Bubble of Sanity

Anonymous Cowards

2011-11-23T14:51:00.002-06:00

It seems like it happens every day, and it happens everywhere: in the world of sports, of business, of politics, of justice. I hear the same words, that someone, "speaking on the condition of anonymity, said..." The concept of anonymity is a powerful protection in our culture. We have the secret ballot which encourages voting freedom. We have anonymous tips which lead to the apprehension of criminals.

But the explanations given for a "condition of anonymity" speak volumes about the sad state of our current culture. Maybe it's a staffer for a political leader who doesn't want to lose his job; maybe it's a legal adviser for some company and the case is currently in litigation; maybe it's a member of a sports organization, and the leaders have not yet made the announcement official. In all these cases, I'm troubled by the implications. It says, "It's wrong to say this, but if I can hide behind something and be anonymous, I will tell you all about it."

The preponderance of disloyalty astounds me -- that so many people who are working for someone, helping an organization, or participating in some movement will so easily "sell out" as long as their name is not on it.

Our nation seems to be filled with people who have no morals as long as they will get no blame. Is the only think that is keeping some people honest the fact that we know who they are? Of course, it is getting harder and harder to be anonymous in our society. Your phone has a caller ID; your computer has an IP address, and there is a good chance you were photographed several dozen times today as you walked about, minding your own business.

Maybe there is some kind of "payback" involved in getting to say something anonymous. I have been a participant in a social network for several years. I won't say its name, but it starts with "F" and ends with "book," and of course, I realized that I would not be anonymous there; after all, who wants to be anonymous on a social network?

But now, I am alarmed when I go to a news site such as CNN or USA Today, and find my status picture there, and a question: do I want to share this story on the social network? How did they know I was the same person? I used to have the same problem with Pandora until I re-set my privacy options there. I'm not ashamed of the music I listen to, but I am not vain enough to think that everyone wants to know what I'm listening to.

The bottom line is, "We don't trust each other. At all." And when I am tempted to trust someone, I hear about some other source that has spoken under conditions of anonymity, and spilled the beans.

What cowardice. If you can't say it in the light, why can you shout it in the dark? It's seen another way in the comment sections of forums and other sites. People say horrible, insulting things that I doubt they would say if they had to look anyone in the face. In an ever-growing i-culture, it's only going to get worse, as we interact in every way, buying and selling, voting and recommending, applying for jobs and learning in college courses. The applied anonymity of the internet allows us to be the kind of jerks that were tarred and feathered in the last century.

No one talked to a neighbor like people talk to each other through an electronic mask. Anonymity is destroying what little decency we have left. I have realized the importance of never speaking unless everyone knows who I am and what I look like, and never speaking on a condition of anonymity. Why? Because I don't like those kind of people, and don't want to be under the same roof with one -- even if it's me.

Ok, It's Been a While...

2011-11-22T11:45:00.001-06:00

I could write a book on all the changes between my last post and this one, but suffice to say, things that were once of high importance to me no longer are quite that important, and things that I once took for granted are now highly important and essential to me.

We don't begin to value life until we realize that it doesn't last forever; all human beings, with the possible exception of those who die quickly and unexpectedly in their youth, come to the point some day where, for the first time, they realize that they are finite, something they always knew in their heads, but never actually believed.

I still have my opinions, politically, and I know who I really want to see in the White House in January of 2013, but frankly, even if I get my wish, it won't even make the top ten list of the most important things that are happening.

So, I will be revving this blog back up. I am also going to delete some of the blogs that I have written that I don't think reflect my own opinion any more. If I can find a way to move some to a historical blog, I will move them there, because I love history and have more things to say.

For those of you who followed this blog and gave up on me, I hope you will see this and come back. I have some more things to say, and I hope to get to do it.

I'm Invisible!

2010-06-28T07:50:00.005-06:00

I don't count. I know it now. When the new census figures come out, I will have nothing to do with congressional representation or even any of the ugly new innovations like federal funding and pork projects. All because I don't count.

The census doesn't want me, apparently. It all started with the Super Bowl, where, if you are an American citizen, you watched with me as "we" paid a million bucks or so to present a largely boring, uninformative "commercial" about our responsibility to answer our census questions. They said the packet was coming.

I waited for that packet. It never came. I saw all the guilt trips they paid for to shame us into sending a packet, and I faithfully watched my mailbox. It never came. I would have filled out the short questionnaire, but I never got one. Then I heard the threat: that if we didn't fill out the package, federal employees would come by and ask us the questions in person. Now, as we near the halfway point of this constitutionally-mandated census year, those people still haven't come by. Because to Washington, I obviously don't exist.

I tried getting them to send me a packet or to come by. I went online and looked at the FAQ for the census, but evidently my question is not "frequently" asked: "What do I do if no one knows I'm here?" The site was replete with information about how to get jobs with the census and what was going to be done with the info, and how to recognize a valid census worker if one came by. But there was no information on how to get myself counted and on the census rolls.

I don't exist. This isn't the first time I've found that out. When the entire US TV industry went digital, I found out I didn't qualify for one of those government-funded digital converters because I don't live in this house and I don't exist. But enough of that. If you want that story, you can read my other post on that here. But I realize now that in Washington I don't exist.

I keep hearing the boasting about what the census will do, but I seriously question the results we are going to receive. Every day I'm hearing about fraud, about fabricated figures and forged forms, and we all know about the partisan arguments that are coming when we finally get ready to crunch numbers. We have learned that in the double-speak of American partisan politics, numbers really don't mean anything until someone has "processed" them for us, made them palatable to the unwashed masses (read "anyone outside the Beltway").

So do me a favor. When they give you the final numbers for the US population, add four to the total. That's how many people have not yet been reported here. This megabillion dollar debacle is not getting an accurate count at all. No one has even bothered to look for the people where I live. And they have not given us a way to get in touch with the rest of the world, even in cyberspace.

Will I actually be represented in Congress for the next ten years? Why would that happen? It hasn't happened for a long time anyway. It's a strange feeling, being invisible and all, but I somehow think I'm not alone. How many millions of other people never got a form in the mail, were never visited by anyone? I know my name is on the roll somewhere. Publisher's Clearing House found me out here, even though I've never played their game. And DirecTV and Verizon Wireless and anyone else that can find profit out here. But let's face it: I'm not profit. I'm not a minority, nor do I represent any special interest group. I'm just me, and my wife and two kids currently living at home are just -- well, "they."

Oh, I need to mention one more thing. I went by the local HQ of the census office that I found nearest my address. It looked like an old office, temporarily rented for the year. I went by making sure it was not a holiday or lunch hour. I thought I could just pick up a form there. I'll never know, however, if I could have gotten one.

They were closed.

Dressed for Success?

2010-05-12T20:27:00.003-06:00

The strangest thing has been happening to me for the last ten years. I will be in a Home Depot looking for a saw, and a total stranger will approach me and ask where the light bulbs are. When I say "I don't know," he looks at me disgustedly and walks away. At the supermarket, I'm supposed to know where the pimentos are. A couple of months ago, I was on my way to Dallas and stopped at a popular convenience store along the interstate. I was getting a cup of coffee from the self-serve machine when a girl about twelve years old approached me and said, "We're out of cups," and pointed to the soft drink machine. My look of puzzlement is probably what caused her to clarify herself: "I need you to get some more."

I looked around and all I saw were coffee cups. I pointed to the checkout counter, five deep in customers, and suggested she ask the clerk there. She turned back and addressed her mom, about six feet away, "He won't help me!"

I used to think I must just have the "store employee" look. Some people say I constantly exude an air of self-confidence and poise, which is really a good act, because I seldom feel that way inside. For ten years I have accepted this as my cross to bear, that I look like a store manager, no matter where I am. It is only recently that I've figured out why I look like a middle-aged chain store manager.

My epiphany came that day in the convenience store when I heard the angry mother say, "Well, let's find someone who will help us." She took her daughter by the hand, staring darts through me all the time. Her flip flops snapped angrily against her heels, and all I saw was Mom from the back, pink shorts and white tank top not quite covering the star tatoo that peeked out between them. I looked around the store and realized that I was the only one that was "dressed up."

Don't get me wrong. I once went four whole years without wearing a tie. I don't usually have a coat and tie, nor nice slacks. The only reason my shoes are not from WalMart is because they don't carry large half-sizes, but I don't like to use three days' salary on shoes. I was not dressed like an executive. My problem was that I had on long pants, a nice button-type long-sleeved shirt that was tucked into those pants, and shoes with socks. If someone had been looking for a potential executive in the store, I came the closest.

It's not "dressing up" that makes you obvious; when you don't "dress down," you stick out like a sore thumb. Long pants and a button shirt will get someone asking you where you keep the mayonnaise every time. It wasn't too long ago that everyone dressed up. Watch the black and white TV shows, and you find out that, evidently, in the fifties and earlier, even the bad guys -- the ones that murdered and stole and kidnapped -- didn't go out in the morning without their hair combed, a nice sport jacket with matching tie, and a hat to set the mood.

When I first started to fly on commercial airlines, it appeared that people took time to dress up for the trip. I haven't flown in years now, but I realize that now, people don't bother to dress up to fly. Just a pair of warmups, or some shorts, sandals, and a worn-out witty saying t-shirt is all you need to get from Dallas to Chicago. I have also learned that people don't really see the need of a bath before flying, either.

At one point, people dressed up to go out to eat. Maybe putting a nice jacket and tie on your eight-year-old son was a little much. I'll concede that. But now, that's not a problem. Many times my wife and I have looked forward to eating at a nice restaurant, and dressed for the occasion, only to later have the table next to us occupied by a couple who obviously just got off the tennis courts. Maybe I have a weak stomach, but a man's pasty white hairy leg does nothing for the KC sirloin that just got set in front of me. And he's set back from his table, leaning backwards, tennis shoe propped on the knee so I can see the whole show.

We have a problem with customer service anyway. Not many people can find a locally owned store where the proprietor is someone you went to high school with, who takes pride in his store. Now the boss is usually upstairs on the phone with China while short term minimum wage kids walk the floors below. They don't know what size handle fits that particular hammer. Then here you come, probably dressed better than the guy upstairs talking to China, and you are swarmed by people hungry for customer service.

Most Americans fear someone who dresses up. My wife, who enjoys dresses, has been asked before why she thinks she has to wear them all the time. It seems they make some people "nervous." I was once at a function where the host was appalled that I had worn jeans, which I felt were casual enough. He had on shorts, and thought I was deranged because I didn't. "Why didn't you wear shorts?" he asked. I wanted to tell them that it was because it had been a long time since I had been six, but I know times have changed. Before our little group set out on our jaunt, he excused himself for a moment, and returned with a pair of shorts for me. I smilingly pointed to my larger waist and the nice shoes I had, and said "I'll survive."

People feel threatened when you "dress up." Churches seem ashamed of "Sunday go to meeting" clothes now, and some will even make you check your tie at the door; after all, we don't want to "run people off." It seems the only time we dress up now is when we are high school kids in academic competition, or adults who have to face the judge on a felony charge.

Is it any wonder it's hard for my wife and daughter to find dresses? After all, no one buys them now. We are a generation who has forgotten the basic rules of body cover. When it's 25 degrees outside and I see a grown man at subway in shorts, sandals, and a "US Drinking Team" t-shirt, I know something has snapped somewhere.

As long as I can find my wardrobe, I will continue to wear the clothes I like. It's who I am. Some day, I may have to go to Salvation Army or Goodwill to find them, but that's not too much of a problem. However, I really need to go back to the grocery store and memorize the aisles so I can tell the tattooed lady what aisle the toilet paper is on.

But it's a small price to pay.

Who's Paying for This?

2010-04-07T14:06:00.002-06:00

Here is the latest update on who is not paying taxes: 47% of Americans. A direct quote from a story on Yahoo News today says, "About 47% will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions, and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization."

Reading further in the article, we find the upper limits of tax freedom: "a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte."

Let's review. First, nearly half of all Americans will pay no tax this year; secondly, it is possible to make as much as $50,000 and not have any tax liability at all. Why do I keep hearing about the "tax burden of the poor?"

Now, let's do the math, and I will say up front that this is sloppy and inaccurate, since I am not an accomplished statistician. Let's just take, oh, one trillion dollars. That won't quite cover the "stimulus money" this year, and doesn't even touch anything else, like grants, subsidies, military spending, congressional and staff salaries, and the list could go on. Now, we are told that only a little more than half of all Americans will pay tax, and I assume that means those who would have been tax eligible. For argument's sake, let's round the population off to 300,000,000. Now, let's assume that the average family has three people, so let's say 100,000,000 families. Then, let's say that in every family, both wife and husband work and are tax eligible. That makes 200,000,000 potential taxpayers. Now, let's cut that in half, and say that there are only 100,000,000 that will pay taxes from last year. Let's be fair and divide only the stimulus package costs by those taxpayers. Let's see...that's $1,000,000,000,000 dollars and 00 cents, divided by 100,000,000. That comes out to a per-person tax burden of 10,000 dollars each. With two earners per family, that's 20,000 dollars burden per taxpaying family.

Remember, this is just federal income tax, not FICA social security. Remember that this tax burden will be shouldered only by those who make $50,000 per year, more or less; that's a thousand a week. But also remember that, in my example, we have two earners, so it's actually much more. I'm even letting them live together without marriage so they can get that tax break; in spite of Republican promises, married people still pay more for the privilege of being married to each other.

And again, remember that we've only paid for the "economic stimulus" package. I know my figures are way off, and sadly, they are off in the wrong direction. If we were only to pay for the "stimulus" bill, the per-person rate would actually be higher.

We need to acknowledge that taxes are no longer the major source of revenue for our federal spending gone wild. Printing and electronic generation are where we are getting our money. The major purpose of income tax and the IRS is to regulate behavior -- behavior of businesses, organizations, and individuals. And now with "Health Care Reform," we find that the IRS will also be in charge of making sure we buy insurance out of our own pockets -- that is, those who are taxed. The rest of our country will be furnished all or part of their insurance by the half that work and earn, who invest and improve their positions.

So, who is paying for this? Well, simply put, it would appear that 53% of you who read this are. Of course, literacy leans toward higher earning potential, so if you found this blog and are reading it, there is a good chance that more like 70-80% of you would appear to be paying for this. But the real answer is, "all of us," including our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on, because this rampant manufacture of artificial dollars will inflate prices and shrink the dollar to the point that a box of facial tissue will cost 20 dollars in a few years; of course, we've already had a taste of that since it already costs that much in a hospital room right now.

And now we have the truth about the IRS in its fullest form. The "I" is not true, since this is not "internal," but a private firm, unelected and un-approved, doing the work of collecting money; the "S" is silly, since it is not a "service" at all. Services provide things. The IRS doesn't even provide billing, receipts, or tax counseling. And the "R" is also false. There is no "revenue" in this work. The major source of revenue is coming from somewhere else.

I will continue to "render unto Caesar" since my faith and ethics tell me to. But my citizenship in this country, for now, allows me to speak out. I don't want to shoot anyone, nor do I want to break the law. But I would be remiss in my duties if I did not speak up.

My Plan to Get Rich

2010-03-23T09:13:00.004-06:00

I had been planning this for a while, but now that the last brick is in place with universal health care, I'm ready to jump in with both feet. I found out why I'm having trouble making ends meet: I'm too rich. I am one of the greedy, filthy class that actually wants to pay for things out of my earnings, but this will happen no more.

I'm currently working two jobs, and that's two jobs too many. I have discovered some wonderful things that can replace those jobs:

Lonestar. Not the beer or the state. It's a magic card. I only noticed one recently. There is a secret slot in the Walmart check out line. If you run a card down the highly visible slot, you will lose money. A Lonestar card goes into a less obvious slot before you buy, and just stays there. Then the checker scans items and if it beeps, you get billed zero, and get to take the item home. Sometimes it makes another noise, and you have to pay for that, but it's not too bad. I figure that card could save us a couple of thousand per month. Money that I plan on not making any more.
Section 8. I thought that was what Klinger wore a dress for, and it was to get out of the army. But now I know better. When you get a section 8, someone else pays your rent and utilities. I see apartments advertising that they welcome "section 8" people, so they must be a popular bunch. I could live in a house without having to pay any rent or utilities. Now there's a money saver. I wonder if they help with cable.
1040 EZ. I don't get to file one of those because I have too many jobs and make too much money. I have to file the regular 1040, the one that penalizes stupid people like me for trying to make it on my own. You go to one of those cash advance places, and they look downright disappointed when you show them the 1040 instead of the EZ, because they know there's less money to be skimmed from you with that thing. But after I quit my jobs, I will be able to get an EZ. It's free and at the post office. I looked this year for the schedule C, the SE, and some forms starting with the number "8" that I had to use, that the post office doesn't have them. Next year, I'm getting a free EZ from the post office, and sending it in. I expect money.
Tax credits. I have been so stupid. I did not realize that if you earn money, you have to pay the government, but if you don't, the government pays you! Millions of Americans this year will get money from the IRS even though they didn't pay taxes. All you have to do is quit earning and this money can be yours. Now I did get some tax credits for the three kids I have in college, but those jobs messed me up again. If I don't have these two jobs, I will get more help for my kids. But if the don't, I'm thinking about telling them about this too. They will like me more. I'm always on their case about getting a job, about working harder. No more of that. My goal for all my kids is that they be able to sum up their lives on a 1040 EZ every year, and get paid for it. And get medical care. And a house.

It has been a real wake-up call for me. I cannot believe how stupid I have been. When I think about all the time I could have stayed home while my kids were growing up, how I could have tended my yard and read some good books and watched Oprah, I realize that I have thrown my life away. The benevolent government tried to educate me with this, but I had listened to my grandparents and been brainwashed. I thought people still earned money and used it to take care of themselves.

I'm kind of old to be starting, but I'm going to be a good citizen from now own. I will trust my loving, benevolent, big government to care for me. I will trust them for a roof, heat and cooling, and a meal on my table (I wonder where I go to get a free table to put it on?)

My moment of awakening happened this week. I have been wasting several hundred dollars a month on insurance, and still, when we go to the doctor, I have to add to that. I have been tempted to just quit paying insurance, but Nancy Pelosi says that, since I still make money, I can be sent to jail for doing that.

But no problem. I'm quitting both my jobs. I will no longer be earning. I'm getting a section 8 and a Lonestar, and I'm going to use a 1040 EZ so I can get money in April. The icing on the cake is that I will also be getting medical care. It will be so nice not to have those monthly insurance payments any more. All I have to do now is go to a clinic and show them my government card. They will take care of me.

In case you are wondering about other items, don't worry. I am not letting my wife quit her job. It will be enough to take care of the things I want, like a car and a DVD player to connect to my 60 inch television that I'm going to buy with my EZ money next year. If I can't find any way to get the government to pay for my gas, she can. She can also buy some luxuries and other nice things. If she can't pay for these things, I'm counting on those of you who still have jobs to take up the slack, because that's your responsibility.

I'm just sorry I took so long to get with the program. I'm going house-hunting as soon as I quit my jobs. But don't worry, readers. I will keep in touch. This computer is going with me. I believe it's every American's right to have unlimited high-speed internet. For those of you who work, like I used to, well, it's your privilege to pay for it. Thanks in advance.

Much Ado Over Nothing?

2010-01-27T11:20:00.002-06:00

Everybody get ready to duck! America as we know it is about to be irreversibly damaged! Is it a threat from Iran? Is it a new plan by the Taliban? No, it's much more subtle than that. It is an attempt at brainwashing that will sneak into our living rooms through the TV screen. This propaganda will slither through and past a modicum of entertainment, and most vulnerable, innocent Americans will never know what hit them. They will be at their most susceptible, full of chips and dip, sandwiches and pizza, colas and beer. Some will feel guilty because they skipped church or lied to the night shift coordinator about being sick.

Then, it will come onto the horizon, when we least expect it, like an Al-Quaeda attack. Maybe it will just be a lull in the action, or an official time out to review a pass play to see if the receiver had control of the ball, when suddenly, BOOM, it will detonate right in front of our families, our dear friends, our children, our pets!

It will look innocent enough, of course. One of the people will look like a middle-aged grandmother type, the kind that makes you an apple pie or serves samples on a toothpick at Costco. Standing near her will be a dashing young man, handsome, athletic, likeable -- wait a minute -- that's a football player! Tim Tebow and his mom are actually agents of a subversive group that wants to control your mind, impose their archaic, outdated beliefs on you.

Actually, we don't know yet what they will say. The commercial has never been seen. They may say "eat your vegetables" or something like that, but the "hot buttons" of this event have already sent Those Who Are Sworn to Protect Us from the Cradle to the Grave (short version: "white liberals") into a pre-emptive frenzy to save us from the damage this unlikely pair will do.

Let's cut to the chase. Basically, Jehmu Greene, "spokes-person" in opposition to this commercial, along with "women's" groups, would like you to know the truth: Tim Tebow did not deserve to live. A medical professional had told his mother that she needed to abort, and that foolish woman did not obey the doctor's advice, and went ahead and gave birth to the little parasite.

There is a huge uproar. CBS is being condemned for accepting the $2 million plus that the ad will cost. Thirty seconds for a mother to tell about choosing life. Now I've never seen the commercial either, but I'm willing to bet paper money that she will not say a word about shooting doctors, picketing clinics, or even overturning Roe v Wade. She's just going to say, probably, something like "I chose to have my son and I'm glad I did."

This is very uncomfortable for the so-called pro-"choice" people, who refuse to think that Pam Tebow made a "choice" as well. They are much more comfortable talking about a fetus, about a woman's freedom, about "rape, incest, and life of the mother." They do not like candidates for abortion who win Heisman trophies and national championships, who get college degrees. This makes them very antsy.

So, the outcry continues. In an article in USA Today, columnist Michael Hiestand actually said this will be "the most controversial TV ad -- perhaps the only really controversial ad -- to ever air during America's biggest TV show." I have so many questions for Michael, but I guess we will get to the big one: Michael, have you ever even watched any Super Bowl commercials? One that comes to mind would suffice, I guess. A couple of years ago, one commercial featured two "manly" types working on a car who began to eat the same Snickers bar, and it ended in a man-to-man kiss, followed by both guys trying to do something "masculine." This commercial would be a good candidate for Guinness' record book. It made everybody mad -- conservatives, Christians, and on the other side, gay and lesbian groups.

But that commercial is nothing, it appears, compared to the one that will air this year. A mother will tell about the decision to give birth. Now that's controversial! The very idea that the media would even call this controversial shows how out of touch they are with real human beings. Every year, real people wade through the famous Super Bowl commercials. Whether it's busty women advertising a job website, clumsy fools touting their own brand of beer, or the Mormons wanting to send you "Bible: the Sequel," everyone gets a say.

The Left is the first to demand "First Amendment" rights. That means that Rosie O'Donnell can complain on "The View" that she cannot marry her girlfriend. That means that anything is fair game, unless, of course, you don't agree with the Left. Then all bets are off.

Some people have even complained about "Focus on the Family" spending 2.8 million dollars for a thirty second ad. After all, that money could have gone to help the poor in Haiti, they add, kind of like our friend Judas whining about the oil poured on Jesus' feet (see my earlier blog post).

Maybe they have a point. That much money could go a long way in Haiti. But remember, people are going to spend that much touting beer and colas, job sites and semi-clad women, candy and chips and who knows what else. What about the players, many of whom make much more than $2.8 million for playing a kid's game. Then there are those skybox seats, valued in the thousands and tens of thousands, or just the regular stadium seats, any of which could buy several Haitian families a week's worth of meals.

How about the obscene amount of money that will be paid to "The Who," singing middle-aged songs from the seventies while a multi-million dollar spectacle of lights and fireworks explodes around them. You know, a marching band would have done the halftime show for free, and all that money could have gone to Haiti.

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism. I imagine a sheriff in the old West. He tells the posse, "string him up. He looks like he wants to steal a horse." The Left has done that. They want this thirty seconds of life silenced! Banned! Outlawed!

And they haven't even seen the commercial.

Something's Wrong Here

2010-01-19T15:24:00.003-06:00

This is not an original thought with me, but it expresses just how I feel. A blogger in another forum today said, and I paraphrase, "Here I sit in Texas, worried about a senatorial election in Massachusetts, and I realize this is not the way it's supposed to be."

I feel exactly the same way. The design of the Constitution is such that a Texan should have absolutely no concern over a Massachusetts senatorial election. Even a neighboring state like New Mexico or Louisiana should not concern a Texan.

Yet today, and I write this before the outcome of the Massachusetts contest for Kennedy's throne is known, the whole nation is holding its breath over this one special election for a partial senate term. Both sides of the aisle are pulling for the win. Special interests from all over the country have been in the state pushing their side of the issue. The president of the United States has gone to Massachusetts to plead his case, and our special envoy to Haiti, the honorable William J. Clinton, last week after the earthquake in Port au Prince, flew to Massachusetts for what he saw as a greater disaster, a deeper crisis: that Ted Kennedy's heir apparent seemed to have dropped her crown.

In the original design of the constitution, states were to conduct their own business, including commerce, health care, education, et al, but somewhere -- somewhen, the monster of federalism has reared its ugly head.

It is preposterous that a Massachusetts senatorial election should send aftershocks to Texas, or for that matter, that a Texas senatorial election should send them to Massachusetts, but that is the sad state of affairs in our nation today. During the Lincoln administration, a grammatical change was imposed on our country. Before Lincoln, the correct sentence was, "The United States are..." Since that time, it has been "The United States is..."

Before, we were a union of states, unified for the purpose of mutual defense and support. We relegated such important issues as the coinage of money, the making of treaties with foreign nations, and the declaration of war to the federal government, an entity which could do nothing without the permission of the states.

Somewhere in and around the 14th Amendment, that perception changed. Now, the states are minor principalities that can do nothing without the permission and consent of the federal government.

So, we have a monstrous "health care bill," as some like to call it. It is full of pork, bribes, corruption, and under-the table deals. Both Massachusetts and Texas will have to fork over extra money -- we're talking several zeroes -- to Nebraska and Louisiana because two senators were bought for their votes. We all have to pay for the bribes.

This bill, which is now despised by both rank and file Democrats and Republicans, is being forced upon us by a beltway minority who are determined to have their way. Harry Reid is so despised in his own state that he may not survive his own party's primary, and he certainly will not survive past the November elections, and this lame duck has been put in charge of this Jabba-the-Hutt legislation.

So I sit in Texas and shouldn't even care what they do in Massachusetts, but along with sane people, both Democratic and Republican, I am concerned. We have seen what a super-majority can do on either side of the aisle, and it is not pretty.

Would it have been this way even a hundred years ago? Probably not. In 1910, each state decided how to select senators; most of them were chosen by their states' legislatures. It is safe to say that, if that were still the process, maybe 75% of the senators we have today would be doing something else. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd would certainly have not experienced their obscenely long terms in office.

The constitution was not meant to be this way, and it was the seventeenth amendment, passed in 1912, that diluted the purpose of the senate, turning it into a "light" version of the house, with longer terms of office.

When this election is finally decided in Massachusetts, it will heavily influence how we live in Texas, in California, in Alaska and Hawaii, and in all the other 49 states. Seriously, a senatorial election in Massachusetts should not even affect life in Maine or Connecticut.

We need a revival of the tenth amendment. States need to be allowed to do what they were intended to do. Be it prohibition, the income tax, or the fugitive slave law, every time the federal government has taken over a state issue, even with good intentions, it has only made things worse. Do we want our health care, flawed as it is, to be run by the same people who have given us the IRS, the US Postal Service, and Amtrak? Who really wants that?

I am not nearly as bothered about who might or might not win tonight in Massachusetts as I am bothered about the fact that it even concerns my way of life in Texas. It ought not to be so!

Dropping the Ball Big-Time

2010-01-15T11:49:00.005-06:00

I did not think it was possible to do it this fast. Oh, I knew it was possible to accomplish, but this was a speed record. In one of my earliest posts in this blog, I commented on the Republican party and the great election sweep of 1994, which was followed by a Republican president in 2001. Suddenly, this party was in the driver's seat: both houses of congress, the White House, and the prospects of three or four new Supreme Court justices.

They had a mandate including such new ideas as the "Contract with America," involfing term limits, the line item veto, and a return of tenth amendment power to the states. But what happened when they got there? It must be the swampy air of the Potomac. It seems that most people's minds lose IQ points when they get to Washington.

Fast forward to 2008. The Republicans had already lost their majorities; now they lost the White House, and gave up even more congressional and senate seats. I looked back on those fourteen Republican "golden years," and I could find nothing -- nothing -- of the "Contract with America." What we had was greed, pork, corruption, increased spending, and general incompetence. Their brightest new stars, such as J.C. Watts and Steve Largent, had disappeared earilier, seemingly disillusioned by "business as usual" politics of their own party in the Capitol cloakroom. The "pro-life" party had allowed abortion in America to increase; the "pro-family" party had stood by apathetically as radical "gay" rights groups had made violent invasions into the institutions of family, religion, education, and state.

But it took Republicans fourteen years to make a shambles of their party. Democrats will do it in two. They may be candidates for Guiness' Book of World Records. Whether I agree with their principles or not, they have failed miserably to accomplish anything at all. The war continues, and they promised it would be over. All of the special interest groups: abortion rights feminists, gays and lesbians, and government-controlled education radicals, have all been disappointed. Many now call Mr. Obama "Bush-Lite," and wonder what happened to the other people that they sent to Washington in the November sweep of 2008.

One case in point is the obscene "health care" bill, which no one has read, the majority of Americans don't want, and whose contents are being kept "top secret" by Reid and Pelosi. The bill has already cost us more than we can imagine, and if it comes to pass, the gigantic pork-filled earmarks will bankrupt our descendants four generations from now. We have watched them spend over two trillion dollars with no visible improvement to the economy, the job situation, or the general welfare of Americans. The only ones who seem to have benefited at all are those large Wall Street businesses and money-collecting banks that the Democrats told us were so evil and were in "cahoots" with Republicans.

Harry Reid's numbers are so low that even though he's from Nevada, I don't know how his own Las Vegas could give him any odds on winning. Yet he says it's all "okay." Massachusetts, where I didn't even know any Republicans lived, including Mitt Romney, the Democratic party has been seriously embarrassed. Scott Brown may not win next week, but the fact that the Democratic Party has ramped up money and publicity to try to protect "Ted Kennedy's seat" says to me that the Republicans have already won this election, even if Brown does not, by making it an actual race. Most people, conservatives included, thought it would be a coronation for Kennedy's heir apparent. The very idea that it is even close is frightening to the Democratic party, which really thought it had been given a carte blanche by American voters.

The free-wheeling spending, the abuse of power, and the wholesale breaking of promises has destroyed the faith that the electorate put in the Democratic party in 2008. Everywhere you look, you hear of "buyer's remorse," especially among independents.

America has even been disillusioned by the so-called "independents." Whether they are "blue dog" Democrats like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, pseudo-Republicans like Arlen Specter claimed to be, or self-aggrandizing fence-sitters like Joe Leiberman, we have realized that these people were not really "independent" thinkers, but people who realized their significance as "swing votes" and used that power to obtain special favors. Nelson is probably the biggest traitor with a close second being Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, who both pretended to have the interest of the nation at heart, to be fiscal conservatives and social moderates, but who, when offered literally hundreds of millions of dollars in state pork, quickly abandoned their own convictions and those of their constituencies for a bribe.

We have watched as Democratic leaders have cut special deals for special interest groups. Perhaps the most obscene is organized labor, which was rightfully incensed at the tax penalty that is proposed for those who actually have good health insurance. They were quick to back down when the Senate leadership promised them that unions would be exempt for a few years.

