I'm often asked what its like to travel all over the country. After getting stranded overnight in Atlanta (again), it occurred to me to use this blog to answer that question.
There are so many things that can be said about the life of a road warrior. Today I'll start with a basic overview.
I've been traveling extensively as part of my profession for nearly 20 years. The experiences over those years have constantly changed, as business and the travel industry have changed. Some changes for the better, others for the worse.
For those who think it's some sort of exciting and glamourous life, I'd respond you better not look for a road warrior job based on that myth.
Sure, there are lots of great features in this lifestyle. Automatic airline upgrades, hotel perks, car rental upgrades, seeing sights and cultures, some pretty good restaurants, and meeting all kinds of people are all very nice advantages.
On the other hand, the first thing those of you on the outside looking in may not understand is a key fact that it's far from a continuous vacation. Sightseeing is generally limited to the highways and skylines on the way to the office every day. Flight delays and cancellations, TSA harrassments, unethical businesspersons, frequent long hours, bad hotels, bad food, bad weather, loneliness all too often provide an offset to the upsides of the road warrior profession.
There are lots of topics available to me, and here are a few I will consider posting over the next few weeks or so:
Characteristics by Regions of the Country
Air Travel
Hotels
Rental Cars
Driving vs Flying
The Efficient Traveler
Maximizing Frequent Traveler Programs
Booking Tips
There may be more topics to develop as things move along. I'll go with my impressions of the country first, where each region can be described with certain characteristics. I definitely have my favorite regions and other regions I actively try to avoid.
Check back later for my favorite and least-favorite places to visit in North America (yes, I'm going to include Canada).
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Using the Liar Charge
I haven't been paying a lot of attention to news stuff lately because I'm too busy. Even so, I still can't avoid a continuous drumbeat coming from Democrats about the Republican efforts to overturn the healthcare bill mainly known as "Obamacare".
One thing you can't say about Democrats is that they're unfocused in their messaging. Everywhere I turn this week, I'm hearing a message that goes pretty much like this:
"Republicans are lying when they say (Obamacare) is a government takeover of healthcare".
This is a statement that should be analyzed by itself. Which is true - Obamacare is essentially a government takeover of the healthcare system, or isn't it?
If you are a Democrat, I suppose your perspective comes from the difference between what Obamacare is and what you wish it were. Since the leftward part of the Democrat party wants something they call "Single Payer", I suppose anything that falls short of that goal doesn't qualify as a government takeover.
If the standard for goverment takeover is that all Health Insurance companies go out of business and all healthcare services are paid for directly by the Federal Government, the Obamacare bill certainly fails to meet that standard.
On the other hand, if you're a Republican, the massive regulations and mandates included in Obamacare absolutely represents a government takeover of the system. Just a few components that could be interpreted as "takeover" are these:
Mandating everyone buy health insurance
Mandating what the health insurance has to cover or not cover
Mandating how much each of us must spend for our insurance premiums
Mandating who every state must cover and what they must cover in their Medicaid programs
Giving Kathleen Sebelius full power to create and enforce all healthcare regulations without congressional oversight (or oversight by anybody else)
Giving Kathleen the full power to create a central committee to decide what treatments are covered and not covered for patients based on statistical tables (what Sarah Palin called "Death Panels")
Giving HHS (Sebelius) the full power to decide which drugs are approved and not approved, apparently based on economic considerations and not clinical results.
Mandating what corporations can and can't offer their employees in their health plans
Taxing employers on health plans they provide their employees
Choosing which Insurance Companies will be allowed to participate in the new "Insurance Pools"
Taking away state-based programs and high-risk pools in favor of the Federal system
Is there a liar in this story? Is the liar a Democrat or a Republican? If you think it's me, please demonstrate to me which of the above examples is incorrect (and prove it), and I'll be happy to rescind the example.
One thing you can't say about Democrats is that they're unfocused in their messaging. Everywhere I turn this week, I'm hearing a message that goes pretty much like this:
"Republicans are lying when they say (Obamacare) is a government takeover of healthcare".
This is a statement that should be analyzed by itself. Which is true - Obamacare is essentially a government takeover of the healthcare system, or isn't it?
If you are a Democrat, I suppose your perspective comes from the difference between what Obamacare is and what you wish it were. Since the leftward part of the Democrat party wants something they call "Single Payer", I suppose anything that falls short of that goal doesn't qualify as a government takeover.
If the standard for goverment takeover is that all Health Insurance companies go out of business and all healthcare services are paid for directly by the Federal Government, the Obamacare bill certainly fails to meet that standard.
On the other hand, if you're a Republican, the massive regulations and mandates included in Obamacare absolutely represents a government takeover of the system. Just a few components that could be interpreted as "takeover" are these:
Mandating everyone buy health insurance
Mandating what the health insurance has to cover or not cover
Mandating how much each of us must spend for our insurance premiums
Mandating who every state must cover and what they must cover in their Medicaid programs
Giving Kathleen Sebelius full power to create and enforce all healthcare regulations without congressional oversight (or oversight by anybody else)
Giving Kathleen the full power to create a central committee to decide what treatments are covered and not covered for patients based on statistical tables (what Sarah Palin called "Death Panels")
Giving HHS (Sebelius) the full power to decide which drugs are approved and not approved, apparently based on economic considerations and not clinical results.
Mandating what corporations can and can't offer their employees in their health plans
Taxing employers on health plans they provide their employees
Choosing which Insurance Companies will be allowed to participate in the new "Insurance Pools"
Taking away state-based programs and high-risk pools in favor of the Federal system
Is there a liar in this story? Is the liar a Democrat or a Republican? If you think it's me, please demonstrate to me which of the above examples is incorrect (and prove it), and I'll be happy to rescind the example.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Teenagers
The problem is arrested development. We're a country run by folks who are stuck in the teenage developmental stage.
Any of this sound familiar?
A teen considers a weekly allowance a right. Earning it is a foreign concept.
A teen gets all their costs of medical care, dental care, orthodontia, and hair stylists covered by Mom & Dad.
A teen expects Mom & Dad to provide a car at the 16th birthday. Plus gas money, repairs, insurance.
A teen expects lunch money every day, because only losers eat in the school cafeteria.
A teen rails against all rules and personal responsibility, whether in after-school behavior, dating, curfews, limits on TV and video games.
When a teen gets caught doing something wrong, the first defense is to blame somebody else.
See the parallels with any specific political rhetoric these days?
If you don't, perhaps you're a teenager as well.
Any of this sound familiar?
A teen considers a weekly allowance a right. Earning it is a foreign concept.
A teen gets all their costs of medical care, dental care, orthodontia, and hair stylists covered by Mom & Dad.
A teen expects Mom & Dad to provide a car at the 16th birthday. Plus gas money, repairs, insurance.
