For once I was home on Friday, and not sitting on an airplane somewhere. Both Columbus teams were playing in their respective Sectional SemiFinal games right here in town, and I had my first chance since they played each other way back in the second game of the season to catch a game.
I was tempted to visit the closer team on the East side, but decided to stay with the team I've followed for so many years, including those years my middle son was a team member, and head up to the North side.
The game opened up with an impressive touchdown drive by the North squad, leaving me the impression that this game could go pretty well. Then the opponents from Bloomington North got the ball and marched it down the field in the opposite direction for their own touchdown.
It was beginning to look like a shootout. Bloomington got up two scores, 28-14, but a nice Columbus touchdown drive followed by a quick Bloomington turnover and score brought the teams even at halftime, 28-28.
The third quarter was where things began to unravel for the Columbus team. Not at first, as Bloomington's first possession was stymied by a rededicated Columbus defense for a 3-and-out, and the Columbus offense drove down the field for what looked like the go-ahead score.
But a fourth down scramble by the quarterback, Kyle Kamman, was brought back on a holding penalty I didn't see from the stands. Now I'm generally a pretty good observer of such things, and if there was an obvious hold on the play, it seems I would have seen it. In any case, I didn't see it, but have to assume the referree did.
Instead of a go-ahead touchdown, Columbus North had to punt.
And Bloomington North scored almost immediately on their next possession. A short sideline pass led to a 66-yard scamper to the end zone that made the hapless Columbus defense look embarassingly like the Keystone Cops.
Columbus' offense struggled to regain momentum in the quarter, and would never be able to catch the Bloomington team, which seemed to get stronger as the second half wore on.
As in the drive-killing holding penalty, the officials contributed to the outcome at least twice more.
During the extra point following Bloomington's first third-quarter touchdown, a Columbus player dove across in front of the kicker to attempt a block and fell to the ground just in front of the holder. The kicker saw his opportunity and let his momentum carry him forward so he tripped over the crumpled Columbus player, drawing the "Roughing the Kicker" penalty.
Assessed on the kickoff, Bloomington went ahead and called for the Onside Kick, which was a low-risk, high-reward call. The onside kick was successful, but at least 3 of the Bloomington kickoff team members were clearly and obviously offside on the play. There was no official watching the kickoff line, so no penalty was called.
Bloomington North promptly scored again to go up by 2 touchdowns.
Then the Columbus speedster Trace Fetterer(sp?) caught the next kickoff near the goal line and raced the length of the field for an apparent touchdown that would have put his team right back in contention.
Except for the flag. Another holding call on Columbus North, again for what seemed to me a phantom hold, as I saw nothing of the sort.
In the end, that call was all that was needed to assure a Bloomington North victory. Columbus' defense was missing its two starting linebackers, and Bloomington could run the ball easily through the Columbus defense and run out the clock.
Columbus managed a late touchdown, but much too late, dropping the game by the final score of 45-35.
Crosstown rivals Columbus East were embarassed by Whiteland by a score too outrageous for me to reproduce.
So there will be no Columbus-based Sectional Championship game next week. At least I picked the better game of the two to shiver through on Friday night.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
While I'm Tilting at Windmills
I might as well go ahead and post some other crazy ideas.
What if -
Everybody bought health insurance like they buy car insurance? And the government had nothing to do with it.
We could solve the massive budget and national debt problem by eliminating every federal agency and project that is not specifically and constitutionally their responsibility?
We capped government spending so it can never exceed, say, 20 percent GDP?
We changed welfare programs to cover only those to sick or otherwise disabled to function?
Churches help out their parishioners when in need as a front line of defense instead of government programs?
Those able-bodied persons who don't want to join a church and can't find employment can fall back on the government, but not for cash. Show up anytime you want and you can be given a minimum-wage job, baby sitting for your children if needed, and maybe some referral services for temporary housing and other assistance until you get on your feet?
Social Security was transformed into a personal account, gradually over the next generation. Then when you retire, it's your money. When you die, you can pass it on to your heirs?
Government configured tax policy to favor only the nuclear family and undivorced parents?
Government was friendly to the Church, recognizing it as the most important agent for solving poverty?
Congress is made up of ordinary people from our communities who go to Washington for no more than 4 years, then come home and resume their normal lives?
Government actually enforced important laws, such as AntiTrust and Immigration, for two examples?