This Democratic session has been anything but "democratic." They have lived off the "me first" mentality that they were so fond of accusing Republicans of having in the Reagan years. What we as Americans have to look forward to is an ever-burgeoning, gigantic debt, which realistically, any economist will tell you our collected taxes can not even pay the interest on the interest of what we owe. This bill will further erode what little medical care we have in rural areas -- any district of less than 250,000 people -- and consequently will further crowd and congest the hospitals and emergency rooms of our metropolitan areas.

Republicans are gleefully clapping their hands at the gains they will make in November, but most Americans are not. Republicans will gain ground, of course, but we had a fourteen year lesson in what will happen to them. As I see the same tired, failed poster children of the last Republican takeover, Newt Gingrich being their leader, I realize that we have nothing to look forward to in this party.

The best we can hope for in current conditions is a "draw." We need a 50/50 senate, and a house with a less than ten margin either way. Such close numbers tend to deflate partisan arrogance and encourage the bipartisan cooperation that we heard Democrats boasting about so much in early 2009.

But can I close this by dreaming a little? What we really need is a purge. We need to vote out incumbents in both houses. The best way to do it, of course, would be to put third party candidates in the house and senate. I'm not talking about "independents." There is a special arrogance there, and I haven't really seen an indepentent recently who wasn't either a traitor to his former party or a boot licker to it. Some have even been both.

What we need is to elect people from identifiable third parties. The Libertarian and Constitution party come to mind, though if you are more to the left, there are others, such as the Green party that I guarantee will do more for environmental causes than any Democrat with lobby money in his pocket.

At the very least, Americans should seriously consider other political parties besides the "big two." Republicans and Democrats, in spite of all their differences, work together on one issue: keeping third parties off state ballots. Even if you don't want to vote for them, you can sign petitions, or start one, to get more parties permanently on your state's ballot. Encourage people to run for positions at all levels in these parties. The Democrats and Republicans are counting on you to ignore the other columns on the ballot. They both want "status quo," and we will never get any new, fresh ideas until we are willing to break out of the two party mold.

My dream for a better America is to wake up on a January morning where no political party has a majority, where politicians must come together and work out bills, rather than draw up obscene agreements behind locked doors. It is a dream I hope to see fulfilled in my lifetime. It is a dream that would make me supremely happy next January.

The "Judas Factor" in Liberal Politics

2009-12-21T11:13:00.009-06:00

It's a well-known story even by those who never went to Sunday school. Shortly before Jesus' crucifixion, a woman anointed his feet with expensive perfume. Judas Iscariot was enraged. "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" he asked. A denarius was a day's wage back then, so, not counting weekends (Sabbath Day off), the woman had apparently poured a year's salary on one man's feet.

At first glance, you have to think that old Judas was a humanitarian at heart, a philanthropist who wanted to see social justice. Isn't it nice that he was concerned, first and foremost, about all those poor people? However, John, who had spent three years observing Judas, comments immediately afterward, "This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box, and he used to take what was put in it." These verses, by the way, are taken from John 12:3-6 in the New King James Version of the Bible, but I suppose they read similarly in any translation you might have at hand.

So, why do I bring up a Bible lesson in my political forum? Because I have seen this same activity in the political workings of congress. For nearly a century, liberal politicians have hidden behind the "poor." Every time a conservative opposes a socialist policy or an excessive spending bill, we are reminded of how this person is "hurting the poor."

This past week, that has been the main outcry against those who oppose the gigantic, irreversible, debilitating Socialized Medicine bill that will be the magnum opus of this liberal-dominated congress before a large percentage of them are ousted in 2010. In spite of the fact that every poll, every survey, shows a majority of Americans are against this crime against our policies, our morals, and our pocketbooks, these elected "representatives" are bound and determined to push it through before Christmas.

Some have unashamedly given the reason for the rush. They know that the public does not want this bill, and are afraid that some of their cohorts might be influenced by the people who voted for them when they go home for the Christmas break.

And what do they say of these people? That we are "against the poor." This medical bill is to "help the poor." It's an easy tag to put on any liberal legislation, on any spending bill, on any dip into a private citizen's pocket book or bank account, any claim against your or my hard-earned money: "It's for the poor!"

Why do I want to compare liberal politics with Judas? Well, for several reasons. Like Judas, they control the "money box." Have you ever seen what they do to money when they get it? Do you know how much money is "on deposit" in your social security funds? The same amount there has always been: nothing. If Social Security were a private finance company, the SEC would have shut them down years ago, and those in charge would be in prison. But every time you hear of an attempt to privatize it or reform it, you hear the liberal chant: "They want to take money out of our Social Security funds! They want to starve the poor!" This is said with one hand raised in the air; the other is firmly ensconced in the money bag, looking for any coin that happens to fall in.

I think there is no difference between them and Judas: they are thieves, and take whatever is put in the money box. Do you think it's too harsh for me to call them thieves? What would your boss call you if you took money out of petty cash and used it to buy a DVD player? What would your family think if you took butter and egg money and bought lottery tickets? What would the guys at the office think if you took the football pool money and used it to buy tickets for yourself to the Super Bowl? I think "thief" would be mild. But that's exactly what your elected officials do every day.

This medical bill is being enacted, allegedly, with your consent. No one but Harry Reid and a select few have even been allowed to look at the Senate version of it. But it is filled with pork, including billions for "moderate" Democrats to use in their own states in exchange for a "yes" vote. Recently I wrote of Democrats with a spine who brightened up the Senate chamber. One by one, they have all been bought off, even the non-democrat Leiberman.

It's not that these "moderates" were not corrupt. Just like some members of the "oldest profession," their price was just a little higher than normal.

Some people might call them "Judases" because they have betrayed those who sent them to Washington, those who have supported them, and our own constitution. But I call them Judases because they bear a striking resemblance to the prototype: harping about the "poor" when all they are really thinking about is how to get their hands on more money.

If you really think that this gigantic, pork-laden, "Jabba-the-Hutt" medical bill is going to guarantee you good insurance, lower medical bills, better care, and liberty and justice for all, I will leave you to your naivete. You probably also think that Amtrak is making money, that the US Postal service is financially sound, that the IRS raises money for the maintenance of government operations, and that there is a million dollars in the vaults of the Social Security Administration with your name on it, just waiting until you turn 65.

Look what a great job government has done for the "poor" in the past 50 years. From Johnson's "war on poverty" up to these programs today. The only thing I can see that they have done for the poor is to make a lot more of them. The percentage of poor people in America has risen steadily since the government got involved in "helping" them. Every year, the number of poor is higher, and the threshold of poverty is higher.

Well, until this year. The liberal leadership is now recommending that we re-adjust the figures and raise those threshold numbers. The results will be, of course, that "poverty" will go down, according to the figures, in the next year. But that won't feed anyone or find them a job.

This medical bill has the possibility of putting even a greater number of Americans into a poverty situation. There will be higher taxes, increased medical costs, and the exciting new experience of jail time if you do not purchase insurance. Medicare and Medicaid are already miserable failures, but we have only seen the beginning. Now they will be disasters as their coffers of red ink are raided to finance new medical programs.

I think maybe somewhere, in the back of his twisted mind, Judas Iscariot may have still had a conscience. He may have actually thought that the poor needed help. I do not see even the standards of Judas being met by our current elected leadership. They have one goal, and that is to get their fingers into more of the gross domestic product, and take a little more of what you and I have earned this year to fund pet projects, and at the same time, to make us all a little more dependent on government to keep us alive. I cannot help but think of the hapless Winston Smith in Orwell's classic, 1984. It was this book that introduced us to "Big Brother." It's what your government wants to be to you. After all he had been through -- torture, threats, and brain washing -- Winston Smith finally came to the point that your elected official wants to be. The last line of the story says, "He loved Big Brother."

Two Opposites Who Need Defending

2009-12-03T08:44:00.004-06:00

The past week has not been kind to two people: President Barack Obama and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (I could add Tiger Woods but I prefer to only include people who work for a living and are not billionaires in this post). Though they are opposite ends of the political spectrum, both have been unjustly lambasted by the media for recent events beyond their control.

Obviously, Mr. Obama inherited two wars. I will concede that he knew when he ran for president that he would get them if he won the election. He also made some promises that anyone who is rational knew he could not keep, but we can understand that he made those promises with the naivete of one who had not yet sat in the oval office and been briefed by those who really know what's going on.

His decision this past Tuesday was a difficult one, and a valiant effort. He wants to get our troops home, but he wants them to bring victory home with them. He acknowledges that the cost is time, money, and sadly, the lives of more troops from the 30,000 that he is sending to Afghanistan. He is right that, had we concentrated on Afghanistan instead of going after Saddam (Red Herring) Hussein, we could have made a permanent difference in Afghanistan. We also need to remember that close to 500 legislators at the time thought we needed to go to Iraq, so this is not one person's "mistake," or whatever we want to call it. However, we have now been in Afghanistan twice as long as the Russians were, and we boycotted the Olympics over the Russian occupation.

We can debate the propriety of those two wars at some other time, but just or unjust, these wars were not started by the current administration, and I'm hoping that like Richard Nixon, Barack Obama can end a war he inherited. He might not like being compared to Mr. Nixon, but he has a lot in common with him. He's about to get blamed for the deaths and destruction of war, if the political cartoons of today are any indication. His popularity has declined over this, and an ABC commentator I listened to during the speech on Tuesday (I think it was Stephanopoulis, but I'm not sure), said that Obama had made this war "his war."

Obama very intelligently addressed those who call Afghanistan "another Vietnam." He presented three reasons it wasn't. First, he said, this is a response to a direct attack on our country; second, our enemies are not waging a popular war in their own country with the support of the locals, as the Viet Cong did. I would have replaced his third reason with the following: We are fighting this war with an all-volunteer armed forces.

We must never forget that in these current two wars, no one has dragged anyone out of college, job, or family and forced them to go overseas and wage an unpopular war against an unknown enemy for an ungrateful non-ally. Obama did well on Tuesday night in presenting his case, and he deserves a chance to finish what someone else started.

Unlike the war, I do think he is responsible for the economy, and he did not "inherit" our current economic situation, which is a couple of trillion dollars past the point he stepped in. But the war is another matter, and the worst thing he could have done would have been to do what he naively promised in 2008, pulling out all our troops and letting both countries figure out what to do next. Had he done that, we would not only be hated by the legitimate governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and their neighbors, but also by our NATO allies who have sacrificed time, money, and lives in what is really "our" war. I will also back up and say that he mentioned intensifying the efforts in Afghanistan while campaigning, so this should come as no surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, he did not begin this war, and unfortunately, the last administration put the Afghanistan war on a sort of "standby" for several years while our nation went after a more visible opponent. I always wondered about the Iraq thing, but was sure that our president at the time, and 400-500 legislators knew more about it than I did. Apparently, they did not.

Now we pass on to Mr. Huckabee, who has shown the hand of the media in two ways this past week. First, they have revealed how much they despise him, which is no surprise since he is way too far to the right for most of the media. The second one surprised me, though. They obviously consider him a legitimate, viable threat to win the presidency. They must, because they are pulling out the "big guns." Economically, Huckabee is very close to Ron Paul, but the media leaves him alone because they don't see him having a chance. The sad and unfortunate coffee shop murders of last Sunday are a tragedy; everyone agrees about that. But if you just read CNN, MSNBC, ABC, et al, and especially if you are just a headline reader, you would think that Huckabee walked around Arkansas with a master key, letting criminals go.

Mike Huckabee let no one go. Not even close. He commuted the sentence of a teenaged offender from 105 years to about half that, and left the rest up to the proper agency to decide who stays and who walks, a parole board. The man who killed four officers in a coffee shop had been through the revolving doors of courts and jails of at least two states, and judicial irresponsibility was the reason he was walking free last Sunday. He was free on bond after attempted child rape. Huckabee commuted the sentence of a teenager, hoping to give him a life; a Washington court let a child rapist walk free.

Huckabee noted that if the youth had been from a middle class white family, there would not have been a 105-year sentence handed out. Hey, wait a minute. Social justice! According to the media, a Republican has no business meddling with that! I've noticed that nothing has really been said about Huckabee's compassion toward a young African-American that he felt had been a victim of imbalance and injustice. In the same state, I'm sure Mr. Clinton would have been applauded for this.

It's hypocritical of the press to even bring this up. We only need to remember th 1988 Willie Horton incident. The press cried "foul" over that one. Some mindless sheep even painted it as a racist issue, though I, as one citizen, only knew Horton was a murderer who had been granted a weekend vacation. I had never seen his picture, and had no idea what color he was, even if that mattered. Dukakis had allowed Horton some "time off" from prison, and he killed someone during that time little vacation. If it was wrong for the Bush 41 campaign to make a note of this, how much more has it been wrong for the press to exaggerate the Huckabee commutation into a pardon. I saw a San Francisco Chronicle headline online this morning that said, "Huckabee Handed Out Pardons Like Candy." Not only is that irresponsible and amateur journalism (I hate to cheapen the word by using it here), it is outright vilification. By the way, I did read the article as well, and the writer had no idea what had really happened. She had read a few press clippings, less than I have read on the issue.

Huckabee has been -- and is -- a decent man, whether he is fit to be president or not. He was the most honest candidate the Republicans had to offer, and did not resort to the lowly attacks of his colleagues in both major parties. He does not deserve the slander that is being passed as "news." It's obvious that the media does not want him as president.

And on this, I agree with the media, but for entirely different reasons. I have seen what they do to presidents and candidates. I have seen the outright vilification they have even given the "darling of the media" this week, and realize now that even Obama, if he refuses to be their puppet on a string, will be crucified by the left-leaning press. I don't want to see them do it to a fellow human being like Mike Huckabee. I would like to see him continue where he is now, a public figure with the ear of a vast multitude of people, making sense out of nonsense, and always doing it like a decent human being.

A president cannot be a decent human being anymore. Our society won't let him. Mr. Obama is finding that out now. If he disappears in 2012, I fear that he will be replaced by a cold, unconcerned robot who takes marching orders from shady characters in dark rooms. That's the only type of person who can now survive a US Presidency.

A Bright Spot in a Dark Debate

2009-11-10T12:31:00.002-06:00

As I lament the creeping socialism that "universal" government-run "health care" imposes on us, I have found a bright spot in the story that truly encourages me. For maybe thirty years now, Democrats have hidden their "pro-life" counterparts from the public. I have found it strangely hypocritical this past week that the news media has talked about Republicans "purifying" their ranks. They've talked about the demand for conformity in that party. However, I've seen Republicans from both side of the "choice" issue allowed to speak at the national convention. I've seen Republicans on both sides of abortion ethics appointed to cabinet positions and other posts.

When was the last time a pro-life Democrat was allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention? When was the last time a Democratic president appointed a pro-life advocate to any position at all. The Democratic party has hidden this group and pretended they did not exist. Oh, I knew they did. For many years, my own district was represented by an excellent congressman, Charles Stenholm, a Democrat who is pro-life and spotless in his ethics. He was finally run out by Tom DeLay's Republican gerrymandering a few years ago, which is a shame. He represents the best side of your own father's Democratic party.

When Al Gore was a freshman senator, he was pro-life. Richard Gephardt was a pro-lifer as well. Both suddenly became "pro-choice" when they tried to get the national Democratic nomination. The party would never allow a pro-lifer to represent them. So why does the media throw a fit when the Republicans stand on one issue as well?

But all that aside, this health care debate has brought great encouragement to me. The House bill passed because the party allowed pro-lifers from their own party to overhaul the abortion language. Now the bill is in the senate, and it is pro-life Democrats who are saying they will not support a bill with taxpayer-funded abortions in it.

I am excited to see a pro-life dimension being brought to the Democratic party. In fact, I would vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-life Republican in any election, because the Republican may or may not be sincere. In my state, which is currently "red," Republicans sing the songs they are expected to hear. George HW Bush himself became "pro-life" in order to be Reagan's running mate, but there was never any real commitment there.

It has been refreshing to see these Democrats for Life show some muscle. I am hoping that this work with the so-called "health care" bill will encourage them to use that newfound power. Democrat or Republican, America needs to stop killing its young. If the Democrats are the ones that lead the way, I will campaign for them.

Republicans who think they have a lock on my vote simply because I supported Reagan had better think again. I don't vote for a party; I vote for values. As I see a Republican party that had the momentum from 1994 to 2006, and did nothing, I see no reason to blindly support them. When they had the house, the senate, and the White House, they whined about Democratic "obstructionism," which really lost them points.

I look forward to the return of the Democrats my grandparents knew, those pre-Roosevelt Jeffersonian Democrats who knew that states can take better care of themselves than Washington can, and who spent only what they earned, and gave no one an "entitlement."

Thanks to the Democrats who are standing up for what they believe and for the values of the people who elected him. The uppity media calls them "blue dogs." I call them "Democrats with a backbone."

An Addendum to My Last Post

2009-11-05T12:25:00.006-06:00

I have hesitated to use this story because it is so sad, but decided it was necessary; if we have universal "health care" forced on us, this story is going to be repeated over and over. Here is my new reason why universal "health care" as Dr. Pelosi wants it will not work:

Government-controlled health care takes away the last remnants of humanity and courtesy.

I don't know how much of a syndicated AP news feed I can cut and paste in one blog, so let me summarize most of it. Scott Hawkins was a student at California State University in Sacramento. For reasons unknown and unexplained, it appears he was beaten to death by his roomate. He was taken to the UC Davis medical center where he was pronounced dead five minutes after arrival. This perhaps implies that he was already dead when he arrived. Do hospitals get to charge when a dead person shows up? I'm not sure. But I certainly know they can charge for a live one. Officially, Mr. Hawkins was "alive" for five minutes there. How much did the "care" they gave him cost? Only $29,000. No more. Twenty-nine-thousand dollars, about five thousand a minute, to do what Dr. McCoy did for free: "He's dead, Jim."

Now let's add insult to injury. You fill in the gaps for the next few minutes. A call to shocked parents who thought their son was safe in his dorm room. Now he's dead. We can all imagine what the loss of a son would be like: the questions, the grieving, the feelings that follow.

What they didn't expect was a bill. A bill from the UC Davis medical center telling them that they could do nothing more for their son because he was "maxed out," and that those parents owed them over 29,000 dollars. The bill also said that they were "indigent," not paying what they owed. The grieving parents called the hospital billing department to clear things up. They were too grief stricken to talk, actually, but amidst all the sobbing, finally got the message across.

Was there an apology from the hospital? I will let you be the judge (here is the direct quote from the AP wire):

A spokeswoman for the hospital says the bill was a mistake - it should have gone to an insurance company.

There you have it. Hey, it was all a mistake. We were going to stick it to the insurance company. Five thousand dollars a minute attending to a person who may have already been dead. But it's okay. We were going to raid someone's insurance plan for this. Sorry we sent it to a real human. We meant for it to go to accounting. By the way, do you have their address?

Some day, in Nancy Pelosi's dream world, we will all have "insurance." Then, doctors won't have to be civil with anyone. We won't discuss the condition of the patient. We will bill him "minutes" like lawyers currently bill "hours." All the money, after all, comes from the limitless, gigantic pool of wealth that the "government" must have somewhere. Oh, there will be paperwork, but that creates "jobs."

To Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins, the grieving parents, I can only say how sorry I am for the loss of your son. I wonder if any "health care providers" offered condolences. Doctors used to do that, you know. Back when you wrote them a check for their services, or gave them cash before they left your house. Back when health care meant a doctor you knew in a building you recognized that existed in your town. People used to live a long time back then, too; one doctor could treat a patient, and cure him. But medicine is a big business now. Everybody needs a network. And when the government gets into it, it will be bigger. Broke, but bigger. Just like the Post Office. And Amtrak. And the Social Security Adminstration.

You'd think that someone could add at least one rider to the omnibus "health care" bill that is being debated now. Maybe add a buck fifty per case for a Hallmark card. After all, they could stick it to the insurance company for, maybe thirty bucks. Fifty if someone signed it.

Why "Universal Health Care" Won't Work

2009-10-13T08:38:00.013-06:00

We're hearing a lot of inflamed rhetoric about health care right now. Some people are talking about "death panels," while others are talking about people dying because they can't afford health insurance. There's enough political strife to go around without me adding to it, and I know I've said several things about health care in the past few years, but maybe I can clarify my thoughts a little more with one statement:

The best thing we could do to improve health care in this country right now would be to cancel our insurance.

I know it's radical, but probably necessary. I know it won't happen, but it should. The very worst thing we can do right now is increase the amount of insurance available, or guarantee everyone health insurance. How do I dare make such a statement?

Health insurance raises health care costs. One friend of mine remembers going to the hospital emergency room with a broken leg. After the doctor had set the leg and put the cast on it, they were being checked out. The doctor was in the background as his secretary got the bill ready. "Who is your insurance provider?" she asked. His father told her they had no insurance and were going to pay in cash. Immediately, the doctor turned around and told her to rewrite the bill, that it was too high for someone paying out of his pocket. Do I really need to say more? I can. I once had a policy that paid up to $200 for emergency room fees. One night we had to take our son to the emergency room. I saw the sign -- in English and Spanish -- that stated that the Emergency Room fee was $200. I was thankful that it was covered. When I received the bill (seven months later, but that's another story), I noted that our insurance had paid $200 of the $450 that we were actually billed. I was left owing fifty dollars more for the emergency room than I would have owed if I had not had insurance. I now refuse to give any insurance information out until the bill is presented. A doctor's visit in our local town has dropped from the $75 they charge for usual "covered" visits to the $60 I pay by saying I have no insurance. What will happen if we all get insurance, and more coverage? I think you know.

Health insurance encourages corruption. Have you ever been "double-billed?" I have, and I don't think I'm unique. There are two ways to "double bill." One is merely to bill a large insurance company twice. Private insurance companies are a little greedier, and will try not to pay the extra, but they often miss it; on the other hand, government agencies run on the "there's always more where that came from" philosophy, and seldom check the double billing. It is a routine practice to bill Medicare and Medicaid a horrendous amount, and then some. For some reason, Uncle Sam does not mind paying 50 bucks for a Tylenol. He may think it's a bargain after paying 600 dollars for a hammer. There is, however, another way to "double bill." At a time when I had great medical coverage in the 80's, before the horrible inflation of medical prices, our son was born at a local hospital. We turned in our insurance info, and a day later, took home our new son. A month later, I was presented with a full bill from the hospital for the entire process, due upon receipt. I immediately called our insurance company, thinking they hadn't paid, and they offered to mail me all the records of payment. Two days later, I presented these records to the hospital, and their response was, "we will clear the bill." They had billed the the full amount after the insurance company had paid them. There was no remorse, no apology. I got the impression it was just business as usual.

The "airline syndrome." Once, flying on an airplane was like taking a luxury cruise. Of course, it cost what a luxury cruise costs as well. There were DC-3's that had been equipped with "sleeping berths," and well-to-do travelers could retire for bed after takeoff in New York and wake up to a bright morning in Los Angeles. As airlines sought to get more passengers, seats were moved closer together, costs were cut, and today riding on a commerical flight is not unlike boarding a cattle car to go to the slaughter house. Health care for all increases the work load of clinics and hospitals. When we are paying for health care, we are looking for bargains, and we debate whether we really need to go to the doctor to stitch a wound or just to bandage it and let it heal naturally. When we have paid the "big bucks" for our health insurance, we see it as our "right" to go to the emergency room for a hangnail or a sore throat. Cost is not a factor. Insurance has made the "private room" the standard for all Americans. We are overcrowding the hospitals and clinics in our communities. Add to this that the big money from government-funded health care has led to more government regulations, and hospitals and clinics that don't "measure up" have had to close. A generation ago, every town of 1000 or more -- and some with less -- had at least a local clinic and a family doctor. Now, there are cities of 25,000 and more who are losing their health care facilities. Specialization, created by government regulations, has depleted the capacity of the local clinic to treat all illnesses, and most people who visit a small hospital in a semi-rural town will end up in a metropolitan medical center at some time. Universal health care means more government requisites and regulations, and with it, the loss of more hospitals. Our emergency rooms are overcrowded and understaffed now, and it will only get worse.

I speak with the experience of someone who has lived in two countries with "universal health care." I have sat up all night with someone who was waiting to be attended. I have watched the long, wearying search for his documents, and I have seen the increasing pain as he waited through the night for his "number." I have sat in an emergency room -- not the waiting room but the actual emergency room -- and watched someone die on the gurney while waiting for a doctor. I saw the doctor arrive later and inject something into the dead man's heart because it had already been prescribed. He had to remove the sheet from the man to do this, and then he replaced it immediately afterward. But he did get paid for the administration of the medicine. In those countries, I, as an American, had access to more money than the locals. When my family needed attention, I could go down the street to a private clinic and pay the higher costs. I got immediate attention and quality service. Why? Because in that country I was rich. Universal health care does the same in all countries: it marginalizes the poor, and insulates the rich. I find it ironic that so many people want to have health insurance "to help the poor." Nothing hurts them more.

If we really want to improve the quality of health care in our country, the last thing we need to do is throw money at the system. Health care needs to be put into the realm of supply and demand. Local clinics need to be opened.

If the government really wants to help, we should use government funds to restore medical care centers to the communities in our country who have lost them due to federal regulation and medical specialization. We should offer incentives to those who study to be general practitioners, and give aid to restore OB/Gyn work to local communities. It is not uncommon for a woman in labor to have to suffer an hour or longer drive now to deliver a baby. If the government wants to help, health care funds should be given to develop more hospitals and train more doctors.

Medical firms and pharmaceutical companies should be freed to do more of their own research and development without the oppressive paperwork. If Pasteur had worked in this country in the 21st century, we would have never had any of the advances in medicine that he gave us. The ones he actually achieved would still be tied up in testing and waiting approval by some government bureaucracy.

If we really want to improve the quality of health care, hospitals and medical billing should be "called to account." If the federal government needs something to "regulate," try hospital billing. How ironic that we have to walk past so much new construction to enter a hospital that tells us how "broke" they are.

Hospitals should be responsible for in-house billing, and it should be immediate. Customers should be advised up front of billing practices.
Billing should be unified and itemized. No patient should ever be billed by a doctor they don't know from a city they've never visited, but it happens every day.
Bills should be sent to patients before they are sent to insurance companies, and insurance companies should work with their customers before any money is paid to medical institutions or practitioners.
No bill should be valid that is issued for the first time over a month after treatment. In other words, hospitals should be held to the same rules of accounting, honesty, and forthrightness that the businesses on main street observe.

It should be possible for anyone to pay a medical bill without being bereft of years of hard-earned money. Insurance was introduced as a luxury and a favor to those who wished to use it. It was never intended to be a "cover all" for all health care. That's why the best radical treatment for our "health care crisis" would be for all Americans to cancel their insurance policies tomorrow -- or today. The prices would float to fair market value, and an aspirin tablet would not cost 30 dollars.

I know it's a crazy idea. I admit it's crazy and reckless. But it's a better idea than I'm hearing from Washington right now. Attempting to remedy the health care crisis by throwing more money at it is like attempting to cure a cold by blowing your nose.

A Dose of Decency

2009-09-22T10:57:00.004-06:00

Recently the news has been filled with reports of something that can only be described as “people being rude.” Whether it’s a tennis star threatening to do horrible things to a line judge, a slightly drunken performer stealing the microphone at an awards banquet, or a United States congressman shouting “You lie!” at the president, we can’t assume this all just happened overnight.

Why do people in the public light seem to have so little respect for each other? We’ve been leading up to this for years. Like the Roman arenas of two millennia ago, we seen to enjoy gathering together and watching people get ripped apart; this time, however, it is not by lions, but by other people.

TV talk shows of the 70’s and 80’s have evolved into slugfests on camera. People throw chairs and issue death threats, all the time listening as the audience cheers them on. Any checkout line at any major market is littered with racks full of juicy “gossip,” most of it false, reporting the illnesses, failures and faults of our celebrities. Somebody must be buying this or it wouldn’t continue to be there.

Rules of decency and decorum, it seems, are for other people. They are for the “other” political party, the rest of the world, for “ordinary” people, not people like me. “You see,” we rationalize,” I had the right to do what I did. I don’t care what anybody else thinks.

Maybe we all need to go back to kindergarten. The teacher used to tell the children, “If you say something bad about someone, I will require you to follow it with three good things about that person.” I once knew of an organization that, in their planning sessions, required someone to say three positive things about someone’s idea before trying to “shoot it down.”

It appears that “positive” just doesn’t sell. People would rather see someone “voted off the island” or verbally butchered on a stage in front of a hostile audience during a morning talk show. Many of us feed on this, and then wonder why that person behind us in the checkout line was so rude to us.

Our rudeness is bleeding over into real life. In one city, a man slaps a woman’s child for crying in the supermarket. In another city, a minister says he’s praying for the president to get sick and die. Elsewhere, a teacher gives her students a writing assignment that involves such violence and abuse that it is better not to print the subject in this newspaper. And lest we forget, it was only a few years ago that the press praised a movie in which President George W. Bush was assassinated. The movie even won awards. In my own humble opinion, that's just a little more serious than "You lie!" though neither one should be praised. It seems that no institution is immune from this virus that is spreading through our culture.

It’s time for a dose of decency. Maybe the “sane” ones in our culture need to take the lead. If you’re one of those people, it can start by not honking or tailgating someone that cuts us off in traffic, or by letting the rude customer go ahead of us in line; after all, neither of those things really cost us any time or money. Maybe it’s not letting our kids hear us verbally abuse those people on the TV screen. It’s time to make an intentional effort to be decent. No one really wants a return to the days of the Roman Circus Maximus. Let’s think before we talk. Maybe we can even set an example for those athletes, stars, and national leaders who are supposed to be setting an example for us.

A Grisly Tale from a Survivor

2009-04-29T13:37:00.003-06:00

Read at your own risk! The things I am going to tell you in the following paragraphs are not for the faint of heart. I have carefully considered my words, but some of you will be terrified by the things that are revealed below. If you are taking any medication, please continue to follow your health care provider's instructions, and please stop reading right now. I cannot be responsible for you from this point on.

I attended a horrible school when I was a child. First, even getting there is something fearsome. I rode a bicycle, scary in itself, but get this: I did not wear knee and elbow pads, nor a helmet! I would ride in street clothes from my house to the school. Once at school, I had to go directly to class! They did not provide a breakfast for me!!! We went directly to classrooms, unless we got there early. On those occasions, we were put in what would later that day be the "cafeteria," but was for now a "holding pen" for students while teachers got ready for the day.

Oh, and while we're on transportation, until I was in fifth grade, we didn't have a car that even had seat belts. It had a beautiful green metal dashboard, though. I bumped my head on it a couple of times when my dad made a sudden stop for something like an unprotected kid on a bicycle.

We had two recesses: a morning one and an afternoon one. WE OFTEN PLAYED UNSUPERVISED! I know; you don't believe that. I wouldn't either if I hadn't been there and seen it myself. In one game, we actually threw a non-rubberized so-called "soft ball" at each other. They let us choose teams for this game, and we got to keep score. Nobody seemed to care how the others felt.

Lunch time was frightening. On every table the school officials had allowed the cafeteria workers to place vials of poison. One was called "salt," and the other, "pepper." We sometimes put it in our ice cream dessert just to see how it tasted. Our parents would scold us for it, because they did not want to see food "wasted." They said that because all of them actually paid for it themselves. Some kids brought lunch, and it was in unsealed containers.

They also had a very dangerous machine in the kitchen. It was filled with heart-attack causing grease, maybe even LARD, and they actually FRIED things in it, and expected us to eat it. In fact, our teachers and parents often "encouraged" us to eat everything on our plate.