A teen expects lunch money every day, because only losers eat in the school cafeteria.
A teen rails against all rules and personal responsibility, whether in after-school behavior, dating, curfews, limits on TV and video games.
When a teen gets caught doing something wrong, the first defense is to blame somebody else.
See the parallels with any specific political rhetoric these days?
If you don't, perhaps you're a teenager as well.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Fear on the Right
When I heard the news about the shooting in Arizona, even before I knew any details beyond "Democratic Congresswoman", my first reaction was, "Here we go".
Whether the shooter was a right-wing lunatic or not, I expected that the Left would jump all over it as proof that the Right inspired him.
It's sad just how right my prediction turned out to be.
Even though the guy's about as far from a right-wing nutcase as you can imagine. But that doesn't matter to those who continue promoting the message. He shot the congresswoman and a number of other people, not because he's a murdering nutcase, but because of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.
All kinds of political and celebrity types are going on television to decry the hateful and mean-spirited tone of our political discourse. At first, it seems like they mean from both sides, but it only takes a couple of minutes before you find out they're only including those from the Right.
So let's examine a few things we know about the murderer. He's likely a schizophrenic who smokes a lot of pot, has a weird satanic altar in his backyard, is an admirer of Marx and the Communist Manifesto, thinks Bush blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11, and hates Jews.
So the Left thinks we should shut down Fox News, lynch Palin, and ban all the conservative talkers from the radio airwaves. Based on nothing.
Let's see. If we try to follow their logic, then I suppose we should also lock up all pot-heads, Marxists, 9/11 Truthers, Satanists and other weird pagan occultist types, and Jew haters.
Oh yes, apparently also we need to ban guns.
It's frightening, when considering that these people are seeking the power to selectively oppress more than half of the American population, for no discernable reason other than the fact they oppose liberal policies.
If we want to cool down the rhetoric, may I suggest we start with that rhetoric that suggests that everyone who happens to hold a right-of-center philosophy is a potential lunatic mass murderer.
Whether the shooter was a right-wing lunatic or not, I expected that the Left would jump all over it as proof that the Right inspired him.
It's sad just how right my prediction turned out to be.
Even though the guy's about as far from a right-wing nutcase as you can imagine. But that doesn't matter to those who continue promoting the message. He shot the congresswoman and a number of other people, not because he's a murdering nutcase, but because of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.
All kinds of political and celebrity types are going on television to decry the hateful and mean-spirited tone of our political discourse. At first, it seems like they mean from both sides, but it only takes a couple of minutes before you find out they're only including those from the Right.
So let's examine a few things we know about the murderer. He's likely a schizophrenic who smokes a lot of pot, has a weird satanic altar in his backyard, is an admirer of Marx and the Communist Manifesto, thinks Bush blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11, and hates Jews.
So the Left thinks we should shut down Fox News, lynch Palin, and ban all the conservative talkers from the radio airwaves. Based on nothing.
Let's see. If we try to follow their logic, then I suppose we should also lock up all pot-heads, Marxists, 9/11 Truthers, Satanists and other weird pagan occultist types, and Jew haters.
Oh yes, apparently also we need to ban guns.
It's frightening, when considering that these people are seeking the power to selectively oppress more than half of the American population, for no discernable reason other than the fact they oppose liberal policies.
If we want to cool down the rhetoric, may I suggest we start with that rhetoric that suggests that everyone who happens to hold a right-of-center philosophy is a potential lunatic mass murderer.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Colts Season Wrap
The loss to the Jets was disappointing, but not surprising. It actually was somewhat encouraging to see the Colts fight through to be in position for the victory. But their special teams, specifically the kickoff team, let them down in the end.
Of course, the defense also failed to stop the worst quarterback in the playoffs from completing the clutch passes that put the Jets close enough for an easy chip shot field goal winner as the clock clicked down to zero. The pass rush disappeared during that final drive in the final minute, probably because the Colts coaches decided to only rush 3 and try to cover.
But the 4th and 5th string defensive backs couldn't cover.
For the Colts to be back next year, it's clear they need to get their starters back healthy, but they also need to fill some holes.
They need safeties and linebackers on defense. They will give up on Bob Sanders, who has collected too many millions over the last 3 years for watching from the sideline. Gary Brackett was embarassed by the Jets' offensive line in the playoff game, and his time might be at an end.
They need offensive linemen. I love Jeff Saturday, but he couldn't block the Jets' defensive line. The tackles can't open holes for the running game, and can't give Peyton the time he needs to pick defenses apart.
They need to draft a wide receiver that's got the size and talent in the mold of Terrell Owens or Randy Moss without the baggage. (I know, like every team isn't looking for the same thing). I suspect that Reggie Wayne has lost a step. I hope Dallas Clark is able to come back healthy enough to reclaim his place at the top of the league, and combined with Tamme will make the Tight End position the best ever.
Certainly bringing in a running back or two to challenge Joseph Addai is a good idea. But I'm willing to consider that the problem with the running game this year may have had more to do with the O line than the backs.
Will the Colts fill the right holes and get and keep the other guys healthy to be back in the hunt for the Super Bowl next year? Or will they fall into mediocrity?
That's the thing about sports. Nobody knows.
Otherwise, the season's pretty much over for me. I still have a mild interest in seeing the Bears do well, and they seem to be a decent bet to make it to the NFC championship game. But I would be surprised to see them make it through to the Super Bowl.
And please, somebody must beat the Patriots. I'm no Jets fan, but will be this coming weekend, one game only.
Of course, the defense also failed to stop the worst quarterback in the playoffs from completing the clutch passes that put the Jets close enough for an easy chip shot field goal winner as the clock clicked down to zero. The pass rush disappeared during that final drive in the final minute, probably because the Colts coaches decided to only rush 3 and try to cover.
But the 4th and 5th string defensive backs couldn't cover.
For the Colts to be back next year, it's clear they need to get their starters back healthy, but they also need to fill some holes.
They need safeties and linebackers on defense. They will give up on Bob Sanders, who has collected too many millions over the last 3 years for watching from the sideline. Gary Brackett was embarassed by the Jets' offensive line in the playoff game, and his time might be at an end.
They need offensive linemen. I love Jeff Saturday, but he couldn't block the Jets' defensive line. The tackles can't open holes for the running game, and can't give Peyton the time he needs to pick defenses apart.
They need to draft a wide receiver that's got the size and talent in the mold of Terrell Owens or Randy Moss without the baggage. (I know, like every team isn't looking for the same thing). I suspect that Reggie Wayne has lost a step. I hope Dallas Clark is able to come back healthy enough to reclaim his place at the top of the league, and combined with Tamme will make the Tight End position the best ever.
Certainly bringing in a running back or two to challenge Joseph Addai is a good idea. But I'm willing to consider that the problem with the running game this year may have had more to do with the O line than the backs.