The tax code was reduced from the corrupt mutli-thousand-page monstrosity to a simple law no more than 20 pages long?
Tax returns for everyone were 1 page long?
Mega Corporations get no more or less preferential treatment from the government than any other business or individual?
Calling people of the opposition party "Enemies" is an impeachable offense for the President or any other elected official?
I've got lots more, but that's all I feel like posting for tonight.
What if -
Everybody bought health insurance like they buy car insurance? And the government had nothing to do with it.
We could solve the massive budget and national debt problem by eliminating every federal agency and project that is not specifically and constitutionally their responsibility?
We capped government spending so it can never exceed, say, 20 percent GDP?
We changed welfare programs to cover only those to sick or otherwise disabled to function?
Churches help out their parishioners when in need as a front line of defense instead of government programs?
Those able-bodied persons who don't want to join a church and can't find employment can fall back on the government, but not for cash. Show up anytime you want and you can be given a minimum-wage job, baby sitting for your children if needed, and maybe some referral services for temporary housing and other assistance until you get on your feet?
Social Security was transformed into a personal account, gradually over the next generation. Then when you retire, it's your money. When you die, you can pass it on to your heirs?
Government configured tax policy to favor only the nuclear family and undivorced parents?
Government was friendly to the Church, recognizing it as the most important agent for solving poverty?
Congress is made up of ordinary people from our communities who go to Washington for no more than 4 years, then come home and resume their normal lives?
Government actually enforced important laws, such as AntiTrust and Immigration, for two examples?
The tax code was reduced from the corrupt mutli-thousand-page monstrosity to a simple law no more than 20 pages long?
Tax returns for everyone were 1 page long?
Mega Corporations get no more or less preferential treatment from the government than any other business or individual?
Calling people of the opposition party "Enemies" is an impeachable offense for the President or any other elected official?
I've got lots more, but that's all I feel like posting for tonight.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
My Vincennes Debate Adventure
A few weeks ago I caught wind of the Indiana Debate Commission's request for voters to submit questions for the Senate candidates. I happened to be sitting down at the computer at the time, so I dashed off a question.
Last week, I received a phone call from a member of the commission asking if I would present my question at the debate Monday night in Vincennes. I had to do some schedule rearranging, but freed up Monday afternoon and evening to make the long drive to Vincennes University last night.
My question was related to the following information I came across about 2010 H1B Visa Applications in Indiana.
Rank Company H1B Applications Avg Salary
1 Purdue University 548 64,001
2 Cummins 539 69,546
3 Indiana University 455 56,733
4 IUPUI 441 60,037
5 Eli Lilly/Notre Dame 264 92,426
6 Lac 211 58,245
7 Access Therapies 181 52,193
8 Kpit Infosystems 177 54,389
9 Pyramid Consulting 170 49,625
10 Pyramid Technology Solutions 131 48,377
11 LHP Software 105 60,822
12 Ryan Consulting Group 90 51,515
13 Satyam Computer Services 80 61,724
14 Midwest Independent Transmission Sys 61 75,701
15 Workhorse Custom Chassis 58 72,026
16 White Lodging Services 56 39,440
16 Ball State 56 56,381
18 IUPUI 54 59,769
19 SV Technologies 51 49,314
19 Thomson 51 77,296
21 ArcelorMittal USA 50 73,199
22 UST Global 49 56,757
23 Brite Systems 43 59,198
24 Conseco Services 42 71,074
25 Dow Agrosciences 38 90,543
26 Zimmer 37 74,492
27 Bucher and Christian Consulting 36 101,388
28 CVS Pharmacy 35 103,057
29 Q Edge 34 42,839