In the fifth grade, one of our classmates had gone to the Bisbee Copper mines over Christmas (?!!) break, and brought back something amazing for all of us: a bucket of amazing, crazy mercury!!! Boy, did we have fun. First of all, it was really hard to make a fist and plunge it to the bottom of the bucket. Of course, when the big kid tried it, some mercury spilled over, but we had fun chasing it across the classroom floor and watching it break into hundreds of little silver balls. Then our friend decided to let us all have a little of it. Desperately wanting to be a part, I found a paper cup and got my treasure, probably 4-5 tablespoons of it. During the slow days at class, I would drop a little of it on the desk and watch it roll. I would break it up and put it back together. Then I would go eat my sandwich for lunch.

The guys in the white spacesuits never came for cleanup. I don't even know if they had hazmat people back then. As far as I know, traces of that mercury are still embedded in the floor, concrete, and -- who knows? -- ancient desks and chairs of that school, which still stands and serves as an elementary school. I may still have some, somewhere, in storage. As it dwindled, I stored the last of it in a non-child-proof-capped medicine bottle.

When I was in high school, a fight once got out of hand, and one student went home and got a gun, and I would say he got it from his right-wing redneck father, but the student was a member of a hispanic migrant family, so that can't be right. He ran down the hall saying he was going to kill the kid that beat him up (who was, by the way, a filthy white redneck kid, who for some reason, had forgotten his own weapon). The principal, a shop teacher, and two fellow hispanic students wrestled the gun out of his hand.

Now get this: we didn't even get to go home. They had school the rest of the day. And the next. We never saw a swat team, and that lousy school didn't even send in crisis counselors to help us get over the psychological damage it caused. I'm probably still carrying it. And as far as I know, nobody sued.

If a kid didn't do the work, he (generic use, which was ok then) got disciplined. He didn't get special "initials" put on his file. He got licks. Then he did the work and went out to recess with the rest of us. Our teachers taught us subjects; they did not teach us how to take a federally mandated state supervised test. I don't know how we made it to adulthood, or how the generation before us managed to get people all the way to the moon.

If someone got hurt, he (generic) bled and the teacher cleaned it up, maybe with a kleenex. And no rubber gloves or hazmat suit. Those poor uneducated souls didn't even have "body fluid treatment" training like teachers get now.

If you're still reading, and I know most have probably had to leave and will not sleep tonight, I just want to tell you that somehow I survived these primitive conditions. I never had to go to the hospital, and we actually could have afforded to go if necessary.

How did we do it before the government started educating, protecting, preserving, feeding, clothing, housing, and medicating us? How did we live before litigation, psychoanalysis, and sensitivity training? It's amazing that there are still people on earth today.

To those of you reading, I come from a distant time. We were too stupid to know what we needed. We actually used taxes for building roads and defending our country. We took care of our own kids, and an "Independent School District" really was independent. Just thank whatever deities you may or may not believe in that we lived long enough to reproduce and bring forth a generation to save this dying, overheating, depleted world. Thank him/her/them that we somewhere learned how to strap you in, immunize you, and dress you in body armor.

I know it was supposed to be scary, but all I can remember are the good times. I guess I've been propagandized and need to be woken up. Maybe I should be sentenced to stay in a little room for a week while Al Gore movies are shown to me 24 hours a day. Something needs to be done. My generation is a danger to the health, safety, and sanity of those following.

We didn't know how to do anything right.

Constitutional Atrophy

2009-04-18T09:45:00.003-06:00

Liberal judges love to say that the US Constitution is a "living document." Of course, by that they mean that the Constitution can mean anything they want it to mean. "Strict Constructionists" are quickly labeled as bigots or far right reactionaries. Perhaps the most amazing comment on the Constitution (up to that time) was in 1989 when Thurgood Marshall said that the hoopla over the celebration of the Constitution's 200th anniversary was overblown -- that it was an imperfect, even racist, document. Amazingly, this justice, who had to swear to uphold the Constitution in order to become a judge, blatantly admitted that it meant nothing to him. To me, that was an impeachable offense.

Recently, Marshall's best protegee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, defended her use of "international law" in making Supreme Court decisions. If a justice had said such a thing before 1950, he (there were no "she" justices then) would have been subject to a bipartisan impeachment.

However, if we understand the liberal mind set, we realize that there is no way that a liberal can, in good conscience, uphold the document anyway. Moreover, liberals are not the only ones who butcher the Constitution. It has suffered over the years under the adminstrations of both liberals and conservatives. Most of the abuse is through misuse. It is my premise that the Constitution has lost more of its force through disuse than through abuse. This document is being destroyed by atrophy.

People derided Texas governor Rick Perry this past week for his statements about the Tenth Amendment and states' rights. I remember 1976 when Jimmy Carter stood in a pulpit of a Black Baptist church in the South and told them that Gerald Ford favored states' rights, which would mean a return to the slavery mind set, answered by a thundering of "amens." I've wondered how that church kept its tax exemption. One church nearly lost its exemption that year just because Ford attended and the pastor shook his hand. But again, I digress.

States' rights is not open for debate. It is the Tenth Amendment. It states that all powers not expressly given to the Federal government belong to the states. That should make it easy for the Supreme Court: if the power is not mentioned in the Prime Document, then the Federal Government does not have it. Somehow, the Supreme Court has never figured it out.

Go back to 1850, when congress passed the "Fugitive Slave Law." Before that law, all those slaves in the evil South could just go to the loving North and be free (according to revisionist history). The 1850 law made it possible for a southern slave owner to recover his lost "property" from a northern state, utilizing the help of federal troops, if necessary. Realize that this decision was made by a congress that was dominated by northern legislators -- the ones that history paints as "abolitionist." So, if a slave escaped from Kentucky to Ohio, he wasn't free. The state of Ohio was required to return that slave.

This law should have been overturned, because it overruled state sovereignty. There was no Federal power given by the Constitution to take a slave from a free state and return him to a slave holder. A simple review by the Supreme Court should have nipped the law in the bud, yet it was allowed to fester for the next eleven years, leading to the Civil War. Of course, this was the same Supreme Court that handed down the "Dred Scott Decision," which overlooked Constitutional guarantees of human rights, and told a slave, in effect, that he did not have a right to present his argument, since, according to them, he was not a human being.

Let's go farther afield. If the Supreme Court had ruled on the secession of South Carolina, there might not have been a Civil War, since there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to retain individual, sovereign states. Lincoln would have had no authority to organize troops to re-take the state, or the others that followed. Rulings would have been made about compensation for federally funded property, such as Fort Sumter.

One of the greatest myths about the Civil War is that it was all about slavery. While any historian would acknowledge that slavery was one contributing factor, no one has found any public mention of slavery by Lincoln until 1862. Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland were all slave states that fought for the North (though Kentucky had a shadow Confederate government). When Lee handed his sword to Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, a man who had no slaves handed his sword to a man who had at least six. Grant fought the whole war as a slave holder. But we don't like to think about that.

If the Supreme Court had merely used the Constitution instead of personal whim, the slavery issue would have been settled in the North and the South, and would never have been an issue. If the Supreme Court had used the Constitution in the secession issue, a war could have been avoided. Slavery was already on the way out in 1850, and was a doomed institution. Through the influence of education, churches, and plain American decency, the institution was losing adherents daily. The Confederacy's constitution only mentions slavery once, and that is to prohibit the foreign slave trade. The evil institution would have died.

In 1896, a northern controlled Supreme Court ruled in "Plessy v Ferguson" that "separate but equal" was in the Constitution. I've re-read it enough that I can tell you that it's simply not there. "Brown v the Board of Education" in 1956 rightly reversed the idiotic decision of 1896. All they would have had to do is read the Constitution.

I've spoken of Roe v Wade in earlier posts. All that needs to be repeated here is that we know from the Declaration of Independence what the mind set of the framers of the later Constitution was: there was a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." There is a right to life implied in the Constitution, as well as an amendment that says no one can be denied "life, liberty, or property" without "due process of law." The flawed Supreme Court decision somehow found a "right to privacy" implied somewhere, and based the weight of their decision on that premise. In doing that, they used the "Dred Scott Decision" mentality by deciding that a child not yet born was not a human being. Then, the Supreme Court imposed their abortion decision on all the states in the Union, in spite of the 10th Amendment and the fact that the Constitution nowhere gives the Federal Government the power over decisions on the medical termination of a pregnancy. The "Roe" decision not only overruled all the "pro-life" states, but also swept away the "pro choice" states' laws, and imposed one monolithic rule that has become the basis of practice and funding.

Recently, congress has decided that the District of Columbia needs a voting congressional representative. The Constitution says they don't. Within the last decade or so, an amendment was presented to give DC the "rights" of statehood in congressional and senatorial representation. As repugnant as that is to me, if the amendment had been passed by 2/3 of state legislatures, it would be the constitutional law of the land. That amendment died. This time, the Constitution is being ignored. It seems that no one even cares. Just vote in a new representative from DC. The Supreme Court probably will not even touch it.

Finally, I look at GM. Bad management? Yes. Sorry product? In the past several years, sadly, yes (though their new Malibus are great). Should the CEO have been fired? Most likely. By the Federal Government? No way! It is no personal reflection on our new president. If my favorite president of all time, Ronald Reagan, had fired the president of General Motors or any other company, I would have cried "foul!" Where in the constitution is the Executive branch given the power over corporations?

Those who hate our Constitution, and in the past two centuries, some have even been legislators and Supreme Court justices, have realized that the document is just made stronger when you wrestle with it. You can weaken it with narrow, specific amendments, but that's way too expensive and time consuming. No, the best way to do it is just to ignore it, to let it atrophy through disuse.

Since January, I've seen next to nothing done in accordance with the Founding Document of our nation. We are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel -- the chief justice and the president flub up the inaugural oath, so they re-do it later to make sure it "takes," despite the fact that nothing in the world could have denied Mr. Obama his full rights and privileges as the duly elected president of the US. What needs to be examined is the huge influx of money into banks and stupid mortgages, and trillions of dollars that are being spent in the name of "stimulus" even though it's just more socialistic spending. There is no constitutional provision for Federal participation in public school education, health care insurance, or "fairness" in broadcasting. So we just ignore the Constitution.

Texas will not secede. I'm 99% sure. But if we do, I have a favor to ask of Congress. May we have your constitution, since you don't use it any more?

Willful Ignorance

2009-03-31T13:18:00.002-06:00

Embryonic! The key word is Embryonic! EMBRYONIC!!! How can anyone be so dense. If I hear one more time that conservatives are against "stem cell research," I am going to start advocating harvesting the cerebral stem cells of journalists and liberal politicians, since they don't seem to need them.

I am admittedly a conservative. I used to be a Republican, back when Republicans were not Socialists, v 2.0. Lately, I've heard about how "conservatives" in our country are anti-science, anti-research, and anti-health. We have been accused of being against "stem cell research." Michael J. Fox thinks we're against it. So does Nancy Reagan. And what's-her-face McCain.

I am admittedly conservative. I even believe in God, and go to church. I am pro-life, and against government funding of anything that is not specifically granted to the government in the US Constitution.

But I am heavily pro-science. I marvel at the pictures from the Hubble telescope. I am amazed at the mapping of the human genome. I thrill at the idea that we are just a step or two away from being able to take the DNA from ice-preserved mammoths and reintroducing them to the 21st century. I would like our next goal to be the restructuring of the dodo. It could be done.

I love the growth of electronics and computers. I am an avid internet user. When I was in high school, no one had ever seen an atom, but since that time, I've seen photographs of them. I love what is happening in science. I look forward to the day that we finally figure out how to break Einstein's "c" barrier and start traveling faster than light. I believe it can be done.

So, see, I'm not a medieval pope who wants to condemn scientific research to the fires of hell. I'm not a "young universe" creationist, though I have a need to find and identify the Beginning of all things, and our culture's concept of God comes closest to that.

So why do people think I'm backwards? Because of one little word: embryonic. I'm not against stem cell research. I'm against embryonic stem cell research. Every day, countless gallons of umbilical cord blood are thrown out, teeming with stem cells that can be used for research, and subsequently, for the remediation of myriad maladies of health and genetics. Those stem cells are no different than the ones that are in human embryos. Yet they are not used.

Meanwhile, unborn children are harvested in order to add years to an existing human's life. My question is, "Why do we have to kill unborn children in order to do this research?" Actually, that question is miniscule, compared to the one I want to shout from the housetops: "Why does the media continue to rail against those who are against the slaughter of the unborn?" I see willful ignorance, an unwillingness to give the truth.

It's as clear as can be. Most conservatives, even of the evangelical Christian type, have no problem with research on stem cells. They have a problem with the source of those stem cells. I cannot figure out why, with a limitless supply of stem cells available in our hospitals in the abundance of umbilical cord blood, the Left insists that these cells come from embryos.

Michael J. Fox whines about his own condition. I want to see him cured. Is he too ignorant to realize that umbilical cord stem cells can just as easily be used to find the cure? We live in a generation that is easily deceived. Some researchers have said that even the elderly have perfectly good stem cells in their bodies. Organ donors and those who will their bodies to science could also be sources of a limitless supply of these miraculous cells.

When your major networks tell you that human embryos are the only source of these precious research tools, I can think of no other way to put it: They are lying to you. Either through willful deceit or bare-faced ignorance, they are feeding us a load of pasture fodder. Stem cells are abundant; they are all around us.

But the word "embryonic" is the sticking point. It's my only sticking point. Am I for stem cell research? In the words of a recent national celebrity, "You betcha!" Am I for killing unborn children in order to get them?

I'm not that stupid.

The Cry of the Helpless

2009-03-26T13:15:00.002-06:00

It seemed like such a good idea at the start. In that moment of disaster, instead of having to remember a seven digit number of the local police department; instead of having to go through the general dispatcher; instead of having to look up the number in an unfamiliar town -- all you had to do was dial three digits: 9-1-1.

What could be more simple? With the advent of cell phones, even better. Several years ago, I was driving a stretch of interstate and saw, in the opposing lane, a pickup truck tumbling end over end, then rolling into the center median. Without even checking the status of the driver, I immediately pulled over and dialed 9-1-1 on my cell phone. I was quickly transferred to the local operator, and as I described the accident and the mile marker, she informed me that they had already received two prior calls and that help was on the way.

That was what it was for -- to get help to an emergency situation as soon as possible. We are told now that most cities are swamped with 9-1-1 calls, and there is always a shortage of operators. Some have complained of being put on "hold," something you would not expect of an emergency line. Why would this happen? Do they just not care anymore? Evil Republican de-funding? No, none of the above.

The change has come in the American definition of an emergency. What happens today? Someone parks his car on your lawn, you call 9-1-1. Did someone leave graffiti on your fence? You call 9-1-1. "Hello, 911; what is your emergency?"

"Somebody wrote a bad word on my fence!"

"Sir, I'm going to direct you to the following phone number."

"No, this is an emergency! I want the police over here now!"

It happens every day, in every city, minute by minute. We only read about the silliest ones. One woman recently did not get chicken nuggets at McDonalds (they were out, had taken her money, and would not return it, offering instead a substitution -- definitely not good business policy, but not a life and death situation). While in line, she called 9-1-1. Years ago, I had a recording of a woman calling about a similar situation at a drive-up. Whe wanted the police to come make the owner serve her a type of burger that we found out later was made by another franchise.

Then there was the one who was tired; she had to take care of her kids all day. She called 9-1-1 for some relief. Another person wanted to know what time it was. Still another needed a list of hotels with available space in one town. And then, there was the day that President Bush's daughter was with a group in a restaurant, and they ordered alcohol! An astute waiter, recognizing the life-and-death immediacy of the situation, called 9-1-1. He may also have smelled his own fifteen minutes of fame, but whatever the reason, it was seen as an emergency, and the police were notified. Most of the time, they just ask for an ID, and refuse to serve alcohol to a minor, but this was an emergency!

The epidemic of frivolous 9-1-1 calls is symptomatic of a disease that is spreading throughout the American culture: an inability to care for one's self; a total shedding of personal responsibility. When I read Orwell's 1984, I thought that "Big Brother" would be imposed on us some day by a cruel totalitarian regime. I never imagined that he would be welcomed by people who no longer know how to clean up for themselves, blow their own noses, or flush before leaving the stall.

The main problem with Big Government is that it is more than willing to flush for us, because when it's in charge of the flushing, it can also tell us when we need to enter the stall. When Big Government pays for our health care, it can also tell us what care we need, and when. It's a return to childhood, when someone told us when to get up, when to go to bed, when to take a bath, when to dress. Most Americans seem happy to sit in the high chair while Big Brother spoons out carefully pureed food and wipes the stuff we spit up off of our chins.

Now we need the government to get us out of debt. We need them to pay for our medicine and our health care. We need them to find us jobs, and negotiate our salary schedules. We need them to make us fasten our seat belts, and during the last campaign, there was even a hint that the day was coming when Uncle Sam would make us keep our tires inflated properly.

If we are going to continue in this vein, we need to overhaul the outdated emergency system and replace it with a more diverse system of numbers. Of course, we need to hire more operators and pay them scale. We need to install new lines and make sure everyone has a government-provided phone. How about the following?

911 - I'm being murdered or someone I can see is dying
912 - Something/someone is making me very uncomfortable
913 - I'm tired, hungry, or broke
914 - Time and temperature
915 - Complain about bad service
916 - My rights are being violated
917 - I need someone to clean up after me
918 - My diaper needs changing/I need child care
919 - All other government aid.

Or, how about teaching people to do things on their own again? How did we get in touch with the police before the days of 9-1-1? How did we live before the government started taking such good care of us? I don't know, but I sure would like to try again. Maybe the first step would be to ban cell phones, or at least impose a "stupidity tax" on those who keep them glued to their heads, mindlessly droning on, oblivious to the world around them.

I've heard that America was never the same after 9/11. I know they were talking about that day of terrorism on a fateful day in September of 2001. But I think there is another 9/11 that has done more damage to our culture, or at least shined the spotlight on it. That is the mindless idea that someone else can solve all your problems if you dial three simple digits. And that you have a right to have someone do that.

A Time for “Fairness”

2009-02-24T23:36:00.003-06:00

Here’s the latest from the congress we all just re-elected. The house and the senate are getting ready to push through a little bit of legislation designed to give the District of Columbia’s non-voting congressional representative full voting rights in the US House of Representatives. To “appease” conservatives, they are also proposing adding one more congressional seat to Utah, which, for some reason, reminds me of all the compromises of the 1850’s that led up to the Civil War.

The logic is that there are 600,000 poor, neglected people in Washington, DC, that are denied the right to representation in congress. There are cries of “taxation without representation,” but before we cry too much, we need to note that DC will get more “bailout” money than seven legitimate states. Seems like a lack of representation has not hurt them too much so far.

The desire for DC representation shows such a horrifying lack of familiarity with the Constitution that I wonder how many of our elected officials, the same ones who have sworn to “honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America,” have ever actually read it.

Some news outlets have picked this story up, noting that “finally” DC residents are going to get their “right” to vote. I know this sounds harsh and confusing, but there is NO constitutionally guaranteed “right” to vote. There are amendments that have done away with the poll tax and guaranteed the equality of blacks and women for suffrage, but there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees an individual’s right to vote on national issues. Was that an oversight by the framers of the document? No, it is in perfect step with their own conception of our Republic.

The Constitution was a carefully written document that allowed for a voluntary cooperation of sovereign states, composed of free people, and allowed for a federal government to handle issues that involved the cooperation of states. The president was not to be elected by individual citizens, but by states. Congress was not to be composed of representatives of private individuals, but of states. The Senate was not to be composed of people elected by individuals, but by state legislatures.

Not only is the current Senate action under consideration ill-advised; it is illegal. Only states are guaranteed representation in the House or Senate. And the District of Columbia is, by design, NOT A STATE. It has no rights as a state, except for the mutilation of the constitution that gave the district three electoral votes. That alone is wrong: electoral votes were determined by the sum of representatives and senators that each state has, and since DC is not a state, it has none. By design. On purpose!

There is no constitutional provision that allows congress to arbitrarily assign representation to any entity. They might as well be assigning a representative to Guam, to Puerto Rico, or to American Samoa. They have as much authority to give a representative to the Republic of Colombia as they do to the District of Columbia – none.

Yet it appears it will be done, because our elected representatives are facing issues with emotion and arbitrary opinion. One senator said, “We’re the only nation in the world whose capital has no representation in its own government.” First, I doubt the truth of that statement, and second, since when do we want to be like everyone else? Our nation was founded as a unique experiment in self-government, and we have been copied, but never equaled, in our history. Why would we want to be like some European or Asian state? Our forefathers surely didn’t.

If this obscene idea must be pursued, let it at least be done by way of the Constitution – what’s left of it. Let the District of Columbia petition congress for statehood, and let congress and the states debate and decide on statehood. Don’t try to “sneak in” some representation based on an emotional appeal, especially by people whose emotions have more than once elected a convicted cocaine user to their own highest office.

If DC is to be granted statehood, don’t stop there. Texas was admitted with the agreement that it could be split into as many as five states. Let that happen, and add eight new senators to the mix – all from the state that has voted Republican every time since 1980. Don’t stop there. California is way too big. It’s obscene to have over 50 electoral votes, so let’s keep the liberal west and south, but split off a more conservative northern California and a moderate eastern California. Then, let’s give each of the two new Californias two senators, and divvy up the “fair” proportion of congress people to the new states. For too long, the presidential election has been about who gets California. Why not let the conservatives in the state get some representation? If you’re going to vote with your emotions, it’s only “fair.”

But congress needs to be stopped. Is it an impeachable offense for someone who has sworn to “uphold” the Constitution to act directly against it? I know most of our elected officials have never read it, and have no idea what it says, but the Supreme Court needs to intervene. Out of the nine, there are at least five or six who have read the Constitution. Please tell your elected officials to stop defying the law of the land. If DC “deserves” statehood, then start a drive to get it for them, if you dare. But the current action of Congress is a travesty that needs to be dealt with. Let’s nip this in the bud.

ADDENDUM: Two days after the above post, I discovered the following proposed amendment. Obviously, within the last decade, congress still knew it had no constitutional right to do what it is about to do. Therefore, an amendment was drawn up to give the District of Columbia statehood privileges without actually being a state. The amendment died for lack of support, which is probably why they are doing an "end around" this time. For your information, here is the text of the failed amendment:

Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution To Provide for Representation of the District of Columbia in the Congress
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
"Article--
"Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.
"Section. 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.
"Section. 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
"Section. 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission."

A Short Course in Government Economics

2009-02-09T13:40:00.005-06:00

So, how does the government make money? They have to make money, after all -- they spend it, so obviously they make it, too. How do they make money? Most people would say "by taxes." That's what I used to think. It's true that the US government has always made money from tariffs and other market-style taxes, but most people think that the major portion of government money comes in from the annual April 15 billing cycle. It's surprising to realize that, for well over a hundred years, the US government was able to operate and pay expenses without taxing the income of its own citizens. In fact, I believe that the US government still operates independently from the taxation of citizens.

We have believed for at least two generations that we faithfully pay our taxes to the government, and the government then responsibly uses it to pay the bills and housekeeping. The truth, of course, is that taxation has practically nothing to do with raising revenue, and practically everything to do with controlling business, education, religion, commerce, and our private lives. If taxation were just to raise revenue, the process would not be nearly as complicated as it is. Most average Americans can take their tax data to three different, licensed tax preparers and they will get three different statements, three different amounts, three different sets of figures. There is nothing simple about paying American taxes.

In a nation where officially no one has the right to force us to be accountants, much less even to be able to read and write, we are expected every year to set up bookkeeping, calculate our finances, and using a book of charts provided by a para-government agency, determine what we "owe" our nation and then send it in. It is probably the hardest, least objective, most confusing thing any American is called on to do. Most of us are forced to spend even more money to hire someone who can prepare a vaguely readable return and get it to an agency that will then cash our checks and hopefully not bother us again for a year.

Why not just have a straight percentage? Some think that a varying scale is "fair" for the "poor," but if it's just a percentage, wouldn't it still be that the poor pay less and the rich pay more? Most people understand this; unfortunately, there's something in the Washington water or air that causes them to forget it. However unfair it might be to some people, even a "graduated" scale would be fairly simple to figure out. First you would find out how much you made; then, using the scale, you could figure out if you owed ten percent, fifteen percent, eight percent, thirty percent, or "no" percent. But it's not that easy, either. If it were, you wouldn't get those mythical three figures mentioned above.

So why is it so complicated? Because it's all about control. By giving tax advantages for some things and tax penalties for others, government is able to "modify" behavior of both corporations and individuals. When a school, a business, a church, or a family has "been bad," according to government standards, they suffer a tax problem. They are penalized and it perhaps puts them on the straight and narrow for the next year.

The "Internal Revenue Service" is the oxymoron of all oxymorons: it is neither internal (it is a private agency contracted by the government), nor a "service," in the strictest sense of the word. Who depends on them to help anyone? And it does not raise "revenue." It is the enforcement arm of a federal government grown big and overblown like Jabba the Hutt. The IRS goes way beyond raising money. In the 30's the feds could not find enough proof of an actual crime to jail the mobster Al Capone. Everyone knew he was bootlegging, killing, and extorting, but for some reason, that was not enough. Enter the IRS, and the crook was locked up for life. A church in middle America has admittedly strange ideas about something or other. Unfortunately, there's that pesky first amendment, as well as the fourth and others. Fortunately, there's the IRS, entering where angels fear to tread, and there's a padlock on that church door. When the IRS finally comes in and breaks the ice, the ATF, FBI and NSA can meekly follow and sweep up the mess.

Where does the government get money, then, if not from income taxes and the IRS? Well, when you are the government, you can print more. How do you get 700 billion dollars, then get 800 billion more? Simple! You just get out the plates with George Washington's -- or better yet, Benjamin Franklin's -- picture on them, and you slap some green ink on some treasury paper and -- Viola! -- instant money! In this electronic age, you don't even have to waste all that ink and paper. Our government also prints "virtual" money! It's so easy even a freshman congressman can do it!

How can I make such a claim? Mathematics helps somewhat. The two latest "stimulus" plans -- the adopted one and the proposed one -- total $1.5 trillion dollars. That's one million times one million dollars, and then add half of that again. Let's go wild and say that every man, woman, and child in the US could be a wage earner and tax payer. Split a trillion and a half up into three hundred million payments, and each of them would be responsible for five thousand dollars. That means that the IRS would have to clear -- show a profit of -- five thousand dollars for taxing every man, woman, and child in this country. That's not going to happen, of course. Most Americans' tax bills are not that high.

Then, consider that it's more like only one hundred million households or less that will file a tax return, and that perhaps a fourth of them will not have to pay taxes. That gets us to about $18000 dollars from every tax paying household in this country. Now, realize that this money is not to pay the ongoing operation of congress, the maintenance of roads, the salaries of government agencies, regulatory commission employees, medicaid, or welfare. Oh, yes, we are also fighting two wars overseas, and maintaining the peace in several countries. I think that costs a dollar or two. Then there are things like PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and other subsidized agencies. Don't forget our education system, primary, secondary, and post secondary. Highways, airports, and everything related to them -- all of this is paid for by government.

Do you see that there is no possible way that what is collected by the IRS even starts to pay for most of this? Oh, I'm sure there are some "token" amounts that go to government programs. But the idea that the two "stimulus" packages are being paid for with tax dollars is impossible to anyone that does the math. That money will be printed, electronically transferred, or borrowed from our great-great-great grandchildren, since we've already borrowed from all the generations leading up to that.

It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal. The fact is, we have elected some people who are spending money that they don't have, money that doesn't exist. Several years ago, the Peruvian government had a unit of currency called a "Sol," roughly equivalent to a dollar. When that money was devalued severely, they developed a new unit called an "Inti," that was the equivalent of a million "Soles," and roughly the equivalent of -- a dollar. Later, Peru developed the "Nuevo Sol," worth a million "Intis," and worth about -- a dollar. That was fifteen years ago, more or less, and I didn't even want to research what the "new" Soles are worth now. However, I know they are worth a trillion of the old ones. That's called "printing your own revenue," and it makes your currency worth approximately what Monopoly money is worth. The only thing that has preserved our dollar so far has been an American economy that can swim upstream in an adverse, spending-gone-wild climate.

Please don't think your tax dollars will go to the "stimulus" package. Your tax dollars are a drop in the bucket. They just make you behave yourself. No, this money will be manufactured. No gold to back it up, no securities to make it worth anything. You could print paper that was worth as much. But we continue to believe that it is real money, and as long as congress continues to spend it, we will continue to stretch it thin. A day is coming when the stretching will stop, and the "snap" will affect all of us.

It's not about taxpayers anymore. It's about devaluation, and it will cost us in the future. The world once coveted our green paper. The time is coming when we won't be able to give it away.

The Strange Case of Jane Roe

2009-01-19T22:35:00.004-06:00

The pivotal point of the American debate over life for the past 36 years has been the 1973 Supreme Court decision in the Roe vs. Wade case. Perhaps no other issue has polarized American life like abortion. The next supreme court nominees, like the last ones, will not be asked first about the Constitution itself, but rather about abortion, and specifically, Roe v Wade. What is the story behind this decision?

First, we need to realize what Roe vs. Wade did. Most people think it legalized abortion. In the broadest of terms, that is almost right. However, many US states had already legalized abortion. Like many other issues, abortion was a state matter, an assumed right of the reserve clause of the Bill of Rights, that all powers not given to congress were reserved for the states. In that way, each state made its own decision about abortion.

In 1973, most abortion activists knew that there was no way to push further legalization of abortion through popular elections: most Americans were firmly against abortion. Like many unpopular causes, the Left turned to the courts and a tiny majority to get their way on this issue. Norma McCorvey was a pregnant unwed mother. She didn't have any big feelings about things one way or another. A coalition of special interest groups took a "special interest" in her case, and used her as a tool, under the pseudonym "Jane Roe" to present their case to the most willing of lower courts. In what must have been a very carefully orchestrated plan, years in the making, the road was paved to the Supreme Court. But even paved roads in the court system are slow. By the time the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to strike down Texas' abortion laws, McCorvey's "fetus" was a toddler, and she never had an abortion. Today, both McCorvey and her daughter are active in the pro-life movement. McCorvey herself says she was used -- abused -- as a tool to push through an agenda that she did not favor. Her daughter has a stronger agenda, however. She was given a death sentence by the same Supreme Court that had overruled death sentences for convicted murderers a year earlier.

What are the problems with this ruling? First, there continues to be the deception of those who support the ruling. They often say that if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would be illegal in this country. That is a lie. It would only return the issue to the states, where it belongs, and where it resided for 184 years.

What is the basis for the ruling? The Supreme Court ruled that there was an implied "right to privacy" in the US Constitution, and based their ruling on a convoluted misinterpretation of the third amendment, which prohibits the quartering of troops, and more importantly, the fourth amendment, which prohibits illegal search and seizure. The latter is the more ridiculous of interpretations, as it is a prohibition against allowing someone to enter a location not their own, and forcibly remove something from that domicile. Interestingly, that is exactly what an abortion is.

Even more interesting is that the justices found a "right to privacy," even though one is not mentioned in the Constitution, but could not find a "right to life," saying that the 14th amendment's guarantee of protection as a citizen could not be extended to the unborn in this case. The ruling was made assuming that we could not know the forefathers' intentions when they wrote the Constitution. Of course, many of those same men who were instrumental in developing the Constition had, thirteen years earlier, penned the Declaration of Independence, which stated that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." There, not implied, but stated boldly, is the "right to life."

The decision to take or spare that life was left to the interpretation of each state -- until 1973. Why, you may ask, didn't they work with the various state legislatures to push their agenda? The answer, of course, is obvious: most states found the killing of the unborn repugnant, cruel, and against nature itself.

So why not leave things as they were? Any American who wanted an abortion could move to a state where it was legal. Why go to the trouble of overruling 50 sovereign states? By the way, Roe v. Wade not only overruled the "pro-life" states, but also the "pro-abortion" states, rewriting their own rules and restrictions in this issue.

