So who's the racist. . .

Michelle Williams is the Tampa Bay- St Petersburg New Black Panther Party Chapter Chief of Staff.  This is what she said in a phone call to the members:

"I just want to say to all the listeners on this phone call, that if you are having any doubt about getting suited, booted, and armed up for this race war that we’re in that has never ended, let me tell you somethin…the thing that’s about to happen these honkies, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these motherf*er purple people…it has been long overdue.”

No excuse, absolutely no excuse for this.

Idiot Savants

It turns out that the word pundit has a Hindi origin and means a learned person or expert. And a synonym for pundit is savant. I was watching the Super Tuesday results last night and was struck by the stupidity of the pundits on CNN. I will concede that many pundits on both sides of the political spectrum qualify as idiots but wow, Hilary Rosen on CNN was the poster girl last night.

I spent most of my time watching on FoxNews but was enjoying the race between them and CNN to see who could update Ohio results faster. CNN had their pundits in-house to analyze the results.   As CNN dissected Ohio county be county it became obvious that Rick Santorum was cleaning up in rural counties and Mitt Romney won the major, urban counties.

This fact led Hilary Rosen to deduce that this will be a problem for the Republicans in the general election, if Romney is the candidate, because the urban counties are where Obama is strong. She is absolutely entitled to her opinion but she, as all pundits today do, states this as a indisputable fact and no one else on the CNN panel even questions it! (speak up Ari Fleischer)

How about this scenario? Those rural counties in Ohio trend pretty strongly Republican. They are not at all likely to vote for Obama no matter who is opponent is. So Mitt Romney will get their votes plus a fair share from the urban counties. This would actually be a good thing for Republicans. And not a peep out of the other pundits at the table.

Democratic pundits like Hilary Rosen are trying to frame the election by making suspect analysis like this seem like absolute fact and all of the other pundits just fall in line. We should just start calling them savants instead of pundits. That way the term idiot will just roll off the tongue.

You are what you do

They say you are what you eat but my recent experience has me believing my slogan more. I had open heart surgery on 11/30 and have been recovering ever since. It kind of beats the crap out of you so you don't do much for six+ weeks.  That made me a very boring person.

We are a collection of our experiences. So while I sat here all this time with my only experiences being catching up on Everybody Loves Raymond and the incessant Law and Order marathons, I found it hard to engage in meaningful conversations with family and friends.

I had a valid excuse to be a couch potato but once I recover - watch out world. I can't wait to re-engage you. I'm sure I've been called a lot of things in my life but boring was never one of them. I aim to make sure it stays that way.

Unfortunately my re-emergence will be delayed because I have to go back in the hospital for two follow up surgeries but at least now I have something to look forward to!

Too many damn people

As Thanksgiving Day approaches I look forward to our yearly tradition of 30 or so of my favorite in-laws celebrating with us at our house. It is always fun. I also enjoy the inevitable political discussions I will have with my father-in-law. He used to get me with the old “It’s not fair to the poor” argument. I silenced him with my eventual reply (several years in the making) of “you’re right it’s not – it sucks to be poor. Let’s help them not be poor”.

I am expecting him to have new ammo for me this year so I figure I need a new comeback. I’m going to go with there are just “Too many damn people”. Let’s see how he responds to that! Let’s look at some facts:

The world population is up to 7 billion and still growing. The US population is up to 300 million, probably doesn’t include several million illegal immigrants, and is still growing. So you see it’s an easy and effective argument killer.

Climate change
We’re using up all of our planet’s resources. We’re producing too many greenhouse gasses.

Too many damn people

Energy
We’re using too many fossil fuels.  Gas prices are too high.  Alternative energy can’t fulfill our needs.

Too many damn people

The National Debit
We have too many entitlement recipients - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid – people are living too long.

Too many damn people

Unemployment
Not too few jobs but, you guessed it –

Too many damn people

Wow, this may work for any argument. The important thing about this comeback is that no one, and I mean no one, will be willing to say out loud the one thing that will defeat the reasoning. Why? Because they’ll have to admit we need to eliminate a billion or so people worldwide and put in population controls. That would stop the dinner conversation wouldn’t it? Only China is allowed to do that.

