those they know are homosexual unless the individual happens to be flamboyantly or militantly so. Which seems practical to me in an organization where teamwork and unit cohesiveness is life-and-death.
What disappoints me about both of these issues is that there were Republicans who would have supported them, and all but two Democrats went on record for them. That's abusive to the general public.
Harry knows he's going to lose if he can't figure out a way to energize the Democrat base. So his desperate attempt to prod gays and hispanics to the Nevada polls is an example of why people across the country are sick of the process.
Unfortunately, Indiana's own Dick Lugar is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which serves as further evidence that Lugar is out of touch. It seems he's either been in Washington so long that he doesn't even know how folks in Indiana think anymore, or he's old and senile and his office is being run by insider Washington staffers who couldn't find Indiana on a map.
The DREAM Act is merely a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants combined with financial benefits for their offspring. An aspect that would seem to be unpalatable to Liberals and Conservatives alike is the promise it makes to illegals who sign up for the military.
"Hey, illegal immigrant, want a chance to become an American citizen? Go fight in Afghanistan for a few years, and you've got it!"
Then of course it forces the dwindling numbers of us who still pay taxes to cover college tuition for illegals.
Who supports this law actually? Maybe just those who don't know about it?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a Clinton-era policy that represented a compromise. Prior to that policy, the military simply would not allow homosexuals to serve. It's perhaps a simple way of avoiding the obvious problems that can happen with a bunch of guys in close quarters and in combat.
Gays have been pushing in the years since to repeal the policy, because they want to be allowed to serve in the military and be open about their orientation. I don't really understand why, since acting out sexually in the military, no matter what your orientation, will get you busted and dishonorably discharged if it continues.
My reading of the current military practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is pretty loose. The military won't discharge those they know are homosexual unless the individual happens to be flamboyantly or militantly so. Which seems practical to me in an organization where teamwork and unit cohesiveness is life-and-death.
What disappoints me about both of these issues is that there were Republicans who would have supported them, and all but two Democrats went on record for them. That's abusive to the general public.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Popularity Double Standard
In the wake of the political earthquake of the Delaware Senate Primary, I've been noticing a pretty amazing double-standard when it comes to female politicians.
We all know how much the Left despises Sarah Palin. The list of hated conservative women is growing to include Sharon Angle in Nevada and now Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. What's somewhat new is the anger being shown by GOP establishment types who have openly derided the young lady who knocked the old man from Washington out of the race.
O'Donnell isn't the first insurgent Tea Party candidate to unseat a party favorite. We only need to look at the very recent result in Alaska, where a new guy named Joe Miller dumped the incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Miller hasn't received the vitriol from the party leaders.
OK, so Miller's going to win the Alaska seat unless something truly horrible surfaces about him. O'Donnell will supposedly need a miracle to get Joe Biden's old seat in deep blue Delaware. Point made.
But what's beginning to show is a sort of sexism. What is the biggest complaint of those who don't like O'Donnell, Palin, and Angle? They're all painted as airheads. Dumb blondes (even though as far as I can tell, only Angle is actually guilty of being blonde). Unserious thinkers.
Why is it that the stupid charge only applies to conservative female candidates?
When's the last time you heard the Speaker of the House say anything remotely intelligent? And to be fair to both sexes, might I also place into evidence the Vice President?
I didn't really know the name Christine O'Donnell until a couple of weeks ago, and it would be unfair to offer any opinion on her mental capacity. Same holds for Angle.
Palin is an undeniable force in this political season, something you have to credit, which seems to give at least some lie to the stupid charge.
Here's my working theory on how O'Donnell might actually pull out a win and give the party establishment their wish, making Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader:
O'Donnell's campaign reportedly got over a million dollars immediately after she won the primary. She's energized not only Tea Party folks, but also people across the country who find it refreshing that a regular person was able to break through the wall for a nomination in spite of the establishment.
She's running against a guy who calls himself "The Bearded Marxist". Even in Delaware, I would be surprised if even the blue Democrats would be comfortable pulling a lever from an avowed Marxist.
First, the energized conservative base in Delaware, plus "moderates" who sort of like the idea of an insurgent candidate, turn out big on election day.
Second, the soft and disgruntled Left and the left-leaning folks who don't like O'Donnell, but aren't enamored with the bearded Marxist either, just stay home.
Not only in Delaware can this happen, but also in Nevada, and California, and Washington, and in many other races that currently are polling somewhere between "Toss-Up" and "Leans Democrat".
Which means that if O'Donnell wins that seat, I think every other federal congressional office within shouting distance also tips Republican.
We'll see.