Will the Colts fill the right holes and get and keep the other guys healthy to be back in the hunt for the Super Bowl next year? Or will they fall into mediocrity?
That's the thing about sports. Nobody knows.
Otherwise, the season's pretty much over for me. I still have a mild interest in seeing the Bears do well, and they seem to be a decent bet to make it to the NFC championship game. But I would be surprised to see them make it through to the Super Bowl.
And please, somebody must beat the Patriots. I'm no Jets fan, but will be this coming weekend, one game only.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Solving the Budget Crisis
Cynics point to the Tea Party folks and other conservatives and derisively challenge them with, "OK, genius, what are you going to cut to balance the budget?"
Not professing to be a genius, nonetheless here is my answer:
First, the low-hanging fruit. Eliminate every non-essential federal program and agency. Easy ones are the NEA, PBS, Education, and every other agency and bureau that contributes nothing of value to the country.
Then, slash other agencies. Reorganize Homeland Security and eliminate the TSA. Let the transportation system pay the freight for airport security and take funding away from the taxpayers.
I'm fairly convinced that we could cut money from the military by focusing on readiness and security and eliminating the ability of influential congress members to fund and maintain unnecessary weapons systems simply because they directly benefit their district or key campaign donors.
Entitlements are the toughest nut to crack. Medicare is in the most trouble, followed by Social Security. Unemployment is also a big problem. Here's a solution with heart.
Wean the government off of Social Security revenue by actually beginning to separate it out of the main federal budget. It can't be done right away, but over the span of the next 20 years or so, gradually convert the Social Security system from it's current transfer payment entitlement to an actual retirement & disability fund maintained in each citizen's name.
Something like this would make it solvent: Start with everybody under 50 getting 2% of their annual payroll tax deposited into an interest-bearing account with their name on it. The investment of this money would be in government bonds or money market funds, or while the debt is being paid off, the government can borrow from our accounts at a market interest rate. We simply can't touch the money until we retire, then it becomes a source of our retirement income. Since the percentage goes up 1% per year, within 15 to 16 years, 100% of the payroll tax is now going into the fund, and by the time those entering the workforce today retire, they will have a sweet nest egg that will fund their monthly retirement income and can be willed to their heirs at death.
Medicare's another story. The fact is that seniors need the most expensive medical care, and the cost of that care exceeds the annual income of the vast majority of these retirees.
How to escape this seemingly impossible problem is to use an approach with a philosophy that mirrors what I've written about many times before. Again, gradually over the next generation, we will gradually wean everyone off the Medical Welfare program called Medicare in favor of a realignment of the way the healthcare system pays for treatment.
Gradually change the system so that insurance is separated from both the government and the employers, and is purchased individually on the open market. Some insurance companies may choose to offer comprehensive plans that pay for prescriptions and routine care, but the most attractive policies will be what we used to call "Major Medical".
Those insurance policies cover everyone, regardless of age, for surgeries, inpatient procedures, and major illness. Employers can offer payroll deductions or even kick in contributions toward these plans if they want to, but ultimately everyone buys their own.
What will happen is providers will have to compete for patients, will have to post their rates so people can compare and make their own decisions on the best use of their available healthcare funds. No prescription drug insurance means pharmaceutical companies will no longer be able to get away with charging $100 per pill on their brand-name drugs.
Finally, Unemployment Insurance. I'd like to separate this from government entirely as well. Instead of Federal and State taxes on the employer, let the employer opt out in favor of a simple 2 percent savings plan. The employer can put 2 percent of each employee's salary into a tax-deductable, interest-bearing account. The employee can elect to contribute up to 2 percent of their own salary into the same account, using pre-tax dollars in the same way they can save for retirement in a 401K.
If the employee loses his or her job, for any reason, the cash value of their unemployment account immediately becomes available. The employee can take the money, pay the tax on it at normal marginal rates, and spend it as they see fit. Or they can choose to take it in a weekly payout to tide them over while they look for a new job. Or they can roll it over into their IRA, just like they can roll over their 401K when leaving an employer. Or they can roll it over into the Unemployment Fund at their next employer.
All these ideas represent freedom, help provide security for people, and still give us all the ability to make our own financial decisions.
If someone chooses not to buy the major medical policy, if they get very ill or severly injured, they're on their own. The providers will still treat them, but can take all their assets. But the individual has the freedom to make that choice.
If someone gets laid off and cashes out their unemployment account, then goes to Vegas and blows every last dollar, that's their choice. But there's no help for them from the government. They are bankrupt by their own choice, and must make their own decision on where to go from there.
Some might say that we have to take care of even these irresponsible folks who make the wrong choices and end up broke. I'll only agree to a point - the rest of us can and will have compassion toward these folks, but that doesn't mean we all chip in to give them a free house, free medical care, free food, etc. I think they should always have a place to go where they can get a roof over their head and food to eat, but if able-bodied, they should return some service for those handouts.
More about that some other time.
But imagine that the government is no longer in the business of handing out Social Security checks, Unemployment checks, or checks to our parents' doctors and hospitals. Suppose we cut them out of the process, in essence removing the "middle man" who skims way to much off the top.
It will not only solve our government's budget crisis, but result in better lives for all of us.
Not professing to be a genius, nonetheless here is my answer:
First, the low-hanging fruit. Eliminate every non-essential federal program and agency. Easy ones are the NEA, PBS, Education, and every other agency and bureau that contributes nothing of value to the country.
Then, slash other agencies. Reorganize Homeland Security and eliminate the TSA. Let the transportation system pay the freight for airport security and take funding away from the taxpayers.
I'm fairly convinced that we could cut money from the military by focusing on readiness and security and eliminating the ability of influential congress members to fund and maintain unnecessary weapons systems simply because they directly benefit their district or key campaign donors.
Entitlements are the toughest nut to crack. Medicare is in the most trouble, followed by Social Security. Unemployment is also a big problem. Here's a solution with heart.
Wean the government off of Social Security revenue by actually beginning to separate it out of the main federal budget. It can't be done right away, but over the span of the next 20 years or so, gradually convert the Social Security system from it's current transfer payment entitlement to an actual retirement & disability fund maintained in each citizen's name.
Something like this would make it solvent: Start with everybody under 50 getting 2% of their annual payroll tax deposited into an interest-bearing account with their name on it. The investment of this money would be in government bonds or money market funds, or while the debt is being paid off, the government can borrow from our accounts at a market interest rate. We simply can't touch the money until we retire, then it becomes a source of our retirement income. Since the percentage goes up 1% per year, within 15 to 16 years, 100% of the payroll tax is now going into the fund, and by the time those entering the workforce today retire, they will have a sweet nest egg that will fund their monthly retirement income and can be willed to their heirs at death.
