The long-awaited supreme court decision is due this week, perhaps as early as today. It's the most consequential decision by the high court in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Roe v Wade. It's a decision about what sort of country we will have from this point forward; a socialist state with an all-powerful Federal government micromanaging the lives of all citizens, or a mostly free society that permits its citizens to make their own decisions.
The question asked of the government lawyer during the Obamacare hearing that was never clearly answered goes to the heart of the question (I paraphrase): "If the government has the power to force individuals to engage in private commerce for health insurance, is there any private commerce the government cannot force on them?"
As we've seen with the more recent anti-religion mandate dictating contraception, the attitude of the Obama administration is no, there is no limit to what we can force on the people. The same president just flaunted the law by making his own brand new immigration law without even consulting the other two branches of government. Dictators act like this, not United States Presidents.
The Supreme Court needs to send a strong message to the president that he's not King Barack, but must govern within the constitution and laws of the country. The best way to do so is to strike down the entire Obamacare law.
The law was passed against the will of the people. It was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats without a single Republican vote. It was passed with considerable arm-twisting, threats to Democrat legislators' careers, and bribes to other Democrat legislators. It deserves to be thrown out in its entirety.
If the court rules the law constitutional, the grand experiment that was the United States of America ends. Because that ruling will grant absolute power to the man who would be king. If our self-appointed king then hangs on to office by any means necessary in November, we'll experience something akin to Venezuela after Chavez took power, or Cuba under Castro.
That's why this decision is so vitally important. Everyone expects a single justice to make the final decision: Justice Kennedy, the man who hasn't discovered his core convictions yet.
Update: It wasn't Kennedy, but John Roberts who disappointed the nation by changing the law to manufacture a reason to uphold it. Apparently he was hyper-sensitive to being called a partisan hack by the Left. He didn't want to be the person responsible for the destruction of the Obama monarchy, so what he did was challenge all of us: "If you think Obamacare is bad law, fix it at the ballot box. Don't run to me like a child running to Daddy to complain about her brother's misdeeds."
Roberts can partially redeem this horrible precedent (changing a law to make it constitutional rather than simply ruling it unconstitutional) by striking down the Sebelius mandate denying the Catholic Church and other people of faith their first amendment rights.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Girls Get Equal Outcomes
This weekend I'm seeing lots of articles singing the praises of Title IX. They universally celebrate the way the law gave the girls equal opportunities with the boys in sports. In these times it's not cool to suggest there might be any downside to this big government program.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Brand New Indy Colts
One way to address the disastrous 2011 season for the Indianapolis Colts was to start over. That's the one Irsay went with, from the GM all the way to the last man on the roster. This year's Colts look like an expansion team, with only a handful of players wearing the horseshoe who also wore it last year.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contempt
Eric Holder tried to delay Mr. Issa's plan to bring him before the House of Representatives for a vote on Contempt of Congress. They met, but Holder still refused to offer any more documents about that gun-running operation called Fast & Furious.
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
Why Obama Must Go
Obamacare
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
Friday, June 15, 2012
Glimpsing Truth
Recently the president's been giving us a glimpse of his true philosophy of government, which he went to great pains to conceal during his last campaign. It started with his statement that was later called a gaffe, that the private sector is doing just fine and it's the public sector that needs help.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
My Proposal to Save CNN
This is an open post for CNN with my suggestions on how they can recover from their disastrous ratings slide. CNN has lost viewers dramatically with the emergence of Fox News. They've lost many from their left-wing audience to MSNBC, leaving them without a niche.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
The Problem with Exit Polling
The media thought the Walker Recall election was going to be extremely close, based on their Exit Polls. Historically, Democrats have been much more enthusiastic than Republicans about talking to the pollsters after voting, so exit polls almost always overstate the number of votes for the Democrat.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
Monday, June 04, 2012
On, Wisconsin
The unions in Wisconsin didn't like Scott Walker's budget reforms that included a scaleback of those things public unions can negotiate. That allowed him to proceed to increase public employees' contributions to their pensions and healthcare costs to relatively modest levels of 5 and 12 percent respectively.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Ramping Up
After a little bit of a spring slowdown, it looks like I'm going to be ramping back up in June. Projects are coming through for me that could suddenly find me overbooked for the rest of the summer and possibly into the fall.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Burning Questions for Liberals
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)