30 Kindred Rehab Services 32 50,490
30 Depauw University 32 53,310
30 Indiana State University 32 50,583
33 IBM 31 84,785
33 RCR Technology 31 72,669
35 Kindred Technology Nursing Centers 31 62,400
36 Telamon 26 42,987
37 Hill Rom 25 75,174
37 Cook 25 63,862
37 Interactive Intelligence 25 72,282
40 International School of Indiana 24 43,787
40 F1 24 49,875
40 Infosys Technologies 24 60,148
40 Boston Scientific 24 67,186
40 Carrier 24 66,371
40 Sabic Innovative Plastics 24 81,372
46 Redcats USA Management Services 23 89,065
46 MED Institute 23 69,234
46 Delphi 23 73,782
49 TheraCare 22 42,976
50 Novistar 21 69,261
50 Diverse Staffing Services 21 61,650
50 Fujitsu Consulting 21 69,828
54 Cummins Emission Solutions 20 71,656
54 Genesis Business Solutions 20 51,437
56 Intelligence 19 63,126
56 Gyansys 19 57,389
56 Aegis Therapies 19 72,894
56 EagleCare 19 74,453
56 Mphasis 19 60,963
56 University of Southern Indiana 19 56,016
56 Swift Solutions 19 55,326
63 Ospro Systems 18 57,800
63 Cognizant Technology Solutions 18 59,122
63 General Electric 18 81,818
63 Ibiz Group 18 52,070
63 Covance 18 75,541
68 Indiana Math and Science Academy 17 37,243
68 Lincoln National 17 93,548
68 Medical Specialists 17 183,885
71 Creative Health Solutions 16 74,100
71 IU Health Inc 16 137,668
71 Caterpillar 16 71,222
74 Clarian Health Partners 15 53,257
74 Rose Hulman Insititute of Technology 15 61,153
74 Saint Margaret Mary Helthcare Centers 15 156,883
74 Roche Diagnostics 15 75,523
78 Pegatron Technology Service 14 38,909
78 Tata Consultancy Services 14 54,700
78 Indiana Health Centers 14 123,822
78 Hoosier Wheel & Stamping Mfg 14 55,000
78 Adesa 14 77,486
78 Healthcare Therapy Services 14 61,054
84 Butler University 13 59,823
84 ATT 13 73,641
84 Mead Johnson 13 92,208
84 St Vincent Hospital 13 76,408
88 Rolls Royce 12 70,700
88 MedFocus 12 64,385
88 Proficient Business Systems 12 49,790
88 V Soft Consulting Group 12 56,750
88 Atlas Rehabilitation 12 54,080
88 Amatra Technologies 12 59,089
88 Apogee Medical Group Indiana 12 185,000
96 Autocar 11 78,230
96 Hook SupeRx dba CVS Pharmacy 11 50,003
96 Ernst & Young 11 61,189
96 Inventiv Clinical Solutions 11 61,669
96 Niagara Lasalle 11 77,850
The only candidate who gave me a definitive answer to my question was the Libertarian, Rebecca Sink-Burris. She said there's no problem with this, and it's really a positive thing. Strangely, she also cited some study that said for every foreign worker hired under H1B, there are 5 more positions filled in "Support".
I take that to mean Americans can't handle these professional, technical, programming, and scientific jobs anymore? That we're now reduced to "supporting" the foreign professionals brought in to do the jobs we can't do? Does anybody find that the least bit offensive?
Dan Coats verbally patted me on the head and dismissed me. "Go off and play so the adults can talk". H1B is a "side issue", according to Coats, and if we just get the government out of the way there will be plenty of jobs for everybody.
Brad Ellsworth was patronizing. He must have been thinking along the same lines as Ms. Sink-Burris, because he turned his answer into a need to improve education. Again the theme that we Americans are too, what, stupid, lazy, greedy? Importing professors into our colleges who can't speak clear enough English to be understood is helping education?
The guys from the Commission and the moderator, Ann Ryder, couldn't have been nicer. The candidates made no effort at all to meet our small group of 7 questioners after the debate, which I think speaks volumes. Neither did a single member of the press.
I sort of ended the night feeling foolish.
Last week, I received a phone call from a member of the commission asking if I would present my question at the debate Monday night in Vincennes. I had to do some schedule rearranging, but freed up Monday afternoon and evening to make the long drive to Vincennes University last night.
My question was related to the following information I came across about 2010 H1B Visa Applications in Indiana.