Medicare's another story. The fact is that seniors need the most expensive medical care, and the cost of that care exceeds the annual income of the vast majority of these retirees.
How to escape this seemingly impossible problem is to use an approach with a philosophy that mirrors what I've written about many times before. Again, gradually over the next generation, we will gradually wean everyone off the Medical Welfare program called Medicare in favor of a realignment of the way the healthcare system pays for treatment.
Gradually change the system so that insurance is separated from both the government and the employers, and is purchased individually on the open market. Some insurance companies may choose to offer comprehensive plans that pay for prescriptions and routine care, but the most attractive policies will be what we used to call "Major Medical".
Those insurance policies cover everyone, regardless of age, for surgeries, inpatient procedures, and major illness. Employers can offer payroll deductions or even kick in contributions toward these plans if they want to, but ultimately everyone buys their own.
What will happen is providers will have to compete for patients, will have to post their rates so people can compare and make their own decisions on the best use of their available healthcare funds. No prescription drug insurance means pharmaceutical companies will no longer be able to get away with charging $100 per pill on their brand-name drugs.
Finally, Unemployment Insurance. I'd like to separate this from government entirely as well. Instead of Federal and State taxes on the employer, let the employer opt out in favor of a simple 2 percent savings plan. The employer can put 2 percent of each employee's salary into a tax-deductable, interest-bearing account. The employee can elect to contribute up to 2 percent of their own salary into the same account, using pre-tax dollars in the same way they can save for retirement in a 401K.
If the employee loses his or her job, for any reason, the cash value of their unemployment account immediately becomes available. The employee can take the money, pay the tax on it at normal marginal rates, and spend it as they see fit. Or they can choose to take it in a weekly payout to tide them over while they look for a new job. Or they can roll it over into their IRA, just like they can roll over their 401K when leaving an employer. Or they can roll it over into the Unemployment Fund at their next employer.
All these ideas represent freedom, help provide security for people, and still give us all the ability to make our own financial decisions.
If someone chooses not to buy the major medical policy, if they get very ill or severly injured, they're on their own. The providers will still treat them, but can take all their assets. But the individual has the freedom to make that choice.
If someone gets laid off and cashes out their unemployment account, then goes to Vegas and blows every last dollar, that's their choice. But there's no help for them from the government. They are bankrupt by their own choice, and must make their own decision on where to go from there.
Some might say that we have to take care of even these irresponsible folks who make the wrong choices and end up broke. I'll only agree to a point - the rest of us can and will have compassion toward these folks, but that doesn't mean we all chip in to give them a free house, free medical care, free food, etc. I think they should always have a place to go where they can get a roof over their head and food to eat, but if able-bodied, they should return some service for those handouts.
More about that some other time.
But imagine that the government is no longer in the business of handing out Social Security checks, Unemployment checks, or checks to our parents' doctors and hospitals. Suppose we cut them out of the process, in essence removing the "middle man" who skims way to much off the top.
It will not only solve our government's budget crisis, but result in better lives for all of us.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Colts Playoff Prospects
My pessimism showed yesterday, when Dominic Rhodes fumbled the ball and appeared to hand a victory to the Tennessee Titans late in the fourth quarter. The Jacksonville loss already assured, we knew the Colts were in the playoffs regardless, but handing a close game to the Titans wasn't the way I'd hoped to see them earn the spot.
The Titans' gift of a fumbled center snap assured the Colts of the 3rd seed over Kansas City, which is theoretically a better route to another hoped-for Super Bowl appearance. But realistically, it would take a miracle for this year's version of the team with the horseshoe to make it that far.
The Colts get the Jets at home next weekend, which may be preferable to the Ravens. But these Colts will be hard-pressed to win against either of those teams.
If somehow they can overcome the Jets, the Colts then will have to travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers in their icy stadium. This game is certainly preferable to having to face New England in their similarly frigid venue, but again would seem to require a combination of the Colts playing above their heads while catching more than a couple of breaks to escape with a win.
Finally, assuming they overachieve and win against both the Jets and Steelers, taking the AFC championship from the hottest team in the NFL would seem impossible.
If Peyton and his makeshift offense can be productive, eliminate turnovers and penalties, and get guys like Garcon and White and Tamme to play out of their minds, maybe they have a chance. If the Colts defense can find consistency, stringing together 3 good stops in a row instead of 2, shutting down the run and the pass, maybe there's a slim chance.
One thing I can say definitively; if this Colts team makes it to the Super Bowl, it will exceed their previous Super Bowl accomplishments. Even if they lose in the Super Bowl, just getting there with this team is more impressive than the other two trips, when they were expected to make it and win. Nobody expects this team to get there.
The pessimist in me thinks next week's game against the Jets will end their run for this year. But I'll still maintain a faint hope that they can somehow overachieve and find their way to Dallas for the big game next month.
The Titans' gift of a fumbled center snap assured the Colts of the 3rd seed over Kansas City, which is theoretically a better route to another hoped-for Super Bowl appearance. But realistically, it would take a miracle for this year's version of the team with the horseshoe to make it that far.
The Colts get the Jets at home next weekend, which may be preferable to the Ravens. But these Colts will be hard-pressed to win against either of those teams.
If somehow they can overcome the Jets, the Colts then will have to travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers in their icy stadium. This game is certainly preferable to having to face New England in their similarly frigid venue, but again would seem to require a combination of the Colts playing above their heads while catching more than a couple of breaks to escape with a win.
Finally, assuming they overachieve and win against both the Jets and Steelers, taking the AFC championship from the hottest team in the NFL would seem impossible.
If Peyton and his makeshift offense can be productive, eliminate turnovers and penalties, and get guys like Garcon and White and Tamme to play out of their minds, maybe they have a chance. If the Colts defense can find consistency, stringing together 3 good stops in a row instead of 2, shutting down the run and the pass, maybe there's a slim chance.
One thing I can say definitively; if this Colts team makes it to the Super Bowl, it will exceed their previous Super Bowl accomplishments. Even if they lose in the Super Bowl, just getting there with this team is more impressive than the other two trips, when they were expected to make it and win. Nobody expects this team to get there.
The pessimist in me thinks next week's game against the Jets will end their run for this year. But I'll still maintain a faint hope that they can somehow overachieve and find their way to Dallas for the big game next month.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thoughts for the New Year
On the last day of 2010, I look back on a busy but generally good year, and forward to a year that holds lots of questions.
Will 2011 be another good year personally, or will hard times come?
Will the country pull back from the brink politically and at least begin to restore reason, or will it be business as usual?
Will terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, et al threaten us, or will we keep them at bay another year? If we are attacked again, will our leaders choose to do anything about it, or seek to pacify our enemies?