We all know how much the Left despises Sarah Palin. The list of hated conservative women is growing to include Sharon Angle in Nevada and now Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. What's somewhat new is the anger being shown by GOP establishment types who have openly derided the young lady who knocked the old man from Washington out of the race.
O'Donnell isn't the first insurgent Tea Party candidate to unseat a party favorite. We only need to look at the very recent result in Alaska, where a new guy named Joe Miller dumped the incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Miller hasn't received the vitriol from the party leaders.
OK, so Miller's going to win the Alaska seat unless something truly horrible surfaces about him. O'Donnell will supposedly need a miracle to get Joe Biden's old seat in deep blue Delaware. Point made.
But what's beginning to show is a sort of sexism. What is the biggest complaint of those who don't like O'Donnell, Palin, and Angle? They're all painted as airheads. Dumb blondes (even though as far as I can tell, only Angle is actually guilty of being blonde). Unserious thinkers.
Why is it that the stupid charge only applies to conservative female candidates?
When's the last time you heard the Speaker of the House say anything remotely intelligent? And to be fair to both sexes, might I also place into evidence the Vice President?
I didn't really know the name Christine O'Donnell until a couple of weeks ago, and it would be unfair to offer any opinion on her mental capacity. Same holds for Angle.
Palin is an undeniable force in this political season, something you have to credit, which seems to give at least some lie to the stupid charge.
Here's my working theory on how O'Donnell might actually pull out a win and give the party establishment their wish, making Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader:
O'Donnell's campaign reportedly got over a million dollars immediately after she won the primary. She's energized not only Tea Party folks, but also people across the country who find it refreshing that a regular person was able to break through the wall for a nomination in spite of the establishment.
She's running against a guy who calls himself "The Bearded Marxist". Even in Delaware, I would be surprised if even the blue Democrats would be comfortable pulling a lever from an avowed Marxist.
First, the energized conservative base in Delaware, plus "moderates" who sort of like the idea of an insurgent candidate, turn out big on election day.
Second, the soft and disgruntled Left and the left-leaning folks who don't like O'Donnell, but aren't enamored with the bearded Marxist either, just stay home.
Not only in Delaware can this happen, but also in Nevada, and California, and Washington, and in many other races that currently are polling somewhere between "Toss-Up" and "Leans Democrat".
Which means that if O'Donnell wins that seat, I think every other federal congressional office within shouting distance also tips Republican.
We'll see.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Debating Ideological Purity
The biggest arguments Republicans are having with each other these days is focused on the Delaware Senate Primary. It happens to be the race to choose a senator that will take Joe Biden's place.
The argument is about ideological purity, and I find it fascinating.
Should conservatives go ahead and vote through the veteran lawmaker Mike Castle, who most believe would win Biden't seat easily, or vote for the "true conservative" and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, who the Republican establishment in Delaware have been trying to discredit ostensibly because she can't win?
It would seem that Castle would idealogically fall somewhere between the two ladies from Maine and Alen Specter, which naturally causes conservatives lots of heartburn. Castle might sink a hoped-for Republican ascendancy to the majority in the Senate by aligning himself with the Democrats on key legislative issues such as national healthcare and cap & trade.
Republican muckety-mucks say it's better to have a "moderate" Castle in the Senate as perhaps the seat that tips the scale for the GOP than to lose the seat, and thus the majority, by nominating O'Donnell.
O'Donnell supporters insist she is eminently electable, and decry the smears against her from her own party establishment as sexist and perhaps even driven a bit by corrupt motives. Delaware may be a Blue State, but the voters already know the Democrat candidate as a big-time tax & spend guy, and are ready to choose a new direction, they claim.
I'm not from Delaware, nor can I say I even know anybody from Delaware. So I can't make any judgements at all about the character, ideology, or electability of either candidate versus the Democrat. But given a choice between a RINO that hands the Senate Majority over to the GOP and a True-Blue Conservative that may end up losing to the Democrat, I'd say it's a tough call.
But I expect if I were voting in Delaware's primary, I'd probably go for the fresh blood and let the chips fall where they may.
The argument is about ideological purity, and I find it fascinating.
Should conservatives go ahead and vote through the veteran lawmaker Mike Castle, who most believe would win Biden't seat easily, or vote for the "true conservative" and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, who the Republican establishment in Delaware have been trying to discredit ostensibly because she can't win?
It would seem that Castle would idealogically fall somewhere between the two ladies from Maine and Alen Specter, which naturally causes conservatives lots of heartburn. Castle might sink a hoped-for Republican ascendancy to the majority in the Senate by aligning himself with the Democrats on key legislative issues such as national healthcare and cap & trade.