Rank Company H1B Applications Avg Salary
1 Purdue University 548 64,001
2 Cummins 539 69,546
3 Indiana University 455 56,733
4 IUPUI 441 60,037
5 Eli Lilly/Notre Dame 264 92,426
6 Lac 211 58,245
7 Access Therapies 181 52,193
8 Kpit Infosystems 177 54,389
9 Pyramid Consulting 170 49,625
10 Pyramid Technology Solutions 131 48,377
11 LHP Software 105 60,822
12 Ryan Consulting Group 90 51,515
13 Satyam Computer Services 80 61,724
14 Midwest Independent Transmission Sys 61 75,701
15 Workhorse Custom Chassis 58 72,026
16 White Lodging Services 56 39,440
16 Ball State 56 56,381
18 IUPUI 54 59,769
19 SV Technologies 51 49,314
19 Thomson 51 77,296
21 ArcelorMittal USA 50 73,199
22 UST Global 49 56,757
23 Brite Systems 43 59,198
24 Conseco Services 42 71,074
25 Dow Agrosciences 38 90,543
26 Zimmer 37 74,492
27 Bucher and Christian Consulting 36 101,388
28 CVS Pharmacy 35 103,057
29 Q Edge 34 42,839
30 Kindred Rehab Services 32 50,490
30 Depauw University 32 53,310
30 Indiana State University 32 50,583
33 IBM 31 84,785
33 RCR Technology 31 72,669
35 Kindred Technology Nursing Centers 31 62,400
36 Telamon 26 42,987
37 Hill Rom 25 75,174
37 Cook 25 63,862
37 Interactive Intelligence 25 72,282
40 International School of Indiana 24 43,787
40 F1 24 49,875
40 Infosys Technologies 24 60,148
40 Boston Scientific 24 67,186
40 Carrier 24 66,371
40 Sabic Innovative Plastics 24 81,372
46 Redcats USA Management Services 23 89,065
46 MED Institute 23 69,234
46 Delphi 23 73,782
49 TheraCare 22 42,976
50 Novistar 21 69,261
50 Diverse Staffing Services 21 61,650
50 Fujitsu Consulting 21 69,828
54 Cummins Emission Solutions 20 71,656
54 Genesis Business Solutions 20 51,437
56 Intelligence 19 63,126
56 Gyansys 19 57,389
56 Aegis Therapies 19 72,894
56 EagleCare 19 74,453
56 Mphasis 19 60,963
56 University of Southern Indiana 19 56,016
56 Swift Solutions 19 55,326
63 Ospro Systems 18 57,800
63 Cognizant Technology Solutions 18 59,122
63 General Electric 18 81,818
63 Ibiz Group 18 52,070
63 Covance 18 75,541
68 Indiana Math and Science Academy 17 37,243
68 Lincoln National 17 93,548
68 Medical Specialists 17 183,885
71 Creative Health Solutions 16 74,100
71 IU Health Inc 16 137,668
71 Caterpillar 16 71,222
74 Clarian Health Partners 15 53,257
74 Rose Hulman Insititute of Technology 15 61,153
74 Saint Margaret Mary Helthcare Centers 15 156,883
74 Roche Diagnostics 15 75,523
78 Pegatron Technology Service 14 38,909
78 Tata Consultancy Services 14 54,700
78 Indiana Health Centers 14 123,822
78 Hoosier Wheel & Stamping Mfg 14 55,000
78 Adesa 14 77,486
78 Healthcare Therapy Services 14 61,054
84 Butler University 13 59,823
84 ATT 13 73,641
84 Mead Johnson 13 92,208
84 St Vincent Hospital 13 76,408
88 Rolls Royce 12 70,700
88 MedFocus 12 64,385
88 Proficient Business Systems 12 49,790
88 V Soft Consulting Group 12 56,750
88 Atlas Rehabilitation 12 54,080
88 Amatra Technologies 12 59,089
88 Apogee Medical Group Indiana 12 185,000
96 Autocar 11 78,230
96 Hook SupeRx dba CVS Pharmacy 11 50,003
96 Ernst & Young 11 61,189
96 Inventiv Clinical Solutions 11 61,669
96 Niagara Lasalle 11 77,850
The only candidate who gave me a definitive answer to my question was the Libertarian, Rebecca Sink-Burris. She said there's no problem with this, and it's really a positive thing. Strangely, she also cited some study that said for every foreign worker hired under H1B, there are 5 more positions filled in "Support".
I take that to mean Americans can't handle these professional, technical, programming, and scientific jobs anymore? That we're now reduced to "supporting" the foreign professionals brought in to do the jobs we can't do? Does anybody find that the least bit offensive?
Dan Coats verbally patted me on the head and dismissed me. "Go off and play so the adults can talk". H1B is a "side issue", according to Coats, and if we just get the government out of the way there will be plenty of jobs for everybody.