So after this year’s engaging Thanksgiving discussions, and all the relatives have left our house, I expect my daughters will be complaining about cleaning up the mess. And you know what I’m going to say . . .

Too many damn people

All the best to you and yours this Thanksgiving and Christmas season.

Fair is a place where you get cotton candy

I am tired of all the talk about fairness. I’m afraid we’re going to hear it for another 13 months. It appears to be Obama’s re-election campaign slogan. It is a great tagline but what does it really mean?

The problem is that “Fair” is not an absolute. It is riddled with personal and circumstantial bias. Is it fair that a bank shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit but Apple can? Everyone applauds Steve Jobs for everything he did to change the world (and we should) but guess what – he made billions doing it. Is that fair? Maybe Apple should sell their products for less so more people can afford them. That seems fair to me.

While we’re at it, Hollywood should base movie ticket prices on our income level. If a progressive tax system is fair then why not a progressive movie ticket price? Paying $8 to $10 to see a movie is a bigger sacrifice to someone living at the poverty level. Are you listening Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Sean Penn?

We need to get back to the truest of all of life’s axioms – Life is not fair.

There’s a great quote that has been attributed to many people over the years - “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor – rich is better”. The bottom line is that it sucks to be poor”. If it didn’t we’d all be poor. There’d be no incentive to be rich. I don’t know if that’s fair or not but that’s the way it is and must be in a free society.

We must do what we can to help the poor rise up but government directed redistribution of wealth is not the answer. Either is creating a rift in this country between the haves and have nots. That’s not leadership it’s just campaigning.

So if you want the cotton candy, go to the fair; but bring your wallet because it’s not free.

So now he's a racist!

I watched in amazement the last couple of years as the Republicans put forth female candidates.  I thought that the enlightened, forward thinking (dare I say progressive) liberal media would have given them a fair shake.  And the equal rights touting, bra burning NOWers would have as well.  I was quite surprised at the backlash they all received.  The incredible furor of Sarah Palin could not be matched but they sure tried with Michelle Bachmann.  I am in no way endorsing either woman but the vitriol and biased reporting stunned me.

So you would think I would not be surprised when this same "enlightened" group went after Herman Cain so quickly.  But alas I was.  The moment Cain showed significant positive movement in the polls, the hate and fear mongers came out, and came out loud.  Janeane Garofalo was quick to talk nonsense about Cain being paid to run to hide the Republican racist agenda.  She couldn't give a black man credit for being his own man with his own ideas?  And who's the racist?

Then Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher (whoever he is) called Herman Cain a racist because he suggested that the African American community was brainwashed into voting for Obama.  Ok maybe Herman should have said fooled into voting for Obama (like half of America was) but still - a racist?  I tried to give liberals (and the press that covers them) the benefit of the doubt once - but not anymore.  They will use any tactic they can, no matter how low, to discredit a challenger to the Messiah.  All this even after Obama has repeatedly shown he does not, nor never did, walk on water.

Just remember - when you are discussing politics with someone, and they throw the racist term in your face - you've won.

I tried to stay out of this, but. . .

I keep hearing all the talk about raising the debt ceiling.  Of course we have to raise it so America does not default, cause a financial crisis, and effectively destroy the human race!  But raise it at what cost?  I like to use analogies to make sense of complicated issues.  I relate the country's finances to those of the average household.  If you get in trouble with your credit card and hit the limit you can easily contact the bank and ask them to raise your debt ceiling.  Usually they'll be more than happy to do so. 

Is that going to solve your household budgeting problem?  No.  Most families cannot appreciably raise the amount of revenue they bring in (especially in this economy) so what to do, what to do.  To solve the problem you have to cut spending and actually live below your means.

The government has the unique opportunity to raise more revenue (in theory) by raising taxes.  (I tend to believe this actually does not raise revenue but I'll save that for another post)  But should they?  Isn't that like giving more crack to the addict?  We have to break the cycle of outrageous over spending.  Both parties have contributed to this in the past so there is plenty of blame to go around.  But now one party is saying No - we are not going to give you more revenue, just make the necessary cuts. 