Republican muckety-mucks say it's better to have a "moderate" Castle in the Senate as perhaps the seat that tips the scale for the GOP than to lose the seat, and thus the majority, by nominating O'Donnell.
O'Donnell supporters insist she is eminently electable, and decry the smears against her from her own party establishment as sexist and perhaps even driven a bit by corrupt motives. Delaware may be a Blue State, but the voters already know the Democrat candidate as a big-time tax & spend guy, and are ready to choose a new direction, they claim.
I'm not from Delaware, nor can I say I even know anybody from Delaware. So I can't make any judgements at all about the character, ideology, or electability of either candidate versus the Democrat. But given a choice between a RINO that hands the Senate Majority over to the GOP and a True-Blue Conservative that may end up losing to the Democrat, I'd say it's a tough call.
But I expect if I were voting in Delaware's primary, I'd probably go for the fresh blood and let the chips fall where they may.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Delusion as Policy
The irony of today's headlines side-by-side is striking. One is about Obama's pleading with everyone to separate Islamic terrorism from the Islamic faith, while the other is about the number of people who died in violent protests over the cancelled Quran-burning event in Florida.
Is Obama practicing an official policy of delusion, when he proclaims all followers of the Prophet Mohammed to be peaceful in the face of such extreme reactions over a non-protest by a hayseed in Florida?
His delusion seems evident in all of his related policies. Iran is moving their nuclear weapons program forward at an accelerated pace while they perceive the weak American president will do nothing to stop them. While the President begs them to negotiate, they proclaim their peaceful intentions while the nuclear bombs are being constructed in plain sight. And for all the President's rhetoric, they must be stunned at his naivete.
He badgers Netanyahu and Abbas to agree to talk, even though there is no way either can or will be able to achieve even minimal progress on Israeli/Palestinian peace. Abbas is a weak leader over a people who are largely committed to the utter and complete destruction of the State of Israel, even if Israel gives them all of Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel's last unilateral concession toward peace, when they abandoned much of Gaza to the Palestinians, was repaid by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border.
The official delusion is that anything at all can be accomplished through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The only available solution to the problem is an imposed solution. It would require cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of Israel's neighbors. It would require an end to the arming and financing of Hamas from Iran and the Saudis. It would require a permanent multinational force protecting Israel from Palestinian terrorism with an iron fist.
That won't happen.
If the President has any desire at all to put substance ahead of style, he should be working hard to win the support of as many countries as possible toward forcing the Palestinians into negotiations that include guarantees backed by the military might of the world that will protect Israel from attack in exchange for granting a permanent Palestinian State with clearly defined borders and no chance of ever attacking their Israeli neighbors.
Otherwise, the only thing America can do, or maybe should do, is continue to support Israel with the means to defend itself. And keep working on Israel's neighbors, using America's markets as the carrot and allies as the implied stick, to achieve the cooperation needed to move the region toward a hoped-for future peace.
But a delusional President may be incapable of practical solutions to problems.
Is Obama practicing an official policy of delusion, when he proclaims all followers of the Prophet Mohammed to be peaceful in the face of such extreme reactions over a non-protest by a hayseed in Florida?
His delusion seems evident in all of his related policies. Iran is moving their nuclear weapons program forward at an accelerated pace while they perceive the weak American president will do nothing to stop them. While the President begs them to negotiate, they proclaim their peaceful intentions while the nuclear bombs are being constructed in plain sight. And for all the President's rhetoric, they must be stunned at his naivete.
He badgers Netanyahu and Abbas to agree to talk, even though there is no way either can or will be able to achieve even minimal progress on Israeli/Palestinian peace. Abbas is a weak leader over a people who are largely committed to the utter and complete destruction of the State of Israel, even if Israel gives them all of Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel's last unilateral concession toward peace, when they abandoned much of Gaza to the Palestinians, was repaid by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border.
The official delusion is that anything at all can be accomplished through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The only available solution to the problem is an imposed solution. It would require cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of Israel's neighbors. It would require an end to the arming and financing of Hamas from Iran and the Saudis. It would require a permanent multinational force protecting Israel from Palestinian terrorism with an iron fist.
That won't happen.
If the President has any desire at all to put substance ahead of style, he should be working hard to win the support of as many countries as possible toward forcing the Palestinians into negotiations that include guarantees backed by the military might of the world that will protect Israel from attack in exchange for granting a permanent Palestinian State with clearly defined borders and no chance of ever attacking their Israeli neighbors.
Otherwise, the only thing America can do, or maybe should do, is continue to support Israel with the means to defend itself. And keep working on Israel's neighbors, using America's markets as the carrot and allies as the implied stick, to achieve the cooperation needed to move the region toward a hoped-for future peace.