Brad Ellsworth was patronizing. He must have been thinking along the same lines as Ms. Sink-Burris, because he turned his answer into a need to improve education. Again the theme that we Americans are too, what, stupid, lazy, greedy? Importing professors into our colleges who can't speak clear enough English to be understood is helping education?
The guys from the Commission and the moderator, Ann Ryder, couldn't have been nicer. The candidates made no effort at all to meet our small group of 7 questioners after the debate, which I think speaks volumes. Neither did a single member of the press.
I sort of ended the night feeling foolish.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
I Get to Ask a Question
I've been invited to ask a question of the Indiana Senate candidates Monday night. It's kind of exciting, and I'm curious to find out how they will answer. I think it's a unique, challenging, and important question nobody's been talking about in this campaign cycle.
Tune in Monday night to hear my question and the debate.
I'll post the question, the more detailed reasons for the question, and a paraphrase of the candidates' responses after the debate.
It should be an interesting evening in Vincennes.
Tune in Monday night to hear my question and the debate.
I'll post the question, the more detailed reasons for the question, and a paraphrase of the candidates' responses after the debate.
It should be an interesting evening in Vincennes.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Uncivil War
The wierd story of the two liberal ladies on the View walking off the set in a huff during a discussion with O'Reilly combines with a couple of big debates this week to illustrate that there's a chasm between conservative and liberal philosophies that cannot be bridged.
The two debates I noticed were senatorial debates in Nevada and Delaware. I caught a bit of both, and both highlighted the stark differences in left and right philosophies. Harry Reid and Chris Coons espoused govenment-centric control to restore "fairness", which they claim will eventually help the economy recover. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell espoused freedom and smaller government to allow the private sector to restore prosperity through business activity.
On economic, social, environmental, national defense, and foreign relations issues, conservatives and liberals are diametrically opposed. Which makes me wonder about self-identified "moderates", because there is no real middle ground in most of these topics.
You prefer socialism or capitalism. You're for or against gay marriage and abortion. You think a strong national defense and secure borders are vital, or you believe we need to open the borders and show our enemies that we're really nice people. You want to develop all available energy options or drive the cost of carbon-based energy beyond affordability in the hope that "clean" energy will come along to replace oil and coal.
I suppose a moderate agrees with conservatives on some issues and with liberals on others.
The difference between the two camps is in their approach. My observation is that the conservative candidates are focused on policy. Liberal candidates are focused on slinging mud.
Points of proof: The View walkout, Jerry Brown's unapologetic defense of his staffer calling Meg Whitman a "whore". Everybody on the Left and their willing "journalist" friends going on TV to deride Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin (who isn't running for anything) as idiots.
The country is reaping exactly what it sowed. The question is whether or not the citizenry can figure that out in time to make a correction.
The two debates I noticed were senatorial debates in Nevada and Delaware. I caught a bit of both, and both highlighted the stark differences in left and right philosophies. Harry Reid and Chris Coons espoused govenment-centric control to restore "fairness", which they claim will eventually help the economy recover. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell espoused freedom and smaller government to allow the private sector to restore prosperity through business activity.
On economic, social, environmental, national defense, and foreign relations issues, conservatives and liberals are diametrically opposed. Which makes me wonder about self-identified "moderates", because there is no real middle ground in most of these topics.
You prefer socialism or capitalism. You're for or against gay marriage and abortion. You think a strong national defense and secure borders are vital, or you believe we need to open the borders and show our enemies that we're really nice people. You want to develop all available energy options or drive the cost of carbon-based energy beyond affordability in the hope that "clean" energy will come along to replace oil and coal.
I suppose a moderate agrees with conservatives on some issues and with liberals on others.
The difference between the two camps is in their approach. My observation is that the conservative candidates are focused on policy. Liberal candidates are focused on slinging mud.
Points of proof: The View walkout, Jerry Brown's unapologetic defense of his staffer calling Meg Whitman a "whore". Everybody on the Left and their willing "journalist" friends going on TV to deride Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin (who isn't running for anything) as idiots.
The country is reaping exactly what it sowed. The question is whether or not the citizenry can figure that out in time to make a correction.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Weary of Arguments
Up to this point, most of the arguing has been about the economy. The party of corporate fat cats versus the party of government fat cats.
As if that wasn't getting tired enough, along comes New York's gubernatorial candidate, Palladino, saying he didn't want children indoctrinated to regard gay relationships in a moral equivalency with traditional nuclear families.