In the end I believe a deal will be struck and, yes, the Republicans will have to give a little, but hold firm to your principles people and let's get our fiscal household under control.

We can't let the Inmates run the Asylum

Let 'em protest.

The Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio budget/union battles have been good fodder for the media.  Just once I wish they would talk about the real issue.  It is not an attack on all unions - only pubic worker unions.  It is not an attack on the working class.  In fact, the working class pays the public workers salaries and benefits.  This legislation will help the working class.  It is incestuous to think that the workers can elect the bosses they would then "negotiate" with.  FDR knew this was a bad idea and said so.  Samuel Gompers, one of the fathers of labor unions, said that public workers should not be allowed to unionize.

Lock 'em out.

The fight between the haves and haves in the NFL and NBA is just as illustrative.  First of all, they are fighting over billions of dollars so can either side really lose?  But remember - that money is part of a free market and paid by choice by the sponsors and fans.  Can/should the workers (athletes) call the shots?  The owners are the business men and women who created the market.  There are more people that can run, jump, throw, and catch then there are that can build multi-billion dollar markets.

Of course workers will object when they can no longer call the shots or, worse yet, feel something is being taken away.  What's gotten lost is that they should not have had those things in the first place.

There are only two choices:   Either the market and business owners make the rules or the government does.  I believe in free markets and capitalism so I prefer the former.  But in no way can the workers make the rules.  There are enough organizations, agencies and laws to protect workers.  There is also enough choice and opportunity that workers who feel oppressed can move on or start their own venture. 

Once they're the owner they'll probably feel different about the whole situation.

It's the Sticks & Stones. . .

Remember the old adage?  . . . they'll break your bones but words will never hurt you.  Tell that to the main stream media.  I watched in total sadness the news of the shootings in Tuscon.  And I also watched in total disgust how the MSN instantly tried to make this about political speech.  They didn't have any facts yet but they just couldn't miss out on a chance to take advantage of a tragedy.  Yet after the Fort Hood shootings they were all quick to say we can't jump to conclusions (about motive or Muslim influence) because the guy was mentally unstable.  There is no proof that political rhetoric had anything to do with what happened in Tuscon.

The responsibility lies solely with the Jack Wagon (I'm not going to print his name) that did the shooting.  OK, some of the blame should go to his parents and anyone else "close" to him.  But it's not about vitriolic speech or gun laws.  It is about a guy who is lost, crazy, or whatever and nobody noticing.  I never used to like Hilary Clinton's line that "It takes a Village" because I think it takes a family.  But I can appreciate that not everyone has a supportive family and may need the village to take notice.  In this case both failed.  But in the end it all comes back to personal responsibility. 

But no, now the liberals want to monitor and censor free speech.  It is just like with terrorism; if we let it change who we are as a nation then the terrorists win.  And I always find it interesting what they want to ban. 

They will wholly defend our right to burn the American flag or display provocative art.  But, if they had their way, we wouldn't be able to say we are going to target a person or district as part of political discourse?  Absurd.  Maybe they should talk to their entertainment industry cohorts and work to reduce the violence in TV, movies, and video games - or at least not to glorify it.  That effects society more than a heated debate. 

So sorry MSN, it is not Sarah Palin's fault, it is not Rush's or Glenn's or Fox News.  It is a failure of respect for human life and that is what we should all work to get back.

To all of the victims and families of the victims - God Bless you all and our prayers are with you.

As California goes . . .

. . . so goes the nation.  According to a California consultant, the number of companies leaving the state in 2010 is up to 144!  In 2099 the number was 51.  So why the threefold increase?  The companies want to reduce their California footprint because of the anti-business environment of the state.  They are moving to attractive, lower-cost alternative locations like Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Utah.  And of course they are moving to other countries that appreciate that it is business that drives the economy, not government.

California's posture of  high taxes and intense regulation damages companies' ability to compete.  This is a problem that faces the entire country, not just California.  Will people take heed?  If the current culture in Washington is any indication then, no, we won't.  Raising taxes, increasing business regulations, and forcing questionable environmental restrictions on American manufacturers is sure to drive even more business (and jobs) overseas.