But a delusional President may be incapable of practical solutions to problems.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
I didn't want to comment on this, but ...
Once again I find myself with a completely different take on the Quran (Koran) burning preacher than all the silly pundits who have so badly overexposed the story.
First of all, why did the pastor from Florida with a congregation reported to be around 50 even make the local news? He represents pretty much nobody outside his little congregation, and if the 50 number was ever accurate, I can't help but wonder if all the negative publicity has trimmed it down to 5.
On the other hand, if his point was to expose the silliness of the arguments about the Ground Zero Mosque, just maybe he might be brilliant. The whole mosque argument is about the perception that the Muslims behind it's intention is to rub 9/11 in the faces of the country by building a big place named after the Cordoba Mosque (see my earlier post on the history of the Cordoba Mosque). The Left, who are notorious for blocking anything Christians want to do, suddenly find an opportunity to demonstrate their tolerance and peaceful intentions by campaigning in favor of the mosque and wagging their fingers at those who find the act of building the mosque and opening it on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 provocative and disrespectful.
Now the same folks are challenged by this little hayseed pastor from Florida to step up and show their boundless tolerance and understanding when he decides to perform his own public spectacle with the Quran burning event this 9/11. Am I the only one who sees this stunning inconsistency? It doesn't take too much of a brain to see the hypocrisy.
I have to wonder if the pastor has something surprising in mind. Maybe when Saturday rolls around and all the cameras gather to record his symbolic event to return insult for insult, he will suddenly pull a switch and find a great way to convey a different message. Something that expresses to the world the fact that Muslims can wreak all the murder and mayhem they like, but Christians will continue to pray for them and demonstrate the contrast between radical Muslims' interpretation of Mohammed's teachings and the incontrovertable teachings of Jesus the Christ.
I suspect such a changeup will enrage the media who show up to cover the event even more than the Muslims who don't need any help being enraged.
First of all, why did the pastor from Florida with a congregation reported to be around 50 even make the local news? He represents pretty much nobody outside his little congregation, and if the 50 number was ever accurate, I can't help but wonder if all the negative publicity has trimmed it down to 5.
On the other hand, if his point was to expose the silliness of the arguments about the Ground Zero Mosque, just maybe he might be brilliant. The whole mosque argument is about the perception that the Muslims behind it's intention is to rub 9/11 in the faces of the country by building a big place named after the Cordoba Mosque (see my earlier post on the history of the Cordoba Mosque). The Left, who are notorious for blocking anything Christians want to do, suddenly find an opportunity to demonstrate their tolerance and peaceful intentions by campaigning in favor of the mosque and wagging their fingers at those who find the act of building the mosque and opening it on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 provocative and disrespectful.
Now the same folks are challenged by this little hayseed pastor from Florida to step up and show their boundless tolerance and understanding when he decides to perform his own public spectacle with the Quran burning event this 9/11. Am I the only one who sees this stunning inconsistency? It doesn't take too much of a brain to see the hypocrisy.
I have to wonder if the pastor has something surprising in mind. Maybe when Saturday rolls around and all the cameras gather to record his symbolic event to return insult for insult, he will suddenly pull a switch and find a great way to convey a different message. Something that expresses to the world the fact that Muslims can wreak all the murder and mayhem they like, but Christians will continue to pray for them and demonstrate the contrast between radical Muslims' interpretation of Mohammed's teachings and the incontrovertable teachings of Jesus the Christ.
I suspect such a changeup will enrage the media who show up to cover the event even more than the Muslims who don't need any help being enraged.
Football Season
Just in time for the first games in the NFL, it's time to do my annual prognostication.
Will the Colts find their way back to the Super Bowl this year, fall short once again, or just be an also-ran?
First of all, we know Peyton Manning simply won't allow them to be a bad team. But neither can he win a Super Bowl all by himself.
Peyton has some pretty good depth around him at wide receiver and tight end, and even injuries to the starters at those positions shouldn't hurt the team much. Of course, a season-ending injury to Peyton would be disastrous.
Preseason games seemed to suggest to me that Brandstater might be a slightly better backup QB than Curtis Painter, but Painter held on to the clipboard-toting job. Past history has shown Peyton's perhaps the most durable QB in the game, so the odds are pretty good that he'll be there for the season.
The question on offense is the O-Line. Even without the injury bug to linemen in the preseason, there are lots of questions about whether the line is good enough. None of the injuries appear to be serious, and although Jeff Saturday may not make the first game against the Texans, he should be around for most of the season.