The basic answer is "finances." Abortions were not economically feasible. The process was costly, and most people could not afford it. States could not pay for the abortions they provided, and the abortion industry could not flourish. By mandating a blanket abortion law across all 50 states, the issue was put into federal control. Federal funding was on the way, and today most clinics make their money from federal (read "taxpayer") funds. Before 1973, those who lived in a pro-life state did not have to subsidize abortion.

Had Roe not passed, abortion might have died. Most abortions are requested by women who cannot afford the procedure, and that same lack of funds extends to other necessities of life. If those seeking abortions had moved to states providing them, those states would not have been able to support the financial substructure necessary to support the people who needed the procedure. By mandating that all citizens in all states support the procedure, abortions soon became the profitable business they are today.

Were abortion to actually be outlawed today (and that would take more than just overturning "Roe"), our nation would suffer a gigantic economic crisis because of the jobs, research, and raw materials generated by the harvesting of the unborn.

Roe v Wade also ensured that abortion could be forced. Catholic hospitals are faced with a conscience crisis when they must choose between being eligible for Medicare and Medicaid money or refusing to do abortions. Pharmacists of principle have lost their jobs for refusing to distribute RU-486, the "morning after pill," to teenagers. Some have lost their jobs over this issue when all a customer would have had to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. The Roe decision was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

McCorvey claimed that she had been raped, or at least was coached to say this. She says today that she never imagined that women would use the decision that bears her pseudonym to use elective abortion, not once, but repeatedly.

No one will ever know how many scientists, researchers, teachers, statesmen and women, public servants, artists, and philanthropists have been exterminated in the womb since 1973. But the decision was made in ignorance by justices with a prejudice. The woman who was forcefully used to push the case through was a victim, not a plaintiff.

As we celebrate this week: the 19th, the memory of a great man, Martin Luther King, the 20, the historic inauguration of our 44th president, let us not forget the 22nd, not as a celebration, but as a mark on our nation as despicable and shameful as September 11th. And let us push for a reversal of Roe v Wade. Let's take Washington's hands off the unborn, and return this decision to the states, as the Reserve Clause would dictate.

A New View from the Inside

2009-01-08T13:21:00.005-06:00

Every time I hear any of the entitled ones, whether they be Republican or Democrat, talk about "Health Care," the only thing their little narrow minds can envision is "insurance." I wish it was that easy. I wish that the health care solution could be one of two things:

The really easy fix: All of our health care problems are being caused by evil, profit-mongering insurance companies. The federal government could force them to offer us all health insurance for fifty dollars a month, and cover it 100%, and we would all be healthy and happy.
The "throw money at it" fix: We need to replace greedy, capitalistic health insurance companies with a benevolent, government controlled socialistic "one size fits all" health insurance program, taking a meager amount from our earned income and paying hospitals to keep us healthy and happy.

Obviously, both of the above scenarios are fairy tales. I do not deny that insurance companies will try to find ways to keep from paying any money they don't have to, sometimes unjustly. What I do deny is that they have played a main role in the crisis that is ongoing now. I am trying my best to avoid merely repeating some of my earlier rants on this blog site. Let me try to state some things in a new way. In this past week, I have been "on the inside." A person close to our family has had a hospital experience. I have just a few observations to make.

It takes at least 15,000 dollars to ride a helicopter from one hospital to another. I think I found a way to pay my own medical expenses. First, I need a helicopter so I can make 14,500 dollars profit on each ride. If I furnish as few as two rides a day, I can pay maybe half my daily hospital expenses for just what I'm charging for the helicopter ride.
Doctors no longer understand the entire body. I think there are doctors that treat only the left ear, and others only the right. Some treat veins while others treat arteries. And none of them know how to read an x-ray. They have to hire that out.
Hospitals are constantly under construction. I guess they have to find some way to "tax shelter" the money they charge. All hospitals are under construction.
Only doctors and employees can park within five blocks of a hospital. Everyone else has to park further away, and has to pay for the privilege.
Half of the "emergency room" parking is "handicapped only." What say we make an allowance here, and speculate on the fact that perhaps everybody that needs an emergency room is at least temporarily "handicapped." Maybe someone didn't get a chance to apply for a handicapped plate between the time he got the knife in his back and the time he arrived at the hospital. Maybe we could forego the restrictions and signs.
Hospitals like mazes. There are no straight lines in hospitals. If they have letters before the portion of the hospital, they will not necessarily mean anything and will never be in alphabetical order. "A" wing will never be next to "B" wing.
Oh, and parking places are like gangland turf wars. Instead of "crips" and "bloods," etc, hospital parking lots are the turf of "radiology" or "enterology" or "cardiology" parking only. If your kidney just blew up, sorry about that. Find the renal lot. This one belongs to the heart people. If you see a sign that says "doctor parking," you are too close to the hospital anyway.

Sunday night, I had driven 120 miles to catch up with the helicopter, and as we waited for only six hours to get someone a room, I looked in that emergency ward. Everywhere I looked, there were people on cell phones, and one big word I kept hearing was "insurance." A bigger one, though, was "medicaid." I heard snippets as I walked by, of people saying, "I don't know how we will pay for this." Recently, one of my own friends talked about when his mother came out of her coma in a trauma ward, and her first words were, "How will we ever pay for this?" I can't recall anyone in the eavesdropped conversations talking about the health condition of a friend or loved one. It was all about spending the rest of their lives trying to figure out how to pay everything.

This morning on ABC's "Good Morning America," Michelle Katz, author of at least two books I plan to buy, spoke of how, after the trauma of saving her husband from a fatal heart attack, she then had the harder job of getting a correct hospital bill. She and her husband were overcharged thousands of dollars for the stay. Several months ago, Mellody Hobson, also on "GMA," said that up to 70 percent of all medical bills are in error. That was kind of her, because merely "in error" would have meant that some patients were under-charged, which never actually happens.

If the medical world were held accountable like I, a private citizen, am held accountable, we might be able to solve many of these problems. Yet medical institutions are not held to these rules, and we are bombarded by these bank breakers:

Bills sometimes come 6 months to a year after the fact. I have thought at times that I was totally paid, and then, long after the account was settled, had it re-opened by a late but substantial billing entry.
Billing is not uniform. I have found that it is better not to mention at all that I have insurance. A few years ago, I had to take my son to the emergency room. The sign said in English and Spanish, both of which I read, "Emergency room expense is 200 dollars." That was good for me because my policy at that time paid up to 200 dollars for the emergency room. Imagine my surprise when, six months later, I got the bill from the hospital for 250 dollars. They had billed my insurance company 450 dollars for the 200 dollar emergency room, the insurance company had paid its 200, and I was left owing 250. If I had just denied having any insurance, I could have saved fifty bucks.
Billing is not unified. Even a CPA could not keep up with billing. There is the doctor's bill, the hospital's bill, the ER bill, the specialist bill, the radiology bill, and then the bill for someone who, 200 miles away, at 4 AM, allegedly read the xray and did something worth 600 dollars. Then there are incidental bills for medicine, meals, kleenex (at 12 dollars a box), etc. Your hospital and any of the others above will be more than happy to forego the inconvenience of an itemized bill for these things. In addition to the insurance and payment nightmare this poses, it also allows for double billing, even triple billing of the same treatments.
The burden of proof is on you. Not only that; if you take the time and effort to straighten out the bill, the hospital usually says, "Okay, you got me. Pay the rest." On one of our bills, the hospital billed our insurance company, got an offset of the bill (about half) and then, three months later, billed us for the full amount. When we called to ask them about it, they said it was the full amount that we owed. After another month that included getting a statement of payment from our insurance company, the hospital, without comment, apology, or admission of error (actually theft), merely sent us a new bill showing about a two thousand dollar "adjustment" with no explanation.

It is a frightening dichotomy. On the one hand, we have the best doctors, not only in the world, but in history, living in the US right now. We have miracles of medicine that extend and save lives, and diagnostic equipment that my grandparents only dreamed of. On the other hand, the medical world is a world of uncertainty, humiliation, financial disaster, and interminable waiting in lines, of mountains of repetitive paperwork. As we waited to admit our friend the other night, I was amazed at how many times differing departments asked her the same questions regarding address, phone, medical history, insurance numbers, contact numbers, etc. It seems that all that information, once in a computer, could be readily available for all. My wife and I had updated our contact information on one floor of that huge hospital, but that updated info did not make it to the destination floor, where they tried to contact us at an outdated number.

One key I see is the huge, bottomless pit of money and resources that can be drawn from the federal government. If tomorrow, all medicaid and medicare was shut off, hospitals would go broke all across the country. Add 100% group plans that very few people get, and we'd lose them all. When the idea of a general practitioner was abundant and every village of 500 or more in the US had a clinic and doctor, it was possible to pay a medical bill without mortgaging the rest of your life away. It was also possible to park within 100 feet of your doctor's office. When the local MD knew you, shopped, dined, and worshiped where you did, there was an ambience of friendship, of relationship, that precluded the idea of "malpractice," either the "doing or the suing."

If there were any way to turn back the clock to these times, to eliminate the monstruous medical complexes in favor of the local clinic and hospital, to allow a doctor to deliver a baby without fears of being sued every time, we might be able to pay our own way. But now, if you have something worse than a hangnail, you have to be referred to the nearest city of 200,000 or more to get it taken care of. Local G.P.'s can't -- or won't -- be bothered with it.

The worst possible thing we can do about this crisis is further nationalize and regulate it. We don't need government-provided health insurance. The most radical, but probably the most effective remedy would be for every American to cancel his or her health insurance tomorrow, to tear up every medicare and medicaid card, and let the medical industry free-float to a market value it deserves. Oh, and of course, put a strict limit on lawsuits and liability, so a doctor can insure himself for less than six figures a month.

But of course that's not going to happen. So when you get sick, be sure to bring lots of pens and paper for the paperwork, prepare to walk several miles, and say goodbye to all your money, even if you have insurance. Because health care needs fixing, and it's not going to happen if we keep treating the symptoms. Doctors used to know that.

The Circus They Call the Senate

2008-12-30T19:37:00.003-06:00

I've been hearing a faint buzz in national cemeteries all over our nation as the framers of the constitution continue to spin in their graves over the continued unraveling of one of the greatest Documents ever to come from the human mind. If anything, the mess that succeeding generations have made of the US Constitution shows that nothing, no matter how well done, is foolproof, provided you have enough fools in high places.

Originally, the Senate was an ingenious compromise to a big problem. The "larger" states, like Virginia, felt that they, due to their populations, should have greater representation in the legislative body. The "smaller" states, like New York (!), felt that all the states should be represented equally. From this dispute came the idea of a bicameral legislature, composed of two distinct bodies. The House of Representatives would be based on population, and more populous states would have more representation. The Senate, however, would answer the need for states to be treated equally, regardless of population. The Senate would be the place where cooler heads prevailed. Because of that, it would be trusted with things like making treaties, the examination of federal judges, and the approval of executive appointees. The Senate was seen as less "partisan," and not subject to the momentary whims of an often fickle electorate. The six year terms were designed to give them more time for deliberation, and less need for politics.

Most people don't realize that the framers of our Constitution did not intend for senators to be "elected." It was not until the imposition of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 that senators were chosen by the electorate. Before that time, they were chosen by the states, usually by their legislatures. In the erosion of states' rights, that important measure was forgotten and forsaken. Americans had been given the unique opportunity to elect a representative from their own district; the Senate was reserved for important decisions made by, for lack of a better word, "statesmen."

In effect, popular election cheapened the Senate. What we currently have is a "House of Representatives" and a "House of Representatives Express," which has really become more of the same. There is so much duplication between the two that many people wonder why we don't just go to a unicameral legislature. After all, isn't it repetitive to have one chamber pass a bill, and then have to have the other one do exactly the same thing? The previous idea of a popularly elected body of representatives being counterbalanced by an upper chamber of statesman appointed by each state (or vice versa) was a major stroke of genius in the system of checks and balances.

It took nearly one hundred years for the "Upper Chamber" to finally devolve into the joke that it now is. Look at recent results. Minnesota is probably the most pitiful example, where it appears that a second-rate comedian is about to be awarded a six year term after a highly partisan battle and a seemingly highly partisan theft of votes after the fact that makes Louisiana politics look tame. Of course, the Senate has seen this before. In 1941, LBJ found out that a senate seat is not easily taken. He had won a special election, and even begun to celebrate, when suddenly, new "votes" began to come in. He was beaten by a clueless Pappy O'Daniel, then the governor of Texas. O'Daniel had not rigged the election. His enemies had. He was a known tee-totaler and a prohibitionist, and the liquor interests of Texas wanted him out of Austin and comfortably in Washington, so they awarded him a senate seat. LBJ learned his lesson, and seven years later, he stole an election himself. In one precinct in south Texas, all the people came in and voted in alphabetical order, even some of the dead ones. The partisan force behind Franken has refined the issues somewhat, but seems to have discovered entire precincts that weren't counted before, but voted purely Democratic.

Then there's Illinois, where the governor did what any good Illinois party boss would do -- tried to sell the senate seat. His idea was, "I did not work this hard to get this far so I could just sit here and serve the people. I'm ready to cash in!" This never would have been a problem with the original process. Oh, yes, governors can appoint senators, but I seriously doubt there would have been a vacancy to fill. Mr. Obama may turn out to be an excellent president, but he would not have been senate material if the state legislature had been thinking about it. Nor Hillary Clinton, who moved to New York just so she could be a senator. I realize that there have been many senators who became president. Lincoln lost to Douglas in an Illinois senatorial contest that was decided by the state legislature, and then Douglas lost to Lincoln in the next presidential election. If there had been a popular vote, Lincoln probably would have been an obscure Illinois senator in 1860, and Douglas might have been the president. Now that's a big change, and it shows what we may have missed in the last 100 years.

Then, of course, there's the need to fill Hillary's senate seat and, surprise of surprises, they are actually looking for someone from New York to do it! Obviously, since the governor is a Democrat, it will be a Democrat. I'm not sure if there are even any Republicans in New York. Some people tried to tell me Rudy Giuliani is one, but I think they were probably joking. If the Senate is a state matter, decided by a state legislature, then the procedure is to look for a capable, competent, experienced statesman/woman. However, the public, not only in New York, is frothing at the mouth. It's a chance to get another Kennedy!!! Caroline Kennedy, who used to have another last name until this senate seat came up, has already been crowned by the public. After all, she's JFK's daughter, so she must be a good senator. One NY politician even made the asinine comment that "she has the DNA to be a senator."

Spin, forefathers, spin. Now we're talking "royal line" and titles of nobility. Now political leadership is inherited. King George is back. I recently listened to her first "campaign" speech, and I have to say, she's probably a nice person, and good at whatever she has been doing. But she has no vision, no speaking skills, you know, uh, you only, you know, have to listen, you know, for, uh, a minute, to, you know, realize that. But forget that: she has DNA!

The framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom and foresight, knew that Americans would need one big ugly Circus Maximus, so they gave us the House of Representatives. Little did they realize that the American people would demand a two-ring circus, so a hundred years ago they turned the Senate into one, too. And while we're at it, we need to note that no circus is complete without three rings, so we have also added the Executive Branch to the mixture, making the road to the White House a multibillion dollar, tiring, boring, two-year trek of ineffective and unsatisfying primaries that lead to a meaningless convention/coronation. And to boot, most Americans would like to just do away with electoral votes and make it an across the board national popularity contest.

Perhaps the best thing we could do for our nation would be to restore the Senate to the position that the Framers intended. I know we couldn't do it overnight, but we could "grandfather" those who are in the Senate right now, let them continue to run their expensive campaigns. But each time a senator retires or is defeated in an election, we could say "last one," and turn the next one to the state legislatures.

"Oh," you might say, "but popular elections give us the senators the people want." I really have a hard time believing that Al Franken could make a good page, much less a senator. Does Minnesota really deserve Al Franken, or even his worthy opponent? If state legislatures regained what was once a constitutional power, if it were possible to do it today, in the next 24 hours, our Senate would see a sudden, radical improvement. We must face it: popular election does not produce the best leaders. Remember Nixon? Biggest popular win in history, up to that time. Was Hillary really the best New York could do? Then there's Idaho and Alaska; don't forget Florida.

You want to send a clown to Washington? Our forefathers gave us the House for that. We should return the Senate to its original dignity. It would help us all out.

Making the Most of a Blank Check

2008-12-25T16:30:00.005-06:00

Clause/North Pole Applies for Bailout Money

Thursday, December 25, 2008
by Staff Writer B.O. Sanity

Augusta, Maine (AIP) - Sources close to the banking committee have reported that there was an eleventh-hour request submitted just before congress adjourned for the long Christmas holiday, and many on Wall Street will be running for cover when the market re-opens for a mini-session on Friday. Clause/North Pole (Nasdaq CNPL) is requesting up to 75 billion dollars of the federal bail-out money that has been set aside for troubled businesses. The call is expected to send CNPL into a tailspin when trading opens, but Clause's chief financial advisor recommends moderation, saying that there are already corrective measures on the way that will see the stock returning to pre-December levels by mid-February.

Clause cited competition from new corporations such as Kwanza and renovation of older ones such as Ramadan (which cuts into the December market much earlier in the month) and has asked for protective measures. Clause cited the dependence of American corporations on their product delivery framework, though detractors have noted that CNPL now delivers up to 70% non-American manufactured goods, most notably from China and Indonesia. Rapid downsizing in native workforce has been the trend since the eighties, when CNPL, then the pre-merger North Pole Industries, a private corporation, offered early retirement to any assembly line manufacturers who were 350 years old or older.

Many current manufacturers who use CNPL as a delivery framework are dissatisfied with several strategies that they say are now "outdated," and feel that production and distribution are suffering from a "good/bad" criterion that hampers overall production. Sony and Nintendo have threatened to withdraw from the CNPL delivery system altogether when the current contract expires in 2011 unless CNPL can redefine "good and bad." Walmart has also entered talks, calling on CNPL to be more environment friendly, and calculate green behavior into the "good" mode.

Clause, CEO of the corporation, issued a statement requesting that they be allowed a time of reorganization. Though global warming and ice melting has not yet affected headquarters, Clause requested up to two billion for contingency expenses in the possibility of a need for relocation and recovery of resources. Heavily criticized as not even being an American corporation due to the out of country location, Clause noted that applicable taxes are assessed from the corporations that contract his delivery service, and assured potential investors that, in the unlikely event of a relocation, CNPL would favor US Territory and would negotiate with American labor organizations.

Rumor has it that Target, Inc, attempted a hostile buy-out of 51% of CNPL's stock last July during Clause's executive retreat at Aruba, but the takeover bid was curtailed when Wachovia refused to advance a line of credit to Target for the 350 million dollar shortfall that would be needed for full purchase. Claus's legal team has since privatized 51% of CNPL's outstanding stock, a move which temporarily saw shares rise by as much as fourteen percent in early August, but which has seen twice the decline since.

Clause reported early this morning, returning from the annual delivery cycle, that the outlook actually is good for a short term gain in the first quarter, but there is still talk on Wall Street of cutbacks, and CNPL's employees, who uniquely receive their seasonal bonuses in late January instead of early December, are grumbling about the delayed bonuses which allegedly will not be given until the February numbers are out this year, and are said to be stock shares in the company instead of traditional cash gifts.

There has also been a rumbling over a potential split of the company, and rumors of marital turbulence between Clause and his wife are being downplayed. Ms. Clause owns 20 percent of CNPL's public shares, and it is common knowledge that she has been in extended discussions with Martha Stewart over a possible merger, which, of course, would offset Walmart business with the less viable Kmart name.

CNPL's request for funds will not go without a price. House Banking Committee Chairman Rep Barney Frank (D-NY), said that there would be some governmental control of the North Pole distribution network, and there would need to be concessions by Clause and company regarding procedures. Frank has expressed concern about traditional gay views and possible conflicts with the "good/bad" list.

Critics have said that one reason for artificial perceived growth in CNPL is the possibility of reduced delivery expenses due to an increase in "bad" children in the equation, and many corporations, such as Disney, Sears, and Time-Warner have expressed concern about loss of product, and want to see representatives from their own corporations on the conduct evaluatory board that determines who is good and bad (http://www.naughtyornice.np/). Frank has recommended a congressional committee be added as well, and says that Clause cannot expect any help unless he is willing to make this concession.

CNPL closed Wednesday at 324.23, down 17.21, and down from their all-time high in 1998 of 768.23.

The Sinatra Syndrome

2008-12-18T08:39:00.009-06:00

For eight years I have heard the left talk about "diversity" and "inclusion." They have spoken of how the Bush Administration and the political Right have excluded some people because of a philosophical difference. With yesterday's announcement of Rick Warren as the one to lead the invocation at the inauguration, I have finally found out the what the Left means when it says "diverse" or "inclusive." It means "I'll have it my way." The Frank Sinatra song was playing in my head as I went to bed last night, and I couldn't shake it.

Mr. Obama has been surprisingly inclusive in his selection of administration. In fact, if I had to mention just one word that has been characteristic of this transition time, it would be "gracious." He has not entered Washington as a conqueror, but as another servant in a long line of succession of public servants. However, I am pleased to see that Mr. Obama knows that he's no one's lap dog. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with all their partisan bitterness and rudeness, have implied that they have great plans for him, and he is consistently reminding them that, come January 20, he will be their boss.

Late in the evening of November 4, cities across the world looked like the cities that win super bowls. People were dancing in the streets. Why? They were anticipating a grand new age: the dismantling of everything that the Bush administration stood for. On January 21, they thought, the cargo planes would pull all the military out of Iraq. All those filthy rich people would lose all those horrible tax exemptions, and the money would be automatically deposited in the accounts of the deserving poor. Billions of dollars would be released to abort babies of poor innocent women, and the stem cells of those feti would be harvested and all known diseases in the world would be cured. Gay people would be celebrating marriage in court houses and liberal churches in all 50 states, and any of those rustic old churches that did not allow the ceremony would be padlocked or burned to the ground.

In early February, after picking an "inclusive" jury, the war crimes trials were going to begin for Bush, Cheney, Rice, and others, with Colin Powell getting immunity for turning states' evidence. Then they would all be sent to an international court somewhere for life imprisonment.

The only unemployed people, after January 20, would be right wing fundamentalist ministers, conservative talk radio hosts, and Republican lawmakers.

Rick Warren is not a right wing fundamentalist minister. Most Southern Baptists, of which he is one (though his church does not include the word in its name), would consider him "left-leaning." Understand, however, that those "fundamentalist" Southern Baptists are far more tolerant of alternate people and views than the Left. Rick Warren is a fiscal moderate and would probably come closer to the views of mainstream Democrats and moderate Republicans in the area of medical care, government backing of social programs, and funding for research. His church has raised millions of dollars to combat AIDS worldwide. He believes that both the government and the church have a responsibility to help the poor, and is an environmental advocate and supports measures to reduce global warming, something that probably would not be said of most Southern Baptist ministers.

Mr. Warren no longer accepts a salary from his church; in fact, he has even paid back all the salary they have paid him since he started the church in the 80's. Like J.C. Penney of another era, the Warren family are "reverse tithers." They keep 10% of their earnings and give the other 90% to their church and to charitable causes. He has not gotten his money from tearful begging sessions on cable TV, but through the writing of well-researched books that people have actually wanted to buy. He is not a "money grubber" by any means, and desires no national stage or world wide recognition.

Mr. Warren hosted the first tête à tête between the two major candidates, on the stage of his own church, asking them the same questions, endorsing neither, and affirming both. It was not the first time Mr. Obama has appeared at his church, having spoken there before he was a serious candidate for president, on an issue that he and Warren have in common: AIDS eradication. There was no outspoken criticism of Rick Warren from that "fundamentalist right" for these moderate, inclusive views. We must face the truth: whether we like right-wingers or not, they are far more tolerant than their angry counterparts on the left.

If nothing else, Rick Warren is the best possible choice to lead the invocation at the Inauguration. He represents the best of both worlds. He is a man of faith and integrity as well as a man of conscience. Unfortunately for the Left, the man has a genuine, non-political conscience, something that radical leftists lack. He feels that the unborn are an oppressed group, just like the Jews of the Holocaust, and the American slaves of past centuries.

Now Katheryn Kolbert, of the so-called "People for the American Way" has the audacity to say that Mr. Obama should have selected a minister who represents the "mainstream" of America to open the Inauguration. I can think of no other way to say it, except that maybe that was the most ignorant statement I have heard since the election. She said this because Rick Warren recommended that Californians vote for an amendment to undo the damage that judges had done to the concept of marriage in California. Gays and lesbians represent 2% of Americans, and many of their own group feel that gay marriages are unnatural and uncalled for. Yet the clueless Ms. Kolbert thinks her views are "mainstream."

Abortion is and always has been a hot-button issue. When the US Supreme Court hijacked America's wishes in 1973 and by a 5-4 vote decided that it was right to kill babies after all, and that states had no say in the matter, and that taxpayers had to pay for it, regardless of their own conscience, over 70% of Americans were opposed to abortion. Even after 35 years of this murder being imposed on us, over half of Americans are against it. Yet a pro-life pastor is considered outside the "mainstream."

When gays and lesbians began their repugnant crusade to be recognized as a minority group, and invaded the civil rights issues that rightly belonged to racially displaced Americans, their battle cry was "it's not the government's business what goes on in the privacy of our own bedrooms." It would be a very hypocritical cry. Most of us did not want to look in their bedrooms. We had -- and have -- absolutely no interest in their bedrooms. We're tired of seeing them march in streets, tired of having to watch them kiss while in the movie theaters, both on the screen and in the seats in front of us. We're tired of them forcing their way into churches and civic clubs, trespassing and disrupting orderly meetings, violating the constitutional right of freedom to assemble.

The gay and lesbian movement has not been in the bedroom. If it had been, there wouldn't be propositions like the state wide ones that all passed on election night, 2008, while Democrats were making historic gains in races all across the country. If anything shows how out of touch the Liberal Left is, it is that the party closest to their views, which voted in near-record numbers, did not help out their radical agenda.

I fear a disruption of the inauguration by this vocal 2% and less. You see, they lied about diversity. They lied about inclusion. They care about neither; all they care about is the violent imposition of their narrow views on the vast majority of decent Americans. Mr. Obama chose the person he felt most qualified to lead the prayer at his inauguration (since his likely first choice, Billy Graham, at 90 years old, is now too feeble for such events). Mr. Warren is a minister who is faithful to the text that he has studied and practiced most of his life. He is supportive of his friend, the President-elect. His inaugural prayer will be neither the first nor the last prayer he offers for Mr. Obama.

Evan Wolfson, founder of the group Freedom to Marry, said "Rick Warren did a real disservice to gay families in California and across the country by casually supporting our continued exclusion from marriage. I hope in the spirit of the new era that’s dawning, he will open his heart and speak to all Americans about inclusion and our country’s commitment to equality.”

I hope that in the genuine spirit of the new era that's dawning, Mr. Wolfson and others will find the intelligence to live by his own words, and realize that it's absolutely none of his business whom the President-elect chooses to lead the opening prayer at his inauguration.

The far left has shown its true colors. Some have said that Obama was the most liberal senator we have had since his election. That may or may not be true. Hypothetically, if it is true, we need to realize the chilling fact that the most liberal of all 100 senators is still not liberal enough for the radical left.

I am pleased that Mr. Obama has been his own man so far. I'm sure I will not like all the decisions he makes as president, but he has impressed me so far by showing that he will not kowtow to anyone. He's president, and that's what it's about.

And to the leftist radicals -- the Loud-mouthed Left -- I have one message. If you want it "your way," either visit a Burger King or go buy a Sinatra CD.

Presidential Advice from an Obscure Person

2008-11-12T23:50:00.002-06:00

Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You made it. Anyone who could survive two long, grueling, terrible years of what has come to be known as a "campaign" deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support. My hat is off to you, and may you prosper as our president. If you have a moment, I would like to give you a few words of advice from an ordinary, run-of-the-mill type of guy. It might be some good advice, so here goes:

Don't surround yourself with bad men. Unfortunately, that's what many of your predecessors have done. Some of them just want a way up, others want to work long enough to be able to write a book about you and make a lot of money, and then there are others with a thirst for power and a cruel streak that does not quit. I fear you've already started to do this, and it frightens me. Please understand that you don't "owe" anyone anything. You have been elected by Americans, and you have no favors to pay. So what if they gave you money or found you some votes? You owe nobody anything, except maybe to the voters who supported you.
Find people of honor and integrity. I know that this sounds a lot like the first one, but you've already had problems. You are now the president of the United States, for crying out loud, and you can't have casual conversations any more with just anybody about anything. You had a small problem this week. Mr. Bush was ready to lay some things out, to talk in confidence, as one president to another. You did not take that confidentiality seriously, and apparently blurted a lot of it to people around you, who were all too ready to leak the details to a nosy media. In so doing, you lost Mr. Bush's confidence somewhat. No matter what you think of his politics or his ethics, you need his confidence. He's been president for nearly 8 years, and he knows things you need to know. He was ready to show you all the secret places, and you were not careful in whom you told. You cannot treat secrets that way. It was a big mistake. If you want to start well as a great president, you need to find those on your staff who blabbed to the media, fire them, and warn the others that you will do that for any other "leak."
Don't try to save the world in one day. You will have time to get your programs in motion. If you do too much too fast, you will find that some things don't work out like you thought. There's only one group that will do you more damage than the conservatives you challenge, and that will be the liberals that you are going to have to let down. Don't promise them the moon. Ms. Speaker already thinks you are her meal ticket, and you have a wonderful power that Mr. Bush did not have: you can keep her on a short leash. If you are going to be president, you will have to do that. And while you're at it, you need to let Mr. Reid know that you are president and he is merely a senator, who before January 20 might have been your boss, but that things have changed.
Take a long, hard look. It was easy to make promises when you were merely a junior senator. Now you will be president. You will know things we don't know, and see the world through the serious eyes of our chief executive. The presidency is the "great moderator." It swings conservatives somewhat to the left, and liberals somewhat to the right. You will need to do what Kennedy and others have done who came in from the left, and realize that the "right" is "right" about some things.
Keep being human. It took quite a man to admit wrong in your first press conference. You inadvertently insulted Nancy Reagan. Presidents don't make offhand comments. They don't have that luxury. But your ready admission of being wrong puts you in a great light: you are willing to correct your errors and to grow. Several of those who opposed you from both major parties need to learn this lesson. They are never wrong, at least in their own eyes.
Protect your daughters. Let them be normal. Don't make them some kind of sacrifice on the altar of political correctness by doing something silly like sending them to a public school. That is way too dangerous. They deserve a small, expensive private school. You can afford it, we the people can afford it, and only an idiot would have a problem with it. Let them be little girls, and as much as is possible, let them grow up normally. Let them share a room. Of course there's plenty of money for each of them to have one of their own, but they will need each other because you and mom, as much as you want to be, will not be there with them all the time.
Don't listen to special interest groups. It is better to be a one-term president with integrity than a two-term president who worries about power brokers. Tell lobbyists where to get off. Don't pander to the extreme left who think they got you in. Don't feel than anyone "deserves" to be a justice, a cabinet member, or on your staff because you "owe" them. If someone reminds you that they gave you money for your campaign, give it back to them and tell them to get lost. You've got enough money to do that.
Watch the old movie "Tick..Tick...Tick.." with Jim Brown, I think. He was a black man who won the election for sheriff in a southern town in the 1960's. Let him be a role model of integrity and how it's done. I hope you're as tired as I am of hearing the word "race" in this election. Black people make up only 14% of the American electorate, and you won something like 56% of the vote. You were not elected by a racial group, and you don't owe anything to anyone. You are not the first Black president; you are the 44th American president.
Get the line item veto. I didn't vote for you, and I probably don't agree with many of your political issues. While it might seem counter-productive to people like me, I want to re-assert Get the line-item veto! It will kill pork, stop nonsense, and move sluggish Washington forward. The Republicans promised this in 1994, and that's why there was a landslide. Americans want their president to have a line item veto. Presidents want to have it. The only people that are against it are congressmen and senators. I'll bet you know why. GET THE LINE-ITEM VETO!
Get in touch with Dave Ramsey. If you've never heard of him, google his name. Ask him for some advice. There is not a money machine in the basement of the White House. You do not have unlimited funds, and rich people will not have near the money that you think they do. Dave Ramsey would probably send you his book for free. He would even visit with you. His ideas could fix the hemmorhaging of money that we have seen for the last eight years. Fix that, and you might be president for life.