I'm hopeful the Obamacare constitutional challenges will succeed. It is clearly unconstitutional. But what concerns me is that most of what today's Federal Government does today is also unconstitutional, so how can we go after one unconstitutional element of the Obamacare law (insurance purchase mandate), while we ignore all the other agencies and laws that are also unconstitutional but have stood for decades?
Unconstitutional federal things abound, here are just a few off the top of my head:
Social Security, Medicare, Federal Unemployment
The departments of Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, EEOC, and Labor
Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Boosted by FDR and the New Deal, the feds have siezed extra-constitutional power and the citizens have made no move to stop them.
Whether or not you believe some of the agencies and programs created in Washington since the 1930's serve a useful purpose, they are not permitted by the constitution. If we can't draw the line somewhere, there is no line.
The result is an overbearing, Big Brother government.
Our choice is clear in this new decade: We can either choose to take the crumbs from the government table so we at least don't starve to death, or we decide to risk starvation in search of freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy New Year!
Will 2011 be another good year personally, or will hard times come?
Will the country pull back from the brink politically and at least begin to restore reason, or will it be business as usual?
Will terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, et al threaten us, or will we keep them at bay another year? If we are attacked again, will our leaders choose to do anything about it, or seek to pacify our enemies?
I'm hopeful the Obamacare constitutional challenges will succeed. It is clearly unconstitutional. But what concerns me is that most of what today's Federal Government does today is also unconstitutional, so how can we go after one unconstitutional element of the Obamacare law (insurance purchase mandate), while we ignore all the other agencies and laws that are also unconstitutional but have stood for decades?
Unconstitutional federal things abound, here are just a few off the top of my head:
Social Security, Medicare, Federal Unemployment
The departments of Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, EEOC, and Labor
Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Boosted by FDR and the New Deal, the feds have siezed extra-constitutional power and the citizens have made no move to stop them.
Whether or not you believe some of the agencies and programs created in Washington since the 1930's serve a useful purpose, they are not permitted by the constitution. If we can't draw the line somewhere, there is no line.
The result is an overbearing, Big Brother government.
Our choice is clear in this new decade: We can either choose to take the crumbs from the government table so we at least don't starve to death, or we decide to risk starvation in search of freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy New Year!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Simplest Constitutional Question
With the latest ruling in Virginia declaring the health insurance purchase by all citizens under Obamacare unconsitutional, the only question should be why it took so long. The ruling is simple and evident.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Core Principles
It is puzzling to hear the angry denouncements against the president by most of his party over their belief that he "caved" on a core principle in agreeing to the tax compromise.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Pacers Monday
Nick said he had to work late, so Claudia and I braved the freezing temperatures and made the trip to Conseco to take in the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Boy is it Cold Out
Better not try that global warming line on me this week. It's hard to get warm this week.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
Friday, December 03, 2010
No Glee
I watched 'Glee' for the first time.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
An Alternative Perspective on DADT
The military policy called "Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise that was crafted during the Clinton administration. The Left wanted gays to serve openly in the armed forces, while the Right wanted to maintain the longstanding traditions banning homosexuals from military service.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Faith in a Paragraph
The author is Amy Welborn, writing about Pope Benedict XVI in today's USA Today.
The thing is, he really believes the stuff. Really. He believes that God exists and we exist because God loves us. We're free to love him back, or not. So the basic job of the church is to be Christ in the world, inviting human beings to find love and truth. To find themselves.
Exactly.
The thing is, he really believes the stuff. Really. He believes that God exists and we exist because God loves us. We're free to love him back, or not. So the basic job of the church is to be Christ in the world, inviting human beings to find love and truth. To find themselves.
Exactly.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
It's the time of year to take a break, spend time with family, and count our blessings.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Ranking the Twelve
Sort of like the twelve disciples, Fox is looking at a group of potential candidates for President on the Republican side. I'm not sure how they picked these twelve exactly, but it's an interesting list.
Just for grins, here's my ranking of the 12 as of today.
1. Mitch Daniels - He's what we need. A no-nonsense CEO of America. Plus he's a Hoosier.
2. Mike Pence - I really like Mike. He's a decent guy and has Reagan's quality of an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. He also is an unabashed Christian, which will earn him vilification by the media if he becomes the nominee.
3. Mike Huckabee - Tough call, but again I think he's genuine and honest. Not sure he has the foreign policy chops, but he'd still be better than the guy sitting in the Oval Office today.
4. Newt Gingerich - Smart guy, you should find a way to catch a policy speech from this guy. Way too much personal baggage, and the press hates him.
5. Mitt Romney - I actually have serious issues with him being too moderate. But he might have the best chance to win in the general election, so we have to consider him.
6. Sarah Palin - She's in my top half partly to tweak all the Palin haters out there. I like the lady, and find it weird that she's hated so viscerally by the Left. I'd prefer someone higher on the list, but again, she's still way better than the current guy.
7. John Thune - From here on down I don't see much difference. The little bit of exposure I've had with him is positive, so I decided to give him the first pick in the second half.
8. Tim Pawlenty - He's got good reviews for his job as Minnesota Gov.
9. Chris Christie - Come on, he's from New Jersey. I can't help but wonder if he's being overrated.
10. Bobby Jindal - Another governor who seems like a decent guy.
11. Haley Barbour - Another southern governor I must admit I know very little about.
12. Jim DeMint - Seems like a great guy for energizing the conservative base, but I have trouble picturing him in the top spot.
Maybe I'll come back in 6 months and resequence the list after we start learning more about all these folks. I admit to putting our Indiana guys first, partly because I know them best and partly because I'm being loyal to fellow Hoosiers.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Somehow I hope we can avoid the stupid process of last time, when the party cooked the process to make sure we didn't get to choose anybody but McCain.
Just for grins, here's my ranking of the 12 as of today.
1. Mitch Daniels - He's what we need. A no-nonsense CEO of America. Plus he's a Hoosier.
2. Mike Pence - I really like Mike. He's a decent guy and has Reagan's quality of an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. He also is an unabashed Christian, which will earn him vilification by the media if he becomes the nominee.
3. Mike Huckabee - Tough call, but again I think he's genuine and honest. Not sure he has the foreign policy chops, but he'd still be better than the guy sitting in the Oval Office today.
4. Newt Gingerich - Smart guy, you should find a way to catch a policy speech from this guy. Way too much personal baggage, and the press hates him.
5. Mitt Romney - I actually have serious issues with him being too moderate. But he might have the best chance to win in the general election, so we have to consider him.
6. Sarah Palin - She's in my top half partly to tweak all the Palin haters out there. I like the lady, and find it weird that she's hated so viscerally by the Left. I'd prefer someone higher on the list, but again, she's still way better than the current guy.
7. John Thune - From here on down I don't see much difference. The little bit of exposure I've had with him is positive, so I decided to give him the first pick in the second half.