If we see the O-Line springing Addai and Brown for lots of rushing yards, I think that's the measuring stick we can use to determine whether they're good enough. The preseason didn't give me a good feel for that question one way or the other. The Texans game this Sunday will.
Defense is supposed to be better. Again, with the Colts, it's almost impossible to judge that fact, because the Colts use preseason to evaluate players, not to polish the starters. But they would seem to be in good shape for this season, with healthy ends Freeney and Mathis and Bob Sanders back to join an already solid group of Safeties.
I haven't been sold on the linebackers the last couple of years. They have seemed susceptible to getting pancaked by blockers from teams with solid running games. The rookie linebacker from Iowa shows some promise, and we will see if the unit is stronger this year.
The interesting thing about the new season is that nobody really knows what's going to happen. A win against the Texans might have been a pretty good bet in previous years, but this year the Texans look like a better team. I can't say I would be surprised if the Texans were able to beat the Colts in game 1. Disappointed, sure, but not surprised.
That's why we watch.
Will the Colts find their way back to the Super Bowl this year, fall short once again, or just be an also-ran?
First of all, we know Peyton Manning simply won't allow them to be a bad team. But neither can he win a Super Bowl all by himself.
Peyton has some pretty good depth around him at wide receiver and tight end, and even injuries to the starters at those positions shouldn't hurt the team much. Of course, a season-ending injury to Peyton would be disastrous.
Preseason games seemed to suggest to me that Brandstater might be a slightly better backup QB than Curtis Painter, but Painter held on to the clipboard-toting job. Past history has shown Peyton's perhaps the most durable QB in the game, so the odds are pretty good that he'll be there for the season.
The question on offense is the O-Line. Even without the injury bug to linemen in the preseason, there are lots of questions about whether the line is good enough. None of the injuries appear to be serious, and although Jeff Saturday may not make the first game against the Texans, he should be around for most of the season.
If we see the O-Line springing Addai and Brown for lots of rushing yards, I think that's the measuring stick we can use to determine whether they're good enough. The preseason didn't give me a good feel for that question one way or the other. The Texans game this Sunday will.
Defense is supposed to be better. Again, with the Colts, it's almost impossible to judge that fact, because the Colts use preseason to evaluate players, not to polish the starters. But they would seem to be in good shape for this season, with healthy ends Freeney and Mathis and Bob Sanders back to join an already solid group of Safeties.
I haven't been sold on the linebackers the last couple of years. They have seemed susceptible to getting pancaked by blockers from teams with solid running games. The rookie linebacker from Iowa shows some promise, and we will see if the unit is stronger this year.
The interesting thing about the new season is that nobody really knows what's going to happen. A win against the Texans might have been a pretty good bet in previous years, but this year the Texans look like a better team. I can't say I would be surprised if the Texans were able to beat the Colts in game 1. Disappointed, sure, but not surprised.
That's why we watch.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Let Me Explain
Just in my own way of trying another angle to somehow help more people understand what's wrong and why it's so wrong, how about an explanation?
Morality: I'm not always harping on morality because I want America to become a "Theocracy". Here's why morality is a good thing, regardless of whether you accept my brand of Religious philosophy or not:
Committed, "till death do us part" marriage between one man and one woman, produces children who are more responsible, better educated, better adjusted, and overall better contributors to American society. Promiscuity, "Alternative Lifestyles", multiple marriage and divorce, having children out of wedlock, etc., lead to children who are either killed before they even get a chance at life or are abandoned to the world while their amoral and self-absorbed parents seek their own "fulfillment".
Government: The government exists to keep invading marauders from killing us, make sure we don't kill or cheat each other, and maybe build some roads. Whenever they do more than that, they consume far more resources than they return in value, and they chip away at our personal liberty. The founding fathers had it right - the Federal Government needs to stay out of what is clearly the business of the States and Individuals.
Welfare: Charity has always done the best job of helping provide the basic necessities for the neediest among us. Government institutionalizes neediness by giving people enough to live on, so they don't have to use their own initiative to take responsibility for their own lives. The only government welfare program I could get behind is locally administered, and is strictly measured on their achievement of a primary mission: getting their clients off Welfare and into self-sufficiency.
Economy: The President and his fellow travelers have been lamenting, why are all the companies just sitting on their money? Why won't they hire some people, invest in new projects, generally help the economy get back on track?
Seriously, our super-smart President can't understand this? What business is going to make major investments in hiring new employees when they're about to get hammered with major new taxes, skyrocketing healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs (via Cap & Trade), and a significant increase in their marginal personal income tax rates? What, they're willing to risk bankruptcy just to help out the President?
Want to reinvigorate the economy? Just roll back everything you passed the last 2 years and cut federal spending by a trillion dollars. There ya' go.