Mr. President, my president. I give you my support and confidence. I will stand up for you when people are talking bad about you. If I disagree with your politics or decisions, I will speak against them, but never against you. If you listen to the simple advice I gave you above, you will get my vote in 2012. You can be the greatest president this nation has ever had. Take a shot at it.

God speed, Mr. President.

You're Fired!

2008-10-02T08:19:00.005-06:00

With that simple line, I hope to say goodbye to my two senators from Texas. One will get to hang around a few years because Senators get cushy six-year terms. That's probably why they vote less often for the wishes of their constituencies -- they are counting on party loyalty and short memories. Like Mr. Spacely of "The Jetsons," I wanted to say "YOU'RE FIRED!"

The senators have admitted that, for the most part, the vast majority of calls and e-mails they have gotten were against the .7 trillion dollar bail-out. The American electorate is against it. So how do 3/4 of our senators arrive at the conclusion that they should support this bill anyway?

One reason is, most of them feel that they will be re-elected when the time comes. After all, they think, voters are not that intelligent. They check a party box at the top of the ballot and give it no other thought.

I hope I speak for thousands in saying that's not the way it works now. Because of the internet, constant news coverage, and rapid exchange of information, we don't have to be in the dark. As I noted in my last post, they also vote on bills with strange, non-pertinent names that only someone with a legal degree and years of experience inside the cloisters of Washington could understand. In my last post, I gave you the name of the bailout bill the House voted on. In fairness to the Upper Chamber, I would like to give you the name of their bill:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES-110th Cong., 2d Sess.
H. R. 1424
To amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health
Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental
health and substance-related disorder benefits under
group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance
and employment, and for other purposes.

As you can see, they may not have even known what they were voting for. And in the old days, they could rest assured that you didn't know. But whatever they called it, and Senator Hutchison from our state changed the amount and the purpose, they still voted to use seven hundred thousand thousand thousand taxpayer dollars to pay for the stupidity of greedy bankers.

The day after the house bill, the stock market had a temper tantrum and lost nearly 800 points. The next day, like a spoiled child, they went back to their playtime and recovered over half of it. Then Wednesday night, the Senate, like an overindulgent, inexperienced parent, decided to give them their toy after all, and like a spoiled child who has gotten his way, the market decided to pout some more to show us how bad we had been.

You, the reader, have information. You have power. You have several sources that can tell you how your senator voted. I found out within the hour and was able to send a pink slip to both of my senators immediately.

I recommend you do the same. These are the people who gave you Daylight Savings Time, who made it easier for credit card companies to gouge you, and now who want to take your dollars and bail out people who are supposed to know more about money than you do.

I hope my letters to my congressmen were indicative of what is happening in Texas. If so, John Cornyn will be looking for a job in January. Maybe in a bank somewhere, since he's so sensitive to their needs. And Kay Bailey Hutchison has some time to think about it. Rumors are she may be tired of the senate and be about to challenge our governor for his job. At one time I would have tried to help her, but not now. Maybe she can be a bank teller instead.

Are you going to let the people you send to Washington continue to thumb their noses at you? The vote on Wednesday night was a no-brainer. Millions of Americans jammed phone lines and websites, pleading, "Please vote no!" Seventy-four senators turned a deaf ear to them. In four years or so, we could be rid of them.

It's up to you.

The Most Expensive Campaign Ever

2008-09-29T21:05:00.003-06:00

What do you think constitutes too much money to spend to campaign? How many millions? Do we get into the billions territory? This past week has seen the most expensive of all; in fact, today it reached over a trillion dollars. As stocks fell, and people wondered if their banks would be open the next morning, Democrats and Republicans saw this multibillion dollar fiasco as a chance to do some political jousting.

I watched as the situation built to critical mass. John McCain "suspended" a dying campaign so he could devote time to this crucial situation on behalf of America. This was spoken by a man who ranks last in the Senate this year -- for time spent in the Senate. Barack Obama came and sat in the White House and pretended he knew what was going on as he listened to economic advisers discuss what the next step would be.

A shiver runs down my spine as I realize that neither one of these men, and one will be president, has a clue about anything financial. However, they both have seen it as an excellent political opportunity.

Congress found out today that it's "kind of" important to listen to the electorate. Americans simply don't want to put our grandchildren further in debt to bail out irresponsible Wall Street sharks. We just don't have much in common with banks -- the tallest buildings in our towns, the ones that own our houses and cars and replaced knees and hips. However, we do have a lot in common with our friends and neighbors who are putting "for sale" signs in their front yards, and we don't see how 700 billion dollars sent to Wall Street is going to do anything about that.

But it's quite a photo op. The bill might have passed today if Nancy Pelosi had not made such a fool of herself. Perhaps the only poorer taste in campaigning I have ever seen was in 2002 when Democratic operatives tried to turn the late Senator Paul Wellstone's funeral into a campaign rally.

Pelosi gave us a prime example of why Congress's approval rating makes George Bush look like a rock star. They can get nothing done. Her rather crass grilling of the party across the aisle -- and a Democrat who has a few brain cells, and there are several, knows that the mess we are in is "bi-partisan" -- cost her any semblance of leadership.

But Nancy, I'm thankful. I'm like most Americans. I know that my retirement funds will be back. And one reason for that may be that your congress was not able to print 700 thousand thousand thousand dollar bills.

Having something like this happen so close to an election has been a mixed blessing. Those in the highest echelons of power are obviously not interested in what is happening to us. They are seeing this as a chance for a political move, a way to turn the elections in their favor. On the other hand, some savvy politicians and observers saw this as an opportunity to remind 435 people in the lower chamber that their jobs are on the line. Talk show host Dave Ramsey even encouraged us to call our congressional offices and tell them we would fire them if they voted for this measure. I think Dave must have a pretty good listener base. I think they called.

Pelosi was surprised. Bush was surprised. Republican leaders who were supposed to deliver the votes to GW were surprised. Harry Reid was near tears. John McCain and Barack Obama were almost speechless (that's a perk there). I thought that the evening network news anchors were going to cry on the air. A rather smug George Stephanopoulos assured us that this "necessary" bill would be passed as soon as those silly Republicans took a step back, got over their mad, and re-voted on this issue.

I'm counting on them holding their ground. I've been hearing Mr. Obama say that McCain and others are just extensions of George W. Bush and his "failed policies." Today, those same Republicans are the reason that the largest Socialist trap ever conceived in our nation did not become a reality. It was the Democrats who wanted to continue Bush's policies.

My own local congressman, a Republican, canceled a speech at our local high school to get back to DC in time to vote, and he voted against the Bailout. He's got my vote, and he would have it no matter what party he was in.

How much did this campaigning cost us? Seven hundred billion is cheap. The stock market lost a couple of trillion dollars today. That money came out of our 401k's, our educational savings plans, our teachers' retirement funds, and our personal mutual funds. It happened because government got involved in economics. If cooler heads had prevailed, and we had decided to ride this crisis out for a while and let those grasshoppers die while the ants weathered the winter, we would have seen a hiccup in the market today.

We can also thank the media, who have decided that we are about to go through a great depression worse than 1929, and are warning us about it on every corner. This is the same media that caused race riots in their irresponsible coverage of Rodney King, who showed us how bad we are for not bailing out a New Orleans that had built a city below sea level. They are the ones who continually have to remind me who's black and who's white when I want to look beyond color.

All in all, the loud ones were in a minority today. I'm sorry, GW, Nancy, Harry, John, and Barack. You are not getting our money to play with today. If you want to help us out with 700 billion dollars, I suggest you just give it back to us! We know what to do with it. Better than you do, obviously. I know you won't because there's not much to campaign about when responsible people use their own money to create business, growth, and prosperity.

We will survive. Even a trillion dollar loss will not stop those of us who avoid debt, who spend only what we make and try to give away as much as we can. We are not going to give you our money. Don't even think about it.

Oh, and a big PS that I can't put anywhere else. You want to know how messed up our congress is? Here's the title of what they voted on today. Notice there is nothing about Wall Street, bailouts, interest rates, or anything else. Most normal human beings would have given it a name that was germane to the vote. See if you can figure this one out; I am not making this up. This is the title of the bill that was voted on today:

To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Provide Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief to Members of the Uniformed Services, Volunteer Firefighters, and Peace Corps Volunteers, and for Other Purposes

And you wonder why they never get anything done.

Sorry, but I'm Not Sorry!

2008-07-29T10:07:00.004-06:00

Thank you, US congress. In the midst of the morass you have made of things in the last two years, you're still getting your priorities upside down. You may actually set a record: most "non-binding" resolutions in history. When the Democrats won power in both houses of congress in 2006, those who support the Left saw it as a moral victory. Surely Pelosi, Reid and company would usher in a new world order, complete with looser abortion laws, greater inroads for homosexuals, and gigantic increases in government spending, financed by more taxes on those evil rich people who seem to make money, no matter what we do.

Instead of doing any of these things, Congress has continued to play the "non-binding resolution" game. They've passed resolutions against the war, against Bush, in favor of his indictment, against Republicans, against apple pie, and against hot dogs. Well, most of those things anyway. Now, they are set for a pivotal moment in history: they are poised to offer a non-binding apology for slavery! This is the stuff that single-digit approval ratings are made of!

Please indulge me. It's not that I'm in favor of slavery or anything. I'd like to think that if I had been a wealthy Connecticut land owner in 1788, I would have opted not to have slaves. But the bottom line is, I don't owe anyone an apology. I'm not responsible for my Saxon ancestors who brutally overran the agrarian Celts before the first millennium was over. I'm not responsible for anything they did, even if they are my great X 10 grandparents.

If I had a time machine, I might try to go back and find my ggg grandparents, and tell them to let their slaves go. Maybe I could help them get to the underground railroad, and follow the Drinking Gourd into Canada. Maybe I could have been Harriet Tubman's right-hand man. But the truth of the matter is, what's done is done, and I can do nothing about it.

If it had even been closer. If my own father or grandfather had kept slaves, I might feel an obligation to apologize. I might even want to sell what I own and help pay reparations, especially if some of those slaves or their children were still alive. But that's not happened.

All slaves and slave holders have been dead for generations. There are no slaves left to apologize to, and no slave owners to make the apology. When any major group, be it social, religious, or political, seeks to make an apology on my behalf, I get a little ticked. But now, congress, which has done nothing but twiddle its thumbs, has decided to issue an apology for slavery.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sorry for slavery. I'm sorry for the way our forefathers ripped valuable land away from the Indians and took it for themselves. But there are differing types of "I'm sorry." Sometimes, we intentionally hurt someone. We rob from them, or do bodily harm, or spread malicious gossip about them. Or we may just lie to them. In that case, we say "I'm sorry," which can be translated as "Please forgive me." Then, there's the moment when we are getting to our seats in a crowded theater and accidentally step on someone's toe, or we momentarily block the view of "Coming Attractions." In that case, we say "I'm sorry," and what we mean is "Excuse me." Then, there is that moment when one of our friends comes to us and tells us of the discovery of an illness that will require surgery, or of the loss of a beloved pet or family member. When we hear that, we say "I'm sorry," and that could probably best be interpreted as "I sympathize with you."

I cannot figure out what level of "I'm sorry" congress seems to be trying to use. If it's "Please forgive me," I can't join in. I've never had slaves, never been in favor of slavery, and have absolutely no control over my ancestors, of whom there may not have been slave holders anyway. After all, there never were that many slave holders in America. Even in that evil, slave-owning Confederacy, over 80% of the soldiers that died fighting for states' rights had never owned a slave, and had no plans to. So I can't figure out any reason to truthfully say "Please forgive me." I did nothing wrong. And neither did you, unless you are reading this, are over 150 years old, and were in the top 10 per cent of the socioeconomic class of the US when you were young.

If it's "excuse me," I can't join in. I haven't even accidentally had slaves. I'm rather timid, and have a problem even telling my children to run an errand for me. I don't think I've stepped on too many toes, literally or figuratively, but have found that, when I do, as in these editorials I write, I really don't want to say "excuse me," because I don't want to be excused. All the toes I step on are on purpose, and none of them has had anything to do with slavery.

If it's "I sympathize with you," I can't go there either. If I found a genuine former slave, someone who had the scars of cuffs on his wrist, or of lashes on his back, I would be able to show compassion and sympathy for what he had gone through. But I think all those people are dead. In what I believe theologically, they are in a state of eternal bliss at this moment, and even if they could hear the "I'm sorry" from congress -- on YOUR behalf, by the way, it would mean nothing to them.

I think that, as long as we're in the non-binding resolution business, I would like to propose one to my own congressman, if he's listening. How about a "Let bygones be bygones" resolution? Let's realize that the past, however evil it was, cannot be changed, and that often, it is in the midst of a series of evil things that good things are brought about. As I think of how many Americans of African descent have contributed to our culture, of how pleased I am to know personally many people of African descent, I'm willing to forget the endless procession of time and circumstance that has brought about what got them here. For all I know, I myself may be a product of slavery -- some tiny event in history may have spurred the conception of a now-remote ancestor. And I know for sure that I'm a product of the taking of lands from the American Indians. I have the blood of at least two tribes coursing through my own veins. So I really didn't need Senator Brownback's apology to us, er, them recently. What's done is done.

At a time of record low approval ratings -- just in case you're interested, Bush is 3 times as popular as congress, and even Dick Cheney is twice as popular -- maybe congress is looking for any friends it can find. But remember, potential friends of congress. This resolution will be "non-binding." And it will do about as much good as it would do to dig up your great-great-great-great grandfather's grave and chew him out for maybe having slaves.

Let the healing begin.

Digital Health Care: A Parable

2008-07-02T09:08:00.009-06:00

I didn't really need to do it. But there it was, free for the taking: a forty dollar coupon. And the government was offering it to me, no strings attached.

As you probably know, next February, TV as we have known it since the days of Uncle Miltie, will disappear. Along with it, we will bury all those mysteries we wondered about when we were kids, like "Why is there no channel 1?" or "Why did they pick 13 channels?" and the long-solved "What does the 'UF' mean that is right after the thirteen on my knob?" I remember an ad later for a TV that said, "It gets all 82 channels." I don't think there's been an 82-channel tuner for quite a while now. But I have really digressed. Those reliable old channels, whether 12 or 82 or whatever number, have one big fault in this digital world: they take up way too much bandwidth. And those tiny slivers of digital channels can hold tons of information. The only channel that really gets to my house without static has at least two other channels streamlined in the narrow-band digital signal which my TV does not get. So I really understand the win/win situation of the FCC: with digital channels mandated, antenna-fed TV will improve, and all those gigantic dinosaur channels can be sliced up into delightful digital frequencies as well, to be sold for high dollar to wireless companies, communication agencies, and public service. It's a wise business decision, and I stand in awe that someone at the FCC figured that out. It must have been outsourced.

My TV. I bought it at KMart seven years ago when it was on sale. I really can't tell you how many channels it gets, because any time I do auto channel set-up it does it differently. But I do know this: it's not a digital TV. So I came to the realization that, on a clear February morning in 2009, the TV will no longer work. But that's almost OK with me. I've got "The Andy Griffith Show" on DVD, as well as many other favorite shows. The DVD player will continue to work, along with the ancient VCR (also analog). But I will lack one thing: local news and weather, and some college football games this fall. So I needed a digital tuner; after all, why buy a new digital TV, not to mention HDTV, etc, to get one channel here in the sticks? We have no cable. I could buy a satellite dish, but why pay 30-80 dollars a month so I can watch twice as many commercials in the middle of cut-up shows?

I am a perfect candidate for a digital tuner: we have two TV's, both analog. We don't have satellite. We will never have cable -- I'm 10 miles from the nearest cable connection. So I went online and filled out the information, being totally truthful. The last part of the form, by the way, is where you have to swear you're telling the truth -- Scout's honor -- and I had the sneaky suspicion they still didn't believe me. Oh, wait. There was another thing to fill out: one of those things where you read the scrambled box with lines through it and then type in what you see so you can prove that you're a human being and not a robot like Wall-E or something.

I did all that, and crossed my heart and hoped to die as I sent it. And got back the "request denied" page. It seems that I am living in either a multi-family dwelling or a business establishment. If there's another family in here, I've never met them, but that does explain who keeps forgetting to close doors, who's not throwing away their garbage or cleaning up after themselves. It must be another family; the IRS can vouch that there's no money-making business under this roof.

They had a little link to click to appeal the decision. I clicked that link and it gave me the "I'm not a robot" test again, and kicked me out without even saying goodbye. I went back to the site, and, paraphrasing, it said, "Oh, it's you again; I told you to beat it!" So then, I went to the phone and dialed the 24/7 hotline. After talking to computers (why do they get to be computers and robots and I don't? Shouldn't I be able to give them one of those squiggly lines tests?) a very courteous voice said, "We're sorry, but your request is rejected. If you think this is in error, please e-mail us at %#*&^@*&^%">%#*&^@*&" -- at least that's what it sounded like before they hung up on me without repeating the e-mail or telling me which button of the phone to push to hear the address again -- after I retrieved the pen that was within arm's reach.

So I dialed the number again, because I've heard if you work at those automated things long enough, you'll finally reach a human. It took a few minutes, but I finally got to dial a "0," and it thanked me and told me to hold until the next available human being could answer. Then, in about ten seconds, it told me it was impossible to talk to a human right now, and hung up on me -- click -- and gave me a dial tone.

Yesterday I found an email address on the website, though I don't think it's the one that I was given over the phone. So I wrote them and told them my plight. Last night, just before bed, I was pleased to find a response from the FCC in my inbox. Finally, I thought. It said, "Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you." Another robot.

When Dark February arrives, I will do what I should have done in the first place. I will go to a store, buy a digital receiver, and pay for it with the money I have saved in seven months, which is a drop in the bucket. Then I will come home and watch Magic TV. And I'll do it without welfare. When I think about how free the government is with our tax dollars -- they are going to send out millions of these rebates because people can't save 40 dollars in a year -- I'm ashamed I even tried. In fact, if the FCC relents and sends me a coupon, I will tear it up.

Now, what does this have to do with Health Care? I think you can guess. Big Government has shown it can't even deliver a simple product to the very people it was designed for (I'll repeat: if anyone qualified for one of those tuners, it was me). I'm glad I wasn't applying online for heart surgery or an appendectomy. Robots don't have hearts or appendices (appendexes?), and might not understand that I do. I also doubt that most politicians have the former, and know they've all removed the latter to use up the money in their excellent health insurance program that I pay for.

Why are 200 million people -- or more -- willing to trust the Federal Government to manage our health care when they can't even send you a Wal-Mart coupon? What scares me more is to realize that for every person like myself: someone with an honest request for a genuine need, who is turned down, there are probably two or three who have requested these coupons under pretense, and who are going to get them, and turn this government freebie around and take the FCC -- or whoever is doing this -- for huge sums of money.

Now you see where this is going. I will have no problem with saving for electronic equipment: it's affordable and dependable, with good guarantees. Why? Because the government, outside of this one little experiment, has not ventured into the world of electronics, and so that realm remains free to grow, unfettered, constantly improving. Can you imagine what a PC would look like today if the government had funded the research and there had not been capitalists like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? You would not be reading what I'm writing right now. It would be on a legal pad, scrawled out by a cheap Bic pen. I can't "just save up" for medical care because it's been living on government dole for several decades, and now is too fat and lazy to move, and the average American is incapable of paying medical expenses out of pocket.

Very soon, congress will again take up the issue of Socialized Medicine. They want to help us, and I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan's famous quote, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I hope you live long enough to enjoy your new digital converter that Uncle Sam was so nice to subsidize for you. Maybe if this works out, the next presidential candidates in 2012 can guarantee us a "computer in every room," or something like that.

But wait! I've got an even better idea. Why didn't the government send us all messages when they figured this thing out, say, three years ago? They could have said something like, "Dear citizen. In three years, your analog TV will no longer work. That gives you thirty-six months to save up for something that does. If you save $1.50 a month starting now, you will be able to buy a converter. Five dollars will get you a VCR with a digital tuner. If you start saving ten dollars a month now, you can buy a DVD recorder with the works, including a digital tuner, and probably have a little cash left over. Twenty dollars a month will get you HD in addition to the digital. This little 'heads up' is brought to you by your government, which wants you to be smart, sensible, and self-sufficient. Don't come crying to us in February of 2009."

Of course, if they did that, people would actually start getting smarter and more self-sufficient, and they might become producers instead of consumers and then more "red" people would get elected, so you see their dilemma. It might even affect the medical industry. I know it's hard. I was even temporarily "blue" this week (If this red/blue thing seems strange to you, please click here for my explanation).

I'm sorry, but are we really stupid enough to think that the US Government can be Marcus Welby?

A Change of Pace

2008-06-16T21:33:00.002-06:00

Learning of the death of Tim Russert has temporarily taken the wind out of my political sails. He knew how to get along with everyone without sacrificing honesty and integrity. Who else in the entire country would both Tom Brokaw and Rush Limbaugh consider friends? Who else could take any politician to task, no matter how far to the right, left, or middle he/she was? He will be sorely missed. In his honor, I offer a little piece of prose that I posted in a tiny forum I frequent, where we just get away from it all. It is called, in a very unoriginal manner, "Pleasantville." I wrote this piece one Sunday when no one had posted in the last 24 hours. It's a combination of where I live, where I used to live when I was younger, and Mayberry.

Sabbath Day in Pleasantville

June mornings are always nice in Pleasantville. We've just finished the rainy days, and the temperature is not yet reaching the nineties, so people tend to sit out in their yards while they drink their coffee or tea and read the paper, especially on Saturday mornings. Somehow, they are still there in the evening, but they have moved around. You'll see a lot of card tables out, but that's a misnomer because the old folks are playing dominoes and the kids are doing puzzles.

Sunday morning is another story. Nothing is open when the sun comes up, and you shouldn't expect anything to open too soon. Most Sundays, the Piggly-Wiggly will open up about 1:30, but it closes at 5:00, and doesn't see much business. The general feeling of the people here is that if you really needed something you wouldn't wait until the Sabbath to go buy it.

I used to pick up my grandmother for church on Sunday mornings. I would cross the tracks on the east side of town and she would be coming out of her clapboard house as I opened the passenger door for her. As we drove slowly through the streets, there were hardly any other cars, and those we saw had people in suits and ties driving them.

Our one radio station comes on about 6:30, and Albert plays "Sunday Morning Melodies" from the station until about 9:30, when the downtown men's Bible class sends a live feed to the studio, just in time for Albert to get over to the Presbyterian church where he hands out the bulletins. At 11:00 the Methodist church's sermon is broadcast, and there's usually dead air when it's over, until Albert can get back and run the turntables again.

It's funny how people would throw a fit if the Perry's department store or the Western Auto were to open on Sundays, but the Episcopalians get out at 11:30 and expect Cindy's Diner to be open and the food ready. At 12:00 Little Mexico opens, and some people drive the six miles to the interstate to eat at the truck stop diner. However, over half of Pleasantville just goes home after preaching.

They would have had a good breakfast, and dinner is usually not served until about 2:00.Walking through most neighborhoods you see people sitting on the front porch, reading, visiting, or just watching the birds and the neighbors. I'm amazed at how many of the men still have their ties on, though they have shed the sports coats. When dinner is over about 3:00, some people take a nap, and about half of them do it sitting up in their chairs.

The TV station sometimes comes on about 3:00, especially if there's a game of local interest, but everybody expects the game to be over by 6:00 in time for Disney. Supper is light, and in the summer, usually about 8:00. The drug store opens about 6:00 as well, and a lot of folks walk down there for a bottle of pop.By ten, it's rare to see any lights on. Occasionally, you will hear the drone of a swamp cooler, but most people have just left their windows open, though it's getting harder to sleep at night since they widened the interstate and you can hear the trucks, over five miles away.

Most of the world hates Mondays, but in Pleasantville, no one seems to mind. As they go to work, most of them walking, they look relaxed, refreshed, and well-fed. The Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian preachers go to Alice's and get coffee, and sometimes even the Church of Christ preacher drops by and sits with them. By the time the whistle sounds lunchtime at the compress, everything is back to normal.

Somehow the town survives, though the Ben Franklin and Goodyear stores are beginning to feel the loss of business as more and more of the young folks drive up to the Cost Mart on the interstate to save a few cents, and they are willing to forego the courtesy windshield cleaning and oil check at Jack's Full Service because gas is seven cents cheaper at Supersave next to the Cost Mart.

Jack will probably retire next year, and when he does, the station will probably close.But we'll worry about that when it happens. You can still get a Grapette for a dime at Jacks; they have those cans out on the interstate, and they are a quarter. We'll enjoy things while we can.

Happy Sabbath to all.

You Can't Have It Both Ways

2008-06-14T17:01:00.003-06:00

Presidential Candidate Obama was "incensed" this week. A little earlier, he had angrily told a TV audience, "when they go after me, I can handle it; but my wife is off limits." There are some moments when I might sympathize with him, but not this time.

The old saying is, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Obama has done what many other candidates have done -- recruited family members as part of the campaign. There is a line that needs to be drawn. Traditionally, the candidate had the adoring wife and children around him. The wife, if the candidate was elected, adopted some politically neutral causes like hunger or literacy.

I don't know if it started with the Clinton campaign -- I'm sure it didn't -- but Hillary made it an issue. She was vocal and extremely opinionated, and assumed the the office of First Lady was more than ceremonial. As a result, she was sometimes berated or criticized. And for some reason, Bill thought that wasn't fair.

Nobody ever criticized Mamie Eisenhower. In spite of the bitter dislike that many had for Richard Nixon, Pat Nixon was left alone. Even Laura Bush is still respected. She doesn't suffer from the angry political rhetoric that Michelle Obama is already seeing. Why? Because Laura Bush has not been used by her husband as a political tool.

Look at what Obama was saying this week, in effect: "I'm going to use my wife for political mileage. She will speak out on issues that I'm most passionate about. She will speak against those who oppose us, and challenge the Republican policies that are in place. She will have a carte blanche to say whatever she wants, but if anyone says anything against her, that is unfair, and they will have to deal with my righteous indignation."

Sorry, Mr. Obama. It doesn't work that way. There is no political "king's X." You have the choice of letting her be your adoring wife, or putting her on the front lines, in the trenches. If you do the latter, expect people to snipe at her.

And Obama is not the only one to do this. He's just the latest. But the whole issue is a silly political game that many candidates are playing. Remember Martha Mitchell, the loudmouth wife of the Watergate era? It can happen to anyone, at any time.

I'm not telling Michelle Obama that she needs to stay home, making tea and cookies. She may have some good ideas, and she may want to proclaim them. All I'm saying is, if she wants to climb up on the public podium, don't expect to be treated like a happy homemaker.

She may be our next first lady, and as such, should be respected. But if she's going to talk a lot, she should expect her words to be analyzed. She seems to be erudite and professional, and I recommend that she express her views boldly and openly. We might learn something, whether we agree with her or not.

But please don't feign wide-eyed surprise when someone responds.

Best Wishes, Ted Kennedy

2008-06-02T13:33:00.005-06:00

I begin this with a sincere wish that Senator Kennedy recovers from the surgery to remove his brain tumor. I disagree with him politically on nearly everything we could discuss, but that doesn't mean I want him to go through such a horrible medical condition. May his recovery be speedy, and may the surgery prove totally successful. In the real world, cancer is a bigger enemy to me than any liberal politician, even the most liberal.

I'm glad he was able to get the excellent medical treatment that he got. I wish you, the reader, could get it too. Unfortunately, there is a great gap between you and Mr. Kennedy. He will not see even a small dent in his rather substantial bank account, because, you see, he has an excellent health care policy. Only the best hospitals for him. The health insurance policy that covers his medical expenses was paid for by you and me. He's over ten years past medicare eligibility, but he won't need it. He's got you paying his health care costs.

Supposedly, he and Hillary both want to give you the same excellent coverage. Let me warn you that, even with good intentions, neither of them can deliver. If Hillary's health care is made a reality (and Obama will probably let her have a free hand if he is elected), we won't get anything like Ted Kennedy's coverage.

We won't get to select the finest hospital, first. Our place of medical care will be limited to whatever the government has decided it will be. Secondly, we should not expect the speed and efficiency that Mr. Kennedy has been blessed with. Under Hillary's health care, your tumor in your head might get attention in three or four months, and then, at some local center that Uncle Sam has chosen for you.

One reason that our elected officials are so far removed from anything realistic regarding health care is because they have been shielded all their congressional lives from the daily horror of medical costs and red tape. If 535 men and women in our capitol building were suddenly given the same options that we have, they might be drawing up totally different bills from the ones they are suggesting now.

I'll venture that Mr. Kennedy would not have gotten nearly as good treatment with nearly as good a prognosis as he got this morning, if he were blessed with the health care proposals on the table by Mr. Obama and Ms. Rodham/Clinton. Mr. Kennedy might be in a bind right now.

But what they're proposing will be good enough for you. The waiting, the paperwork, the underfunding, the substandard treatments, all of that is okay for you.

I am amazed that I cannot find a congress-person, on either side of the aisle, who knows that Health Care and Insurance are two different worlds. Mr. McCain has the same problem. I live in the real world, and realize that the reason insurance rates are so high and cover so little is because hospitalization and medical costs are astronomical and unrealistic.

The only answer to reforming health care is not using public money and higher taxes to pay for insurance for everyone. That will only drive medical costs higher, and close more small hospitals, and crowd more emergency rooms, delay time for medical treatment, and bankrupt more families, who must exchange financial security for a couple more years of life.

What we need is a congressional group who is willing -- and courageous -- enough to find out why:

Why does it cost more per day to stay in a rural hospital room than it does to get an exterior cabin on a luxury cruise ship?
Why does a box of kleenexes in a hospital room cost 75 dollars?
Why does any type of surgery cost more than the average American makes in six months, and crucial surgeries cost more than the average American makes in three years?
Why are over 80% of all medical bills in error, almost always in favor of the medical institution?
Why is it common policy for medical institutions to bill both the patient and the insurance company, and if they collect from both, not have the obligation to notify either of the double billing?
Why are hospitals constantly losing money, yet we usually have to walk around new construction to get to the wings where we visit our loved ones?

I could name others, but that's a start. I think one reason is, most of the 535 elected officials in the Capitol building do not even know that these things are happening. They have a cover-all comprehensive medical policy -- funded by you -- that takes care of itself. It is a bottomless, limitless source of money that can easily pay for a 12 dollar tylenol tablet or a six dollar bar of dial soap.

When you multiply a policy like that by 535, and look at the base of say, 100 million taxpayers, it works. But when you multiply that coverage by 300 million Americans, and keep the same base of people who actually pay taxes, the math breaks down. There is no way it can work.

I'm glad Senator Kennedy received the best of medical treatment. I am equally glad that his outlook is good. He may outlive me; one, because the press says he is a 'real fighter,' and also, because if I get a brain tumor I won't be able to afford what he got for free that I helped pay for.

I have a crazy idea that I know will never happen, but it would work. If every American would cancel all health insurance tomorrow, hospital and medical prices would grudgingly have to settle back into fair market competitive levels, and appendicitis would not be a cause of bankruptcy. We might even see some communities of less than 5,000 that could have their own hospitals again, like they used to be able to do when everyone paid his own medical expenses.