8. Tim Pawlenty - He's got good reviews for his job as Minnesota Gov.
9. Chris Christie - Come on, he's from New Jersey. I can't help but wonder if he's being overrated.
10. Bobby Jindal - Another governor who seems like a decent guy.
11. Haley Barbour - Another southern governor I must admit I know very little about.
12. Jim DeMint - Seems like a great guy for energizing the conservative base, but I have trouble picturing him in the top spot.
Maybe I'll come back in 6 months and resequence the list after we start learning more about all these folks. I admit to putting our Indiana guys first, partly because I know them best and partly because I'm being loyal to fellow Hoosiers.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Somehow I hope we can avoid the stupid process of last time, when the party cooked the process to make sure we didn't get to choose anybody but McCain.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Indy Teams
I took in a Pacers game last night, the second in this early season. They may be mariginally better than last year, but if they manage to make the playoffs, I doubt they survive the first round.
My assessment of the team is middle of the pack. Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy are their main guys, and both were inconsistent in the two games I saw. Granger's a decent player, but isn't built to carry a franchise. Dunleavy's a streaky shooter who wasn't hitting much in the two games I've seen.
Roy Hibbert shows tremendous promise in the middle. He looks at times like a big man who can dominate. Then on other times he looks lost. Coaches should work with him every day on post moves, and make him shoot 100 hooks a day. Get him playing with some consistency, and develop a couple of go-to post moves, and he could be a star. But not this year.
Collison is a good looking point guard with obvious skills. But he doesn't seem to know when to pass and when to take the shot. I saw him run a number of fast breaks, where there were two defenders ready to stop his drive to the basket, but teammates running the floor with him. In every case, instead of dishing to the big man for the dunk, he decided to take on the two defenders. Sometimes he drew the foul, and the other times he turned the ball over. I also observed him missing open guys on the pick and roll, again while trying to force his own shot. Collison seems to need badly to learn that winning is better than personal stats.
Tyler Hansbrough tends to play like a rookie, but I appreciate his hustle. He plays hard and hungry, and makes plays through force of will. Like Hibbert but in a different way, he shows promise for the future, but probably won't take the Pacers to a competitive level this year.
The entire team stinks on the defensive end. They're burned on weak-side rebounds so often I wonder if they've ever heard words like "weak side help" from a coach. They're embarassingly easy to break down off dribble penetration by their opponents' point guards.
Moving on to the Colts.
I'm not sure I want to put myself through the pain of watching the Colts play New England this weekend. The crippled team barely survived the Bengals last weekend, a game the Colts of the past several seasons would have blown out of the stadum.
Jacob Tamme is playing bravely in place of Dallas Clark, but alas is no Dallas Clark. Pierre Garcon drops more passes than he catches. The Colts are down to their fourth-string running back, which doesn't give them much punch there either.
All defenses have to do is double-team Reggie Wayne and contain Tamme, and they can shut down Peyton.
The only questions left for the Colts this year are, how many starters will be back off the injury list this season, and when they come back, will they be able to ramp back up in time to make the Colts a Super Bowl contender?
It doesn't look like a good sports year in Indy.
My assessment of the team is middle of the pack. Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy are their main guys, and both were inconsistent in the two games I saw. Granger's a decent player, but isn't built to carry a franchise. Dunleavy's a streaky shooter who wasn't hitting much in the two games I've seen.
Roy Hibbert shows tremendous promise in the middle. He looks at times like a big man who can dominate. Then on other times he looks lost. Coaches should work with him every day on post moves, and make him shoot 100 hooks a day. Get him playing with some consistency, and develop a couple of go-to post moves, and he could be a star. But not this year.
Collison is a good looking point guard with obvious skills. But he doesn't seem to know when to pass and when to take the shot. I saw him run a number of fast breaks, where there were two defenders ready to stop his drive to the basket, but teammates running the floor with him. In every case, instead of dishing to the big man for the dunk, he decided to take on the two defenders. Sometimes he drew the foul, and the other times he turned the ball over. I also observed him missing open guys on the pick and roll, again while trying to force his own shot. Collison seems to need badly to learn that winning is better than personal stats.
Tyler Hansbrough tends to play like a rookie, but I appreciate his hustle. He plays hard and hungry, and makes plays through force of will. Like Hibbert but in a different way, he shows promise for the future, but probably won't take the Pacers to a competitive level this year.
The entire team stinks on the defensive end. They're burned on weak-side rebounds so often I wonder if they've ever heard words like "weak side help" from a coach. They're embarassingly easy to break down off dribble penetration by their opponents' point guards.
Moving on to the Colts.
I'm not sure I want to put myself through the pain of watching the Colts play New England this weekend. The crippled team barely survived the Bengals last weekend, a game the Colts of the past several seasons would have blown out of the stadum.
Jacob Tamme is playing bravely in place of Dallas Clark, but alas is no Dallas Clark. Pierre Garcon drops more passes than he catches. The Colts are down to their fourth-string running back, which doesn't give them much punch there either.
All defenses have to do is double-team Reggie Wayne and contain Tamme, and they can shut down Peyton.
The only questions left for the Colts this year are, how many starters will be back off the injury list this season, and when they come back, will they be able to ramp back up in time to make the Colts a Super Bowl contender?
It doesn't look like a good sports year in Indy.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Root Causes - Education
There was an article in today's Republic that, without realizing it, represented just one more direct linkage between a major societal problem and it's root cause.
We're a nation of people who insist on burying our collective heads in the sand, failing to recognize that almost every serious problem we face today can be linked directly to our precipitous moral decline.
Today it's about education.
I wish I could link to the article, but can't locate it online. Substantially the story outlined the results of a study of failing students. In a result that surprised me not one bit, it discovered that children without stable homes and parents are most likely to fail in school.
The story went on to describe the "typical" dysfunctional family, for some reason most prevalent in cities. Child is born to an unwed mother, who most of the time is still at least friendly with the child's father. He might even provide some financial support, and sometimes lives with mother and child. For awhile, anyway.
But there's no marriage tying the couple together, so pretty soon Dad's gone. Interstingly, the article suggested that lots of those Dad's want to stay involved with their child, but go away when Mom hooks up with a new guy.
The most shocking finding was that most of these women were likely to have a few more children by different Dads within the first 5 years of that first baby's life.
These kids are confused, angry, undisciplined, and get worse with each turn of Mom's revolving door. Not to mention that some of the guys going through her revolving (bedroom) door will abuse her children, which naturally makes things even worse.
Education is a big topic in Indiana, and Republicans have the power to implement their will. They want to build lots of new Charter schools, implement a merit pay system for teachers, and possibly begin experimenting with vouchers.
But the fundamental question comes down to this: If a kid isn't being raised by parents who care even a litle bit, how could any of these programs make a difference? If a child comes to school angry, hungry, abused, and broken, you can't fix it with any teacher or special school - you need a miracle worker.