I live in a city that is less than business friendly.  We have plenty of open spaces, parks, and bike trails but apparently not enough revenue to run our schools and library.

Maybe we should all pay more attention to California.  They are a shining example of where we are headed.

111 reasons. . . and still counting

So if Obamacare is so darn good why have 111 companies asked for, and received, one year waivers?  They don't have to participate.  There are some pretty big companies, unions, and insurers.  You can find a list of these exempt companies on the Department of Health & Human Services website at http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html .

This opens up the discussion to so many questions:

Who decides what companies get one?
Why do companies need one?
How does this affect the companies forced to participate?
Wasn't this supposed to be better?
Wasn't this supposed to drive down costs?
Why has the MSN not picked up on this story?
Just what was the hurry?
How do we apply?

This whole fiasco explains the results of the mid-term elections.  First of all read the damn bill before you vote.  Second - Government is best that governs least and, third, fast government is bad government.  Repeal this crap then give me:

Gridlock Sweet Gridlock.

We're number - 30?

Have you heard this one?  A high school in suburban Houston named 30 valedictorians this year.  That's about 6 1/2 % of the class.  Is it just me or is this ridiculous?  The Valedictorian is supposed to be the best - The MVP, Numeral Uno, top of the heap.  You can only have one of these!!!!

So what caused this?  I'm sure grade inflation played a big part.  And you know that all students are gifted now right?  Ask any parent.  And of course the PC crowd spouts that we can't single out the true achievers because it'll "harm" the lesser achievers.  My home town has done away with the "My kid is an honor student" bumper stickers because it's not fair to those who aren't. 

This is a dangerous trend.  We must recognize and encourage success.  This is how real life works.  We no longer keep score at kids sporting events.  We give everyone a trophy just for showing up.  How does this prepare a child for that first real job?  They're going to expect to get every promotion, every raise without having to earn it.  They will have the false belief that life is fair.

The same trend is showing up nationally.  We should embrace America's exceptionalism.  We should strive to be the best country in the world not just average.

So go ahead and be the best you can be.  Hopefully you'll be recognized for it.

Obama’s Katrina

Ah that old saying – “It’s lonely at the top”. Will the gulf oil spill turn the media against Mr. President? They were sure quick to jump on W. To be clear, I do not believe Obama should have to take the brunt of this but I also know that Bush should not have had to take it for Katrina.

It’s the shear size, bureaucracy, and ineptness of our federal government to respond to anything. (Maybe another reason they shouldn’t touch healthcare – but I digress). It also appears that once again the state of Louisiana was ill-equipped or ill-informed to take action. This is strike 2. If you build your city below sea level you might want to have a plan in place in case a big hurricane hits. When you have oil drilling off your shores you might want to have a plan in place to contain a spill.

But now there’s chirping on the left that Obama is out of touch with the situation. When James Carville doesn’t have your back sir you may have a problem. Can the media be far behind? They are biting their tongues for now but if Top Kill doesn’t work you better grease up that silver tongue of yours ‘cause you’ll need to deliver another magical (yet empty) speech to save yourself.

Pretty soon we’ll be hearing the sports reporters on ESPN bash Obama like they did Bush. There’ll be the poignant picture of you gazing at the sludge covered birds and gooey marshlands with a caption of “why did I wait so long to react?” Eight years from now they’ll still be talking about how disconnected you were.

Again, there was not much you could have done Mr. President. You can blame BP but we all know you are indebted to them just as much as all of our politicians are.  You can rail against the evils of offshore drilling even though we all know we need to do it (and its track record was pretty darned good until now). Of course you can look for someone or something else to blame but remember –

It’s lonely at the top!

So only the federal government can profile?

All of the talk about illegal immigration reform centers on cracking down on employers who hire illegals. The theory I guess is that if there are no jobs then they’ll go home. I doubt that’ll work because we’ll just put them on welfare – but that’s not the point of this rant. How is an employer supposed to be sure the workers are legal citizens? Sure they check the box that says “Yes I am” but that’s not proof. They will have to ask for proof. The dreaded “Where are you papers?” question.