Best wishes, Senator Kennedy. May you live to be a hundred. And in your remaining 20+ years, may you get out a little bit and realize what real people have to face every day. We're not asking for the luxurious health care that you have due to your hard work and years of service to your district. We just want something we can afford.

The Myth of "Popular Vote"

2008-05-14T10:56:00.004-06:00

I know I've covered this before, but people keep bringing it up. A recent CNN website poll asked us how the Democratic candidate should best be chosen -- by delegates or popular vote. Overwhelmingly, the respondents picked "popular vote."

We have lived with this myth now for well over 100 years: that somehow, "popular vote" gets us the best candidate. It only takes a review of history to realize that some of our best presidents were not elected by popular vote. As I look at our three apparent front-runners for the US presidency, I have to ask, "Is this really the best we can do?" Somehow, I do not think I am the lone voice on this issue.

Is McCain really the best that the Republican party can do? Most Republicans don't seem to think so, yet McCain was elected by popular vote. He got a little help from the Guiliani states -- the ones that Rudy "gerrymandered" before the primaries began -- the idiotic "winner take all" idea that robs delegates of any true representative power. If popular vote gets the candidate the people want most, why aren't Republicans out en masse singing McCain's praises? Simply because popular vote does not work.

I see all the enthusiastic rallies for the two Democratic contenders. I see the ridiculous logic of women interviewed every night, "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman!" What in-depth thought! What intelligent analysis of the needs of our republic! "She has two X chromosomes, so I'm going to vote for her." That's popular vote speaking. We could say the same things about Obama. He deserves to be considered because of his record, his preparation, his convictions, his philosophies. Yet his candidacy is reduced each evening to a simple trait: his color. I hear Martin Luther King spinning in his grave. More than ever, we are judging people not by the "content of their character," but rather by the color of their skin or the number of x and y chromosomes they have.

When I was in high school, the cheerleaders were elected by popular vote. They would all come to an assembly of the rest of us, and perform their "try-outs," and then we would go to our classrooms and vote. While we were voting, I can never recall anyone commenting on athletic ability, on being able to say the right things to get the game crowd "in the spirit." I did hear things like "she's cute," or "she stole so-and-so's boyfriend." The cheerleader vote was a beauty contest, an analysis of trite things. No one took the ability to lead cheers into account. That's probably okay with high schools. No one is taking it that seriously anway. In the rare moments that they do, we get some macabre story of a woman hiring a hit man to "take out" another cheerleader candidate's mother. We don't want it to be serious.

But I think we do when we consider who will try to be our executive leader for the next four years. The last thing we need is a "popular vote" based on skin color, gender, or ability to convince enough voters that a candidate will do all the right things and push the right buttons.

Delegates are not perfect by any means, but they at least have a chance to seriously look at issues and make an informed choice. In times past, candidates have been elected in local precincts because people thought they were someone else. In the 70's, when I was a devout Republican, I once thought I was voting for George Bush (future 41) to be my local representative to the US house. After all, that's what it said on the ballot. I was surprised later to learn that I had voted for his kid, who was just in his twenties. What a dirty trick.

Some people don't even vote for a candidate. The lazy way is to just check the box at the top, and vote for a party. That may have even worked in times past, but it means nothing now. There are good candidates for local elections in both parties, and it is a horrible thing to avoid one of them because someone tows a party line rather than showing the diligence to see who the candidates really are.

Most people don't know enough to vote anyway. I've voted ignorantly many times, and often, couldn't even remember who I voted for later.

Popular elections don't get the best people in place. Rembember 1972? The Nixon landslide? Love him or hate him, Nixon could not be called the "people's choice." He won because of the popular vote. Was he the best they had to offer at that point? I don't know. Many think he wasn't.

In 1976, I have problems believing that the Georgia peanut farmer was the best the Democrats could do. It was almost a "gimmee" election -- running against an unelected president who had replaced an indicted and resigned one. And Carter nearly lost anyway. Why? Can you say "popular vote primaries?"

What the Democrats need this year is a good delegate fight. I'm not talking about those superdelegates -- which is just a distribution of slot machine tokens to the war horses of the party. I'm talking about real human beings who do more than mark a ballot -- who hammer out issues, and determine party and platform policy. I would love to see Democrats come together for their national convention and go through the nightmare of a deadlock, to see them have to hammer out several agreements, and finally emerge with a dark horse candidate that didn't even spend the last 18 useless months kissing babies, drinking beer, and bowling. Maybe someone who was actually voting in the Senate or House during that time, or sitting in with the pundits determining policy. Someone who really knows what's going on -- whose spouse is not saying things that need to be explained away, or whose daughter is not saying "none of your business" to people who ask questions.

The Republicans need one of these types of conventions this year, too, but that's a pipe dream. They will have a coronation. The platform and policies will already be set, and there will be posturing and moving and shaking as the post-Bush Republican party hands out the cushy jobs and people move up in the shuffle. And McCain may or may not win, but it won't matter.

Both major parties are scared to death to do anything that the Founding Fathers intended in order to get a leader. They are also scared to do what their party founders sought in getting a candidate nominated.

We are condemned to mediocrity. Popular elections are possibly the worst way to choose a leader. Drawing straws might actually be better. Remember that some of the popularly elected leaders we have seen recently were named Hussein, Castro, and Chavez. Popular elections do not produce the kind of bold, wise leadership that our nation and others need.

That's why the Framers of the US Constitution were against them.

In Summary: Blue and Red

2008-05-09T09:01:00.003-06:00

Blue states and Red states. It goes far beyond anything as simple as "Republican vs Democrat," or "Liberal vs Conservative." In a nutshell, for those who don't like to read long posts, here is the summary of the last two posts:

Blue is a consumer; Red is a producer
Blue wants the government to do it for him; Red wants to do it himself
Blue likes spending others' money; Red likes saving his own
Blue thinks things will eventually work out if he just sits there; Red wants to do something about it.
Blue perceives comfort, entertainment, and plenty as rights; Read sees them as privileges to be earned.
Blue thinks it's everybody else's fault when things go bad; Red thinks that bad things should be addressed and fixed.
Blue likes to earn and spend money fast, and spend more than he makes; Red knows that the tortoise always beats the hare, and lives on less than he earns.

Again, "Red" is not Republican; in fact, Republicans are looking bluer and bluer each year. The two main parties will be a choice, not of color, but of shades of blue. I look forward to the return of a viable "Red" candidate. Some of you have local "Red" candidates, for senator, representative, governor, and local offices. The higher you climb, the less red you will see. We must support "Red" candidates locally, and send a message to the top.

This also means that we have to stop voting for Santa Clause. We need to stop voting for expensive promises, and quick fixes. Maybe, this election, the best thing we could do is vote for a candidate because of what he or she will not do.

I don't care whether you vote Republican or Democrat or Third Party. I don't care whether you vote liberal or conservative. All I ask you to do this year is not vote Blue.

What do "Blue" and "Red" mean? (Part II)

2008-05-05T12:02:00.006-06:00

In the previous post, I noted that there had been a complete shift in the "Democratic" and "Republican" designations of the parties, which was shortly followed by the change in colors. What do the colors really mean?

While I cannot prove this, and it may be unintentional, even subliminal, the colors have a meaning that follows certain values, it appears. I risk giving everything away at the beginning of this posting, but in a nutshell, the two competing values in our nation are neither "Republican" versus "Democratic," nor "liberal" versus "conservative." The colors represent "consumer" versus "producer." The old-time "red" Democrats were farmers and factory workers, teachers and police officers. They worked to build houses and buy land, and their main desire was to do this without debt. They fed the nation, built roads and communication networks, and eventually worked to launch a human being into space.

Consumers bought up corporations in order to take their resources. They looked for ways to eat more, buy more, and spend more. Entertainment is the main venue of consumers. Once, this was the venue of the blue Republican mind set, and they relied on the red Democratic producers to feed them, clothe them, and entertain them.

While it would be easy to say that the color shift represents a similar shift in party values, that would also be over-simplification. When I look at the last two GW Bush election maps, especially the one in 2000, colored by county or precinct, I don't see Democrats vs Republicans. Mr. Bush was fortunate enough to have the support of producers in the last two elections, but I don't think the Republicans who follow him should count on that same loyalty. Not after the heavy consumer-oriented spending and legislation of 8 years of "compassionate conservativism."

What is the difference between a consumer and a producer? The best way I can describe it is to show what consumers believe. If I do that, you can figure out what the producer ideology is; simply, it's the opposite:

Consumers think that water comes from a faucet, that eggs come twelve to a carton, and that meat is some mostly-red inanimate object that comes on a styrofoam plate, neatly wrapped in plastic.
Consumers think that food comes from a grocery store, and that highways and utilities are an inalienable right that "someone else" needs to take care of for us.
Consumers think that gasoline grows under service stations, for free, and that those who sell it decide how many dollars per gallon they want to take from us for it.
Consumers do not like the dirty, nasty things that some people tell them are necessary to produce their food and fuel. They hate those who kill animals so we can eat, who plow up forests so we can grow food, and who drill wells in ice so we can drive cars.
Consumers think that the government is a limitless source of money and resources, and has the constitutional obligation to feed us, clothe us, pay for our medical care, protect us from our own stupidity and carelessness, change our diapers when we're young, and pay for our nursing homes when we're old.
Consumers think that we're too stupid to save money or build for our retirement, and they're willing to let the government force us into that responsibility, so they can pay us a nickel on the dollar for our investment.
Consumers believe that money is best earned fast and spent faster. They think that the best way to wealth is to inherit it, win it in the lotto, or sue someone for it. They believe that all the woes of the world can be solved by "insurance" and "someone else's money."
Consumers feel they are the victims of fate, and that the lucky ones have an obligation to take care of everyone else.
Consumers feel that the highest good in life is to entertain themselves, and they spend most of their financial resources on increasing and improving that entertainment. They spend only a fraction of what they make on education, protection, and prevention, but after all, that's the "government's" job, and "it's" got plenty of money.
Consumers are willing to outsource jobs, education, and production to places like China in order that they may be able to afford cheaper entertainment and luxury. They are willing to sacrifice quality, not only in manufactured goods, but also in government, family, and faith, in order to continue to enjoy themselves and get what they want at the cheapest price possible, down the path of least resistance.
Consumers feel that the world revolves around them, and are not really concerned with others who might suffer if things go the way consumers want them to go in the Pollyanna world they live in.

If you look closely at the red/blue maps, you will see that the bluest concentrations of consumers live in the overcrowded metropolitan areas where people have never seen a live cow; where the stars are not visible at night, and where there is no productive soil. They live with brick, concrete, steel, and glass, and cannot be blamed for the shortsightedness that causes them to vote for other consumers.

One look at a consumer/producer map will make you erroneously conclude that there are far more producers than consumers, but that is not the case. The consumers must live close to each other and their sources of entertainment.

In our nation, we are currently divided at about 50/50%, and that is why nearly every election, court case, and legislative decision is so hotly contested and violently addressed. Where do I stand with this? If our trend continues, there will soon be less producers than consumers. When that happens, more elections and court cases will be decided by consumers. Consumers can only consume if there is someone producing. While American consumers have been the most efficient and prolific in history, there will be a breaking point. When there is, there will be violence, because consumers also believe that drastic measures are necessary to address perceived violations of rights.

Consumers just don't understand. Years ago, in the famous "Rodney King" riots, stores and markets, public services and offices, all the property of "producers," were destroyed. One of the saddest pictures of all was a line of consumers, the next weekday morning, lining up at the smoking ashes of what was formerly a post office, ready to pick up their government aid, because that was where they always got it.

There are producers and consumers in both major political parties, and they also exist among both liberals and conservatives; they know no racial nor economic boundaries. But if we are to flourish as a nation or a cultural group, we must do what we can to promote the producers, to make ways for their tribe to increase. When the "blue" begins to take over the heartlands, when it inundates the sparsely-populated counties and cities, we will all be in trouble.

What do "Blue" and "Red" mean? (Part I)

2008-05-02T09:15:00.004-06:00

My state, Texas, has always been a "Red" state. When I was in high school, my Civics (as it was then called) teacher had a chart on the wall listing our president, senators, and representatives from each state. Texas was nearly solid red. Our governor, senators, and most of our representatives were Democrats. Why was that? Because they were farmers and laborers, soldiers and educators, all of whom believed that the most important things in America were freedom and individualism. For some reason, the Democrat color was "red." Some people used that during the Kennedy campaign to note that there was a genuine "red" threat if the Democrats won in 1960.

I remember the color of the Nixon stickers; they were the same color as the Goldwater ones later: deep blue. When did it happen -- the color shift? I suddenly realized in 2000 that the colors had traded. This was not the first, nor will it be the last, realignment. One of the biggest ones in history was the FDR revolution. Love him or hate him, FDR did something phenomenal in 1932: he switched parties, but kept his own values. Before FDR, the Democrats were the conservatives. There were no Republicans in the KKK meetings. The "solid South" was solid Democratic because they were the conservatives. The Republicans, on the other hand, were the socialist movers and shakers. Herbert Hoover was probably blamed unjustly for the Great Depression -- after all, it was a world-wide wave that caught up with America during his administration. But he had laid the groundwork for it: "A chicken in every pot." The Republicans before FDR were the ones who promised the moon and funded it with federal revenue. Republicans were the federalists who opposed states' rights.

Look it up. Republicans believed in a strong central government, in higher taxes and strong federal spending. They were the champions of social programs. Before FDR, almost all black Americans who could vote -- many were forbidden that right by southern (and northern!) Democrats, by the way -- voted Republican. Until the 60's, any Black congressional representation was Republican.

FDR changed everything overnight. He did this by taking the Republican ideals, and going further than they had in that direction. He replaced the Republican federalism with a welfare state that even the most liberal of Republicans would never have dreamed possible. The party was realigned, but not without great cost. The Democratic party would struggle with its own self-identity for nearly half a century.

The reason Harry Truman was our 33rd president is because of this struggle. Roosevelt's first choice for vice president had been powerful Texas Democrat John Nance Garner, who served under FDR for two terms -- 8 years. But Garner was an "old" style Democrat, and had problems balancing his loyalty to his constituency with serving under FDR. He was replaced in 1941 by Henry A. Wallace, from Iowa, who was then succeeded by Missouri native Truman. The truth was, it was hard to tell the players without a score card. "Democrat" meant something different in Washington from what it meant in Texas, Iowa, or Missouri. One of FDR's Texas contacts was a young Lyndon Baines Johnson, who somehow managed to stay on Roosevelt's good side in Washington while sticking close to Garner and Sam Rayburn of Texas. Johnson, for whatever else he was, knew how politics worked.

LBJ would be the architect of several impossible Senate victories. His very presence in the senate was a combination of masterful manipulation, being in the right place at the right time, and knowing how to run the seamy side of Texas Democratic politics in the 1940's. He somehow rose to the top of the Senate at breakneck speed, and did a thorough housecleaning. He knew when to ally with the enemy, and his greatest coup was his alliance with northern Republicans, with whose help he hammered out a massive civil rights bill. He was able to make strategic compromises with southern Democrats, who thought Johnson was one of them, and through their vote or their absence, engineered a bill that had his name on it and eventually led to his presidency.

In late 1963, John Kennedy had to go to Texas to try to cement the factions of the Democratic party. Johnson was supposed to guarantee Texas' electoral votes, at that time the fourth largest prize in the nation. Unfortunately, Johnson's buddies were looking at Republican Nelson Rockefeller, or even Lodge or Goldwater, as an alternative to Washington Democrats with whom they did not identify. Kennedy was not yet immortal because he had not yet been assassinated, and the tour in Texas was a desperate attempt to try to rally the troops for an election the next year that many were saying he would not win, no matter who his opponent was. From the Texas governor, down through the local representatives, Kennedy had few friends among the Democrats; the most notable was Ralph Yarborough, who didn't get along well with fellow Texas Democrats, and even refused to get anywhere near Governor Connally in the Texas motorcade. Kennedy had harsh words for Connally, who would eventually be a Republican in the continuing alignment.

Johnson's administration would do much to finally cut the last cords between pre-FDR Democrats and those who followed. He lost friends on both sides of the aisle. His support for the Vietnam war angered the new Democrats, and his social programs lost him the support of the old ones. When he decided not to run in 1968, it was because, among other things, he knew that the party was divided, and probably no Democrat, except maybe another Kennedy, could unite enough Democrats to win; in addition, he couldn't stand the Kennedy who would run.

True to form, Nixon won in 1968, mainly because the Democratic party was split between the new wave, represented by Humphrey, and the old wave of George Wallace. It would take something as serious as Watergate to get a Democrat back in the White House, and even that just barely got Jimmy Carter in. Carter was easily defeated in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, who would be the last "blue" Republican.

With Ronald Reagan as president, the re-alignment was completed. The "party of Lincoln" was now really the "party of Roosevelt." Only the names had been changed. Southern Democrats were now Republicans. Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, and others, would remain "red" states, not because they had not changed, but because the color-coding had.

I still don't know who made the decision to change the colors. Was it a subconscious recognition that the parties had changed roles in the nation? I don't pretend to believe that the Reagan Republican of the 1980's and 1990's is a carbon copy of the John Nance Garner Democrat of the 1930's, but the comparison is a lot closer than any other.

So, what's the difference? That's my subject for part II. What does it mean to be a "red" state or a "blue" state? It's not about parties, people, or politics. It's about one of the oldest social theories we can observe, but one that has rarely been put into print. I'll have more on it next week.

America, You Will Be Assimilated

2008-04-01T14:29:00.007-06:00

If Barack Obama wins the presidency this year, it can be blamed on Star Trek. Seriously. Nobody knew the obscure Illinois state congressman until a series of fortuitous events unfolded on a steamy June day in 2004. The retiring senator from Illinois, Republican Peter Fitzgerald, had thought, as had his party, that he was leaving the seat safe in the hands of an up-and-coming Republican replacement.

With a name like Jack Ryan, anybody who's ever read a Tom Clancy novel saw the 44-year-old Republican as the inevitable candidate. Then, in a clear and suspiciously calculated move, Ryan's trophy wife, Jeri Ryan, revealed some disturbing news: that her charismatic husband had taken her to some unwholesome places and forced her to do some unwholesome things. Four years earlier. But suddenly they were news in the 2004 senatorial election.

Mr. Ryan denied the allegations at that time, and still does. They were never pursued after the avalanche of outcry overwhelmed him. Nobody has ever mentioned them again. What better time than June of 2004 to drop the bomb? Ms. Ryan, who, by the way, has kept her married name, suddenly had an attack of conscience, but it has not bothered her since then.

What timing. Too late for the Republicans to find another candidate. Too late for Mr. Ryan to clear his name. Too late for anything. Yes, there was a straw candidate that took Ryan's place: Alan Keyes, not even from Illinois. He also had a huge albatross around his neck: he had spoken out against Hillary Clinton moving to another state to run for senate. Lest we forget, she was not a New Yorker, but an Arkansan. Needless to say, Keyes never even got on solid ground with Republicans, much less with the overall electorate.

Obama, who probably didn't stand a chance in May of that year, suddenly began an ascendancy that led to a landslide election to the senate seat. Understand, Obama was a totally unknown quantity. Hey, even my Blogger spell-check keeps underlining both of his famous names (though it has no problem with "Hussein" -- go figure).

Obama's career up that time may have been "lincolnesque," with a series of small victories, but no real recognition. If you had asked Howard Dean in May of 2004 what he thought of Obama running for president in 2008, he probably would have given one of those cowboy yells he likes so much, and laughed at you.

Realize, Obama has not yet completed one full term in the US Senate. He has done nothing, really. Add to that, he's been campaigning since, it seems, the Truman administration. Yet, here he is, with at least a 33% chance of being our next president. Probably more.

All because a Borg took down his primary opponent. Though there was a somewhat crowded Democratic field, including a billionaire, in the primary, the most viable Dem candidates had probably avoided the election because they saw no future in running against Jack Ryan, a sure thing. Obama was in the right place at the right time. He ran when real candidates didn't want to waste the time, effort, and resources. Then he had no real opponent. He strolled into the US Senate.

There had been another man who had just this much luck. In 1991, the President of the United States had an 80% approval rating. Both sides of congress gave him an ovation when he entered their chambers. He was unbeatable. The best Democratic candidates thought it political suicide, not to mention a waste of money, to run against such a popular president. By the time those ratings started to fall, it was too late to put an organization together. All that were there were a handful of nobodies with nothing to lose but a little bit of someone else's money. Bill Clinton won the presidency simply because he ran. Had George Bush's ratings been closer to 50 than 80, there would have been a real Democrat running, and we never would have taken the little Arkansan seriously. I called that the "Bush gambit." Clinton had an extra stroke of luck when, just four years later, an old Republican relic called in his chips and demanded one shot at the presidency. Maybe 50 republicans could have beaten Clinton. Dole wasn't one of them -- at least the male Dole (though Elizabeth could have won).

I often wonder who engineered the Ryan debacle, and if that person had the 2008 elections in mind. What benefits did Jeri Ryan receive for her opportune victimization? Obviously, it wasn't important to her after her husband left the race. Someone big has engineered Obama's campaign. We may never know who, but it's hard to miss the machinations and perfect timing when you know the whole story.

So if, on January 20, 2009, you see Barack Hussein Obama taking the oath of office, realize that, for the first time in history, American politics has been influenced by aliens from outer space. A Borg woman, Seven of Nine, will have determined our next president.

We will have been assimilated, and resistance was futile.

Sleep Deprivation without Representation

2008-03-11T10:04:00.003-06:00

It was fun for me when I was a little kid. It meant an extra hour of baseball with my friends on the vacant lot near my house, or on the dirt road down the street. It did seem strange, though, for there still to be glimmers of light at nearly ten o'clock.

Some things changed, for sure. We once had three or four "drive-in" movie theaters. My home town still has one, amazingly, but they died throughout the great Southwest. And I remember the security I felt in the order of our elementary school classrooms. That clock on the wall was controlled in the principal's office. He could change it, and we often saw the reset happening before our very eyes. You could count on that clock. It would buzz once for things like recess or lunch, and three times for a fire drill. It was never wrong. The clocks were placed back-to-back on adjoining walls in the orderly elementary school I attended, and I dreaded the years that the clock was on the wall facing us, instead of comfortably behind us. That minute hand would climb from six back up to twelve with an agonizing slowness.

Then, one year, those clocks didn't work any more. They had been designed for a time and place where the sun determined the hour. They had never been designed to be run backwards one hour in the fall, or for that matter, even run forwards one hour in the spring. That magic button the in principal's office (probably near the famed "electric paddle") was not equipped to handle the intricacies of Daylight Savings Time. In another year, half the clocks (there were about 40 on the campus, all controlled by the same button), no longer kept good time. Some were hours off, and even the ones that were close were not that reliable. We had to depend on our watches, and the bells and buzzers were irregular. Somewhere along the way, they were replaced by a tone that came over the speaker system. Even the fire drill was no longer three exciting buzzes. It was a "fire tone" on the speaker.

Town clocks were broken as well. They had never been intended for this abuse. And that says nothing of our internal clocks. People, in what should have been the rush of spring, were coming to work angry and moody, feeling the loss of an hour of sleep. Pets were puzzled by the change in feeding time, and pre-schoolers could not go to sleep in their cribs when the sun was shining through their windows.

Children stood in the dark, waiting for school buses. In the spring, people showed up for church just as the final prayer was being announced, and then in the fall, the habitually late got to services in time to help the sexton open the doors.

No one has ever been able to reasonably explain why 48 of our states do this every year. Oh, I know what you're saying: "to save energy." I believe that like I believe the Internal Revenue Service has the purpose of raising money for the operation of government. Some studies this year have even noted that the new, earlier move to "spring forward" may actually be conterproductive and waste more energy in the morning than it purportedly saves in the evening. We have even heard that the rationale for the longer DST is based on surveys and studies from the 70's, fully a generation ago, that have no bearing at all on current work patterns and personal preferences.

So why did this happen? Was there a great public outcry for DST? While I'm sure there's the occasional "odd man out" that says "I like it," most Americans are offended, irritated, and perplexed by it. Most who don't speak against it simply tolerate it.

What amazes me the most is that the people who imposed this -- thing -- on the American public are the very ones we have sent to represent us in congress. No one wants it, so why do those who claim to represent us keep voting for it? Why do the "farm" advocates of the midwest vote with the "cubicle" candidates of the big cities? It makes no sense.

And my biggest question: "Why do we keep sending these people back to Washington?" If this really is a "representative democracy" (which the Constitution never claims, by the way), why do these things keep happening? At the turn of the last century, the Supreme Court overruled the "income tax" as unconstitutional. It took an amendment to make it legal. That meant that congress actually had to propose it and vote for it, then that 2/3 of all the state legislatures had to approve it. Was there really a public outcry in America at the time? "Tax us, tax us!" Did that happen, or did some people in high places disregard the welfare of their own electorate when they made April 15 a dark day?

Ask any ten Americans about DST, and 7-8 will say, "Get rid of it." Yet congress keeps expanding and protecting it (they managed to get Indiana "on board" a year or two ago).

The more "democracy" we get, it seems the less results we get. The "majority rules" idea seems to destroy what most Americans want. As I see the remaining candidates left for the presidential election, I see a Republican that no one is really too excited about. I see Democrats who are scared to say it too loud, but who whisper to themselves, "Are these two clowns really the best we could do?"

Why do we keep sending these people to Washington, and to our state capitals? And what can be done about it? I wish I knew. For now, I know that most people are still rubbing sleep out of their eyes this week, and just about the time we get used to it, they will change it back so they can confuse us all over again.

And we keep voting for these people.

Do They Really Think I'm That Stupid?

2008-02-28T09:37:00.002-06:00

First of all, let me say that, unless I have some type of epiphany myself, I will not vote for John McCain. There is a 94% chance that the name I check in November has not yet even been announced. So this is not a McCain campaign ad, nor one for anyone else that you see every night on national news.

This, rather, is about an American institution's self-redefinement (I just invented a word, I think). Once, the Press was in the business of informing us. Remember Walter Cronkite signing off every evening, "And that's the way it is..." It might not have been, but everyone still thought that was the purpose of the Press back then.

Somehow, in the past 30 years, the Press has decided that, instead of reporting the news, it is supposed to create news. I will quickly clarify that a free American Press has always been in the middle of history. Thomas Nast was able to topple some big and corrupt officials with his journalism -- and sometimes, it was just pictures. There is nothing as important as having someone "on the spot" to tell us what is actually going on. Sometimes, that clarification, that truth, is what actually makes history.

That is the reason the First Amendment protects a free and uncontrolled Press. That's why I keep capitalizing "Press" as I write this. It is a valid and necessary institution, and that is why the framers of the Constitution provided for its protection, along with some other necessary institutions in the First Amendment.

Then there's the New York Times. I think their motto is, "We make our own news so we don't have to look for any." Take a recent and now-well-known scenario. Some time in this long, boring, ineffective, drawn-out thing that some people say resembles a presidential campaign, the NYT decided to endorse some candidates. One was John McCain. Everyone probably knows that when the NYT endorses a Republican, it's really saying "This one would do the least damage to our own ideology." No one expects them to really like the candidate, and that was true with McCain, and everybody knew it; not only that, no one really had a problem with it. Most Republicans would rather not get a NYT endorsement anyway. It's kind of like being endorsed by Farrakhan or the KKK, but that's another story.

The problem is what the NYT did to its own endorsement. The "breaking story" last week about McCain's supposed "affair," which obviously is cooked up with the poorest National Enquirer style of pseudo-journalism, was already in the works months ago. The NYT planned on running this story months ago. When they published their supportive endorsement of McCain, they already knew they would soon publish this other story.

"Hypocrisy" is an over-used word, but I guess it will have to do here. The plan is so transparent that even some hick backwoods boy with an accent like me can see through it. The NYT endorsed McCain even though they don't want him to win. They set him up as a straw man, looking for someone they thought would be easy to beat.

This is okay in chess. A queen sacrifice can win a game, but nobody expects ethics in chess. The story was irresponsible and disgusting for its content, its intent, and its timing. However, I think the story was disgusting, most of all, because it insults the intelligence of the American electorate. To think we wouldn't notice this. People from all sides of the political spectrum recognize what happened here.

Is this enough for the NYT? No, they still have other ammo. Today, we read that the NYT now doubts McCain's legal ability to be president: He was born in the Canal Zone. Of course, he was born to American parents in an American-occupied zone, parents who were on active military duty. But the NYT doubts McCain's qualifications for president because he wasn't born in the continental United States.

Perhaps the strangest part of this is that a paper with such an esteemed reputation probably knew where McCain was born. So unless they have had a sudden change in viewpoint, this paper, such a bastion of intelligence and understanding, Endorsed a candidate for president, knowing he was unqualified to fill the position.

I'll add that I have no problem with McCain's heritage here. He has a legal right to run for president. He was born to American parents on official American soil. But the NYT says there is doubt. However, they endorsed him for president. Isn't that admitting to some type of overt stupidity?

I was, however, in reading the "endorsement" article of the NYT, surprised to find that they never used the word "qualified" to describe McCain. In fact, the article says what I have stated before: "We really hate him, but we don't hate him as much as we do all the other Republicans." If you want to read the article for yourself, you can find it at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html?ref=opinion

I'm not going to vote for McCain. But if I was "undecided" and considering him, the NYT would have just convinced me. Their brazen transparency, and their willingness to strap a bomb to one of their own candidates is not journalism. I'm trying to think of a word for it, and one fails me. But it's not journalism. And the NYT is not the Press. If it deserves to be published at all, it should be at the Wal-Mart check out stand, where they put all the other publications that I never buy, but read the covers for entertainment as I wait my turn to pay China some money. I use the word "entertainment" here loosely, like when I say that reruns of the Brady Bunch are entertainment.

The Way It Ought to Be!

2008-02-11T15:39:00.000-06:00

Talk about whining. Both major political parties are doing it now. On the one hand, Howard (waaaaaaaahhhhhh!) Dean is upset because the Demo nominee was not decided on Super Tuesday, and may not be decided before the Democratic convention late this summer. On the other hand, the dullest of the dull among Republicans, including Texas governor Rick Perry, are calling on Mike Huckabee to pull out of the Republican race because he is "hurting the party."

What are both parties so afraid of? I invite you to look at some of my earlier posts for more detail, but in a nutshell, the thing that scares both parties is the possibility that their respective conventions will have to be conventions! The very thought that they may have to pick a presidential candidate in a national convention scares them to death.

As I have stated earlier, we would have five or six less great presidents if parties had always done the long, drawn-out, nobody-wins-and-everybody-pays series of state primaries that we are cursed with now. What the entrenched powers that be want in both parties is a quick declaration of a victor -- a candidate -- in both parties by early February. That way, the parties could throw all that federal money they soaked, three dollars at a time from taxpayers, into smear campaigns and crusades for one person. They would have from February to November -- 9 whole months! -- to try to scrape the ugly off their chosen candidates and present something that remotely resembled a president.

Then the conventions could be what most modern big-party honchos want them to be: expensive, elaborate coronations of an already-widely-known candidate, and platforms for other politicians to cement their own days in the sun. Most politicians think the primary purpose of a political convention is to launch their own campaigns 4 to 8 years in the future, or cement the deathgrip they have on their current house or senate seats.

In truth, political conventions are boring, unbelievable, and incredibly shallow to most Americans. When Al Gore spends one evening publicly showing everyone in America how much he loves his wife and kids in a staged event that probably took two weeks of practice and coaching to prepare for, we can see how utterly useless these things are. They make the Grammy awards look spontaneous and sincere (and that's hard to do).