Maybe it sounds harsh, but if these irresponsible and narcissistic mothers aren't separated from their children until they decide to grow up and become a parent, nothing is going to help their children succeed in school. If nobody's allowed to mentor children and try to instill basic values in them without facing a lawsuit from the ACLU, who is going to teach them right from wrong?
When will people pull their heads out of the sand and realize that all of our problems - Education, economic, healthcare, crime, etc., all boil down to the same root cause?
The only way to solve a problem is to understand it.
We're a nation of people who insist on burying our collective heads in the sand, failing to recognize that almost every serious problem we face today can be linked directly to our precipitous moral decline.
Today it's about education.
I wish I could link to the article, but can't locate it online. Substantially the story outlined the results of a study of failing students. In a result that surprised me not one bit, it discovered that children without stable homes and parents are most likely to fail in school.
The story went on to describe the "typical" dysfunctional family, for some reason most prevalent in cities. Child is born to an unwed mother, who most of the time is still at least friendly with the child's father. He might even provide some financial support, and sometimes lives with mother and child. For awhile, anyway.
But there's no marriage tying the couple together, so pretty soon Dad's gone. Interstingly, the article suggested that lots of those Dad's want to stay involved with their child, but go away when Mom hooks up with a new guy.
The most shocking finding was that most of these women were likely to have a few more children by different Dads within the first 5 years of that first baby's life.
These kids are confused, angry, undisciplined, and get worse with each turn of Mom's revolving door. Not to mention that some of the guys going through her revolving (bedroom) door will abuse her children, which naturally makes things even worse.
Education is a big topic in Indiana, and Republicans have the power to implement their will. They want to build lots of new Charter schools, implement a merit pay system for teachers, and possibly begin experimenting with vouchers.
But the fundamental question comes down to this: If a kid isn't being raised by parents who care even a litle bit, how could any of these programs make a difference? If a child comes to school angry, hungry, abused, and broken, you can't fix it with any teacher or special school - you need a miracle worker.
Maybe it sounds harsh, but if these irresponsible and narcissistic mothers aren't separated from their children until they decide to grow up and become a parent, nothing is going to help their children succeed in school. If nobody's allowed to mentor children and try to instill basic values in them without facing a lawsuit from the ACLU, who is going to teach them right from wrong?
When will people pull their heads out of the sand and realize that all of our problems - Education, economic, healthcare, crime, etc., all boil down to the same root cause?
The only way to solve a problem is to understand it.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Defining My Version of Conservatism
Whether or not this attempt to explain my personal views succeeds in finding agreement, I somehow seem to have failed thus far with this blog's total body of work in getting across the fundamental definition of my personal conservative beliefs. So let's give it a shot:
Social: Conservative
I don't think there's any question that I'm a Social Conservative. I believe that what made America great is its founding under Judeo-Christian fundamental values. And that America's decline is due to its abandonment of those values.
However, you are badly mistaken if you think that means I think the government should somehow impose those values on its citizens. And there is no contradiction in that statement.
Government can and should be thankful and friendly with Christian churches across the country, but should not either hand out taxpayer dollars to those churches or invite church leaders to set the legislative agenda directly.
However, tax exemptions for churches and their charities should remain. The government should step in on behalf of those who must fight constant ACLU lawsuits that seek to intimidate them from expressing their faith in public; whether at public school events or on their city hall lawns.
Because the historically proven source of the best and brightest citizens of our country is the nuclear family, the intact, undivorced, committed family unit should be the first to benefit from tax incentives. That policy will pay for itself many times over with well-adjusted, intelligent, and productive citizens from one generation to the next.
I do not believe that gays should be persecuted by anyone. Neither do I believe that gays have the right to take federal benefits out of my pocket for their partners. I have what I think is an interesting solution in this area, which if you missed it can be found here.
Healthcare, education, welfare, and any related social programs now run by massive Federal bureaucracies are outside the mandated constitutional role of the Feds, and should be solely the province of the individual states.
That does not lead to the common Democrat charge against people who hold that view that I don't care about the poor. States have every right to tax their citizens as they see fit to fund these programs in whatever forms they choose. If New York and California want to be havens for the chronic poor, that's their choice. If the heartland prefers to develop welfare-to-work programs such as those that proved so successful in the 90's, that's also their choice.
I believe that nobody should be given preference over anyone else because of their race, gender, sexual preference, religion, country of origin, eye color, hair color, weight, favorite movie or what car they drive.
If our society wishes to find ways to lift people out of poverty, I believe everyone in poverty should have access to the means to pull themselves out, and individuals who care should be encouraged to help guide them. Simply handing them money, patting them on the head and tut-tutting about how poor and unfortunate they are destroys them.
Economic: Conservative to Moderate?
I suppose the label for my economic beliefs depends on definition.
Some on the Right would call me a moderate for my view that completely unfettered capitalism is not ideal.
I support strong enforcement of AntiTrust law. I believe a lack of attention to these laws played a big role, along with government meddling, in our current economic crisis. There should be no American companies "Too big to fail", ever.
I also believe importing foreign workers simply because they work cheaper than their American counterparts approaches un-American. Our companies should be first-and-foremost Americans.
Being a realist, I know we can't simply dissolve the departments of Education, HHS, Agriculture, Homeland Security (an unnecessary and duplicative organization), and other expensive and counterproductive bureaucracies cannot be done overnight.
Neither can we simply cancel Social Security and Medicare.
But if enough people can be educated about the excesses of Washington, perhaps we can begin the siege and chip away at the walls little by little.
Let's take Social Security as an example. Start by admitting it's not a retirement and disability insurance program for all of us, but a plain and simple wealth redistribution from current working Americans to retirees, disabled, and dependents of deceased Americans.
Then start a program to transform the program from what it is today to an actual retirement savings, disability, and life insurance program with a cash-value account for every American. The account earns a guaranteed annual rate from the Federal Reserve, who uses those funds in place of bond sales or just as a giant money-market account with guaranteed returns.
Current retirees and those retiring in the next 10 years would see no change. Those retiring each decade following would see a gradual shift from the transfer program to individual accounts, until eventually the program covers everybody directly in individual accounts that they can will to their heirs with whatever remains unused at their death.
Oops, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent of specifics like that.
Let's back up to basic economic policy.
We need to balance Free Trade with Fair Trade. Our trade negotiations should be focused on opening the US market to foreign traders to the same extent those partners are open to US products.
Regulation of US business is necessary to protect employees and consumers from abuse and fraud, but must be reasonable and not unnecessarily onerous on employers.
Employees have the freedom to organize into unions if they choose. Union books should be subject to audit and scrutiny by members and open to prosecution if fraud is found. Union members should have a say in whether their dues are used to support political parties or candidates. Nobody should be forced to join a union.