I don't find the statement all that controversial, but it's got the gay community screaming. I saw Ron Reagan briefly on CNN so angry he seemed to be about to cry. You would have thought Palladino called for having Ron and his gay friends hanged in Times Square.
Another divisive issue is immigration and the Arizona law. Again, what Arizona did I don't consider controversial at all. They merely passed a law permitting local law enforcement to assist in identifying and holding people here illegally and holding them for ICE processing.
I saw a panel of regular folks arguing about that, and as with the gay issue, those on the pro-illegal side of the argument were extremely angry and hostile to Arizona and the others in the room on the other side.
Is it really necessary for me to go into the simple truth of each issue?
Gay rights are not about the "right" for gay people to love whomever they choose, which is a silly statement clearly designed to obscure the issue. It's about benefits. The basic question here is whether I should be forced to submit my tax dollars to provide government benefits to homosexual partners.
Since my moral equivalence is not between gay couples and married couples, but between the gay lifestyle and Tiger Woods' skirt-chasing lifestyle, my answer is no.
Supporters of rights for illegal aliens contend that they're hard workers, and are only here illegally because it's too hard to obtain legal immigration approval. The basic question isn't whether illegals work hard or want a better life; it's about whether or not we choose to uphold our country's laws and secure the border.
Our choice is to either open up the borders for everyone and stop trying to enforce the law, or to seal the border and solve the problem once and for all. My answer is solve the problem.
Palladino apparently has a reputation for being very non-PC. Will this anti-PC comment lose him the election? In deep blue New York, perhaps. Politically, he probably shouldn't have said it. But his honesty is sort of refreshing for a politician.
I just heard Palladino was apologizing for his comments. That's too bad. Apologizing would seem to mean he's had a change of heart on the matter. It won't win over anybody he's apologizing to - they will reject the apology as politically expedient. So it doesn't seem like a productive response.
As if that wasn't getting tired enough, along comes New York's gubernatorial candidate, Palladino, saying he didn't want children indoctrinated to regard gay relationships in a moral equivalency with traditional nuclear families.
I don't find the statement all that controversial, but it's got the gay community screaming. I saw Ron Reagan briefly on CNN so angry he seemed to be about to cry. You would have thought Palladino called for having Ron and his gay friends hanged in Times Square.
Another divisive issue is immigration and the Arizona law. Again, what Arizona did I don't consider controversial at all. They merely passed a law permitting local law enforcement to assist in identifying and holding people here illegally and holding them for ICE processing.
I saw a panel of regular folks arguing about that, and as with the gay issue, those on the pro-illegal side of the argument were extremely angry and hostile to Arizona and the others in the room on the other side.
Is it really necessary for me to go into the simple truth of each issue?
Gay rights are not about the "right" for gay people to love whomever they choose, which is a silly statement clearly designed to obscure the issue. It's about benefits. The basic question here is whether I should be forced to submit my tax dollars to provide government benefits to homosexual partners.
Since my moral equivalence is not between gay couples and married couples, but between the gay lifestyle and Tiger Woods' skirt-chasing lifestyle, my answer is no.
Supporters of rights for illegal aliens contend that they're hard workers, and are only here illegally because it's too hard to obtain legal immigration approval. The basic question isn't whether illegals work hard or want a better life; it's about whether or not we choose to uphold our country's laws and secure the border.
Our choice is to either open up the borders for everyone and stop trying to enforce the law, or to seal the border and solve the problem once and for all. My answer is solve the problem.
Palladino apparently has a reputation for being very non-PC. Will this anti-PC comment lose him the election? In deep blue New York, perhaps. Politically, he probably shouldn't have said it. But his honesty is sort of refreshing for a politician.
I just heard Palladino was apologizing for his comments. That's too bad. Apologizing would seem to mean he's had a change of heart on the matter. It won't win over anybody he's apologizing to - they will reject the apology as politically expedient. So it doesn't seem like a productive response.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Defining Evil
Channel surfing in the hotel room, I picked up on the current political story about campaign funding. The Democrats, led by the President and Vice President, have gone after Carl Rove and the Chamber of Commerce, suggesting that they have raised millions to support Republican candidates from questionable sources.