I have said it before, and I say it again: We will never have another great president until a party has to pick one during a convention. It may even be one currently running, but if history has any evidence, it will be someone we're not thinking about right now. Maybe it will be a long gone Democrat like Bill Richardson, or a dark horse like Harry Reid. Maybe the Republicans will suddenly find a Sam Brownback or return to Fred Thompson. The truth is, most of the great presidents would have never made it through the primaries. Primaries allow the moneyed mediocre to float to the top, much like slag does when iron is being refined. Both major parties say, "I guess this was the best we could do," and they blindly decide to half-heartedly support a dull candidate.

It doesn't have to be this way. There are probably 25 to 50 great candidates in both parties, plus independents, that could give us the president we need, instead of the one we will settle for. I am grateful to Barak Obama for stopping a coronation of Ms. Rodham-Clinton, something that was supposed to be a "done deal" before the first Democratic primary or caucus. And to Huckabee, I say, "go for it!" When his own party whines that he needs to get out to "save the party," invite them to draw straws between him and McCain, who could do the same thing. While we're at it, bring back the dropouts from both parties, and let them all draw straws. We have a better chance of getting a good president through dumb luck than we do of getting one through this made-in-hades thing they call "primaries."

As I heard network pundits praising "Super Tuesday" as "the closest thing to a National Primary we have ever had," I thought, are there really normal people who want something like a "national primary?" I can think of no good reason to have one, and fifty good reasons not to.

So get ready, you backwards, boring "powers-that-be," the kind that let people like Dick Cheney have power when he deserves none, or that bring a total nobody like John Kerry into the national spotlight. Get ready for some knockdown-dragout convention fighting. Get ready to be bruised, beaten, and sore. Get ready to spend some money on what you should have been doing anyway: picking a candidate that's a real Republican or Democrat instead of the phonies you keep trying to enthrone.

I couldn't have planned this one any better myself, anyway: we've lost the "frontrunner" former New York mayor who never had a genuine conviction about anything except that he happened to be mayor on September 11, 2001; we've seen the demise of Mitt Romney, who thought he could buy delegates with his millions, his makeup, and his lies; we're seeing that you have to do more than wear a dress and be a liberal to be a "shoo-in" this year; the millionaire "advocate of the poor" who made his money by suing doctors and hospitals and raising the cost of health care for all of us. And they keep falling.

I'm grateful to Huckabee and Obama for keeping it alive in their own ways. I'm not sure either one of them would make a great president, but I'm holding my breath that they've propped the door open to those late summer conventions, and that their tenacity will allow some as-yet-unnoticed leader to slip in the door, get a few votes on the first split ballot, gain a showing on the third ballot, and make a few strategic moves on the 14th ballot, and then, in the midst of fatigue, sweat, and sudden realization, gain a nomination on about the 21st round.

Then, with only a little over two months to go, they would neither have the time to dig up any skeletons on each other. It would be about exciting voters and challenging the nation to pick someone to lead. Is that too much of a dream. Huckabee says he "majored in miracles," and Obama talks ad absurdum about "change." I can only hope for both.

I can hope for a real presidential election this November. We haven't had one in quite some time.

Consolidarity: The Sequel

2008-01-22T10:05:00.000-06:00

[Note: This article is a follow-up to a previously published article that can be found at below -- "Consolidarity."]
I went to see my friend Johnny last night. He's been my friend for seven years. Johnny was, I think, a victim of multiple sclerosis. He was always in his wheelchair, and it was difficult for him to present a hand to shake, but I soon found he did not like a pat on the shoulder. So I waited for the hand. He had a special name he called me -- one that no one else used. He also had one for my wife. Johnny liked to sing when I came to visit him. No one could understand the words, except, maybe, him. His conversation was fully understandable, but his singing; well, nobody liked his singing, except maybe me. Some of the other residents of the nursing home would clap their hands over their ears and tell him to be quiet, but he just kept smiling and singing.

Johnny loved the Dallas Cowboys, and rooted for them through thick and thin. He could tolerate their repulsive owner, and he forgave them for putting T.O. on their team, something that I cannot bring myself to do. Johnny was one of the best fans the Cowboys have ever had. He was devastated by their loss to the Giants.

Why am I talking in the past tense? Because I went to visit Johnny at the funeral home last night. Instead of a suit and tie, they had dressed him in his Dallas Cowboys shirt, with Tony Romo's name and #9 on it, and wearing his warm-ups. It was totally appropriate, and I appreciate his family knowing him well enough to dress him that way.

Johnny was not killed by anyone. He was not a victim of foul play. He was only a "result" of a business decision. Since they "consolidated" our local nursing home with the big one in the nearest town, three of my friends have died. The move, combined with poor health, was too much for them. I don't really hold anyone liable. Johnny never really recovered after the Cowboys' loss, so I would have to blame Tony Romo as well.

But I cannot shake the idea that Johnny would still be around if he had not been so suddenly uprooted with absolutely no advance notice. Yes, I know that things like this often have to happen, but to the most vulnerable in our society, do they have to happen so fast? Johnny is a representative of what can happen to all of us. You're sitting at your desk, at a job you like (or tolerate), and saving up for retirement in, say, 10 years, when one day, your boss comes in and says, "You've done a great job, but we've just been bought out, and the parent company is downsizing." You find you have a week to start looking for a new job. At least you will probably get a severance or a "buy out."

Johnny didn't. He just got moved. Right in the middle of a serious bout with a cold or flu virus. From his home for the last (at least) 7 years, to a hospital, and then to another room he had never been in. He had to die in a strange room. With an unknown roommate (a space-saving, cost-saving move, I might add). His last roommate had been his mother, who died four years ago.

So Johnny got consolidated, along with about 30 others, and at least three have already died. I used to do a little gardening, and I know what a transplant can do to a young, tender plant. You have to shelter them from the sun and elements for a while, give them extra care, and even then, you'll lose a few. I'm amazed at how many are being displaced by "productive fiscal decisions" in our own culture.

Years ago, when I was in graduate school, I worked my way through it by being an imported food vendor. I serviced a major grocery chain. The stores had a "Midas" touch -- through great marketing and "location, location, location," they grew. Thousands worked for them. I was surprised when, suddenly, in the early 1990's, they were just -- gone.

What caused their demise? Incompetence? No. Change in demographics? Economic downturns? None of that. They were merely "bought," or absorbed, by a wealthy corporation, then they were stripped of their assets, and the rest was sold off. I don't know what happened to the friends I had made during that time, who were working their way up in a productive, promising corporation. The stores were great, but consolidation ransacked them. Somebody made billions of dollars, but we all lost in the long run.

I don't think the huge conglomerate that bought all of these nursing homes made "billions," but they did cut costs, and probably were able to "downsize" a little. I also found out yesterday that the four or five in the old nursing home that did not get out within the weeks' time they were given had no heat in the place after the eviction date. Somehow, I thought "care" centers could do better than that.

Johnny will be buried today some time after 2:00. He looked great just three weeks ago, the last time I shook his hand and we talked about the Cowboys and the Super Bowl. At least I have the assurance of his burial in a traditional cemetery. I recently attended the funerals of an aunt and uncle who were buried in a "consolidated" one. He is eight or nine feet below ground; she is six feet. They don't take up much space in that cemetery; they don't bother too many people, and they serve a "cost effective" purpose. And isn't that why we all love consolidation so much?

Something I Never Thought I'd Do

2008-01-15T12:22:00.000-06:00

Well, take note of this moment in history. I'm coming down on the side of Hillary Clinton. I do not like her federalist views, her pro-death politics, or her anti-family rhetoric, and we don't need another foul-mouthed president, which she is.

But she is not a racist. Anyone who can take her references to Martin Luther King and LBJ and somehow misinterpret them as racism is an idiot. An idiot. Did I say it loudly enough? An idiot!! Interestingly, this morning, I saw that the general concensus has always been what she said. I am also an English teacher, and this morning, I was playing an introductory video for Martin Luther King's valedictory speech, "I have seen the Promised Land." The intro video makes note of the role that President Johnson made in signing civil rights legislation into effect. It even shows the same pictures that ABC and CNN did this morning.

There is nothing racist about what she said. Does anyone really think it's racist to include LBJ in a history of the civil rights movement? She didn't say what she's accused of saying: that a white male was needed to bring about civil rights legislation. She didn't say that, but it's the truth anyway. In 1964, even a charismatic figure like MLK couldn't have done it alone. It was the consciences of those white males whose hearts he pricked, that realized that the stupidity had to stop. Martin Luther King was a master at touching the hearts of "those in control." There's nothing racist about that. There's a lot heroic about it.

I wonder what history would have been like for the last 40 years if Dr. King had not died. It would have been different. Like many great leaders, he left no great men to take his place. Jesse Jackson was a cheap counterfeit of all that MLK stood for. This morning my students watching the video said, "Dr. King sounds like Jesse Jackson." I, in as simple, non-offensive terms as possible, told them, "No, Jesse Jackson sounds a little like Dr. King. He came first." What I wanted to tell them was that Rev. Jackson is a buffoon who has spent his whole life doing a substandard impersonation of a great man, much as Rich Little used to do of Richard Nixon. Al Sharpton is a joke as well. I can't see King approving of their self-centered ego trips.

And I think King would be disappointed with the turn that the so-called "civil rights" movement has taken. The hypersensitivity of it does more damage than the klan ever thought to inflict. A sportscaster, in an idle moment, makes a comment on Tiger Woods' greatness, and gets suspended. Al Sharpton calls for everything but her execution. Woods says it's all okay; she's a friend, but Know-It-Al says that there's a price to pay. It's called the scrapping of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

I don't mind saying it again. Anyone who thinks Hillary's comment was racist, or even racially insensitive, is an IDIOT. With zeroes on it. Even the president of BET has acknowledged the stupidity of such a conclusion, and it does my heart good to know that there are wise people in all races, political persuasions, and parties.

But it's sad to know that the loudest people of all are the hair-brained idiots that can take a politically neutral statement of historical fact and accuse someone of being racially insensitive. And get noticed by the media.

Don't gloat at Hillary on this one. She was correct. She's innocent of any wrongdoing, and like any American public figure, she deserves to be respected for what she said. She says some stupid things sometimes, in my opinion, but this was not one of those times. Give her a break on this one.

Consolidarity

2008-01-14T11:51:00.000-06:00

It was just a little thing: a little nursing home composed of little people in a little town -- definitely not nearly as important as Britney whats-her-name's latest journey into rehab that made the news above the Middle East last week.

But it was important to those it affected. In a little town near where I live, with a little nursing home that used to be a little hospital, filled with little people who used to be housewives, school teachers, farmers, salesmen, writers, carpenters, and blacksmiths, something happened. Those former people are now line items of government funding that pays salaries of medical workers who give them their medicines, turn them in their beds, and occasionally give them a bath or take them to the restroom.

I've been amazed at the life that was still there when someone took the time to sit with them for a while and just listen. That little nursing home was only half full of patients. They had even converted most of the empty rooms to office space, maintenance headquarters, and storage rooms -- oh, yes, and a break room with coke machines and tables where the residents, who pay more daily than they would for an ocean cruise, were forbidden to enter unless lucky enough to be pushed in there by someone of my size and relative influence.

I felt at home there. I could sit in the living room with them, or go to their personal rooms and sit with them. I would hold my breath for the occasional waft of detergent and urine smell that I somehow think could have been removed. Sometimes I would go down to the dining room, pour myself a cup of coffee, and converse with them as they played dominoes or just sat and visited.

Then, the same week as Christmas, they were told that they all had to be out in the next 7 days. But it was okay. The big parent company that owns several nursing homes and knows how to soak them for the maximum in government money, was going to safely move them to the bigger home in the bigger nearby city.

I went there last week, looking for them. I found a few, though many were just names on the door. They are not there -- still in transit somewhere. The old place has yellow tape around it and stock trailers moving out furniture and equipment. The few I found smiled as they recognized me. I tried to visit with one of them in the lobby, but it was hard to do. It was too noisy. They had wheeled several older ones to watch the Cartoon Network, featuring "Spongebob Squarepants" and some act of violence against a Fred Flintstone lookalike. I wondered if anybody even cared whether these old people were being cared for.

The highly efficient staff asked me at least five times, "Can I help you, sir?" The translation, of course, is "You are not needed here." I wheeled one of my friends through the hallway. He wanted to see if there was a new place he could look out the window and see the occasional truck pass by like he used to do. I was checking the tags on the doors, trying to find my old friends. I was told at least three times that my friend "belonged" in the other wing. I stopped trying to explain. I really felt out of place in this geriatric processing unit.

I couldn't pour myself a cup of coffee in this place. I still haven't found a soda machine so I can slip one of my friends a forbidden Dr. Pepper before I leave. And I grieve one more piece of my life being cut off and thrown away.

Of course, it's for our own good. It's called "consolidation," which means sweeping up little things into bigger piles for easier disposal. Fifty years ago, we did it for our schools, to make education better. Of course, the people who could send us to the moon and back grew up in "pre-consolidated" schools. Consolidated schools teach about diversity and condom usage, and we wonder why things are not as good as they "used to be."

The nursing home building in the old place was actually a hospital that was built by a doctor in that small town so many years ago. It's easy to tell, because his old house was across the street, and when I sat on the front porch, sunning myself with my elderly friends, I would admire the construction of the old two-story house, built from the same stones. The doctor lived across the street because he wanted to be near his work. Of course, they had to shut that hospital down a generation ago and sent patients to hospitals twenty miles away, where they are now sent by helicopter to even bigger hospitals 200-300 miles away to get "quality" medical care.

We have been "consolidated" to absurdity. Buy a pencil, and it comes from a corporate warehouse in a big city that imported it from China. Remember when you could buy a food item, and it was the only thing the company made? Now it's a product from a division that's a subdivision of another entity which in turn belongs to another corporation with a hyphenated name. Everything you eat and drink, or take as medication, can be traced back to two or three worldwide mega-corporations who have never heard of you or the town you live in.

Now they are processing people. The day they closed the local nursing home, they also combined the only two in my old hometown. It seems the same corporation owned them, too. They did some type of consolidation that drove down costs while maintaining profit.

By the way, the bigger nursing home in the bigger town has a nice, corporate, enhanced soap-and-urine smell that way outdoes the old one.

Why consolidation? It's easier to control, it's less personal so you don't get mixed up with actual people, and it's way more profitable. And it's killed community hospitals, elderly care, small town schools, mom and pop operations, and ultimately, us!

Of course, our government has consolidated, too. States are no longer states, but administrative districts of an ever-increasing federal government. It's all around us. What can I do about it? First, call on all of us to maintain some form of individuality, to fiercely refuse to be labeled by the "consolidators," and to walk away from the hometown bank when the big corporation buys it -- at least until we don't have a choice; to pay a higher price when something says "Made in USA," and to tell your doctor you don't need another test somewhere else -- that the reason you came to your hometown clinic is because this is where you live.

I wonder if I'll ever spend another tranquil day with my elderly friends. They don't last too long, anyway, but I could always find new ones in my hometown nursing home. Now I will have to find new ways to acquaint myself with them -- after they clear processing, and before they are taken away to the showers.

Finding Money to Feed the Monster

2008-01-07T16:33:00.000-06:00

I watched my first political debates Saturday. There are several reasons these were the first. To begin with, I don't believe there should be any debates in an election year before the actual election year. Secondly, it was on a Saturday night, instead of Sunday, when people should have other, more restful things to do. Thirdly, it was moderated by Charlie Gibson, who, if he were running, would be my candidate of choice, regardless of his party. He looked better than anyone behind the desks.

While much of the debate was mildly entertaining, not really much was accomplished. Sure, they say that Romney and Clinton took a beating, but after all, this is New Hampshire, and by Super Tuesday, these delegates won't even matter. It was the same with Iowa. The Caucus meant even less. The dirty secret seems to be that, even though she finished third, Hilary actually garnered the most delegates. I must admit that, first, I wouldn't know why, and second, I don't even know if that's true. One reason to doubt it is because Obama hasn't thrown a fit about it.

So what did I learn from the debates? That no one has a real health care plan. Don't get me wrong. I think everyone talked about health care, though I can't remember what Richardson said. But, for all the differences that the Democrats and Republicans have, they have one thing in common. When they hear "health care," the only thing they see is insurance. If I heard right, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, et. al. want to make sure that the government makes health insurance available to everyone. They have different methods, but really, they all end up in the same dark alley, which will be familiar to the American taxpayer, as he has been mugged there before. The Democrats, on the other hand, don't want to facilitate health care; they want to be health care. Whereas the Republicans just want to roll you and leave you face down without your wallet, the Democrats want to make sure you never get up. Lest that be considered favoritism of one party's plan over another, let me quickly say that both plans will kill what little health care that is currently available to self-sufficient American citizens.

The problem is that they are going to insurance first. That was never intended. If you are under 40 and reading this article, it may come as a surprise to you that there was a time it did not take a day's wages to visit your doctor at the local clinic. Amazingly, for that low price, he could get everything done in one visit, and many times, he didn't even have to write a prescription because he had fixed everything in his office.

I blame insurance for the current medical crisis in our country, but not for the same reasons as the candidates did Saturday night. To them, it is the big, ugly insurance conglomerate that is taking our money and then refusing to pay our medical bills. While I acknowledge that there is much that needs to be changed in the insurance industry, let's see how they got there.

For that, I would like to take you to an emergency room visit two years ago with one of my own children. We thought he had fractured a femur; thankfully, he had only bruised it, and we received quality medical care. The sign at the emergency room told us that the fee was 200 dollars. I didn't worry too much, because my policy at the time paid up to 200 dollars for an ER visit. However, I got a bill for 250 dollars. Does that mean they added fifty dollars to my bill? Of course not! That would be unethical! They actually added 250 dollars to my bill. You see, that sign was for the uninsured. When you have insurance, your company is billed 450 dollars. After my company paid the bill, I had to pay the difference. If I had just not told them I had insurance (at a cost of 550 a month at the time), I could have gotten off for fifty dollars less. I have a new company now, and we have an agreement. The ER never sees my insurance card. They just send me a bill, which I pay and then send to my insurance company, who reimburses me.

My doctor's office wanted to see my card on the last visit. I said I didn't have one. "Oh," she said, "Surely you have insurance." I explained that I had only hospitalization, that I had no copay or other help. She still wanted to see the card because, in her words, "We often can still get something from them." I refused, and she shrugged and hit the "print" key. I had already written the 75 dollar check, and saw the bill for 60 dollars. I quietly flipped past that check and wrote one for fifteen dollars less than the little blue sign over the cash register said. Why? Because it's cheaper when you don't have insurance.

I want to tell everyone the truth, a truth so clear that I don't understand why no one in Washington sees it: our number one culprit of higher medical costs is the abundant availability of insurance plans, and the medical community's abuse of it. Have you ever been billed by a hospital after your insurance had already paid them? I have, and I'll bet you your next month's premium you have, too. Those of you in big company group insurance plans don't count. In those, the hospital just double-bills the insurance company, and usually gets it.

If we try to solve the medical care crisis by increasing insurance coverage and funding it with phantom government dollars, Huckabee's statement will soon be truth instead of hyperbole: a kleenex will be a thousand dollars. In the 1970's it was 15000 dollars for an allen wrench in a military contract, or 800 dollars for a hammer or commode seat. We've seen how providers work when they have government deep pockets to pick.

I would like to see one person attack the real problem: actual medical costs. It has been too easy for 40 years: if insurance is paying it, we don't worry about the cost. I know a man who is in great shape for his 80 years, who was confronted by his doctor who wanted to run an unnecessary test. After being told that, one, he didn't need it, and two, it was expensive, the doctor responded, "Why worry? Your medicare will pay for it!"

I have a solution to the health care crisis, but I know it's unworkable. If tomorrow morning, every American canceled his or her insurance coverage, opted out of medicare and medicaid, it would be a rough six months, after which, the prices for medical care would start to plummet toward reasonable rates.

Major insurance companies and medicare are, at this moment, food for a ravenous beast, a growing medical culture that demands ever-higher prices. Local hospitals and clinics are closing, and family doctors are moving from the small cities. Medical treatments take more than one visit now, and doctors are specialized and require that we be bounced from clinic to clinic. True specialists won't see us until we pay another doctor a hundred dollars to recommend us to him.

And we do it because "insurance will pay for it." The big monster is fed, and he grows bigger, needing ever more food. Now, our top ten candidates (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) think the answer to the health care crisis is to put more money into it, feed it, and make it bigger.

John Edwards wants to require us to have two government-paid physicals every year. That's just what we need: make everyone go two more times a year to the already overcrowded clinics and wait an hour and a half beyond our scheduled appointment. I seriously doubt that Edwards has been in a public clinic -- at least without a legal deposition in his hand -- in thirty years.

One more thing. One candidate, maybe Edwards, but it could have been Obama, said that his recommendation was that all Americans get the excellent coverage that he and his fellow lawmakers get. I have a better idea: that he and his fellow lawmakers get the substandard coverage that we do. If Hilary had to go to the same clinics we do, with the same insurance we have, she would not be touting universal health care; she would be demanding what I'm talking about: affordable health care.

There was a time when routine medical care could be covered out of pocket. A night in a hospital room was much cheaper than a night on a luxury liner. That's no longer true because we continue to feed the monster, and I'm afraid that in November, Americans will elect a president and congress that want to solve the problem by giving it more food.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

2007-12-13T13:10:00.000-06:00

First of all, let me say that I used to be a huge baseball fan. I ate, drank, and slept baseball. I have followed Major League Baseball since the 60's. I am not really that big of a fan now. It has passed me in price. I somehow cannot reconcile Alex Rodriguez making a teacher's annual salary every time he steps up to the plate.

Baseball was a sport that offered something that many of us used to dream of: a five to ten year vacation between high school and the real world, when we got paid to play for a while. Then we grew up and worked like everyone else. Now, even a .200 batter with no home runs thinks it's his right to get a million dollars a year, and guaranteed retirement so he never has to work. We've created one more generation of parasites. Of course, there are the Nolan Ryans who invest their earnings in banks, ranches, and other things. But they are the exception, not the rule.

But that's not why I'm posting today. I just needed to lay the groundwork. I'm not a baseball fanatic any more, so there is no love of the game that motivates me to come to some as-yet-unnamed players' defense.

We are awaiting, within a few minutes of the completion of this article, the revelation of 50 to 80 players' names -- people who are named as "suspected" of using anabolic steroids. In other words, no one has any evidence that will hold up in court: we just want some new names to drag through the mud. Already, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite have been "named," but of course, that's the baggage that comes with playing for the Yankees. In my own personal observation of Pettite, he doesn't match any dimension of a drug user. I doubt he's ever even overdosed on cough drops. But he's a big name, and that's what they pay the big bucks for.

Who are the people George Mitchell needs to be investigating? Let's start with the people who hired him. For a decade now, baseball has been held hostage by an "interim" commissioner who shouldn't be there. He's one of the owners. It makes as much sense as letting Don Fehr be commissioner. There has been absolutely nothing done to make baseball attractive. In fact, those in charge of MLB would be fired from any viable corporation that was not a monopoly in the first place. No attempt has been made to please the fans; only soak them. Where else is water sold for 20 dollars a gallon? Where else would they destroy children's interest by scheduling games that run after midnight?

Sketch a MLB logo of your favorite team on the wall of your store, and the MLB mafia will probably come in and shake you down for a "licensing fee," or tear your wall down, whichever you want.

But as evil as they are, the media papparazi has them beat. They are waiting to tear apart people and careers. By the time you read this, you will probably know the names of those who are being accused. No grand juries, no indictments. Just a former government suit and tie who a baseball team-owner-turned-commissioner hired to take the heat off his own incompetence.

Some of the people may be guilty. They may even be as guilty as OJ or Robert Blake. But they will not get a fair trial. They have been hung by the media already.

As I see the major news outlets salivating to get their hands on this document, I just try to remember where it came from. These players may be overpaid, indulging, excessive underperformers, but they are being unjustly lumped together.

They don't deserve this. It shouldn't happen. In our scandal-hungry culture, where checkout-stand "news" is accepted as fact without question, this is just another example of the seamy side of what is called "justice." It shouldn't happen. But then again, we had no choice. Baseball's "in charge" people, both in management and "labor" (for lack of a better word), ask no input from fans or those who pour billions into their sport annually.

It is for this reason that I no longer watch baseball, neither live nor on TV, and no longer subscribe to any baseball publications. Then, when someday, A-Rod is making 100 million a year for hitting a little white ball, I can at least take comfort in the fact that not one penny of that is coming from me. But if he's in the slander document set to be released about -- now -- I will be the first to come to his defense. Even he, overpaid and overrated as he is, in a children's game that doesn't matter in the long haul, doesn't deserve this. And no one else does, either.

Have I Lost Interest?

2007-12-03T10:42:00.000-06:00

Rest assured, tiny number who read this blog, that I am alive and still as opinionated as ever. Unfortunately, the press of a very busy schedule has overwhelmed me in the last month. Additionally, nothing of real import has happened in the presidential race (way too long as it is).

I will make a prediction, however. Neither Hilary nor Rudy nor McCain nor Obama will be their party's nominee. A month ago, I could not have said that.

I still do not know who will actually be there next November, but we can rest assured that the ones who have spent the most money will, refreshingly, not be the ones who get the most votes. I call it the "Connally factor," which I will explain at some time in the future.

This entry is just a place holder. Like Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney, it won't be here much longer.

Meaningless with Zeroes on It

2007-10-11T16:00:00.000-06:00

Well, tomorrow is the real Columbus Day. I'm looking forward to all the parades, the celebrations, and they other festivities -- that won't happen. No one will even think about it being Columbus day because it was "moved" to last Monday. I remember when I first heard of Columbus day in elementary school; for some reason my parents had forgotten to tell me about this holiday.
My first impressions of C-day were of someone who took the risk of possibly sailing off the edge of a flat world, against the advice and counsel of all of Europe and Asia. I saw him planting a flag -- possibly an American flag -- somewhere on the coast of, probably, Florida. All of us elementary kids looked forward to that special day in 1992 when we would celebrate 500 years of America. Somehow, I tied Columbus up with the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving.

What a wake-up call we've had. First of all, the 1992 celebrations never happened. By the time the 500th rolled around, Christopher Columbus was a white European racist who ruined world history. He somehow opened the door to the evil Europeans who came in and destroyed the diverse but peaceful native American culture, with its tranquil nature/religion, tolerance, and environmental awareness. By 1992 he was one of the top ten hated people in America.
--And the poor guy never even made it here! While some people say he may have gotten all the way to Central America, he probably never got beyond some Caribbean islands.

Of course, the whole civilized world knew the planet was round. They just thought it was a little smaller. Nations were vying with each other to get to the Orient first; the Portuguese had already taken the around-the-horn-of-Africa route, so they had to look elsewhere. If Columbus had not come; America still would have been "discovered." Everyone knew it was there.

The overt hatred of "all things Columbus," however, didn't overrule the holiday celebration. We still celebrate the day. Why? Because Columbus champions that great American value, the Long Weekend! For the rest of history, we will teach our children that a racist white man, at the bidding of a racist white government, was sent to a pure land to defile and destroy a culture of innocents, and he got there on a Monday -- every year!

Our children will not question why we celebrate such an evil exploit. All they know is that the bank is closed, you can't mail letters, and sometimes you even miss school because of whatever this man did.

If there is any better example of modern post-American nihilism, I can't think of it. We celebrate a man that our culture hates by taking off a day from work, and we usually don't even "celebrate" the right day, because what we're really celebrating is a decline in productivity and responsibility. When the "no-work/long-weekend" crowd moved the day to Monday in the "Stupid 70's," they moved a lot more. Even July 4th was under consideration (that would have been even funnier: "This bank will be closed July 7th for July 4th"), and many otherwise "meaningless" holidays were kidnapped and moved to Monday.

I celebrate the veterans who explained that November 11 was an actual historical date, and demanded that November 11 be celebrated -- surprise -- on November 11. At least one group had the backbone necessary to stand up to this 70's silliness. Of course, poor Columbus was not the only victim. We managed to bash two more White males. By combining Lincoln's birthday and Washington's birthday, we now have "Presidents' Day," another Monday off. The sad irony is that the guidelines for taking this Monday is that it is impossible for "Presidents' Day" to fall on either of these two men's birthdays.

When a new generation asks the one just past what the meaning of life is all about, we will have less satisfying info to give them than any other American generation before us. Throw Monday "holidays" for insignificant events into the pile with the Electoral College, the two-minute warning in football, and Sundays off, as things that no one remembered what they were for. We do so many things now that are meaningless. That's why, when something really does account for something, we need to stand up for it. The best thing we can leave for the next generation is meaning.

Inflammatory Journalism

2007-10-03T13:48:00.000-06:00

I have an ongoing problem with CNN. It's one thing to report on valid news with whatever slant an agency has, be it to the left or right; it's quite another to attempt to "puff" a story and make it big news. ABC has a problem with that often. I turn on "Good Morning America" to see how things went overnight in Iraq, Washington, and anywhere else newsworthy. Too often I have to hear first who one on "Dancing with the Stars." That's artificial journalism, though not with malicious intent on the part of ABC -- Disney has always been known for its overzealous self-promotion -- but it sure messes up the priorities on what's important.

CNN, on the other hand, has been intentionally irresponsible. As if we didn't already have enough racially inflammatory events that have actually happened, they had to invent one. I'm genuinely sorry about the accident last week. It's always tragic when someone dies. Four teens were out well after midnight after leaving a party, and at a high rate of speed, lost control of a car. Alcohol was probably a factor as well. None of them had seat belts on. All were thrown from the car. One of the two surving teens made his way to the road and waved for help, and a motorist called 911. The police appeared immediately to offer aid to the two survivors. They told police of two other occupants, but in the dark of night, the police did not find them. At to this an incoherency of speech due to, at least, the excitement of the moment, and they assumed that the other two had possibly left the scene of the accident.

The incident poses questions to me immediately. Why was there alcohol available to minors at a late night party? How will we ever get young people to protect themselves if they don't even have the sense to "buckle up" when they drive? Why would parents not be concerned where their children were late at night?

Hours later, grieving parents went to the scene of the accident and, combing the wreckage, found the bodies that had been thrown from the car. The coroner has noted that the two probably died instantly from the high-speed impact. Sad, indeed, and regrettable. Lives and potential lost.

Now enter CNN. Give some understanding to grieving parents. They have made accusations, angry commentary, and asked for action. If I were in their shoes, I might have done the same thing, because I'd be hurting, looking for some reason in the midst of total loss. Any understanding parent would give them a pass and allow them to vent. They also need to be shown love from family, friends, and their minister.

But back to CNN. Their slant is one thing: Police negligence! It was the police's fault. In spite of the coroner's report, they believe that police inaction led to the boys' death (not speeding, alcohol, or lack of a seat belt). They readily quote the parents' call for the police commissioner's resignation; after all, he had to be the cause of this.

Let's be sure to play the race card. We have been inundated with the fact that the victims are all black; the parents are black. The police must have delayed their search because they didn't care if black people died; right? Interestingly, no one has mentioned the color of the police involved. I don't know whether they were black or white. I look forward to the day when the so-called egalitarian media can report a story without using race as a factor. It is time for us to follow Dr. King's "dream," and talk, not about the color of skin, but the content of character.

I wrote a letter to CNN on the day they headlined the inflammatory article. I got an auto-response, of course, which means, "No one of any import will ever read this, because we really don't care what you think." The next day, they were still riding the article, this time with a quote from one of the surviving kids, "If not for the police, they would still be alive." Now we're supposing the (white) police pushed these poor black kids into the ditch and left them to die there, kind of like "Mississippi Burning." I wrote another letter to CNN; same response.

Now, two days after the last story, they headlined it again, noting again how the father found the victims after the police refused to.