So people who are peacefully looking for work will be subject to proving their citizenship to people not trained or qualified to ask for such proof. Meanwhile Arizona is not allowed to ask people who have broken the law or are acting suspiciously to prove their citizenship to trained law enforcement officers? Ah government run amok again!

Here’s a historical (or hysterical) perspective. As an assignment for an English class some 30 years ago when I was a junior in high school, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper stating my position that the US should not take in the Cuban refugees. It was actually sent in and published by the paper. 30 years later we are still talking, and only talking, about illegal immigration.

Freedom is not free. Yes the US has vast resources but they are limited. 700,000 people immigrated to the US legally last year. Who knows how many came in illegally? We must get control of this problem – and it is a problem.

Maybe we should just adopt Mexico’s laws on this issue. There you go to jail period. How does that sound Presidente Calderon?

A "Profile" in Courage

Guess that new Arizona illegal immigration law has caused quite a stir heh?  I think the best outcome from Arizona's courageous attempt to control the crisis is that it has re-ignited the debate.  I still don't get what part of "illegal" people don't get.  They are not simply undocumented immigrants, they have entered the US illegally!  We are a free nation but we are also a nation of laws.  To be a functioning society we need to obey the laws and punish those who don't.

I do not purport to have any answers here but I know that no politician wants to tackle this issue. The far left wants amnesty for all.  The far right says throw them all out.  I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle but none of our leaders have the courage to take a stand.  The key is to have open, honest debate (something seriously lacking in DC today).  For example:

• There are cries that the new law violates the illegal's rights.  How about this - not US citizens, then not entitled to US rights.
• It will lead to profiling.  We all profile everyday - get over it.  Advertisers target (aka profile) their audience all the time.  A father will profile his daughter's date choices (trust me on this one).  Maybe if the TSA was allowed to profile they'd leave the 80 yr old grandma alone and pay attention to the guy with a fuse sticking out of his pants.
• People shouldn't have to prove their citizenship.  I'm guessing the people saying this have never traveled to another country.  First rule - don't lose your passport.

I applaud Arizona's attempt to control their border.  And by the way, their law does not differ much from the federal law that is currently not being enforced.  That's why the state had to take matters into their on hands.  I'm sure a liberal judge or two out there will shoot this law down.

But hey, at least we're all talking about it.

College - at what cost?

My oldest daughter is a junior in high school so this was a good time to spend spring break looking at colleges. I had heard all of the horror stories about how tuition costs have increased much more than the inflation rate. I choose to ignore this fact until now when I can't anymore.

First up was the school that I went to. It's a private school so of course tuition is even higher. When I went there costs averaged about $9,000/yr. When I graduated I got a job paying $28,000. So my 4 year education cost was 130% of my first year salary. Today that education will cost $40,000/yr. My comparable starting salary would be $60,000. So that 4 year education will now cost 267% of that first year salary! And that's assuming you can get your kid in and out in 4 years. All of our tour guide students seemed to be on the 5 to 7 year plan. We also went to several state schools and I'm confident the numbers are similar.

So is today's education twice as good as the one I got? I didn't hear much from the schools on how they've improved the education. All I heard about was how all the dorms are are conditioned and have cable TV. And the highlight of each tour was the new recreation building with rock walls and lazy rivers.

Maybe we should shelve all the talk about healthcare, taxes and redistribution of wealth and address this education issue. It dwarfs all that other stuff.

We were smart (and lucky) enough to start saving for the kids education early on. It ain't gonna cover it all but at least we should be able to make it work. Of course, since we had the wherewithal to save we won't be eligible for any financial aid. Maybe we would have been better off taking better vacations all these years and buying a bigger house.

The progressives always talk about giving the poor a better chance at success. There's no better place to start than education. We all agree that college grads do better in the real world so shouldn't we work on keeping the cost of higher education down for everybody?

Now that’s change I could believe in.

Those who forget history. . .

. . . are bound to repeat it.  I borrowed this from Ann Coulter:

ARTICLE 42 OF THE SOVIET CONSTITUTION

Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.

This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.

Hey, does anyone know how that worked out?
 