Healthcare: Inserting the government at the top of the existing healthcare system does nothing but drive up cost and lower quality. Really want to fix healthcare? Stop trying to insure everybody for everything. Let us all pay out of pocket for everything except hospitalization, major illnesses or injuries. We can all buy our Major Medical plans in the open market, which is open to every insurance company that meets certain minimum standards and wants to compete for our business. Otherwise, we'll pay the doctor, the pharmacist, the lab with money from our own pockets - with tax-free money would be nice. For the poor and elderly who really can't afford it, they can apply for financial assistance locally, but the money goes to them and not the medical provider - even they are responsible for paying their own bills.
Immigration: Simply shut down the border. Enforce the laws and don't be so lax on people overstaying their visas. Stop letting companies import workers from abroad, whether legally or illegally, just because they think they will work harder for less money than their American-born workforce. If companies managed better, set their standards, and rewarded excellence, they will have no problem. When America returns to full employment, then we can talk about how many foreign workers we need to fill open jobs. People here illegally, first of all shouldn't have a job, because employers should have a strong disincentive to hire and keep them on the payroll. Secondly, rather than doing some massive nationwide round-up, once we've solved the border issue and the employer issue, all we have to do is send them home as we find them. Pulled over for speeding - deported. Caught selling weed - deported. Driving without a license or insurance - deported. Those that don't leave on their own will understand what's happening and mostly will go home on their own.
National Security: I like old Teddy's famous quote - "Walk softly and carry a big stick". That's a pretty good foreign policy. We simply let everybody know how great it is for them when they're our friend. And how horrible it is if they choose to be our enemy. Our friends help us and we help them in return, while our enemies find themselves surrounded by our friends and us, all carrying extremely big sticks, until they realize the error of their ways.
Get it yet?
Morality: I'm not always harping on morality because I want America to become a "Theocracy". Here's why morality is a good thing, regardless of whether you accept my brand of Religious philosophy or not:
Committed, "till death do us part" marriage between one man and one woman, produces children who are more responsible, better educated, better adjusted, and overall better contributors to American society. Promiscuity, "Alternative Lifestyles", multiple marriage and divorce, having children out of wedlock, etc., lead to children who are either killed before they even get a chance at life or are abandoned to the world while their amoral and self-absorbed parents seek their own "fulfillment".
Government: The government exists to keep invading marauders from killing us, make sure we don't kill or cheat each other, and maybe build some roads. Whenever they do more than that, they consume far more resources than they return in value, and they chip away at our personal liberty. The founding fathers had it right - the Federal Government needs to stay out of what is clearly the business of the States and Individuals.
Welfare: Charity has always done the best job of helping provide the basic necessities for the neediest among us. Government institutionalizes neediness by giving people enough to live on, so they don't have to use their own initiative to take responsibility for their own lives. The only government welfare program I could get behind is locally administered, and is strictly measured on their achievement of a primary mission: getting their clients off Welfare and into self-sufficiency.
Economy: The President and his fellow travelers have been lamenting, why are all the companies just sitting on their money? Why won't they hire some people, invest in new projects, generally help the economy get back on track?
Seriously, our super-smart President can't understand this? What business is going to make major investments in hiring new employees when they're about to get hammered with major new taxes, skyrocketing healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs (via Cap & Trade), and a significant increase in their marginal personal income tax rates? What, they're willing to risk bankruptcy just to help out the President?
Want to reinvigorate the economy? Just roll back everything you passed the last 2 years and cut federal spending by a trillion dollars. There ya' go.
Healthcare: Inserting the government at the top of the existing healthcare system does nothing but drive up cost and lower quality. Really want to fix healthcare? Stop trying to insure everybody for everything. Let us all pay out of pocket for everything except hospitalization, major illnesses or injuries. We can all buy our Major Medical plans in the open market, which is open to every insurance company that meets certain minimum standards and wants to compete for our business. Otherwise, we'll pay the doctor, the pharmacist, the lab with money from our own pockets - with tax-free money would be nice. For the poor and elderly who really can't afford it, they can apply for financial assistance locally, but the money goes to them and not the medical provider - even they are responsible for paying their own bills.
Immigration: Simply shut down the border. Enforce the laws and don't be so lax on people overstaying their visas. Stop letting companies import workers from abroad, whether legally or illegally, just because they think they will work harder for less money than their American-born workforce. If companies managed better, set their standards, and rewarded excellence, they will have no problem. When America returns to full employment, then we can talk about how many foreign workers we need to fill open jobs. People here illegally, first of all shouldn't have a job, because employers should have a strong disincentive to hire and keep them on the payroll. Secondly, rather than doing some massive nationwide round-up, once we've solved the border issue and the employer issue, all we have to do is send them home as we find them. Pulled over for speeding - deported. Caught selling weed - deported. Driving without a license or insurance - deported. Those that don't leave on their own will understand what's happening and mostly will go home on their own.
