OK, I've got the message from all you rich entertainers. You love Obama and hate all conservatives. It's probably reasonable to assume that you have no conservative-thinking individuals among your circle of friends. So I've got some questions I'd love to get a chance to ask one of you rich and famous guys or girls.
If you live in New York or LA, you're already paying somewhere north of half of all your income to the various levels of government. Since you seem to agree with Obama that rich people should pay more, please tell me how much more? What percentage of your income do you consider fair?
You apparently love being green, just like Kermit the Frog. I figure you don't care about $4 gas, but I also would predict you keep your hybrid car in the garage just to be cool, but would rather drive around in that sweet V8 sports car. You can afford it, but how do you feel about the poor factory workers out here who have to shell out 70 bucks a week to get to their 250/week job? How do you think your activism to save the planet is working out to save them from losing everything when they can no longer afford to get to work?
I get it, you're an atheist. Would you please go ahead and admit that the Freedom of Religion part of the Constitution means nothing to you? How far do you think the government should take such mandates - do you favor outlawing Christianity altogether?
You're loud and clear on the subject of war. War is bad. How could I disagree? Do you really believe that if we just dismantle our military and pacify our enemies, war will go away all by itself? Are you convinced that your self, family, and property will be safe and unaffected if we just open the borders to all comers?
Sure, you feel compassion for poor folks from other countries who sneak into our country just because they're looking for a better life for their families. Does that mean you're willing to pony up the cash to cover their children's education and their families' medical care?
Do I understand you to be perfectly OK with Obama borrowing billions from China only to hand it out to his friends to blow all of it on bad business ventures (ie Solyndra)? You actually don't see a problem with that?
You're also just fine with the federal government nationalizing the nation's largest automaker and giving another one to a foreign company nearly for free? How about nationalizing healthcare? Do you think the government should do the same with other American companies, such as banks, energy companies, telecommunications, transportation? Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?
All I want is honest answers to my questions. At least it would help me resolve a debate I'm having with myself, about whether these folks are true believers or truly ignorant.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Taxes
This might be a good time to step back and look at the big picture in the presidential campaign, where Obama's making his foremost argument for re-election based on hiking tax rates for the "rich".
In the big picture, Democrats represent the bureaucracy. Their interest is in protecting and growing that bureaucracy, therefore they have to raise more funds to pay the salaries and pensions for their constituencies in those posh DC offices. A Democrat can't imagine any problem ever being solved without the intervention of their benevolent management. For them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government agency. Their compassion is reserved first and foremost for their compatriots and supporters holding down those featherbed jobs in places like Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, and the rest of the alphabet soup of "necessary" government agencies.
Republicans are wary of the bureaucracy, but despite running for office with the stated goal of reining in the bureaucrats, tend to join the party shortly after settling inside the beltway. The GOP philosophy begins with the theory that our country doesn't have a tax problem, but a spending problem. Unfortunately, their constituents can't seem to control their apparent inability to keep the faith of that philosophy once they climb into the big-boy chair.
The campaign arguments are laughably simplistic, and neither is likely to actually solve the problem of massive deficits and debt. Obama's the most dishonest, suggesting to his minions that he can go on exploding the bureaucracy by simply raising the tax rate 5 percent on the "rich". His rhetoric defines the rich as multi-millionaires and billionaires, but his math-challenged rate increase is targeted to people with incomes as low as $200K.
Romney's being somewhat coy about his plans, but at least we know enough to realize his tax reform policies will be modest at best. He supports much of Paul Ryan's budgetary reforms and suggests he believes in lowering and flattening rates while removing loopholes in the tax code. Assuming he prevails in November, I hold very little hope that the reform part of his plan will become reality. His beltway culture-corrupted GOP colleagues will stop him from removing those loopholes if the Democrats don't.
Although neither candidate is serious about solving the problem, at least Romney's not lying outright about his plans. I think the economy recovery will begin the day Romney is declared the winner, and by the time he's inaugurated will be visibly heating up. That's because businesses know that Romney will roll back the most egregious of Obama's overreaching regulations, and he will put the breaks on the massive tax increases built into Democrats' laws and initiatives due to go into effect January 1st.
Executives nearly everywhere I go have made it clear that they've been in a holding pattern, waiting and hoping that Obama will get turned out of office. They'll start investing and growing again once they have confidence that the government won't hammer them with even more tax and regulation.
So if you lean left and fear Romney, I can almost guarantee that you have little to fear. Romney's not going to shake things up much. If you're on the right and are hoping for a big u-turn in government tax and regulatory policies, likewise I predict you will be disappointed in Romney, but you will comfort yourself with the thought, "at least he's not Obama".
In the big picture, Democrats represent the bureaucracy. Their interest is in protecting and growing that bureaucracy, therefore they have to raise more funds to pay the salaries and pensions for their constituencies in those posh DC offices. A Democrat can't imagine any problem ever being solved without the intervention of their benevolent management. For them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government agency. Their compassion is reserved first and foremost for their compatriots and supporters holding down those featherbed jobs in places like Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, and the rest of the alphabet soup of "necessary" government agencies.
Republicans are wary of the bureaucracy, but despite running for office with the stated goal of reining in the bureaucrats, tend to join the party shortly after settling inside the beltway. The GOP philosophy begins with the theory that our country doesn't have a tax problem, but a spending problem. Unfortunately, their constituents can't seem to control their apparent inability to keep the faith of that philosophy once they climb into the big-boy chair.
The campaign arguments are laughably simplistic, and neither is likely to actually solve the problem of massive deficits and debt. Obama's the most dishonest, suggesting to his minions that he can go on exploding the bureaucracy by simply raising the tax rate 5 percent on the "rich". His rhetoric defines the rich as multi-millionaires and billionaires, but his math-challenged rate increase is targeted to people with incomes as low as $200K.
Romney's being somewhat coy about his plans, but at least we know enough to realize his tax reform policies will be modest at best. He supports much of Paul Ryan's budgetary reforms and suggests he believes in lowering and flattening rates while removing loopholes in the tax code. Assuming he prevails in November, I hold very little hope that the reform part of his plan will become reality. His beltway culture-corrupted GOP colleagues will stop him from removing those loopholes if the Democrats don't.
Although neither candidate is serious about solving the problem, at least Romney's not lying outright about his plans. I think the economy recovery will begin the day Romney is declared the winner, and by the time he's inaugurated will be visibly heating up. That's because businesses know that Romney will roll back the most egregious of Obama's overreaching regulations, and he will put the breaks on the massive tax increases built into Democrats' laws and initiatives due to go into effect January 1st.
Executives nearly everywhere I go have made it clear that they've been in a holding pattern, waiting and hoping that Obama will get turned out of office. They'll start investing and growing again once they have confidence that the government won't hammer them with even more tax and regulation.
So if you lean left and fear Romney, I can almost guarantee that you have little to fear. Romney's not going to shake things up much. If you're on the right and are hoping for a big u-turn in government tax and regulatory policies, likewise I predict you will be disappointed in Romney, but you will comfort yourself with the thought, "at least he's not Obama".
Friday, May 18, 2012
Out of Step
Even though there's some frustration involved, I actually rather enjoy debating liberals. During some of those debates recently, I was informed that my attitudes and philosophies are just wrong and out of step. Apparently having conservative values makes me wierd, not to mention a bigot, racist, and homophobe. I've been informed that my attitudes and opinions are not only wrong, but a character flaw.
For just a moment I became a bit depressed and confused. Am I a bad person?
No, I'm very sure I'm not a bad person. Faith and family are very important to me. As are American values of freedom and justice. Those fundamental values are the very root of evil to these liberals, ergo I'm evil. Or as one liberal suggested, maybe not completely evil, just brainwashed by the right-wing nuts.
Some specific policy disagreements discussed:
The HHS Contraception mandate:
The liberal misses the point by trying to say that free contraception is just good public policy, because human overpopulation is killing the planet. And besides, contraception helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reduces the "need" for abortions - being anti-abortion, I should favor that, right? Also, the liberal swears that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the mandate, which turns out to be based on a statement made by Kathleen Sebelius, who tried to split hairs on the definition of abortifacient. Basically, the argument was repeated that since most Roman Catholic women use contraception, the bishops' opposition to the mandate is irrelevant.
Wierd fuddy-duddy that I am, I think the liberal argument misses the point entirely. Roman Catholics believe contraception is immoral and sex is reserved for marital relationships. The effect of the mandate is a clear violation of the First Amendment, where the government is indeed making a law that interferes with the Roman Catholic practice of religion. Forcibly taking money from someone to fund something they find morally reprehensible is wrong. The liberal says I'm a woman-hater for believing such.
Gay Marriage
The liberal expounds the favored rhetoric about gay people just wanting the freedom to love whomever they choose. I counter that it has nothing to do with love, that the movement is all about creating new rights to benefits. Gays want to have their "marriages" placed on par with traditional marriage so that government can force organizations to cover their same-sex partners as "spouses" in their benefit programs, the government will provide surviving spouse pensions to same-sex partners, and the government will mandate that same-sex couples be afforded exactly the same consideration as traditional families for adoption placement. The liberal believes it's a civil right, no different than the movement to grant blacks voting and integration rights.
This dinosaur still knows that homosexual behavior remains a disfunctional and sinful practice. Our generation isn't somehow smarter than all of the generations that preceded us, as the liberal suggests. In many ways I think our generation is less intelligent and certainly less moral than many prior generations. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but absolutely do not support a government mandate that forces me to contribute to their new-found rights and priviledges through my taxes and insurance premiums. So I'm a bigoted homophobe for expressing such intolerant attitudes. Perhaps I deserve imprisonment for such outrageous bigotry.
Energy
The liberal hates fossil fuels and is completely sold on the idea that we can replace coal, oil, and gas with "clean" and "renewable" energy. The liberal is 100% behind Obama's moratorium on gulf oil production, refusal to approve the XL Pipeline, and his EPA over-regulation designed to significantly scale back or eliminate production of coal, oil, and natural gas. Admittedly, natural gas is the cleanest fuel, but must be eliminated as well because of "fracking".