I've noticed that when a party or candidate is having trouble attracting enough support to keep their office, they will typically turn to demonization of their opponent. I suppose if they can make everyone think the other guy is worse, the people will either reluctantly vote their way once more, or just stay home.
It's rather unseemly for the President and Vice President to drop down into the mud. I don't recall this degree of raw partisanship from any President, at least as long as I've been paying attention.
It's also more than a little dishonest for the President to decry the big money going to Republicans from oil companies and Wall Street, when he was elected with big money from George Soros, trial lawyers, unions, and quite possibly Chinese "bundlers" (they caught one spreading Chinese cash around for Hillary in 2008, but we never heard much about that case).
From my side of the political spectrum, I have to admit at least a suspicion of evil about certain characters. My jailhouse lineup would be headlined by Barney Frank, and include Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Alan Grayson.
Although I would quietly celebrate if Nancy Pelosi loses her gavel, I don't actually put her in the murderer's row above. Not because she's not guilty - she certainly is; but my impression is that she really believes in what she's been doing. From my perspective, she is terribly dangerous not because she's corrupt per se (although she certainly may be corrupt); but because she's clueless and immensely powerful.
I also don't necessarily consider the President evil. I'm appalled by his callous attitudes toward abortion, including partial-birth abortion. And I am suspicious that he may have a supremely corrupt motive in pushing Cap & Trade. But I also think he truly believes in a socialist/communist utopia. Simply reading his biography makes that abundantly clear; his parents, his education, his Chicago cronies, his mentors, all are far-left socialist/communists. I'm not convinced he even knows or understands the perspective of anyone right of center.
Evil or not, we should begin right now as a country holding our politicians to the highest standards. We should not overlook corruption simply because the corrupt politician happens to belong to the correct party. We must never again permit our representatives to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
All that requires paying attention. Many more folks are starting to pay attention now, because they're feeling the pain of government malfeasance. The only way we can avoid the next meltdown is to shut down any possibility that such malfeasance can ever happen again.
I've noticed that when a party or candidate is having trouble attracting enough support to keep their office, they will typically turn to demonization of their opponent. I suppose if they can make everyone think the other guy is worse, the people will either reluctantly vote their way once more, or just stay home.
It's rather unseemly for the President and Vice President to drop down into the mud. I don't recall this degree of raw partisanship from any President, at least as long as I've been paying attention.
It's also more than a little dishonest for the President to decry the big money going to Republicans from oil companies and Wall Street, when he was elected with big money from George Soros, trial lawyers, unions, and quite possibly Chinese "bundlers" (they caught one spreading Chinese cash around for Hillary in 2008, but we never heard much about that case).
From my side of the political spectrum, I have to admit at least a suspicion of evil about certain characters. My jailhouse lineup would be headlined by Barney Frank, and include Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Alan Grayson.
Although I would quietly celebrate if Nancy Pelosi loses her gavel, I don't actually put her in the murderer's row above. Not because she's not guilty - she certainly is; but my impression is that she really believes in what she's been doing. From my perspective, she is terribly dangerous not because she's corrupt per se (although she certainly may be corrupt); but because she's clueless and immensely powerful.
I also don't necessarily consider the President evil. I'm appalled by his callous attitudes toward abortion, including partial-birth abortion. And I am suspicious that he may have a supremely corrupt motive in pushing Cap & Trade. But I also think he truly believes in a socialist/communist utopia. Simply reading his biography makes that abundantly clear; his parents, his education, his Chicago cronies, his mentors, all are far-left socialist/communists. I'm not convinced he even knows or understands the perspective of anyone right of center.
Evil or not, we should begin right now as a country holding our politicians to the highest standards. We should not overlook corruption simply because the corrupt politician happens to belong to the correct party. We must never again permit our representatives to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
All that requires paying attention. Many more folks are starting to pay attention now, because they're feeling the pain of government malfeasance. The only way we can avoid the next meltdown is to shut down any possibility that such malfeasance can ever happen again.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Choices
In less than a month to the elections, it seems likely that most folks are already settled on their candidates. As far as I can tell from everything I've read, the difference is likely to come down to turnout.
The energized conservative base can't wait to vote against all that's happened over the last two years. Many independents didn't get what they thought they were voting for two years ago. The core liberal base will turn out for their candidates even though they're unhappy for different reasons.