National Security: I like old Teddy's famous quote - "Walk softly and carry a big stick". That's a pretty good foreign policy. We simply let everybody know how great it is for them when they're our friend. And how horrible it is if they choose to be our enemy. Our friends help us and we help them in return, while our enemies find themselves surrounded by our friends and us, all carrying extremely big sticks, until they realize the error of their ways.
Get it yet?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Gathering of a Quarter Million Subversives
The fascinating result of an event in Washington that was organized by Glenn Beck caught my attention. The event was called "Restoring Honor", and was a gathering of a huge crowd in the Mall, led from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Checking out the theme of the event, I found it studiously avoided overt political rhetoric, but rather was about returning to the values upon which our country was founded and became great. As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin was the only speaker who flirted with the political line, with some unsubtle references to the current anti-constitutional government attitudes.
The Left is apoplectic. To them, it was nothing but a large gathering of angry white racists converging on Washington to express a shared hatred of the President.
The only problem is that nobody on the stage ever even mentioned the President, aside from Sarah's indirect references.
The event seemed mostly like a Christian Revival Meeting, exhorting everyone to rediscover their roots of faith, honor, family, responsibility. To find fault with that message and use name-calling against those who attended is pretty absurd and insulting. Not to mention the horrible aspersions being cast on Martin Luther King's niece, who was a prominent speaker at the event and has been shunned and destroyed by those who consider her a traitor to her race.
The President himself showed utter disdain for these folks and everyone else who shares their values. He dismissed us all by calling us a bunch of folks ginned up by Beck, then went further in his attempt to discredit a major segment of the population with a bad joke about walking around with his birth certificate plastered to his forehead.
The event itself gives me hope that perhaps enough folks have been awakened to the the left-wing agenda enough to undo that damage in November. But it also disappoints me to see the President so clearly dismissing and attempting to marginalize so many people for simply standing up and exhorting Americans to restore the greatness through reviving our own sense of honor and morality.
It was an opportunity for him to show leadership, but he failed miserably. What if he had said, "I completely agree with those who came to Washington this weekend, that faith, family, honor, and integrity are the most important qualities of Americans. I'm all for those who would remind us of those American qualities."
But his hatred for Beck and the conservative Christian Right he is helping to awaken trumps any ability to reach out to them.
So my hope is that change happens in November, that repudiates the Obama government and gives our country at least a chance to pull ourselves out of the terrible hole we're in.
Checking out the theme of the event, I found it studiously avoided overt political rhetoric, but rather was about returning to the values upon which our country was founded and became great. As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin was the only speaker who flirted with the political line, with some unsubtle references to the current anti-constitutional government attitudes.
The Left is apoplectic. To them, it was nothing but a large gathering of angry white racists converging on Washington to express a shared hatred of the President.
The only problem is that nobody on the stage ever even mentioned the President, aside from Sarah's indirect references.
The event seemed mostly like a Christian Revival Meeting, exhorting everyone to rediscover their roots of faith, honor, family, responsibility. To find fault with that message and use name-calling against those who attended is pretty absurd and insulting. Not to mention the horrible aspersions being cast on Martin Luther King's niece, who was a prominent speaker at the event and has been shunned and destroyed by those who consider her a traitor to her race.
The President himself showed utter disdain for these folks and everyone else who shares their values. He dismissed us all by calling us a bunch of folks ginned up by Beck, then went further in his attempt to discredit a major segment of the population with a bad joke about walking around with his birth certificate plastered to his forehead.
The event itself gives me hope that perhaps enough folks have been awakened to the the left-wing agenda enough to undo that damage in November. But it also disappoints me to see the President so clearly dismissing and attempting to marginalize so many people for simply standing up and exhorting Americans to restore the greatness through reviving our own sense of honor and morality.
It was an opportunity for him to show leadership, but he failed miserably. What if he had said, "I completely agree with those who came to Washington this weekend, that faith, family, honor, and integrity are the most important qualities of Americans. I'm all for those who would remind us of those American qualities."
But his hatred for Beck and the conservative Christian Right he is helping to awaken trumps any ability to reach out to them.
So my hope is that change happens in November, that repudiates the Obama government and gives our country at least a chance to pull ourselves out of the terrible hole we're in.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Different Perspective on Cordoba
The big flap over the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" has seemingly become a political fight between the oh-so-tolerant liberals and the islamophobic conservatives.