I find it puzzling that the same liberal who was so angry and hostile about what they were certain was greedy collusion between Bush and his oil company buddies causing $4 gasoline now extoll fhe virtues of $4 gas under Obama because it will help drive conservation and pave the way for alternative fuels. Even more puzzling is how little the liberal seems to know about those "alternative" energy sources, how much they cost, and how badly Obama's attempts to promote them have failed. And of course, the liberal has no idea about the corruption involved in Obama's generous government guarantees and giveaways to his favorite supporters in building failing "clean energy" ventures. That makes me a pro-polluter who is happy to destroy the planet and give people cancer.
For so many other issues of the day, I'm told my views range from evil to old-fashioned. I hate unions because I oppose cap and trade and don't have too much of a problem with right-to-work. By considering the budget deficits a disaster and supporting lower government spending I want children to starve and be denied an education. Being skeptical that soaking the rich with higher taxes will make even the smallest dent in the deficit I'm a racist who favors white fat cats over poor struggling inner-city folks. By favoring a strong military and worrying that Obama's pacifism is encouraging aggression from our enemies, I'm a war monger who wants to send our military around the world to kill innocent people indiscriminately so we can steal their oil.
I remain saddened that people I would otherwise consider friends think I'm evil for merely being what I thought was mainstream; Somehow I woke up one day and discovered that Fauth, Family, and Patriotism are now considered intolerant and racist.
For just a moment I became a bit depressed and confused. Am I a bad person?
No, I'm very sure I'm not a bad person. Faith and family are very important to me. As are American values of freedom and justice. Those fundamental values are the very root of evil to these liberals, ergo I'm evil. Or as one liberal suggested, maybe not completely evil, just brainwashed by the right-wing nuts.
Some specific policy disagreements discussed:
The HHS Contraception mandate:
The liberal misses the point by trying to say that free contraception is just good public policy, because human overpopulation is killing the planet. And besides, contraception helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reduces the "need" for abortions - being anti-abortion, I should favor that, right? Also, the liberal swears that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the mandate, which turns out to be based on a statement made by Kathleen Sebelius, who tried to split hairs on the definition of abortifacient. Basically, the argument was repeated that since most Roman Catholic women use contraception, the bishops' opposition to the mandate is irrelevant.
Wierd fuddy-duddy that I am, I think the liberal argument misses the point entirely. Roman Catholics believe contraception is immoral and sex is reserved for marital relationships. The effect of the mandate is a clear violation of the First Amendment, where the government is indeed making a law that interferes with the Roman Catholic practice of religion. Forcibly taking money from someone to fund something they find morally reprehensible is wrong. The liberal says I'm a woman-hater for believing such.
Gay Marriage
The liberal expounds the favored rhetoric about gay people just wanting the freedom to love whomever they choose. I counter that it has nothing to do with love, that the movement is all about creating new rights to benefits. Gays want to have their "marriages" placed on par with traditional marriage so that government can force organizations to cover their same-sex partners as "spouses" in their benefit programs, the government will provide surviving spouse pensions to same-sex partners, and the government will mandate that same-sex couples be afforded exactly the same consideration as traditional families for adoption placement. The liberal believes it's a civil right, no different than the movement to grant blacks voting and integration rights.
This dinosaur still knows that homosexual behavior remains a disfunctional and sinful practice. Our generation isn't somehow smarter than all of the generations that preceded us, as the liberal suggests. In many ways I think our generation is less intelligent and certainly less moral than many prior generations. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but absolutely do not support a government mandate that forces me to contribute to their new-found rights and priviledges through my taxes and insurance premiums. So I'm a bigoted homophobe for expressing such intolerant attitudes. Perhaps I deserve imprisonment for such outrageous bigotry.
Energy
The liberal hates fossil fuels and is completely sold on the idea that we can replace coal, oil, and gas with "clean" and "renewable" energy. The liberal is 100% behind Obama's moratorium on gulf oil production, refusal to approve the XL Pipeline, and his EPA over-regulation designed to significantly scale back or eliminate production of coal, oil, and natural gas. Admittedly, natural gas is the cleanest fuel, but must be eliminated as well because of "fracking".
I find it puzzling that the same liberal who was so angry and hostile about what they were certain was greedy collusion between Bush and his oil company buddies causing $4 gasoline now extoll fhe virtues of $4 gas under Obama because it will help drive conservation and pave the way for alternative fuels. Even more puzzling is how little the liberal seems to know about those "alternative" energy sources, how much they cost, and how badly Obama's attempts to promote them have failed. And of course, the liberal has no idea about the corruption involved in Obama's generous government guarantees and giveaways to his favorite supporters in building failing "clean energy" ventures. That makes me a pro-polluter who is happy to destroy the planet and give people cancer.
For so many other issues of the day, I'm told my views range from evil to old-fashioned. I hate unions because I oppose cap and trade and don't have too much of a problem with right-to-work. By considering the budget deficits a disaster and supporting lower government spending I want children to starve and be denied an education. Being skeptical that soaking the rich with higher taxes will make even the smallest dent in the deficit I'm a racist who favors white fat cats over poor struggling inner-city folks. By favoring a strong military and worrying that Obama's pacifism is encouraging aggression from our enemies, I'm a war monger who wants to send our military around the world to kill innocent people indiscriminately so we can steal their oil.
I remain saddened that people I would otherwise consider friends think I'm evil for merely being what I thought was mainstream; Somehow I woke up one day and discovered that Fauth, Family, and Patriotism are now considered intolerant and racist.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Can a Team Beat a Pair of Stars?
That's the question the Indiana Pacers believe will be answered in the affirmative. I've seen the first two games between the Pacers and the Miami Heat, and both games seemed to underscore the fundamental question. So far it's a split, with the superstars taking game 1 and the team without stars hanging on by their fingernails to wil game 2.
Indiana doesn't have marquee players. Their top scorer the past few seasons has been Danny Granger, who is a decent player in the NBA that will never be mentioned in the same breath as LeBron or Kobe. On the other side, Miami fans are expressing their displeasure with LeBron James, blaming him for failing to step up and defeat the Pacers last night when the game was on the line.
The Pacers use 10 players every game without suffering a significant drop in effectiveness. They've got a roster full of team-oriented players that play hard, play tough, dive on the floor for loose balls, and are positively mean on the boards. That's quite a contrast with the Heat, where the rest of the team gives the ball to Dewayne Wade and LeBron James in the fourth quarter and get out of the way.
The pair of stars accounted for 54 of the Heat's 75 points, while not a single teammate managed more than 5. The game 1 stats were similar for the Heat. By contrast, the Pacers spread their 78 points pretty evenly, with 4 of their 5 starters scoring in double figures.
Heat fans need to back off of James. He's a superstar, sure, but give some credit to the Pacers for playing great defense. Imagine praising a team's defense when they allowed LeBron "only" 28 points. Both teams can be credited with strong defensive schemes. Ending the game in the 70's is a defensive struggle in this league.
In game 1, when the Pacers dominated the first half, my vote on the question would have been "No". Because in the last 6 minutes of the game, LeBron and D-Wade decided to step up their games and suddenly that terrific Indiana defense looked lost as the two stars slashed, spun, and scored seemingly at will.
The two stars obviously tried their best to repeat their performance from game 1, but the Pacer defense seemed better prepared to survive the onslaught.
This series may go 7 games, and I won't be surprised if the trend continues. Miami will win when their two stars dominate, and Indiana will win when they're able to withstand the pair at the end of the game. The question will be answered at the end of Game 7, one way or the other but only by a whisker.
Indiana doesn't have marquee players. Their top scorer the past few seasons has been Danny Granger, who is a decent player in the NBA that will never be mentioned in the same breath as LeBron or Kobe. On the other side, Miami fans are expressing their displeasure with LeBron James, blaming him for failing to step up and defeat the Pacers last night when the game was on the line.
The Pacers use 10 players every game without suffering a significant drop in effectiveness. They've got a roster full of team-oriented players that play hard, play tough, dive on the floor for loose balls, and are positively mean on the boards. That's quite a contrast with the Heat, where the rest of the team gives the ball to Dewayne Wade and LeBron James in the fourth quarter and get out of the way.
The pair of stars accounted for 54 of the Heat's 75 points, while not a single teammate managed more than 5. The game 1 stats were similar for the Heat. By contrast, the Pacers spread their 78 points pretty evenly, with 4 of their 5 starters scoring in double figures.
Heat fans need to back off of James. He's a superstar, sure, but give some credit to the Pacers for playing great defense. Imagine praising a team's defense when they allowed LeBron "only" 28 points. Both teams can be credited with strong defensive schemes. Ending the game in the 70's is a defensive struggle in this league.
In game 1, when the Pacers dominated the first half, my vote on the question would have been "No". Because in the last 6 minutes of the game, LeBron and D-Wade decided to step up their games and suddenly that terrific Indiana defense looked lost as the two stars slashed, spun, and scored seemingly at will.
The two stars obviously tried their best to repeat their performance from game 1, but the Pacer defense seemed better prepared to survive the onslaught.
This series may go 7 games, and I won't be surprised if the trend continues. Miami will win when their two stars dominate, and Indiana will win when they're able to withstand the pair at the end of the game. The question will be answered at the end of Game 7, one way or the other but only by a whisker.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Never Thought This Day Would Come
That a United States President would come out squarely and openly against families, tradition, and Christianity. He's not only done that in his declaration for Gay Marriage, but has gone beyond it in speeches to subtly equate people of faith with racists while his syncophants in his own house network (MSNBC, in case you're not sure) equate us with Hitler.
Women should be insulted that he chose to equate Gay Marriage with Sufferage. No homosexual has ever been denied access to the voting booth by government regulation. Black people should be insulted that he also equated Gay Marriage with Civil Rights. Where has gay discrimination ever been encouraged by government? (Don't obscure the point by trying to use a gay discrimination story from some town council in Stickville Arkansas that happened 30 years ago.)
Simply stated, no person should receive special recognition, benefits, or preference from the government based on behavior. Homosexuality is definitively not something one is, but something one does. Marriage is a sacred sacrament which the President promises to destroy, no differently than if he entered a church sanctuary and proceeded to smash the altar, chalice, and tabernacle, then arrested everyone worshipping inside.
His own words condemn him, showing once and for all that he truly is not a Christian, but anti-Christian. His extremist policies in matters of faith have disqualified him from the office he holds. Radical abortion-on-demand and childbirth abortions, mandating that all employers provide abortifacients and sterilization, and now the satanic destruction of the marriage sacrament go beyond the pale. He may not be the antichrist that brings about Armageddon, but he is an antichrist all the same.