I'm guessing if you actually read the current health care bill it'd sound a lot like this.

Only in Washington!!

Where else can you take a word like Reconciliation and make it divisive? It is simply ironic, oxy-moronish, and ludicrous. Webster's dictionary defines Reconciliation as:

a : restoring to friendship or harmony
b : settle, resolve

If the Democrats decide to push through an unpopular healthcare bill (that poll after poll shows the American people don't want) by using this arcane motion than they should call it irreconciliation. Congress will have failed us. Our country works best when we compromise.

But Obama has too much at stake. There are two reasons that he got himself into this situation. First is that he is an intellectual and, as such, he thinks he knows what’s best for all of us. Second, his only leadership experience before becoming president was being a community organizer. In a small community he could affect the majority of the people and ‘sway’ them to see his point of view. Our country is too vast and our people too varied (and smart) for this to work.

Since Obama is actually a president-in-training, and has surrounded himself with equally inexperienced people, he needs to start with smaller initiatives. Taking control of 1/6th of our economy is a daunting task for even the most experienced of leaders.

Now is the time to pay close attention to how our elected officials act. If they throw public opinion out the window and shove this catastrophic bill down our throats then we need to be committed to throwing the bums out in November. It will be the most important vote in your lifetime.

And it’s what I would call reconciliation!!

Choose your Heroes Carefully

I had promised myself I would not write anything about Tiger Woods and his troubles. I have continued to be amazed by the uproar and media blitz. But I have been more surprised by the reaction of so many of my friends and this post came out of that amazement. Why do we continue to attach our hopes, dreams, and morals to people we don’t even know? Just because a person can hit a ball, throw a ball, or shoot a ball we expect them to be as good or better than us?

So last week I get in this conversation with good friends of mine and one of them still can’t believe Tiger could be so stupid, wrong, immoral, or whatever. He’s never even met the guy. Plenty of our “heroes” have disappointed us over the years. Based on many of their transgressions, what Tiger did could be considered to be not so bad. Heck it appears plenty of people have forgiven/forgotten Bill Clinton’s transgressions. I’m just guessing but I bet he cheated more than Tiger!!

Anyway, this thought came to me during this conversation. I looked at the three guys I was sitting with at Nick’s Bar and I realized they are all bigger heroes to me than any celebrity. I know them and have for years. They are all good husbands and fathers. They try to make the world and people around them better and happy. Then I started thinking about all the other heroes in my life. My wife is incredible. My parents – incredible! My in-laws - raised six successful kids – incredible. Then I thought about all the people that came to our aid during my cardi-astrophe. The love and support they provided was absolutely heroic.

So just maybe we should stop attaching these mythical fantasy attributes to people we don’t even know. Look around your own life and I bet you’ll find plenty of heroes that deserve your respect and admiration.

I sure know I did.

It's already a victory

I wanted to be sure to write this before the election tomorrow in Massachusetts. Coakley vs Brown, a Democrat for the infamous Ted Kennedy seat against a Republican. This election should be a slam dunk for the Dems. But the latest polls all show Brown ahead. Now I won’t believe it ‘till it’s over but one can only hope.

If it really happens it is absolutely a referendum on this past year of congressional politics. Actually, the fact that the race is this close is already a referendum. But watch what happens if Brown actually wins. The democratic spin machine will be in full force. Since the oh so popular Obama couldn’t even help then whom? They may need to bring in the master himself, James Carville, to spin this one.

They’ll say Martha Coakley was a weak candidate.
They’ll say the third party candidate pulled votes away from her.
They’ll say Brown was more likable.

Hell they’ll say whatever they have to shift the talk away from healthcare reform and the rest of this administration’s unpopular agenda.

But it won’t work. Don’t let it work. Every incumbent Congressman/woman should already be shaking in their boots, from both parties. But the Democrats should be more worried. The largest expansion of government and the excessive spending is all on them. The back room deals and late night votes are all on them too.

So yes, tomorrow’s election is a referendum. Just maybe come November there will be a changing of the guard in Congress. Maybe we can get back to enough gridlock so we can have thoughtful, open, and bipartisan decisions.

Hey one can only hope.