Even though it typically makes me nauseous, I've been checking out the left-wing messages to try to find out what they're thinking. Like conservatives, they're upset with the Democrats who have been in charge for two years. Unlike conservatives, their unhappiness isn't about what the Democrats have done, but what they have failed to do over that time.
CNN likes to have left-wing commentators on to speculate about those weird Tea Party folks, as if they're some sort of isolated tribe. Following their tradition, I've set out to try to understand who these Democrat activists are, and what it is they want.
Here's what I think I've learned.
The Left Wing has a vision of their ideal America that looks something like this:
They don't like ObamaCare, but want Medicare for everybody. Basically nationalize the system and insure everybody under Medicare. (Interestingly, in some ways I actually think that would have been better than the awful boondoggle of ObamaCare)
They believe the rich became so at the expense of the poor. In their world, a rich person in some way stole their money from poor people. Strangely, they generally seem to exempt politicians, pro athletes, trial lawyers, union bosses, entertainers, and George Soros.
Their definition of freedom is abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, legal weed, and government benefits for gay couples. At the same time they have no problem with banning firearms, dictating what we are allowed to eat or drive, and banning Christianity completely.
They think national security is irrelevant. If we're just nice to our enemies, they'll be our friends. The military is evil, but maybe if they repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", maybe they'll be just a little less evil. As long as they recruit plenty of openly gay folks and illegal immigrants then never send them anywhere they might possibly come under fire.
They don't understand why we can't just open up the borders and let everyone in who wants to come. And those who are already here illegally are just ordinary people looking for a better life, right? So we should just let them become citizens, and just make sure they are registered to vote, as long as they promise to pull the Democrat lever.
Their definition of fairness is that if somebody (other than the exempt groups I mentioned earlier) makes more than they do, the government must confiscate it and give it to them.
More simply stated, the average Democrat votes for whomever they believe will deliver the most goodies. It's all about them, and (insert expletive of your choice) everybody else. (By the way, have you ever noticed that Democrats have filthy mouths?)
That's why this election is so important. I just haven't figured out whether there are enough folks left who understand that and will show up to vote accordingly.
The energized conservative base can't wait to vote against all that's happened over the last two years. Many independents didn't get what they thought they were voting for two years ago. The core liberal base will turn out for their candidates even though they're unhappy for different reasons.
Even though it typically makes me nauseous, I've been checking out the left-wing messages to try to find out what they're thinking. Like conservatives, they're upset with the Democrats who have been in charge for two years. Unlike conservatives, their unhappiness isn't about what the Democrats have done, but what they have failed to do over that time.
CNN likes to have left-wing commentators on to speculate about those weird Tea Party folks, as if they're some sort of isolated tribe. Following their tradition, I've set out to try to understand who these Democrat activists are, and what it is they want.
Here's what I think I've learned.
The Left Wing has a vision of their ideal America that looks something like this:
They don't like ObamaCare, but want Medicare for everybody. Basically nationalize the system and insure everybody under Medicare. (Interestingly, in some ways I actually think that would have been better than the awful boondoggle of ObamaCare)
They believe the rich became so at the expense of the poor. In their world, a rich person in some way stole their money from poor people. Strangely, they generally seem to exempt politicians, pro athletes, trial lawyers, union bosses, entertainers, and George Soros.
Their definition of freedom is abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, legal weed, and government benefits for gay couples. At the same time they have no problem with banning firearms, dictating what we are allowed to eat or drive, and banning Christianity completely.
They think national security is irrelevant. If we're just nice to our enemies, they'll be our friends. The military is evil, but maybe if they repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", maybe they'll be just a little less evil. As long as they recruit plenty of openly gay folks and illegal immigrants then never send them anywhere they might possibly come under fire.
They don't understand why we can't just open up the borders and let everyone in who wants to come. And those who are already here illegally are just ordinary people looking for a better life, right? So we should just let them become citizens, and just make sure they are registered to vote, as long as they promise to pull the Democrat lever.
Their definition of fairness is that if somebody (other than the exempt groups I mentioned earlier) makes more than they do, the government must confiscate it and give it to them.
More simply stated, the average Democrat votes for whomever they believe will deliver the most goodies. It's all about them, and (insert expletive of your choice) everybody else. (By the way, have you ever noticed that Democrats have filthy mouths?)
That's why this election is so important. I just haven't figured out whether there are enough folks left who understand that and will show up to vote accordingly.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
What Makes a Good Year?
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)