Sadly, the institution of marriage has been cheapened by so many Americans who lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be. Hollywood set the example over the years, with actors and actresses marrying at the drop of a hat. The rest of the celebrity-obsessed culture followed their lead by treating marriage like middle schoolers treat "going steady".
Republicans will run and hide, because they fear that the truth will lose them votes. Romney will make a simple and mild statement that he continues to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is perhaps all he need say on the subject. America must reject the immorality of this guy they accidentally elected president four years ago, or suffer even worse fate than we have already.
Women should be insulted that he chose to equate Gay Marriage with Sufferage. No homosexual has ever been denied access to the voting booth by government regulation. Black people should be insulted that he also equated Gay Marriage with Civil Rights. Where has gay discrimination ever been encouraged by government? (Don't obscure the point by trying to use a gay discrimination story from some town council in Stickville Arkansas that happened 30 years ago.)
Simply stated, no person should receive special recognition, benefits, or preference from the government based on behavior. Homosexuality is definitively not something one is, but something one does. Marriage is a sacred sacrament which the President promises to destroy, no differently than if he entered a church sanctuary and proceeded to smash the altar, chalice, and tabernacle, then arrested everyone worshipping inside.
His own words condemn him, showing once and for all that he truly is not a Christian, but anti-Christian. His extremist policies in matters of faith have disqualified him from the office he holds. Radical abortion-on-demand and childbirth abortions, mandating that all employers provide abortifacients and sterilization, and now the satanic destruction of the marriage sacrament go beyond the pale. He may not be the antichrist that brings about Armageddon, but he is an antichrist all the same.
Sadly, the institution of marriage has been cheapened by so many Americans who lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be. Hollywood set the example over the years, with actors and actresses marrying at the drop of a hat. The rest of the celebrity-obsessed culture followed their lead by treating marriage like middle schoolers treat "going steady".
Republicans will run and hide, because they fear that the truth will lose them votes. Romney will make a simple and mild statement that he continues to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is perhaps all he need say on the subject. America must reject the immorality of this guy they accidentally elected president four years ago, or suffer even worse fate than we have already.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Lugar-Mourdock Post Mortem
Everything I read or see on television about the shellacking Dick Lugar took in the Primary is a bunch of hand-wringing over the Tea Party destruction of centrists in the Congress.
They haven't got a clue, or are once again trying to manage our perceptions to fit their own.
Talk all you want about Lugar's moderate voting record, that he's left of John McCain and only slightly right of the ladies from Maine. That's not why he lost.
He lost because the citizens in Indiana found out he hasn't been in the state for 36 years. Because he sold his house and moved to Washington when he was elected in the 70's. And especially in recent years, was seldom seen or heard from by Hoosiers.
I may have been mistaken in my assumption that Senators are supposed to live in the state they represent. That Lugar did not is the reason he lost.
Not that the Tea Party and other national organizations that got behind Mourdock didn't have some effect on getting folks out to the polls. But my prediction is that if all other factors had been exactly the same and Dick Lugar had a home in Indiana that he returned to most weekends, he would have again won his seat back easily.
The Gregg governor's campaign has siezed on this fundamental truth, and is trying it out on Mike Pence. They're issuing press releases saying that Mike Pence is out of touch with Hoosiers because he's been living in Virginia for the last decade while serving as a congressman. Problem is, Mike didn't give up his home and is seen back home frequently, especially since he started his campaign to replace Mitch Daniels.
So Gregg's attempt to Lugarize Pence won't work.
Lugar's retired. Not because of his voting record or his stated admiration for Barack Obama. Because he's past retirement age and a creature of the DC beltway who disdains those hicks back in his home state. It was sad to see his dripping disdain in his parting letter to the Hoosier constituents that decided to facilitate his retirement. That bitter letter is beneath Dick's dignity, and he should have bowed out gracefully without the parting shots at us ignorant rubes.
They haven't got a clue, or are once again trying to manage our perceptions to fit their own.
Talk all you want about Lugar's moderate voting record, that he's left of John McCain and only slightly right of the ladies from Maine. That's not why he lost.
He lost because the citizens in Indiana found out he hasn't been in the state for 36 years. Because he sold his house and moved to Washington when he was elected in the 70's. And especially in recent years, was seldom seen or heard from by Hoosiers.
I may have been mistaken in my assumption that Senators are supposed to live in the state they represent. That Lugar did not is the reason he lost.
Not that the Tea Party and other national organizations that got behind Mourdock didn't have some effect on getting folks out to the polls. But my prediction is that if all other factors had been exactly the same and Dick Lugar had a home in Indiana that he returned to most weekends, he would have again won his seat back easily.
The Gregg governor's campaign has siezed on this fundamental truth, and is trying it out on Mike Pence. They're issuing press releases saying that Mike Pence is out of touch with Hoosiers because he's been living in Virginia for the last decade while serving as a congressman. Problem is, Mike didn't give up his home and is seen back home frequently, especially since he started his campaign to replace Mitch Daniels.
So Gregg's attempt to Lugarize Pence won't work.
Lugar's retired. Not because of his voting record or his stated admiration for Barack Obama. Because he's past retirement age and a creature of the DC beltway who disdains those hicks back in his home state. It was sad to see his dripping disdain in his parting letter to the Hoosier constituents that decided to facilitate his retirement. That bitter letter is beneath Dick's dignity, and he should have bowed out gracefully without the parting shots at us ignorant rubes.
Monday, May 07, 2012
Voted Early
Since I knew I wouldn't be around for the official primary day, I went down to the courthouse last week and picked my GOP candidates.
As mentioned in previous posts, the hardest decision for me was US Senator. I also went with the Presidential candidate I was supporting, even though he'd already given up. Not sure why, I suppose just to send a message to the nominee that we're not all thrilled with him.
Does it really matter? Whichever founding father it was that said our republic could not survive without a moral population was absolutely right, so it doesn't seem to matter much who we elect, as long as we've got a country full of selfish narcissists who, to put a twist on JFK, ask only what their country can do for them.
The people have willingly traded freedom for temporary security, and will soon have neither.
As mentioned in previous posts, the hardest decision for me was US Senator. I also went with the Presidential candidate I was supporting, even though he'd already given up. Not sure why, I suppose just to send a message to the nominee that we're not all thrilled with him.
Does it really matter? Whichever founding father it was that said our republic could not survive without a moral population was absolutely right, so it doesn't seem to matter much who we elect, as long as we've got a country full of selfish narcissists who, to put a twist on JFK, ask only what their country can do for them.
The people have willingly traded freedom for temporary security, and will soon have neither.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
The Scandal that can Defeat Obama
Is Fast & Furious.
Checking out this post at Powerline, I can only draw the conclusion that the documents Holder's hiding from Congress are explosive. It's not difficult to conceive that Holder's scrambling to keep documents away from public scrutiny that very likely tie Fast & Furious directly to himself and quite possible the President as well.
Looking at the basic facts of Fast & Furious, the only explanation that makes any sense at all is the one proposed by some on the Right. That Fast & Furious was an Obama Administration invention, carried out by Holder, which sought to create an impression of unscrupulous gun dealers selling assault weapons to the Mexican drug lords. The administration's lapdogs in the press will run special "investigative" stories on 60 Minutes that focus on those arms sales and the violence that resulted while conveniently overlooking the government's role.
There is a simple binary choice in this case. You must either believe that F&F was a gun-running sting operation designed to bring down Mexican drug cartels that was horribly bungled, or that F&F was purposely designed to provide a cover for imposing new and oppressive gun control laws.
There's nobody stupid enough to set up a gun sting that fails to even attempt to track the guns, but even if the Obama gang were the Keystone Kops, that incompetence is reason enough to drive Holder out and prove that Obama's an abject failure as President.
So the only reasonable conclusion is the political calculation theory. That's easy, because it fits the established pattern of this government. Create a false issue out of thin air to get your base riled up, then use it as cover for another government overreach. The HHS contraception mandates, for example.
Checking out this post at Powerline, I can only draw the conclusion that the documents Holder's hiding from Congress are explosive. It's not difficult to conceive that Holder's scrambling to keep documents away from public scrutiny that very likely tie Fast & Furious directly to himself and quite possible the President as well.
Looking at the basic facts of Fast & Furious, the only explanation that makes any sense at all is the one proposed by some on the Right. That Fast & Furious was an Obama Administration invention, carried out by Holder, which sought to create an impression of unscrupulous gun dealers selling assault weapons to the Mexican drug lords. The administration's lapdogs in the press will run special "investigative" stories on 60 Minutes that focus on those arms sales and the violence that resulted while conveniently overlooking the government's role.
There is a simple binary choice in this case. You must either believe that F&F was a gun-running sting operation designed to bring down Mexican drug cartels that was horribly bungled, or that F&F was purposely designed to provide a cover for imposing new and oppressive gun control laws.
There's nobody stupid enough to set up a gun sting that fails to even attempt to track the guns, but even if the Obama gang were the Keystone Kops, that incompetence is reason enough to drive Holder out and prove that Obama's an abject failure as President.
So the only reasonable conclusion is the political calculation theory. That's easy, because it fits the established pattern of this government. Create a false issue out of thin air to get your base riled up, then use it as cover for another government overreach. The HHS contraception mandates, for example.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wars and Rumors of War
If there's an overused word in politics, I submit that word is "War".
To overuse such a profound word and diminish it's definition from armies using weapons to annihilate people and destroy things into a cheap characterization of a fight over ideas is unfortunate.
How many "wars" are raging right now?
The War on ...
Women (a false and misleading idea promoted by the Obama campaign)
Terror (an unconventional war being raged by radical Islamists against Israel and the West)
Middle Class (another Obama Campaign theme, also known as the "99 Percent")
Drugs (The Obama gang has surrendered)
Immigrants (another manufactured Obama campaign theme)
Poverty (I think poverty won)
There are probably many others I just haven't thought of. The only actual shooting war on this list is Terror, which somebody in Obama's State Department reportedly announced was over.
Talking about wars with someone recently, I voiced my thoughts on when it's appropriate to go to war as a country. Only when the enemy presents a clear danger to the security of our citizens, and only if we citizens are prepared to expend as much life and treasure as it takes to win.