My preference is to bypass the Red/Blue civil war and get down to what I find much more interesting. And that's the fundamental questions of:
Why exactly do they want to build it there?
Why do they want to name it the "Cordoba Mosque"?
So checking out my history, it would seem that the Cordoba Mosque in the city of the same name in Spain was build in 784, after the Muslim Berbers from north Africa invaded and conquered most of the Iberian peninsula from the Christian Visigoths.
The Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of what was previously a Visigoth Christian Church in part to celebrate the victory and dominance of the Islamic kingdom and it's victory over the infidels. The mosque was an elaborate piece of architecture, expanded on over the years of Islamic domination.
The Spanish Reconquista eventually recaptured the city more than 4 centuries later, and sort of remodeled the mosque back into a beautiful cathedral.
Which has me wondering, what's the significance of naming the NYC version the "Cordoba Mosque"? It seems no explanation makes more sense than the obvious one: The Cordoba Mosque is a celebration of an Islamic victory and dominance over an infidel kingdom.
Islamists around the world would seem to agree. The Cordoba Mosque to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero is to be a symbol of their great victory on 9-11 over the infidel American empire. It's been reported that Islamic folks everywhere are referring to it openly as a "Victory Mosque".
I wonder whether the hyper-tolerant elites who would suggest those who find this particular project offensive are, let's see, bigoted, intolerant, racist, or anti-American, are ignorant of this easily discovered historical information? Are they choosing to ignore these inconvenient facts, or denying their veracity? Or are they simply bending over backwards to accomodate those Islamists who celebrate 9-11 and are happily using their tolerance and naive pacifism against them?
I also find it rather interesting that the same folks who pride themselves so much on their tolerance toward Islam can be found campaigning to remove every vestige of Christianity from public view. I can't wait to hear that particular contradiction explained, but so far the explanation has eluded me.
Isn't it also rather strange that this Islam-embracing crowd has nothing to say about the intolerance and even violence that accompanies Sharia, while they loudly decry Christians for, say, mildly suggesting that adultery and homosexuality might be morally ill-advised? Let me get this straight - Christians are evil people for wanting to help folks find the joys of moral clarity through simple persuasion, while Islamists who will execute the same folks for the same sins are just observing a cultural practice we need to respect?
The contradictions are dizzying.
My preference is to bypass the Red/Blue civil war and get down to what I find much more interesting. And that's the fundamental questions of:
Why exactly do they want to build it there?
Why do they want to name it the "Cordoba Mosque"?
So checking out my history, it would seem that the Cordoba Mosque in the city of the same name in Spain was build in 784, after the Muslim Berbers from north Africa invaded and conquered most of the Iberian peninsula from the Christian Visigoths.
The Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of what was previously a Visigoth Christian Church in part to celebrate the victory and dominance of the Islamic kingdom and it's victory over the infidels. The mosque was an elaborate piece of architecture, expanded on over the years of Islamic domination.
The Spanish Reconquista eventually recaptured the city more than 4 centuries later, and sort of remodeled the mosque back into a beautiful cathedral.
Which has me wondering, what's the significance of naming the NYC version the "Cordoba Mosque"? It seems no explanation makes more sense than the obvious one: The Cordoba Mosque is a celebration of an Islamic victory and dominance over an infidel kingdom.
Islamists around the world would seem to agree. The Cordoba Mosque to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero is to be a symbol of their great victory on 9-11 over the infidel American empire. It's been reported that Islamic folks everywhere are referring to it openly as a "Victory Mosque".
I wonder whether the hyper-tolerant elites who would suggest those who find this particular project offensive are, let's see, bigoted, intolerant, racist, or anti-American, are ignorant of this easily discovered historical information? Are they choosing to ignore these inconvenient facts, or denying their veracity? Or are they simply bending over backwards to accomodate those Islamists who celebrate 9-11 and are happily using their tolerance and naive pacifism against them?
I also find it rather interesting that the same folks who pride themselves so much on their tolerance toward Islam can be found campaigning to remove every vestige of Christianity from public view. I can't wait to hear that particular contradiction explained, but so far the explanation has eluded me.
Isn't it also rather strange that this Islam-embracing crowd has nothing to say about the intolerance and even violence that accompanies Sharia, while they loudly decry Christians for, say, mildly suggesting that adultery and homosexuality might be morally ill-advised? Let me get this straight - Christians are evil people for wanting to help folks find the joys of moral clarity through simple persuasion, while Islamists who will execute the same folks for the same sins are just observing a cultural practice we need to respect?
The contradictions are dizzying.
Monday, August 23, 2010
A World I Don't Recognize
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)