Employers should be offered an exemption from Unemployment Insurance if they provide their own funded version of unemployment insurance: They fund an interest-bearing account with 2 percent of each employee's wages. When the employee terminates, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they receive the proceeds from that account, and may choose either a lump sum or an annuity. Or they can roll it into an IRA or roll it into their Unemployment account at their next employer. If the employee chooses, they can contribute up to 2 percent of their earnings into the same account tax-free, just like a 401K. Simple solution, easy to administer by employers, and a great benefit for employees.
Close Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Stop using tax dollars to subsidize government cronies who pretend to be developing "Clean Energy". Open up the oil fields wherever they exist for exploration, under reasonable safety regulations. Open up all domestic sources of energy, whether natural gas, coal, oil shale, etc. If on Federal land, simply auction the rights. This is the path to true energy independence.
There's much more, but I'll end with a major one that I've proposed before: Pass a constitutional amendment regarding tax policy.
All taxes imposed on citizens, companies, or other organizations must apply to all equally without exceptions. Likewise all deductions, credits, deferrals, and abatements offered to any citizen, company, or organization must be available to any and all based on criteria that may be met by everyone if they choose to do so.
See, if you take away the ability of congress to provide special tax favors to constituents in return for campaign money, you solve a big piece of the campaign finance mess.
So much more, but if I kept going I'd be typing for days.
Social: Conservative
I don't think there's any question that I'm a Social Conservative. I believe that what made America great is its founding under Judeo-Christian fundamental values. And that America's decline is due to its abandonment of those values.
However, you are badly mistaken if you think that means I think the government should somehow impose those values on its citizens. And there is no contradiction in that statement.
Government can and should be thankful and friendly with Christian churches across the country, but should not either hand out taxpayer dollars to those churches or invite church leaders to set the legislative agenda directly.
However, tax exemptions for churches and their charities should remain. The government should step in on behalf of those who must fight constant ACLU lawsuits that seek to intimidate them from expressing their faith in public; whether at public school events or on their city hall lawns.
Because the historically proven source of the best and brightest citizens of our country is the nuclear family, the intact, undivorced, committed family unit should be the first to benefit from tax incentives. That policy will pay for itself many times over with well-adjusted, intelligent, and productive citizens from one generation to the next.
I do not believe that gays should be persecuted by anyone. Neither do I believe that gays have the right to take federal benefits out of my pocket for their partners. I have what I think is an interesting solution in this area, which if you missed it can be found here.
Healthcare, education, welfare, and any related social programs now run by massive Federal bureaucracies are outside the mandated constitutional role of the Feds, and should be solely the province of the individual states.
That does not lead to the common Democrat charge against people who hold that view that I don't care about the poor. States have every right to tax their citizens as they see fit to fund these programs in whatever forms they choose. If New York and California want to be havens for the chronic poor, that's their choice. If the heartland prefers to develop welfare-to-work programs such as those that proved so successful in the 90's, that's also their choice.
I believe that nobody should be given preference over anyone else because of their race, gender, sexual preference, religion, country of origin, eye color, hair color, weight, favorite movie or what car they drive.
If our society wishes to find ways to lift people out of poverty, I believe everyone in poverty should have access to the means to pull themselves out, and individuals who care should be encouraged to help guide them. Simply handing them money, patting them on the head and tut-tutting about how poor and unfortunate they are destroys them.
Economic: Conservative to Moderate?
I suppose the label for my economic beliefs depends on definition.
Some on the Right would call me a moderate for my view that completely unfettered capitalism is not ideal.
I support strong enforcement of AntiTrust law. I believe a lack of attention to these laws played a big role, along with government meddling, in our current economic crisis. There should be no American companies "Too big to fail", ever.
I also believe importing foreign workers simply because they work cheaper than their American counterparts approaches un-American. Our companies should be first-and-foremost Americans.
Being a realist, I know we can't simply dissolve the departments of Education, HHS, Agriculture, Homeland Security (an unnecessary and duplicative organization), and other expensive and counterproductive bureaucracies cannot be done overnight.
Neither can we simply cancel Social Security and Medicare.
But if enough people can be educated about the excesses of Washington, perhaps we can begin the siege and chip away at the walls little by little.
Let's take Social Security as an example. Start by admitting it's not a retirement and disability insurance program for all of us, but a plain and simple wealth redistribution from current working Americans to retirees, disabled, and dependents of deceased Americans.
Then start a program to transform the program from what it is today to an actual retirement savings, disability, and life insurance program with a cash-value account for every American. The account earns a guaranteed annual rate from the Federal Reserve, who uses those funds in place of bond sales or just as a giant money-market account with guaranteed returns.
Current retirees and those retiring in the next 10 years would see no change. Those retiring each decade following would see a gradual shift from the transfer program to individual accounts, until eventually the program covers everybody directly in individual accounts that they can will to their heirs with whatever remains unused at their death.
Oops, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent of specifics like that.
Let's back up to basic economic policy.
We need to balance Free Trade with Fair Trade. Our trade negotiations should be focused on opening the US market to foreign traders to the same extent those partners are open to US products.
Regulation of US business is necessary to protect employees and consumers from abuse and fraud, but must be reasonable and not unnecessarily onerous on employers.
Employees have the freedom to organize into unions if they choose. Union books should be subject to audit and scrutiny by members and open to prosecution if fraud is found. Union members should have a say in whether their dues are used to support political parties or candidates. Nobody should be forced to join a union.
Employers should be offered an exemption from Unemployment Insurance if they provide their own funded version of unemployment insurance: They fund an interest-bearing account with 2 percent of each employee's wages. When the employee terminates, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they receive the proceeds from that account, and may choose either a lump sum or an annuity. Or they can roll it into an IRA or roll it into their Unemployment account at their next employer. If the employee chooses, they can contribute up to 2 percent of their earnings into the same account tax-free, just like a 401K. Simple solution, easy to administer by employers, and a great benefit for employees.
Close Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Stop using tax dollars to subsidize government cronies who pretend to be developing "Clean Energy". Open up the oil fields wherever they exist for exploration, under reasonable safety regulations. Open up all domestic sources of energy, whether natural gas, coal, oil shale, etc. If on Federal land, simply auction the rights. This is the path to true energy independence.
There's much more, but I'll end with a major one that I've proposed before: Pass a constitutional amendment regarding tax policy.
All taxes imposed on citizens, companies, or other organizations must apply to all equally without exceptions. Likewise all deductions, credits, deferrals, and abatements offered to any citizen, company, or organization must be available to any and all based on criteria that may be met by everyone if they choose to do so.
See, if you take away the ability of congress to provide special tax favors to constituents in return for campaign money, you solve a big piece of the campaign finance mess.
So much more, but if I kept going I'd be typing for days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)