Enemies can't be pacified by negotiation. Peace can't be bought by bribing an enemy for very long (see North Korea). Peace is only achieved these ways:
1. You demonstrate that you've got an overwhelming force that will destroy your enemies, and are not afraid to use it.
2. You employ your armies ruthlessly to destroy your enemy.
The current government has made it clear they have no stomach for either of these options, which means our enemies become increasingly bold and threatening.
War's a terrible thing, and everyone should hope no war is ever necessary. But there are always those who would happily destroy us because they don't like what we believe or they want what we have. When our only options are submit or fight, we must either join the Amish and put our lives in God's hands or take up arms.
The folks in charge don't appear to have the sense to understand these and many other fundamental truths.
To overuse such a profound word and diminish it's definition from armies using weapons to annihilate people and destroy things into a cheap characterization of a fight over ideas is unfortunate.
How many "wars" are raging right now?
The War on ...
Women (a false and misleading idea promoted by the Obama campaign)
Terror (an unconventional war being raged by radical Islamists against Israel and the West)
Middle Class (another Obama Campaign theme, also known as the "99 Percent")
Drugs (The Obama gang has surrendered)
Immigrants (another manufactured Obama campaign theme)
Poverty (I think poverty won)
There are probably many others I just haven't thought of. The only actual shooting war on this list is Terror, which somebody in Obama's State Department reportedly announced was over.
Talking about wars with someone recently, I voiced my thoughts on when it's appropriate to go to war as a country. Only when the enemy presents a clear danger to the security of our citizens, and only if we citizens are prepared to expend as much life and treasure as it takes to win.
Enemies can't be pacified by negotiation. Peace can't be bought by bribing an enemy for very long (see North Korea). Peace is only achieved these ways:
1. You demonstrate that you've got an overwhelming force that will destroy your enemies, and are not afraid to use it.
2. You employ your armies ruthlessly to destroy your enemy.
The current government has made it clear they have no stomach for either of these options, which means our enemies become increasingly bold and threatening.
War's a terrible thing, and everyone should hope no war is ever necessary. But there are always those who would happily destroy us because they don't like what we believe or they want what we have. When our only options are submit or fight, we must either join the Amish and put our lives in God's hands or take up arms.
The folks in charge don't appear to have the sense to understand these and many other fundamental truths.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Attacking Stay-at-Home Moms
This morning's Republic newspaper published an article by a liberal columnist named Dick Polman that dredges up the by-now tired old leftist argument that Ann Romney has no right to comment on women's issues because she's a rich stay-at-home mother.
Dick's one of the many leftists who think the original Hilary Rosen attack on Mrs. Romney was misunderstood, and all she was guilty of was bad phrasing. He, like most of his fellow travelers on the left, supports Rosen's rhetoric 100 percent.
For Hilary, Dick, and by extention most of the rest of the left-wing feminists, Ann Romney is worthy of contempt not just because she was a stay-at-home mom, but because she is a RICH stay-at-home mom. Therefore she is automatically disqualified to speak for most women, who of course are not rich.
The Left disagrees with the Romneys' main point, which is that Obama's bad economy is doing the majority of harm to women who can't find good jobs. Instead Dick's article goes on to decry Romney policies that would shut down that all-important provider of "women's health services", Planned Parenthood. (He pretends that Planned Parenthood "services" help prevent the flu or indigestion). That Romney policies would restore the old welfare-to-work reforms of the 90's that will force single mothers to go to work rather than stay home with their children. Or vaguely that Romney's policies will deny healthcare access for those poor single mothers' children.
Dick doesn't consider the explosion in American single motherhood a problem, but would probably demonize me for suggesting it is.
I'm living proof that it doesn't take Romney-sized wealth to "allow" a mother to stay home to raise her children. Mine is a family of modest means, and the mother in our household left the workforce when our first child arrived and raised all three children by choice.
It was never a question of wealth. We understood from the beginning that for our children to thrive and absorb our values, the best chance they had was to be raised at home - not by some minimum-wage worker at a commercial childcare warehouse.
So many parents today choose the warehouse so they can have the new car, the exotic vacations, the NFL season tickets, dinners at expensive restaurants, and other luxuries. They rationalize their choice to warehouse their children by telling their friends that they can't afford for Mom to stay at home, or the most popular rationalization from Mom is that she'd go crazy if she had to stay at home every day with her kids.
That single motherhood has become a modern norm is a tragedy, especially for the children forced to endure such circumstances. It becomes a generational norm that gathers momentum over time, as daughters of single moms become single moms themselves. And sons of single moms become either deadbeat dads or homosexual.
Our founders knew that the only way our republic would survive was if the population remained educated and moral. Dick and his friends see education as a chance for indoctrination, and morality as passe.
The Republic's got a new editor who is obviously left-wing. That's easily identified by simply reading the editorial page, where he publishes left-wing columnists like Polman daily without any conservative counterpoint. It's unfortunate to see that he fails to even create an appearance of balance in the newspaper of a predominately conservative community.
Dick's one of the many leftists who think the original Hilary Rosen attack on Mrs. Romney was misunderstood, and all she was guilty of was bad phrasing. He, like most of his fellow travelers on the left, supports Rosen's rhetoric 100 percent.
For Hilary, Dick, and by extention most of the rest of the left-wing feminists, Ann Romney is worthy of contempt not just because she was a stay-at-home mom, but because she is a RICH stay-at-home mom. Therefore she is automatically disqualified to speak for most women, who of course are not rich.
The Left disagrees with the Romneys' main point, which is that Obama's bad economy is doing the majority of harm to women who can't find good jobs. Instead Dick's article goes on to decry Romney policies that would shut down that all-important provider of "women's health services", Planned Parenthood. (He pretends that Planned Parenthood "services" help prevent the flu or indigestion). That Romney policies would restore the old welfare-to-work reforms of the 90's that will force single mothers to go to work rather than stay home with their children. Or vaguely that Romney's policies will deny healthcare access for those poor single mothers' children.
Dick doesn't consider the explosion in American single motherhood a problem, but would probably demonize me for suggesting it is.
I'm living proof that it doesn't take Romney-sized wealth to "allow" a mother to stay home to raise her children. Mine is a family of modest means, and the mother in our household left the workforce when our first child arrived and raised all three children by choice.
It was never a question of wealth. We understood from the beginning that for our children to thrive and absorb our values, the best chance they had was to be raised at home - not by some minimum-wage worker at a commercial childcare warehouse.
So many parents today choose the warehouse so they can have the new car, the exotic vacations, the NFL season tickets, dinners at expensive restaurants, and other luxuries. They rationalize their choice to warehouse their children by telling their friends that they can't afford for Mom to stay at home, or the most popular rationalization from Mom is that she'd go crazy if she had to stay at home every day with her kids.
That single motherhood has become a modern norm is a tragedy, especially for the children forced to endure such circumstances. It becomes a generational norm that gathers momentum over time, as daughters of single moms become single moms themselves. And sons of single moms become either deadbeat dads or homosexual.
Our founders knew that the only way our republic would survive was if the population remained educated and moral. Dick and his friends see education as a chance for indoctrination, and morality as passe.
The Republic's got a new editor who is obviously left-wing. That's easily identified by simply reading the editorial page, where he publishes left-wing columnists like Polman daily without any conservative counterpoint. It's unfortunate to see that he fails to even create an appearance of balance in the newspaper of a predominately conservative community.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Counting Noses
As the campaign shapes up, it's obvious that Obama's strategy is to divide and conquer. He's picking as many aggrieved sub-groups as he can to pander to their fears and hostilities in return for votes. If he can find enough people who think they're being oppressed by rich white guys, he believes he can win.
So let's see how many sub-groups he's pandered to so far:
Blacks. It's stunning to me when I hear that blacks support Obama 95 or 96 percent. There's no more telling statistic possible to prove that black folks wouldn't care if he was Hitler or Stalin from a policy perspective, they'll still support him because he's black.
Hispanics. He pushes hard on the amnesty issue, holding out hope that he can add 20 million voters to keep him in office by swearing them in as citizens in time for the election. Don't think the Republicans are in a mood to play along with that strategy.
Single women, both working and on welfare. He wants to scare them by suggesting that Republicans will take away their benefits or somehow outlaw contraceptives. The feminist core he can take for granted, as their number one issue is abortion rights. Their fear that Republicans might restrict access to abortion is much more realistic than the silly made-up contraception theme.
Union members. There's an interesting split here that Obama's finding a bit difficult to reconcile. Obama's tax and regulatory policies are driving union jobs offshore, and union members don't like that. His push to open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants also concerns the union rank-and-file, because they logically conclude that those immigrants are going to compete for their high paying unionized jobs.
Bureaucrats. The exploding population of government bureaucrats at all levels has become a significant voting block all by itself. They know that Obama and the Big-Government Democrats are their best hope for maintaining their cushy government jobs with their overly generous health and pension benefits. They're going to be the most active advocates for Obama, because Republicans represent the biggest threat to their gravy train.
Trial Lawyers. Obama represents a promise of business as usual in Tort Law. So the class of lawyers who rely on the existing system to make millions by suing companies and physicians know that keeping Obama in office is their best chance to keep the cash flowing.
Government Contractors and Favored Businesses. Companies that provide goods and services to the Federal Government have a vested interest in keeping the big spenders in office. Especially those corporate guys who have invested big bucks in campaign contributions to Obama, (Solyndra, for one) who have been rewarded many times over in government largesse for those investments.
Homosexuals. Although there's a somewhat significant population of gay Republicans, most of those seeking special recognition such as Gay Marriage are aligned with Obama against the Religious Right.
Groups Obama is demonizing have been given the message in no uncertain terms that he's not interested in protecting their interests.
Middle-to-Upper Class White Men, Churchgoing Christians, Stay-at-Home Mothers, Oil and Coal Companies and their employees, Business Owners both large and small, Seniors not dependent on Social Security and Medicare, Military and Patriotic Americans, and anyone alarmed at government overreach hold no interest for Obama.
Romney's task is to motivate the latter group to show up at the polls in bigger numbers than Obama's aggrieved groups. The result is going to shape what kind of country America will be for the next two generations; a Socialist, perhaps Marxist paternalistic faux-democratic dictatorship, or more of a free society that allows people to achieve success based on their individual talent, ability, and motivation.
So let's see how many sub-groups he's pandered to so far:
Blacks. It's stunning to me when I hear that blacks support Obama 95 or 96 percent. There's no more telling statistic possible to prove that black folks wouldn't care if he was Hitler or Stalin from a policy perspective, they'll still support him because he's black.
Hispanics. He pushes hard on the amnesty issue, holding out hope that he can add 20 million voters to keep him in office by swearing them in as citizens in time for the election. Don't think the Republicans are in a mood to play along with that strategy.
Single women, both working and on welfare. He wants to scare them by suggesting that Republicans will take away their benefits or somehow outlaw contraceptives. The feminist core he can take for granted, as their number one issue is abortion rights. Their fear that Republicans might restrict access to abortion is much more realistic than the silly made-up contraception theme.
Union members. There's an interesting split here that Obama's finding a bit difficult to reconcile. Obama's tax and regulatory policies are driving union jobs offshore, and union members don't like that. His push to open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants also concerns the union rank-and-file, because they logically conclude that those immigrants are going to compete for their high paying unionized jobs.
Bureaucrats. The exploding population of government bureaucrats at all levels has become a significant voting block all by itself. They know that Obama and the Big-Government Democrats are their best hope for maintaining their cushy government jobs with their overly generous health and pension benefits. They're going to be the most active advocates for Obama, because Republicans represent the biggest threat to their gravy train.
Trial Lawyers. Obama represents a promise of business as usual in Tort Law. So the class of lawyers who rely on the existing system to make millions by suing companies and physicians know that keeping Obama in office is their best chance to keep the cash flowing.
Government Contractors and Favored Businesses. Companies that provide goods and services to the Federal Government have a vested interest in keeping the big spenders in office. Especially those corporate guys who have invested big bucks in campaign contributions to Obama, (Solyndra, for one) who have been rewarded many times over in government largesse for those investments.
Homosexuals. Although there's a somewhat significant population of gay Republicans, most of those seeking special recognition such as Gay Marriage are aligned with Obama against the Religious Right.
Groups Obama is demonizing have been given the message in no uncertain terms that he's not interested in protecting their interests.
Middle-to-Upper Class White Men, Churchgoing Christians, Stay-at-Home Mothers, Oil and Coal Companies and their employees, Business Owners both large and small, Seniors not dependent on Social Security and Medicare, Military and Patriotic Americans, and anyone alarmed at government overreach hold no interest for Obama.
Romney's task is to motivate the latter group to show up at the polls in bigger numbers than Obama's aggrieved groups. The result is going to shape what kind of country America will be for the next two generations; a Socialist, perhaps Marxist paternalistic faux-democratic dictatorship, or more of a free society that allows people to achieve success based on their individual talent, ability, and motivation.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Philosophy Summary
Cutting through the political arguments, how about something that compares the overall philosophy of a left-liberal to my own? I decided not to claim to speak for conservatives, but just share my personal philosophies.
Issue - Social Security
The Liberal believes …
Everybody should be given a comfortable pension from the government starting at age 65 regardless of how much they contributed during their working life.
I believe …
Fundamentally we all should be responsible for our own pensions. Social Security should be gradually changed to a personal pension savings account.
Issue - Healthcare
Fundamentally we all should be responsible for our own pensions. Social Security should be gradually changed to a personal pension savings account.
Issue - Healthcare
The Liberal believes
The government should provide a universal single-payer system funded by taxes
that covers everybody, even illegals.
The government should provide a universal single-payer system funded by taxes
that covers everybody, even illegals.
I believe
We should return to a pay-for-service model for most health services, and generally use insurance only for catastrophic illnesses and injuries. Any programs created to help the poor pay for their healthcare should be an application for reimbursement instead of direct payments to providers.
Issue - Energy
Issue - Energy
The Liberal believes
Carbon fuels should be eliminated entirely as an incentive for the invention of clean fuels. Eliminating oil will give us a peace benefit because we won't be tempted to get involved in Middle East wars if we don't use their oil. We are killing our planet with fossil fuels.
I believe
I believe
We have to stop dreaming and go get all the abundant oil, gas, and coal waiting all across the country to be drilled and mined. If that results in a peace benefit, fine, but the main purpose is to develop the energy resources we need to fuel a strong economy. Environmental damage from fossil fuels is highly exaggerated.
Issue - Taxes
Issue - Taxes
The Liberal believes
Rich people are politically connected so they are given preferential treatment that allows them to avoid paying their fare share. The deficits will be reduced if the rich just pay their fair share.
I believe
Taxes should only be collected to the exent that they fund only the fundamental activities of government. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes, and the left's position to the contrary is mere political posturing born of envy. It's past time to decide what the appropriate role of government should be, then reform the tax code to collect only the amount needed to fund those activities, with everyone contributing. Stop giving the majority of the population a free pass, even if that means lower income folks only pay a few dollars.
Issue - Regulation
Taxes should only be collected to the exent that they fund only the fundamental activities of government. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes, and the left's position to the contrary is mere political posturing born of envy. It's past time to decide what the appropriate role of government should be, then reform the tax code to collect only the amount needed to fund those activities, with everyone contributing. Stop giving the majority of the population a free pass, even if that means lower income folks only pay a few dollars.
Issue - Regulation
The Liberal believes
Regulation is vital to the protection of the environment and to make sure corporations are not abusing people. Some regulation is required, but government has vastly exceeded any measure of reasonableness in issuing onerous regulations that go beyond their charter.
I believe
Regulation should be strictly focused on simple definitions of environmental responsibility and employee safety.
Issue - Immigration
Issue - Immigration
The Liberal believes
Illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty and citizenship, and the US should recognize that frequent crossing of people from the southern border is a legacy from almost the entire history of the country.
I believe
The border should be secured. Employers should face serious legal sanctions if found to be employing undocumented workers. Any illegal immigrant found in a routine traffic stop or other contact with law enforcement should be processed for deportation immediately.
Issue - Foreign Policy
The border should be secured. Employers should face serious legal sanctions if found to be employing undocumented workers. Any illegal immigrant found in a routine traffic stop or other contact with law enforcement should be processed for deportation immediately.
Issue - Foreign Policy
The Liberal believes
We should be friendly to all, and appease our enemies by disarming and agreeing to their demands to make up for our past bad behavior.
I believe
I believe
We should always speak softly and carry a big stick. The clear message to the rest of the world is that we want to be your friend, and if you choose to be our friend you'll find us the best friend you could hope to have in the world. If you choose to be our enemy you will find us to be your worst nightmare, as we will not tolerate any violence against our interests or citizens.
On the other hand, we should never go to war unless there is a credible threat to our country and we are willing to see it through to total victory.
Issue - Deficits and Debt
On the other hand, we should never go to war unless there is a credible threat to our country and we are willing to see it through to total victory.
Issue - Deficits and Debt
The Liberal believes
Deficits and debt are necessary to pull us out of the bad economy. We can reduce the deficit by increasing tax rates on the wealthy.
I believe
Deficit reduction must be priority 1 for economic recovery. Government overspending is sucking the air out of the private economy, and we can't recover without seriously addressing the deficits. Start with the easy cuts - waste, fraud, abuse, and unnecessary or unproductive programs. Cut everyone's budget by 2 percent over the next 10
years, then find the reforms to Medicare & Medicaid that will help get the budget under control without destroying the safety net for those who need it most.
Issue - Social Issues
years, then find the reforms to Medicare & Medicaid that will help get the budget under control without destroying the safety net for those who need it most.
Issue - Social Issues
The Liberal believes
Gays should be given marital rights, welfare should be expanded to all who need it and benefits increased to a living wage. Abortion should be funded by taxes and available to all at any stage of pregnancy without question or delay.
I believe
Abortion is infanticide. Homosexuality is a behavior disorder that isn't illegal but shouldn't be tax supported - If a gay couple wants to live like a married couple, there's nobody stopping them. But we don't have to subsidize them as a "Married" couple. Welfare kills incentive, and if it exists at all should be designed to help its beneficiaries re-enter the workforce and become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.
Issue - Church and State
Abortion is infanticide. Homosexuality is a behavior disorder that isn't illegal but shouldn't be tax supported - If a gay couple wants to live like a married couple, there's nobody stopping them. But we don't have to subsidize them as a "Married" couple. Welfare kills incentive, and if it exists at all should be designed to help its beneficiaries re-enter the workforce and become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.
Issue - Church and State
The Liberal believes
Religion should have no place in the public sphere. There should be no religious expression in schools, courthouse lawns, or public ceremonies. A moral equivalency exists between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Wicca, and everyone is free to practice their religion as long as they do so in private.
I believe
There is no reference anywhere in the constitution to the famous phrase, "Wall of separation between church and state". Only the first amendment addresses religion, and its language is very easy to understand and interpret. We are a Christian nation. People should be allowed to practice religious expression freely and without any interference from government. Banning God from the schools was a horrible mistake. Obama's HHS Regulation clearly abridges the first amendment, and must be revoked quickly, whether voluntarily by the government or forcibly by the courts.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Mourdock-Lugar Recap
Somewhat surprisingly, watching the Indiana Senate Debate last night didn't settle my choice for me as I expected it would.
My preconception about Lugar was that he'd be showing his age and have some difficulty communicating effectively. Although I found myself thinking, "What did he mean by that?" on occasion, he generally spoke well.
Having no real preconceived idea about Mourdock, I think he did a decent job expressing himself in the debate. But nobody will ever be able to accuse him of a charismatic personality.
It was a bit disappointing to me that the debate never touched on issues of interest to me. I want to know how Lugar defends himself on being the Senior Senator from Indiana who hasn't lived in the state for 35 years and seldom makes an appearance. I also wanted to hear Lugar defend his anti-second-amendment voting record, his affair with cap-and-trade, his support for Obama's radical Supreme Court appointments, and his sponsorship of the Dream Act.
For the issues that were raised, the only Lugar position I have a problem with is his steadfast support for ethanol subsidies. Personally, I believe that industry needs to be weaned from those artificial government supports and allowed to succeed or fail on its own. Otherwise, Lugar and Mourdock spend most of the evening agreeing with each other.
My jury is still out. I still think Lugar's out of touch with the people of this state and should retire. I also don't think Mourdock has sold me on his ability to beat Donnelly in the general election, even though I found very little disagreement with the principles he voiced last night.
I may just have to decide when I'm in the booth.
My preconception about Lugar was that he'd be showing his age and have some difficulty communicating effectively. Although I found myself thinking, "What did he mean by that?" on occasion, he generally spoke well.
Having no real preconceived idea about Mourdock, I think he did a decent job expressing himself in the debate. But nobody will ever be able to accuse him of a charismatic personality.
It was a bit disappointing to me that the debate never touched on issues of interest to me. I want to know how Lugar defends himself on being the Senior Senator from Indiana who hasn't lived in the state for 35 years and seldom makes an appearance. I also wanted to hear Lugar defend his anti-second-amendment voting record, his affair with cap-and-trade, his support for Obama's radical Supreme Court appointments, and his sponsorship of the Dream Act.
For the issues that were raised, the only Lugar position I have a problem with is his steadfast support for ethanol subsidies. Personally, I believe that industry needs to be weaned from those artificial government supports and allowed to succeed or fail on its own. Otherwise, Lugar and Mourdock spend most of the evening agreeing with each other.
My jury is still out. I still think Lugar's out of touch with the people of this state and should retire. I also don't think Mourdock has sold me on his ability to beat Donnelly in the general election, even though I found very little disagreement with the principles he voiced last night.
I may just have to decide when I'm in the booth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Indiana Senate Decision
Tonight is the only debate scheduled for the Indiana Senate primary. Six years ago, Dick Lugar was unchallenged, both in the primary and the general. I thought he should have been challenged, and still do. He hasn't had a home in Indiana since the 70's and has become an aged creature of the Washington beltway who can no longer recognize a Hoosier.
The yard signs around town say "Retire Lugar", a sentiment I continue to share. Even so, I remain undecided on how I'll vote in this primary.
Richard Mourdock seems to be closer to me in terms of conservative philosophy. During Obama's tenure, Lugar has been identified consistently as a member of the club of RINOs in the Senate, falling only slightly behind the two ladies from Maine in his proclivity to buck his party and vote with Democrats.
So the choice should be easy for me, right? Not necessarily.
Mourdock hasn't closed the sale for me yet. Lugar's been trying to walk back his liberal record somewhat during the campaign, because he obviously wants to keep his cushy and powerful position for at least 6 more years. So I'm hoping to catch the debate tonight to see what it can teach me about Mourdock and get a feel for just how far Lugar's willing to swing rightward to earn conservative support.
My hope is that the debate will be substantive enough to help me make my decision. Mourdock's got to sell me before I'm willing to push his button in the booth. Lugar's got to convince me he's seen the light before I'll get behind him this time around. A Lugar promise to make his home in Indiana from now on would help his cause.
The yard signs around town say "Retire Lugar", a sentiment I continue to share. Even so, I remain undecided on how I'll vote in this primary.
Richard Mourdock seems to be closer to me in terms of conservative philosophy. During Obama's tenure, Lugar has been identified consistently as a member of the club of RINOs in the Senate, falling only slightly behind the two ladies from Maine in his proclivity to buck his party and vote with Democrats.
So the choice should be easy for me, right? Not necessarily.
Mourdock hasn't closed the sale for me yet. Lugar's been trying to walk back his liberal record somewhat during the campaign, because he obviously wants to keep his cushy and powerful position for at least 6 more years. So I'm hoping to catch the debate tonight to see what it can teach me about Mourdock and get a feel for just how far Lugar's willing to swing rightward to earn conservative support.
My hope is that the debate will be substantive enough to help me make my decision. Mourdock's got to sell me before I'm willing to push his button in the booth. Lugar's got to convince me he's seen the light before I'll get behind him this time around. A Lugar promise to make his home in Indiana from now on would help his cause.
Microcosm of Political Misdirection
The Trayvon Martin case has become the quintessential allegory for the modern political strategy favored by the Democrat party.
Obama's campaign strategy is divide and conquer, relying on the short attention spans and gullibility of the general population. The Trayvon Martin story has become one of the major tactics being pushed for the racial division branch of that strategy.
The initial storyline was about an innocent teenaged kid who was an honor student going out to buy some candy for his little brother. The poor kid was targeted and shot to death by George Zimmerman, a racist neighborhood watch leader who hunted him down and shot him for no legitimate reason. The story went on to tell us that the police chose not to arrest Zimmerman and simply turned him loose at the scene.
So the flames of racial animus were stoked by NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times, among other media outlets which chose to promote the theme they set in the initial story. We now hear about threats from Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers who are demanding a public lynching of Zimmerman or suggest violent retribution from the black community will be the response. Even Barack Obama has chimed in to help stoke the flames with the comment that if he had a son, he'd probably look like Trayvon.
In the meantime, the original story seems to be slowly unraveling. New facts are surfacing bit-by-bit that would seem to refute the story line. Photos of Trayvon that portray an innocent and fresh-faced young man turn out to be about 4 years old, and current photos look nothing like them. Photos of George Zimmerman are also dated and seemed to have been selected by the media to cast him in as negative a light as possible.
The same news outlets reported that a recording seemed to capture Zimmerman calling Trayvon a "f***ing c**n", which was picked up and reported as fact by other news outlets.
Trayvon was hardly a model student, but turns out to be troubled and difficult at school.
The eyewitness reported that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him severely before he was shot.
Zimmerman was arrested and questioned at the police station for 6 hours before being released.
NBC edited the 911 call from Zimmerman in a way designed to try to illustrate the theme that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon because of his race. When called on the fraudulent edit, NBC spent over a week "investigating" themselves, then lied that it was edited only for time.
There was also the video that news outlets claimed "proved" that a Zimmerman video showed no injuries, but after the video was enhanced and analyzed, it showed the opposite to be true. So the media's response was to simply stop talking about the video.
Now that the facts of the tragic event largely refute the original storyline, you would think those media outlets would be trumpeting the new information to clear the record. You would think wrong. The original theme continues to be pushed on the networks, where they prefer to push the racism theme over the truth.
The allegory is eagerly used by the media to push a theme that suggests Zimmerman is representative of Republicans. Some commentators have shamelessly attempted to create ties between Zimmerman and Romney, suggesting that Romney's goal is oppression and even murder of innocent black men.
The same tactics are being employed in the "war on women" that has been manufactured by the Obama campaign. This tactic didn't even bother to find a factual basis, but rather was an invented lie tied to nothing any candidate ever suggested. Now there seem to be armies of single women up in arms because they now believe a manufactured Obama campaign lie that charges the Republicans will outlaw birth control if Romney is elected President.
Obama is counting on winning re-election with a false message about Republicans: They hate black people. They hate hispanic people. They will empower the super-rich to steal from the poor. They will take medical care away from the poor and seniors. They will destroy Social Security.
Every one of those messages is an absolute lie. But Obama lies every time he gives a speech, and half the country believes the lies while the other half lacks the courage to call him on them.
I believe that Obama's plan is to follow Hugo Chavez' example to consolidate power and "transform America" into a communist dictatorship during his second term, then declare himself President for Life. The November election is our last chance for freedom.
Obama's campaign strategy is divide and conquer, relying on the short attention spans and gullibility of the general population. The Trayvon Martin story has become one of the major tactics being pushed for the racial division branch of that strategy.
The initial storyline was about an innocent teenaged kid who was an honor student going out to buy some candy for his little brother. The poor kid was targeted and shot to death by George Zimmerman, a racist neighborhood watch leader who hunted him down and shot him for no legitimate reason. The story went on to tell us that the police chose not to arrest Zimmerman and simply turned him loose at the scene.
So the flames of racial animus were stoked by NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times, among other media outlets which chose to promote the theme they set in the initial story. We now hear about threats from Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers who are demanding a public lynching of Zimmerman or suggest violent retribution from the black community will be the response. Even Barack Obama has chimed in to help stoke the flames with the comment that if he had a son, he'd probably look like Trayvon.
In the meantime, the original story seems to be slowly unraveling. New facts are surfacing bit-by-bit that would seem to refute the story line. Photos of Trayvon that portray an innocent and fresh-faced young man turn out to be about 4 years old, and current photos look nothing like them. Photos of George Zimmerman are also dated and seemed to have been selected by the media to cast him in as negative a light as possible.
The same news outlets reported that a recording seemed to capture Zimmerman calling Trayvon a "f***ing c**n", which was picked up and reported as fact by other news outlets.
Trayvon was hardly a model student, but turns out to be troubled and difficult at school.
The eyewitness reported that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him severely before he was shot.
Zimmerman was arrested and questioned at the police station for 6 hours before being released.
NBC edited the 911 call from Zimmerman in a way designed to try to illustrate the theme that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon because of his race. When called on the fraudulent edit, NBC spent over a week "investigating" themselves, then lied that it was edited only for time.
There was also the video that news outlets claimed "proved" that a Zimmerman video showed no injuries, but after the video was enhanced and analyzed, it showed the opposite to be true. So the media's response was to simply stop talking about the video.
Now that the facts of the tragic event largely refute the original storyline, you would think those media outlets would be trumpeting the new information to clear the record. You would think wrong. The original theme continues to be pushed on the networks, where they prefer to push the racism theme over the truth.
The allegory is eagerly used by the media to push a theme that suggests Zimmerman is representative of Republicans. Some commentators have shamelessly attempted to create ties between Zimmerman and Romney, suggesting that Romney's goal is oppression and even murder of innocent black men.
The same tactics are being employed in the "war on women" that has been manufactured by the Obama campaign. This tactic didn't even bother to find a factual basis, but rather was an invented lie tied to nothing any candidate ever suggested. Now there seem to be armies of single women up in arms because they now believe a manufactured Obama campaign lie that charges the Republicans will outlaw birth control if Romney is elected President.
Obama is counting on winning re-election with a false message about Republicans: They hate black people. They hate hispanic people. They will empower the super-rich to steal from the poor. They will take medical care away from the poor and seniors. They will destroy Social Security.
Every one of those messages is an absolute lie. But Obama lies every time he gives a speech, and half the country believes the lies while the other half lacks the courage to call him on them.
I believe that Obama's plan is to follow Hugo Chavez' example to consolidate power and "transform America" into a communist dictatorship during his second term, then declare himself President for Life. The November election is our last chance for freedom.
Monday, April 02, 2012
No Imagination
I have been noticing that supporters of the Obamacare law repeat a consistent theme promoting a message that Federalizing healthcare is the only viable means of making it available to everyone.
To the degree those promoting that point of view are not the power-hungry bureacrats who lust after the power and weath the law promises them individually, it seems the only way to explain support for such a totalitarian approach to healthcare is a thorough lack of imagination.
States already have programs in place that allow those who can't buy health insurance in the private market to sign up for the State subsidized high risk plan. Not to mention the fact nearly all of us understand, which is that hospitals must provide emergency treatment for all who show up regardless of ability to pay.
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the Federal and State governments made the announcement, "Our Medicare and Medicaid programs are bankrupt. Everyone from now on must find non-governmental solutions to pay for their own healthcare."
What would we do? Would millions of people die because no Doctor will treat their illnesses or perform lifesaving surgery?
Of course not. Americans would pitch in and find solutions on our own. Employers unencumbered by government regulation would design great new healthcare plans for their workers. Families would find a way to help their loved ones get the treatments or surgeries they need. Doctors and surgeons would offer payment plans and reduced rates to patients to help them cover their treatment costs. Drug companies would implement programs to help make their prescriptions more affordable for the poor.
The Left's been arguing that the Supreme Court can't overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional, because if they do, similar arguments could be used to overturn Medicare and Medicaid, which also mandate redistribution or wealth to cover seniors and the poor for their health care.
My suggestion is that we begin using our imagination and unleash our natural American predisposition toward helping those who truly need help. As individuals, churches, charitable organizations, companies ...
Imagine there was no such thing as government healthcare, but we all truly worked together as Americans to solve the problem by ourselves. Imagine doctors didn't get sued for millions every time an outcome was less than ideal, but instead were subjected to a medical practice review if suspicion of malpractice is provable and lost their license instead of having their insurer pay the complainant enough money to go away.
Imagine office visits that cost $30-$50 instead of $150. Imagine prescription costs for seniors at less than $50 per month instead of $500 per month. Imagine blood and urine testing costing $25 instead of $100. Imagine surgery costing $5,000 instead of $50,000.
I believe all this is possible if we all just imagine healthcare without the interference of Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.
To the degree those promoting that point of view are not the power-hungry bureacrats who lust after the power and weath the law promises them individually, it seems the only way to explain support for such a totalitarian approach to healthcare is a thorough lack of imagination.
States already have programs in place that allow those who can't buy health insurance in the private market to sign up for the State subsidized high risk plan. Not to mention the fact nearly all of us understand, which is that hospitals must provide emergency treatment for all who show up regardless of ability to pay.
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the Federal and State governments made the announcement, "Our Medicare and Medicaid programs are bankrupt. Everyone from now on must find non-governmental solutions to pay for their own healthcare."
What would we do? Would millions of people die because no Doctor will treat their illnesses or perform lifesaving surgery?
Of course not. Americans would pitch in and find solutions on our own. Employers unencumbered by government regulation would design great new healthcare plans for their workers. Families would find a way to help their loved ones get the treatments or surgeries they need. Doctors and surgeons would offer payment plans and reduced rates to patients to help them cover their treatment costs. Drug companies would implement programs to help make their prescriptions more affordable for the poor.
The Left's been arguing that the Supreme Court can't overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional, because if they do, similar arguments could be used to overturn Medicare and Medicaid, which also mandate redistribution or wealth to cover seniors and the poor for their health care.
My suggestion is that we begin using our imagination and unleash our natural American predisposition toward helping those who truly need help. As individuals, churches, charitable organizations, companies ...
Imagine there was no such thing as government healthcare, but we all truly worked together as Americans to solve the problem by ourselves. Imagine doctors didn't get sued for millions every time an outcome was less than ideal, but instead were subjected to a medical practice review if suspicion of malpractice is provable and lost their license instead of having their insurer pay the complainant enough money to go away.
Imagine office visits that cost $30-$50 instead of $150. Imagine prescription costs for seniors at less than $50 per month instead of $500 per month. Imagine blood and urine testing costing $25 instead of $100. Imagine surgery costing $5,000 instead of $50,000.
I believe all this is possible if we all just imagine healthcare without the interference of Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Constitutionality
Obamacare is unconstitutional. On its face. The decision to overturn should be 9-0.
I'm no law professor, but everything I've ever understood about America's founding, our history, and our constitution tells me unequivocally that the federal government overreach in that outrageous and unpopular law we know as Obamacare is anathema to the founding principles as defined in the Constitution of the United States.
But the liberal justices were reportedly arguing the merits of the legislation from a point of view that they think it's solely about helping poor people get access to healthcare. Although that seems to me either an ignorant or purposely misleading line of argument, what really floors me is the fact that the Supreme Court's role is not to argue whether or not they think a given law is or is not a good idea; their role is to decide whether or not the law is a permissable exercise of governmental power over the citizenry.
The constitution is not a Democratic or Republican document, and its meaning does not change based on the reader's political ideology. But sadly, instead of a dispassionate reading of the constitution leads to a mandatory repeal of the Obama healthcare law, we have at least 4 justices who believe their decision must be based solely on their personal views about the law itself.
Sotomayor and Kagan both made it abundantly clear during their confirmation hearings that they will rule on cases placed before them not based on constitutional principles, but their own personal opinion and wisdom. Ginsburg recently stated that she is not a fan of the United States Constitution she is bound to uphold, because she feels it's unfair to the poor and minorities.
So rather than the sane outcome of a 9-0 ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, it seems we will end up with a 5-4 decision that we can't be certain results in the law being overturned. Everyone believes that the single swing vote is Kennedy, whose line of questioning in the hearings seemed to indicate he was likely to side with the Constitution in this case. But we won't know how he voted until the decision is released sometime in June, even though the justices themselves decided the case this morning.
A decision to uphold the law I view as disastrous. Because such a decision would signal that there will be absolutely no limits imposed on the government by the court, and they may implement whatever law their whims and lust for power can imagine without any opposition. Upholding government-run socialized healthcare means the government has carte blanche to proceed with laws that regulate how much and what kind of energy we may use, where we may live, what we may eat, where and when we may travel, and virtually every other aspect of our personal lives the left wing dreams of controlling.
The reality of today's Obamacare law is that if I get sick, I will be placed at the mercy of Washington DC bureaucrats to make decisions on what treatments I am allowed that may alleviate my symptoms or even save my life.
For Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the Constitution is irrelevant. Kennedy seems to just want to be liked, so he'll uphold it if he thinks it will gain him personal favor. Only Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia seem to respect their solemn vows to uphold it.
I'm no law professor, but everything I've ever understood about America's founding, our history, and our constitution tells me unequivocally that the federal government overreach in that outrageous and unpopular law we know as Obamacare is anathema to the founding principles as defined in the Constitution of the United States.
But the liberal justices were reportedly arguing the merits of the legislation from a point of view that they think it's solely about helping poor people get access to healthcare. Although that seems to me either an ignorant or purposely misleading line of argument, what really floors me is the fact that the Supreme Court's role is not to argue whether or not they think a given law is or is not a good idea; their role is to decide whether or not the law is a permissable exercise of governmental power over the citizenry.
The constitution is not a Democratic or Republican document, and its meaning does not change based on the reader's political ideology. But sadly, instead of a dispassionate reading of the constitution leads to a mandatory repeal of the Obama healthcare law, we have at least 4 justices who believe their decision must be based solely on their personal views about the law itself.
Sotomayor and Kagan both made it abundantly clear during their confirmation hearings that they will rule on cases placed before them not based on constitutional principles, but their own personal opinion and wisdom. Ginsburg recently stated that she is not a fan of the United States Constitution she is bound to uphold, because she feels it's unfair to the poor and minorities.
So rather than the sane outcome of a 9-0 ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, it seems we will end up with a 5-4 decision that we can't be certain results in the law being overturned. Everyone believes that the single swing vote is Kennedy, whose line of questioning in the hearings seemed to indicate he was likely to side with the Constitution in this case. But we won't know how he voted until the decision is released sometime in June, even though the justices themselves decided the case this morning.
A decision to uphold the law I view as disastrous. Because such a decision would signal that there will be absolutely no limits imposed on the government by the court, and they may implement whatever law their whims and lust for power can imagine without any opposition. Upholding government-run socialized healthcare means the government has carte blanche to proceed with laws that regulate how much and what kind of energy we may use, where we may live, what we may eat, where and when we may travel, and virtually every other aspect of our personal lives the left wing dreams of controlling.
The reality of today's Obamacare law is that if I get sick, I will be placed at the mercy of Washington DC bureaucrats to make decisions on what treatments I am allowed that may alleviate my symptoms or even save my life.
For Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the Constitution is irrelevant. Kennedy seems to just want to be liked, so he'll uphold it if he thinks it will gain him personal favor. Only Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia seem to respect their solemn vows to uphold it.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Where March Madness Comes from
Those who don't partake in this, the best month of the year for sports, may not fully appreciate why so many guys like me are happy to shut outselves up with a television set for 3 weekends in march watching a bunch of other tall guys play with a round orange ball.
I can almost understand those who have never played or otherwise been involved with James Naismith's brilliant indoor court game may be a bit puzzled at our zeal for the NCAA Tournament. So I thought I'd create this post as an attempt to explain.
The NCAA has been able to capitalize on the natural human tendencies to seek out heroes, root for the underdog, and gain a sense of belonging. Wherever we went to college, it can be exciting to discover our alma mater was chosen by the selection committee. Playing in the annual spring collegiate tournament is a validation of your favorite team's hard work over the course of the season. Most collegiate Division 1 conferences are only allowed a single participant in the event, so that single school has to win their conference's season-ending tournament to qualify. The so-called "power conferences" like the Big 10, Big East, ACC, and SEC usually get a handful of schools from their conferences invited, depending on each team's performance.
Realizing that a little school like Butler actually has a chance to line up against the traditional basketball giants like Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina with an equal chance at capturing the National Championship captures the imagination. Butler's miraculous runs through the last two years of the tournament to the championship game made a more compelling story than any fictional silver screen entertainment, plus it took a full season and over 3 weeks of alternating excitement and anticipation for the story to play itself out. I still daydream a bit about what might have happened had Gordon Heyward actually made that halfcourt shot at the buzzer against Duke 2 years ago.
Already this March we've seen little-known Lehigh send Duke home early. Norfolk State likewise ended Missouri's hopes, proving that David doesn't just beat Goliath once every few thousand years, but at least a couple of times every March.
A game I particularly enjoyed was last night's match between Virginia Commonwealth University and Indiana. Although Indiana was the higher seed (#4 to VCU's #10), VCU was a cinderella story from last season that dropped the national semifinal game to Butler in a heart-stopping game.
Indiana is back in the tournament for the first time in about a decade. Beginning way back in 2000, when Indiana's President Myles Brand decided he'd had enough of his colorful and controversial basketball coach, but lacked the courage to simply fire him, he tried to humiliate Knight by publically announcing his probation. Sure enough, within a couple of weeks a student yelled something at the coach and the coach naturally stopped to demand respect from the student. Suddenly something that didn't even qualify as an "incident" was immediately leveraged by Brand as cover to fire the university's iconic coach.
That began Indiana's decade-long sojourn in the basketball desert. Knight's assistant managed to guide that first team all the way to the national championship game that season, but was ineffective in subsequent seasons. So a new Athletic Director decided to hire Kelvin Sampson from Oklahoma, who he already knew was being investigated for breaking contact rules in recruitment of players but signed him to a big contract anyway.
Sampson destroyed the program, and Tom Crean arrived the following year to start from scratch with a roster full of freshmen and walk-on players. For 3 seasons, the team was like a High School JV team trying to play a full varsity schedule. But they did improve gradually from season to season, adding more talent and beginning to form a nucleus of promising players.
This year one new freshman came to Indiana, Cody Zeller, who is the baby brother of two outstanding collegiate centers with Notre Dame and North Carolina. Zeller turned out to be the cog that was needed to bring Indiana back to varsity status, and they finally won more than 20 games and earned their way back into the tournament for the first time in 10 years.
I've followed Indiana basketball since I was a kid, when a player from my hometown of Goshen, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter at the beginning of Bob Knight's tenure. They were finally interesting again, beating top-5 teams like Kentucky, Ohio State, and Michigan State during the season.
All that history is just meant as a background to last night's game. VCU is a highly athletic and well-conditioned team that prides itself on forcing turnovers against their opponent. They certainly did so last night, but Indiana spent most of the game matching them shot-for-shot and turnover-for-turnover.
Watching an exceptionally close and competitive game such as this one, I can nearly feel as if I'm somehow on the court with the players. Ghost memories course through my muscles, feeling the jump shot from the elevation to releasing the ball off my fingertips with the snap of the wrist and the extension of the elbow, to following through as the ball rotates gracefully through the air to rip through the nets.
It's almost as if that wasn't Jordan Hulls hitting that 3, but his body inhabited with my spirit.
I'm there with Cody Zeller and Christian Watford each time they extend upward as high as their legs can push them, stretching every inch to outjump the VCU player for a chance to grab the rebound.
I'm sounding like my old high school coach when I see that nobody covered the back side when Watford and Zeller converged to double-team the VCU shooter.
"Watch the weak side!".
I'm breathing with Oladipo as he bounces the ball on the free throw line and sighting the game-tying foul shot. It's almost as if I can feel the release and the simultaneous joy and relief he felt, knowing the ball was going through the net as soon as he let it fly.
Name me any other spectator activity that can so absorb someone as this tournament does me.
I can almost understand those who have never played or otherwise been involved with James Naismith's brilliant indoor court game may be a bit puzzled at our zeal for the NCAA Tournament. So I thought I'd create this post as an attempt to explain.
The NCAA has been able to capitalize on the natural human tendencies to seek out heroes, root for the underdog, and gain a sense of belonging. Wherever we went to college, it can be exciting to discover our alma mater was chosen by the selection committee. Playing in the annual spring collegiate tournament is a validation of your favorite team's hard work over the course of the season. Most collegiate Division 1 conferences are only allowed a single participant in the event, so that single school has to win their conference's season-ending tournament to qualify. The so-called "power conferences" like the Big 10, Big East, ACC, and SEC usually get a handful of schools from their conferences invited, depending on each team's performance.
Realizing that a little school like Butler actually has a chance to line up against the traditional basketball giants like Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina with an equal chance at capturing the National Championship captures the imagination. Butler's miraculous runs through the last two years of the tournament to the championship game made a more compelling story than any fictional silver screen entertainment, plus it took a full season and over 3 weeks of alternating excitement and anticipation for the story to play itself out. I still daydream a bit about what might have happened had Gordon Heyward actually made that halfcourt shot at the buzzer against Duke 2 years ago.
Already this March we've seen little-known Lehigh send Duke home early. Norfolk State likewise ended Missouri's hopes, proving that David doesn't just beat Goliath once every few thousand years, but at least a couple of times every March.
A game I particularly enjoyed was last night's match between Virginia Commonwealth University and Indiana. Although Indiana was the higher seed (#4 to VCU's #10), VCU was a cinderella story from last season that dropped the national semifinal game to Butler in a heart-stopping game.
Indiana is back in the tournament for the first time in about a decade. Beginning way back in 2000, when Indiana's President Myles Brand decided he'd had enough of his colorful and controversial basketball coach, but lacked the courage to simply fire him, he tried to humiliate Knight by publically announcing his probation. Sure enough, within a couple of weeks a student yelled something at the coach and the coach naturally stopped to demand respect from the student. Suddenly something that didn't even qualify as an "incident" was immediately leveraged by Brand as cover to fire the university's iconic coach.
That began Indiana's decade-long sojourn in the basketball desert. Knight's assistant managed to guide that first team all the way to the national championship game that season, but was ineffective in subsequent seasons. So a new Athletic Director decided to hire Kelvin Sampson from Oklahoma, who he already knew was being investigated for breaking contact rules in recruitment of players but signed him to a big contract anyway.
Sampson destroyed the program, and Tom Crean arrived the following year to start from scratch with a roster full of freshmen and walk-on players. For 3 seasons, the team was like a High School JV team trying to play a full varsity schedule. But they did improve gradually from season to season, adding more talent and beginning to form a nucleus of promising players.
This year one new freshman came to Indiana, Cody Zeller, who is the baby brother of two outstanding collegiate centers with Notre Dame and North Carolina. Zeller turned out to be the cog that was needed to bring Indiana back to varsity status, and they finally won more than 20 games and earned their way back into the tournament for the first time in 10 years.
I've followed Indiana basketball since I was a kid, when a player from my hometown of Goshen, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter at the beginning of Bob Knight's tenure. They were finally interesting again, beating top-5 teams like Kentucky, Ohio State, and Michigan State during the season.
All that history is just meant as a background to last night's game. VCU is a highly athletic and well-conditioned team that prides itself on forcing turnovers against their opponent. They certainly did so last night, but Indiana spent most of the game matching them shot-for-shot and turnover-for-turnover.
Watching an exceptionally close and competitive game such as this one, I can nearly feel as if I'm somehow on the court with the players. Ghost memories course through my muscles, feeling the jump shot from the elevation to releasing the ball off my fingertips with the snap of the wrist and the extension of the elbow, to following through as the ball rotates gracefully through the air to rip through the nets.
It's almost as if that wasn't Jordan Hulls hitting that 3, but his body inhabited with my spirit.
I'm there with Cody Zeller and Christian Watford each time they extend upward as high as their legs can push them, stretching every inch to outjump the VCU player for a chance to grab the rebound.
I'm sounding like my old high school coach when I see that nobody covered the back side when Watford and Zeller converged to double-team the VCU shooter.
"Watch the weak side!".
I'm breathing with Oladipo as he bounces the ball on the free throw line and sighting the game-tying foul shot. It's almost as if I can feel the release and the simultaneous joy and relief he felt, knowing the ball was going through the net as soon as he let it fly.
Name me any other spectator activity that can so absorb someone as this tournament does me.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Root Cause Analysis
Trace any and all of our modern problems to their root cause, and you'll end up with a single answer:
The destruction of morality and the family.
What happened before Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Families took care of their own. Grandparents lived with their children, families took care of healthcare expenses themselves, churches ran hospitals with family payments and member donations.
Now we've been trained to expect the government to take care of our elders.
Most young adults aren't getting married. Most young women who have children birth illegitimate bastards. Adultery is no longer considered a sin, but is celebrated.
Those second, third, and fourth generation bastards can't relate to traditions like marriage, the nuclear family, or living lives of faith and values. So they abdicate all responsibility for their own llives and demand the government provide for them. Hence the current debate over free contraception and so-called Gay Marriage "rights".
The bastards slide through public school learning nothing of value, but somehow manage to become thoroughly indoctrinated in socialism. "Fair" means you get whatever you want regardless of your own bad life choices. Narcissism is the preeminent "ism" of modern society. Government exists to provide all your needs, from housing to nutrition to healthcare and abortion.
Those of us who have managed to escape the values of Barack Obama are rapidly becoming the oppressed class. We're asked to work harder every year so the government can take more of the fruits of our labors they use to buy the loyalties of the bastards.
Using the word "bastard" to describe the dominant class may seem harsh and possibly offensive to some. My defense is that such a term is not libel if it's true.
Sadly it is all too true.
The destruction of morality and the family.
What happened before Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Families took care of their own. Grandparents lived with their children, families took care of healthcare expenses themselves, churches ran hospitals with family payments and member donations.
Now we've been trained to expect the government to take care of our elders.
Most young adults aren't getting married. Most young women who have children birth illegitimate bastards. Adultery is no longer considered a sin, but is celebrated.
Those second, third, and fourth generation bastards can't relate to traditions like marriage, the nuclear family, or living lives of faith and values. So they abdicate all responsibility for their own llives and demand the government provide for them. Hence the current debate over free contraception and so-called Gay Marriage "rights".
The bastards slide through public school learning nothing of value, but somehow manage to become thoroughly indoctrinated in socialism. "Fair" means you get whatever you want regardless of your own bad life choices. Narcissism is the preeminent "ism" of modern society. Government exists to provide all your needs, from housing to nutrition to healthcare and abortion.
Those of us who have managed to escape the values of Barack Obama are rapidly becoming the oppressed class. We're asked to work harder every year so the government can take more of the fruits of our labors they use to buy the loyalties of the bastards.
Using the word "bastard" to describe the dominant class may seem harsh and possibly offensive to some. My defense is that such a term is not libel if it's true.
Sadly it is all too true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)