Is this a tragic event? Of course! Does our heart go out to those who are suffering through this? You'd better believe it! Has CNN showed responsible journalism? Yes, if you call Wal-Mart-waiting-line-tabloid-Elvis-is-Alive news articles "responsible." Otherwise, it is shameful. We don't need more inflammatory journalism. There were some wrongs here, but they were not with the police. I'm wanting to know who supplied alcohol to these minors. I'm wanting to know about the after-midnight party, and why they were there. I'm wanting to know why all these concerned parents weren't concerned about where their children were at 1 AM.

But CNN wants to widen the race gap, for reasons I don't understand. They want to accuse the people who work for half the salary of a news journalist, who stay out all night trying to prevent what happened in this terrible accident.

It's cheap journalism, and they don't have to answer to anyone about it. How long they can milk this story, I don't know. But if everyone is to share blame for the tragedy of this event, give a big portion of it to CNN. This is not journalism; it's childish irresponsibility.

Good News or Bad News?

2007-09-26T08:23:00.000-06:00

The strike is over. Nobody really wanted it in the first place. It was a lose/lose situation. Not like the good old days, when half a million or more workers in Detroit would carry placards for a few weeks while suits and ties hammered out a save-face way for a super-wealthy automaker to share some of the wealth.

Everybody in the union had to know that a strike would help no one. They just couldn't let go of a sacred tradition. There are some sad elements to this strike. It shows the changing face of history. The strike itself is outdated and obsolete, and hails back to how it was two generations ago:

First, these things worked when America was a nation of manufacturers. We simply outpriced ourselves. Our labor is so expensive now that we can't fix anything, and have to subcontract someone else to actually make things. The force of organized labor was that Americans were needed to swing hammers, pull levers, and even push buttons. That doesn't happen anymore. If the strike had continued for any time at all, it would have done a good thing for GM: allowed them to dispose of the nine month backlog of manufactured vehicles that are crowding American car lots at the moment. It would have also done the inevitable bad thing: given a certain market share to Toyota, Honda, and Mazda, who already have a chokehold on American auto buyers, not because these car makers are evil, but because they make good cars that last for hundreds of thousands of miles. GM would have won for a short term, and foreign auto makers would have won in the long term. The workers wouldn't have won at all.
Second, these things worked when America had affordable health care. The "big three" automakers have all backed themselves into a hole: the high cost of health care. From the days of Henry Ford, American auto makers have seen to the health and welfare of their employees. The biggest economic problem for Ford and GM has actually been health care recently. Since medicaid and medicare pumped the prices up to impossibly high levels, even multi-billion dollar corporations can no longer afford to cover their valuable employees as they did in the past. The employees of GM wanted the health care plans of the 60's, and even if GM had wanted to do it, they couldn't have afforded it. That's why it was so easy for GM to part with 50 billion dollars to end the negotiations. While that will flatten any profits for the next few quarters, in the long run, it's a bargain.

Now the ball is in the court of the UAW. What will they do with 50 billion dollars to take care of the employee health plan? Historically, organized labor has fought tooth and nail to take control of the money boxes, usually in the form of pension plans. Ten years ago, that is how UPS got the Teamsters off their backs: they gave the pension fund away to the union. I don't know what the Teamsters have done with it, and I'm afraid to say anything too bad (I'm thinking about Jimmy Hoffa), but a pension fund is a walk in the park compared to managing health care.

I try to envision what the next decade of health care for GM workers will embody. I can already envision what is going on in the CEO's office of GM. Relief. The medical costs were killing the profits. I'll admit I don't know enough about these things, but it appears that GM has gotten rid of a problem child. I do not know if they will still be responsible for health costs or not. I suppose that there will need to be payments to the union on the part of employees; I'm sure that GM will take up a portion of that, though I'm not sure how much.

It's a big opportunity for the UAW, though. I'm imagining a person of true vision and creativity, restructuring the health care plan, and making it work for the tens of thousands of employees. Maybe they could even talk to Hilary Clinton. What better opportunity than this microcosm would she have to give her plan a dry run? If the UAW could somehow develop a managed healthcare plan that precluded policy holder abuse as well as provider overages, they could set the standard for future health care in America.

I know one thing. The UAW will not increase union dues and take a portion of every employee's check to guarantee health coverage, yet many of those union members are going to vote for a president next year that would do just that: take more of their money and then offer them "free" health care.

Many people have said that the day of labor unions is over; that it is an institution that served its purpose, but has now outlived it. Union membership, as a percentage of American population, is at an all-time low. But like the rest of American culture, what it really needs is a change of paradigm (I cringe as I use that worn-out expression, but it fits here). We're all having to make changes. We live in an age of data, information, high-speed interaction, and instantaneous communication. Nobody uses typewriters or adding machines, and traditional communication is on the way out.

If unions could re-tool; if they could leave the first half of the twentieth century and join the 21st, they might make a difference that would make them relevant again. The United Auto Workers has just been offered that opportunity, and given 50 billion dollars to work with. Most countries would be envious of having that much money to devote to health care. Now, what will they do?

I ask this directly to anyone in the United Auto Workers (you see how many readers I have...) What will you do with this? You can become heroes for a true reformation in the way we handle health care; you can call on patients, hospitals, doctors, and others in the health care chain to show true responsibility. Or you can do what unions often do. Pocket the money and settle for business as usual. It's your choice.

I Am Guilty as Charged!

2007-09-19T09:58:00.000-06:00

There has been an irreversible change in the American economic system, and I am one of the guilty ones who effected this change. I have no excuse; I should have known better. It all began when I was in high school, and the new “discount center” came to my home town. Back in those days, the discount centers were on the square, just like all the other businesses. That wouldn’t last long, though. I remember the amazing discovery: my nineteen cent Bic pen, which could be purchased in any store on the square, was only sixteen cents in the discount store. I soon was passing by the other stores so I could save the three cents every time I needed a new pen.

Then the discount store moved. When it did, we moved with it. For three cents, I would go an extra two miles, to the main highway, where the new discount store was located. Understand, the local merchants were not gouging me. Bic had made a fortune with its nineteen cent pen (though there was also a 29 cent one that we sometimes splurged and bought). Now, since I was already two miles from downtown, I went ahead and made other purchases there. After all, the discount center had all sorts of things under one roof, even some groceries.

I didn’t understand at first why some of the local businesses on the square were going under. I supposed that the owners had reached retirement age, and just got tired of working. After a few years, our city square was composed of empty buildings, as well as some city offices, an occasional specialty shop, and some short-lived restaurants. Finally, the drug store and the Western Auto went under; after all, the discount store had all of those things anyway, and I could save three to five cents on a purchase.

Of course, we know now what happened. The discount store would order huge quantities of an item, and hold them at a large warehouse. Mr. Browning, however, due to the low volume of local sales, had to pay regular wholesale. Of course, his products were usually fresher (some of my “discount” Bic pens didn’t do as well as others, but after all, I was saving money).

The advent of “discount stores” brought a proliferation of similar businesses, and soon we had a choice. Now they all built out on the main highway, sometimes beyond the city sales tax boundaries. Then the super brand name stores (you know which ones) cornered the market. Oh, well, I will mention one out of necessity. When Arkansas businessman Sam Walton set up the first Wal-Marts, he furiously guarded quality. By then Bic pens cost more, but he could save us more. He also was appreciated for the jobs he brought to the US. I remember him in his own commercials, proud of the “Made in the USA” signs. Whole cities had their economies revitalized as he purchased huge quantities of bicycles, sports equipment, clothing, and other items from Smalltown, USA. Everybody was so happy that they didn’t even care that the city squares were now ghost towns. After all there were plenty of jobs in Wal-Mart and in its suppliers.

We might not have ever noticed if Sam Walton had lived forever. Though I’m not sure of the exact figures, Mr. Walton was worth between 6 and 8 billion dollars when he died, enough to pay for a decent funeral for a respected Arkansas entrepreneur. The last time I checked, however, some of his descendants/heirs were worth 15 to 20 billion and more – several of them, in fact. How did that happen? The truth is, Mr. Walton left them a magnificent network of trustworthy, efficient stores full of, for the most part, energetic and happy employees (“associates,” they are called). The temptation was just too great. Sam’s machinery was capable of much more. Since his death, Wal-Mart has slowly closed those American factories. You can do the math. You keep the same clientele, buying at least the same amount of merchandise, but you find a place that can do it cheaper. China was ready for that. For many years, it seemed like a win/win situation (except for the Smalltown USA factory workers, but life is tough, eh?)

We didn’t notice the creeping uniformity, the lowering of standards. After all, if a VCR breaks, it would have cost 50 bucks to fix it on the square in the old days. Wal-Mart has one for 60, and it’s brand new! I’ve often wondered where TV’s, VCR’s, and DVD’s now go when they die.

Years ago, if Mr. Browning’s store on the square didn’t have what I needed, or the size and color I wanted, I just went to the west side, and Mrs. Collins had it. Now, you can go to the Wal-Mart in central California and you will find the same merchandise, at the same price, that is on the racks of the Wal-Mart in West Virginia. And if you want “Made in America,” you’re probably out of luck.

Try to find a toy not made in China. While you’re at it, try to find one that will last from one Christmas to the next. I’ve watched the disappointment on the faces of my children as toys and gifts bought with hard-earned money broke within a few hours out of the box. We’ve taken advantage of Wal-Mart’s generous exchange policy, but were disappointed to find that the quality of the replacement toys was the same.

Now we’re finding out that everything from tires to dog food is coming to us from China. People and animals are dying because there’s no way anyone can control the quality of the cheap merchandise that is now the norm. The NTSB has no authority over the quality of a Chinese tire, and most Americans do not know they have one until their car has been totaled. We’re in a bind because we’ve dismantled the base of our manufacturing in the USA. If China suddenly cut off supply, we Americans would be unable to make a television or a toy or anything between. We are pouring trillions of dollars into the most populous nation on earth, who in turn is buying the choice real estate, investing in the space program, and buying up the best building materials. They, for all practical purposes, own the Panama Canal. They have been trying to buy interest in our oil companies and automobile manufacturers. Who can blame them? They have to spend the money somewhere, and the ones in power don’t want to waste it on the care of their own people.

We are at their mercy. And we are at Wal-Mart’s mercy. If Wal-Mart doesn’t have it, no one else will (in some places, because there no longer is anyone else). China and Wal-Mart set the trends for fashion (try to buy a dress for a teenage girl – it’s impossible), quality, and service. You can’t.

And who’s to blame? I am! It started when I wanted to save three cents on a Bic pen.

The Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

2007-09-13T10:22:00.000-06:00

Two weeks ago, we heard the story of an Idaho senator who had been accused of improprieties in a Minneapolis airport restroom. The questions were flying everywhere, as well as accusations and damage control. Call me naive, but my first question was, "What in the world is an Idaho senator doing in a Minnesota airport?" Just a few days away from that event, we heard that a planeload of US legislators had been "fired upon" in Iraq, and again, I wanted to ask, "What were they doing there?"

If you read the Constitution carefully (and nobody does, myself included), provisions were made for there to be a State Department to handle such things internationally. Congressmen and senators had one duty: to represent their constituencies in Washington. When not in Washington, they were supposed to be back in their own districts, finding out what the people who had voted them in wanted them to do the next time they went to Washington.

In 1989, we heard the sad story of congressman Mickey Leland, killed in a crash in Ethiopia. I am genuinely sorry that Mr. Leland lost his life, but I still have to ask myself just how close is Ethiopia to the Texas legislative district he was representing? Was he doing what ambassadors and others in the State Department ought to be doing, and, had he been where he was supposed to be, would he still be alive today?

My own governor, Rick Perry of Texas, ran up about $300,000 of our state's bill last year just paying for bodyguards while he traveled all over the world. Now I wouldn't begrudge him a couple of weeks' paid vacation, and seeing as how he's the governor and all, I don't mind paying someone to keep him safe. But I have to ask myself how much time he spent in Texas last year. I would think $300,000 would cover a lot of vacation time (a few centuries' worth for me).

Now I realize that maybe you have to fly through Minneapolis to get to anywhere in Idaho, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking that if Senator Craig had been in his own state, none of this would have happened. What interests do Idahoans have in Minnesota, anyway? Maybe it was a scheduled stop, and if he's like me, he'd rather deplane than try to use one of those tiny, over-used things they call "restrooms" on airplanes. But I'm not sure.

After all the hubbub, and knowing that not only are there people cruising airport restrooms looking for dates, but there are also undercover cops cruising airports looking for people cruising airport restrooms looking for dates, I think I may just use those little rooms on the airplanes from now on. And not order that second soft drink.

In the meantime, I would like to remind governors, senators, and congresspersons, that we want you to tend to business in our own state. Any vested interest I have in Ethiopia, Aruba, or Paris, our President and/or Secretary of State can take care of. Pretend it's an election year. Stay in your own state.

September 12

2007-09-12T12:23:00.000-06:00

Things will never be the same because we now live in the era of September 12. On the morning of September 11, 2001, we woke up to find that Saddam had shot down one of our spy drone planes (no big deal), Michael Jordan was planning a comeback (again), and Gary Condit was denying any involvement with a missing intern.

On the morning of September 11, airline passengers believed the story from the 70's, that if a hijacker takes over a plane, you just sit calmly and do everything he says, and everything will be ok.

On the morning of September 11, we knew that nothing could ever happen in America. Things were going to be okay. The Muslim guy who ran the grocery store on the corner looked different from you, but he did honest business and you figured he went home to his wife and kids every night.

On the morning of September 11, most Americans could open a bank account, get a driver's license, or book a flight without three forms of identification. You could board a plan without taking off your shoes, and no one suspected your 75-year-old mother-in-law of doing anything wrong. Homeland security was a fact, not an expensive government department.

On the morning of September 12, it had all changed forever. In my own life, I think there will always be the dichotomy: what happened before September 11, and what happened after.

When I was in high school, I went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was amazed at this first realistic science fiction movie. It looked like my world, only better. I went to see it three times, despite not having any idea what the stupid ending meant (and finding out later that the author didn't either). I look back now and realize that the flight to the orbiting hotel was on PanAm (now gone), and he made a phone call on the Bell system (broken up by the Carter administration, and now replaced by a much bigger monster).

When I was 17, we had great hope for 2001. We would have a base on the moon. We would travel easily through space. Our lives would be made easier by computers and other technology. Somehow mixed into all that, we thought we would have solved most of our pressing world problems; we would have learned to get along. We would have cringed to know that the year would turn out so ugly.

So, 2001 was a great disappointment for those of us who had seen how it could have been back in 1968 -- even before September 11. When we woke up on September 12, we realized, more than ever, that there was no government nor institution that could give us our Utopia. People would always be people. HAL 9000 had shown us that we couldn't even trust computers (at least that part came true). On September 12, I realized that whatever improvements and optimism I was going to enjoy would have to come from inside of me. Politics and greed, hatred and intolerance destroy anything trying to occur naturally.

Maybe that's one thing I can say about September 12. We lost our innocence and had to grow up. On September 11, we had seen who the heroes were, and who the cowards were; we had found out that pressure and adversity highlight what's really important. I will live in the era of September 12 for the rest of my life. I wouldn't want to repeat it, and if I could go back, I would want to change it. But for what it's worth, we may have become better people by having to wake up on September 12. I remember being somewhat happy I had lived to see the sunrise of September 12, and being surprised that the thought was crossing my mind. I'm sorry for those who didn't get to see the sunrise on September 12; that includes those who have been born since, and will only read about the experience.

The Global Warming Panic

2007-09-11T14:36:00.000-06:00

I have a problem with globalism in any form. That should not surprise anyone who knows me. I also have a problem with creeping federalism. One example of the latter is when someone in Washington decides to attempt to address a West Texas issue with Washington ideas. In West Texas, some kid takes his Uncle Bill's truck to school because his is in the shop. That day, the federal or state government has decided to do a drug check, and the dog sniffs out Uncle Bill's pickup. What he finds is Uncle Bill's rabbit rifle, a .22 he always keeps behind the seat. Since the kid didn't bother to give the pickup a shakedown that morning, the rifle is his responsibility, and state and federal laws require that the young man be suspended for two weeks. Everybody in West Texas knows that the kid was just driving his uncle's pickup, but in Washington or the state capital, it meant that he was going to go on a rampage. But we can't do anything about it because government requires us to paint everything with the same big brush.

In the same way, I want to let you in on a secret about West Texas this year that you may not know: this has been one of the coolest summers we've ever had. I'll bet that when you think of West Texas, you see dry rangeland, cattle skulls, and a cactus or two -- especially if you've never been here. You also think of hot temperatures, and that's usually what we get. However, 2007 will go down in history here; unless some really strange weather happens, we will never make it to a hundred degrees this year. We didn't see 90 until mid-June, and we went through July and the "dog days" of August without ever reaching 100. Today, we didn't even make 80. I might also add that we've had record rainfall; our lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams are full. I'll bet you didn't hear about this on CNN.

All I've heard about is the "record heat wave" that has "threatened" this country, and all the people who have died from it. We need to get one thing straight: every day, somewhere in America, some place breaks a weather record. When you hear about an "all-time record" high temperature in Boston, what they mean is that it never got that hot on that day in that specific place. Some of those "all-time-high's" that I heard about this year were in the low 90's, which, usually, where I live, is like a Sunday School picnic.

But this year has been different. West Texas has been cool. On Easter Sunday, there was snow on the ground, after a high in the 30's the day before. We had a blizzard on that Saturday. In West Texas. Where Easter usually sees 90 degrees and sandstorms. Between April and June, we saw the temperature stay in the high 70's to low 80's. My A/C bill hasn't been this low since the days of $1 gasoline.

Why hasn't this been reported? It's been downright cool down here! Could it be because this doesn't reinforce the fear that is being inflicted by a special interest group that wants you to think that somehow, Americans are melting the poles? We're killing polar bears, and somehow, this northern industrialized nation has even opened an ozone hole over the south pole!

Usually, by August, even the nights are no relief: the temperature stays in the 80's. This year, it's been the high 60's to low 70's. This morning, it was the 50's.

This brings me back to the "global" view I hear about. Some people assume that, because cherry blossoms came out early in Washington this year, that everybody must be experiencing the heat. I know it's been hot some places, but the thing here is that it has not been hot everywhere. I would assume that a global pattern of warming would affect everyone. For some reason, this traditionally hot zone of West Texas has not been affected. We didn't see 100 for the entire summer. We think it's going to be a cold winter, but we could be wrong...

It will probably be warm next year, but it won't be everywhere. I see that Farmer's Almanac is predicting 2008 to be the hottest year in a century, and they are probably right -- somewhere. It was the hottest year in a century this past year, too, in a few towns. In my town, it was about as cool as it ever gets.

I guess I just want the globalists to quit foaming at the mouth. They found a rifle in Johnny's uncle's pickup, and they now think that we're all a bunch of trenchcoat mafia out here (because they would be if it was in their car). But we're fine. Weather patterns change. Everyone knows that. I think we've severely overestimated our puny human ability to influence this rather large planet.

As I noted a few months back, our sister planet, Mars, has also been going through some global warming, too. I somehow don't think that SUV's had anything to do with that. It happens. To all planets -- at least the ones that have an active sun. Old Sol has just stirred a bit, like he does every so often.

Some day, a big city on the East Coast will get cold again, and the prophets of doom are going to warn us about the new ice age that will make most of North America and Europe uninhabitable (like they did in the silly '70's), and they will have to blame somebody for it. We Americans will probably be the ones. We need to get used to it.

In the meantime, the only global warming that is for sure is the constant supply of hot air that comes at us from both coasts from people who don't know anything about history and have nothing better to do.

I'm glad that, at least here in West Texas, we got a summer off. Even the hot air of blathering environmentalists didn't affect us this year.

Time for the Parties to Step Up

2007-09-04T15:46:00.001-06:00

I just heard some great news this morning. I have to admit my ignorance of something I should have known: the political parties themselves can decide whether their state primaries are binding or not. This one, I have to hand to the Democrats. The DNC is seriously considering downplaying some of the primaries that are being moved up too early. In the race to get in the picture early, some states are even considering binding presidential primaries before New Year's day, or in January. The Democratic party has decided that this is too much. I concur (how often do I get to say "Democratic" and "I concur" in the same paragraph?)

I have suddenly realized that this is not a government nor a federal issue. It is a party issue. How wonderful it would be for a party to suddenly declare that all state primaries are merely "straw polls," and nothing else. What a wonderful idea -- to have the candidates show up for their political conventions and duke it out in late summer, rather than bore us to tears with their monolithic, cookie-cutter political mumbo-jumbo?

As it stands right now, the presidential nomination in both parties may be sewed up before the first robin of spring 2008 lands in my state. That means a long, hot, UGLY summer of one-on-one between two dull candidates, neither of which can excite us the way they used to. If the election were held today, it would be between Rudy Giuliani and Hilary Clinton -- possibly the ugliest election in history. If this happens, I suggest we modify the ballot. I would recommend they give us two choices: not Clinton, or not Giuliani, because that's what the vast majority of people who bother to vote will actually be saying in November of '08.

So now is the time, Demos and Republicans. Tell the candidates that the primaries are non-binding -- merely "suggestions" for the state delegates. Or perhaps, this year, we could start by saying that only half of the delegates in each state will be decided by primary. When I realize that some candidates have already spent in excess of $20 million, and today is supposed to be the opening day of campaign season, I realize how bloated and vulgar the election process has become.

I'm still hoping for a dark horse to emerge some time next summer who will ride a wave into Washington. Someone to be excited about. If both parties would do something to curb early binding primaries, we might get that.

If we continue with the same old same old, we will have the same old cookie cutter politicos with their tired, insincere ideas. And November will be bad news for all of us.

"I Told You So..."

2007-09-04T12:51:00.000-06:00

Our country is in a health care crisis. No doubt about it. When the cost of health is more than five times the cost of living, something is wrong. Unfortunately, both Democratic and Republican socialists think that the problem can be solved by Big Government.

As I have stated in earlier commentaries, I think government financing of health care is not one of the cures, but rather, one of the causes of the health care crisis. There is nothing more inefficient, wasteful, and outright corrupt, than government funding of anything. Medicare is one of those disasters right now.

However, I am seeing something happen that I warned about years ago. When Ted Kennedy first proposed subsidized national health care, I told those in the debate that state-supported health insurance would show some of the same tendencies of state-supported education. When something becomes state-supported, something else becomes compulsory. When the state or the federal government funds education, everybody has to go to school -- to their schools -- or be approved by them to go to another.

I told people twenty years ago that if we got national health care, we would be forced to go to the doctor. We would be forced to receive health care that Big Government deemed necessary. Everybody laughed at me. Now, however, we find that John Edwards is proposing just such an idea.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK." He goes on to say that the government will enforce mammograms, as well as other routine inspections. It's just like I said it would be. But everybody else laughed. It's time to quit laughing. It might be silly not to go to the doctor for a yearly checkup, but it's certainly not the government's business to make sure we do, any more than being their business to see if we've changed the oil in our car or cleaned out the cat's litter box.

Another reason to quit laughing is because that's not all that I predicted. What if the federal government decides you're incapable of raising more than three children, and you're pregnant? After all, they handle your medical expenses, so what say would you really have in whether or not to get an abortion? What about that hopelessly ill grandmother who's just drawing medicare funds but will never get better? Big Government knows best, and they may decide they know better than you do when to pull the plug. How about sterilization? Then again, there are other medical procedures that would make you a better person, and your friendly local government will know what's best for you.

You think I'm being extreme in this? People did 20 years ago, but if John Edwards gets his way, we will be forced to go to the doctor. Who's going to pay for this? The "government," of course. What does the "government" mean? For some reason, liberals think of it as some vast resource of unlimited money that miraculously replenishes itself, much like the meat does in the grocery store cooler, or the water does in the tap over the sink, or the milk does in those little cartons next to the coffee creamer at Wal-mart.

As someone who has lived in other countries that have nationalized health care, I want to warn you that it doesn't work. It's like the rest of socialism: It works on paper, and really looks great. Then, you try it with actual people, and it completely disintegrates.

We need to do something about the health care situation in the US, but it needs to start somewhere else. Melody Hobson, on ABC's "Good Morning America," recently reported that over 80% of all medical bills are incorrect. If hospitals were anything but hospitals, federal regulators would have closed them down. First, we need to crack down on inefficient, inaccurate -- and even intentionally corrupt -- hospital billing. Then, we need to do something about 5 dollar Tylenol tablets and 5000 dollar a night hospital rooms. Afterward, we could go after private insurance, but we might not have as much to do; if they weren't getting scammed by medical entities, they might not try to pass as much on to policy holders. Is it too much to think that a time could come again when a day's treatment at a hospital would not cost a year's salary?

If we switch to a federally funded insurance, we will go in the opposite direction. Tylenol will be 50 dollars a tablet, and a hospital room for the night will be 25 thousand dollars, and that's just the start. And who will pay for it? Why, all you filthy rich people, that's who. Edwards has a tax plan just for you.

By the way, in the liberal world, "rich" describes anyone who earns money and can pay his own bills. Their goal is that no one do that, except, of course, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, and those select few who really know how your money should be spent.

"Only the Names Have Been Changed..."

2007-08-28T10:01:00.000-06:00

What happened to all the idealists in the “new era?” I remember last November – Nancy Pelosi, shining and triumphant. After all, the big “house-cleaning” had been a mandate of the people. They wanted liberal policies, she supposed: more taxes, bigger government, universal health insurance, liberalized abortion laws, and more rights for gays and lesbians. Isn't that what the party is about? Obviously, that’s what America wanted, because they had thrown out the pro-life, anti-gay, fundamentalist conservatives.

Now, there’s something that most of the media does not want you to know. As dismal as Bush’s approval rating is (and you haven’t heard much about it lately because it’s been going up), he’s got a double-digit lead on congress. Wonder of wonders; even Dick Cheney has a higher approval rating than congress.** Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the people that put them there are somewhat dissatisfied with their first year of performance? I mean, you can only milk “history” so far. It’s one thing to be the first woman speaker of the House, but finally, you have to do something besides wear a dress to congress and talk about your grandchildren. These people were put into congress last November by two groups: those who were “protest voting” the incumbents, and those who want to see more liberal tax laws, abortion funding, and gay/lesbian rights, including gay marriages. I have no data, but I suppose that the former was a much larger group than the latter.

And what have they done with their “mandate?” Well, they’ve drummed out an Attorney-general, issued several worthless subpoenas that cannot be enforced, and made sure that every Iraqi insurgent wakes up each morning with confidence that American troops will soon be gone. Honestly, can anyone tell me anything else Congress has done since January? They have spent a whole year throwing firecrackers at the White House with totally meaningless non-binding resolutions. At least, most normal people (notice I didn’t say the media) consider them meaningless. If they want us out of Iraq, why don’t they flex some of that newly-acquired political muscle and get us out of Iraq? Don’t get me wrong; I’m not in favor of liberal government, but if I were, I would be bitterly disappointed right now – no concerted effort to overthrow Bush’s tax cuts; no attempt to fund abortions; no efforts to add gay marriage to federal law – nothing.

In an amazing role reversal, the Democrats and Republicans are pretending to be – get this – each other! Republicans want to protect the poor, honor alternative lifestyles, and distance themselves from pro-lifers as much as possible. They want to court the gay vote, and while they don’t want to tax us further (at least publicly), they want to escalate spending. Meanwhile, the Democrats are quoting scripture, preaching in pulpits – sometimes even in white churches, and talking about God and government.

Never have I wanted a third party as much as I do now. I’ve looked into some of the others, but most just don’t have the heart – or the leader – to inspire enough Americans to abandon their own useless parties and “cross over.” It can happen, though. In the late 1970’s the Republican party was not a major contender. It had most of the characteristics of a third party, and then it had a leader. Ronald Reagan could inspire people to “take the plunge.” Even after he was out of office and suffering from Alzheimer’s, his momentum was still rolling. In 1995, I heard an East Texas farmer tell me, “I had never voted for a Republican in my life, but this past election, I voted a straight Republican ticket.”

Is there anybody out there with more charisma than I have, who could form a new party that inspired and actually had some convictions that did not change every hundred miles down the road? I have an idea for a name for your new party: call it the “Reaganite” party. However, one caution: look past anyone – even the obscure candidates – who are running right now. Find someone else with the spine that Reagan had. Even if I don’t agree with him on all issues, I’ll vote for his backbone (that’s the way RR did it).

In 2008, there may be a Democratic president elected, provided they can continue to keep everyone disillusioned about Iraq. If they win, they will manage to hang on to congress as well. But in 2010, it will swing back, and when it does, we will have a whole new slate of politicians to keep on doing the same things that have been done since 94 – nothing important. Or, we can vote for someone else. What if we woke up on a January day in 2011, and found that congress’ majority was made up of Independents? It could happen, couldn’t it? Or am I being too idealistic?

**Update, 9/19/07 -- both the President and congress have plunged to new lows, though Bush maintains his double-digit lead over congress. Check the story at:http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1844140220070919?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Talk About Out of Touch!

2007-08-08T10:34:00.000-06:00

I didn't see the most recent Republican debate. I won't have to. They answered all my questions just by being there. Now I have to confess. I'm one of those "fundamentalists," which of course, according to the news media, means I go to church on days that are not Christmas, Easter, or funerals. I guess that makes me part of the "religious right."

But I digress. This is not about the ongoing befuddlement the media has with the fact that most Americans actually believe in a God that closely resembles the one depicted in the Bible. This post is about how far the once-mighty Republican party has fallen.

I have tried to watch all these straw people climbing over each other, and it's hard to get excited about any of them. With the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani, who ought not to even be a Republican anyway, they all claim to want to win the evangelical Christian base that Ronald Reagan reached in the 1980's.

I have a hint to any future Republican candidate: that base is out there, and still reachable, but any idiot should know this one: You're not going to reach any of them debating on a Sunday morning!

If any one of these mentally numbing stuffed shirts had thought about it, he would have realized that he could have won the debate hands down by making a simple statement: "I will not be at the debate on Sunday morning; I will be in church."

Such a statement would have left all the others scrambling for damage control. I especially am perplexed that former Reverend Huckabee did not understand this -- he was once a Southern Baptist pastor.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not commenting on their church going habits. I'm talking about campaign strategy. Did none of them have even one person on their staff that could venture, "Uh, sir, a Sunday morning debate will not cement any support from the largest voting bloc you're trying to court right now."

Not only are these candidates completely out of touch with the electorate; they don't have any intelligent advisers either. Do I really want another president like Bush -- a decent, moral, upstanding type of guy who has absolutely nobody with any integrity (outside of his own wife) to guide him? I know when I voted for Bush, I did not vote for Karl Rove, and I really wished I could split my ticket and not vote for Cheney either, but he came with the package, kind of like MTV comes with my "family" package on cable TV. The only difference between Bush and these guys, though, is that, whatever you think of Bush, he towers over this anemic list of candidates. And none of them remember that over 50 million Americans go to church every Sunday morning. Fifty million votes would elect anyone president.

Is it just me? Was this possibly the stupidest move in the history of the Republican party? Well, it's there with Watergate, Teapot Dome, and all of 2006, to be sure. When I hear Hilary Clinton put on a southern drawl and start talkin' 'bout Jeee-sus in a Mississippi pulpit, I realize that she's only perfecting what her husband was an expert at: lying. When Barak Obama talks about his "faith," I know he's just looking for some of those undecided "church people" votes. Now, when a Republican candidate postures his own religious piety, I can answer him as well, in the ancient words of Saint James, "Faith without works is dead."

A Big Step in the Wrong Direction

2007-05-07T14:30:00.000-06:00

The news is, "Earlier is Better," in the world of politics. As the epidemic of early primaries continues to infect more and more states, we get further and further from ever again having a president that can be the leader we need for the time we need. New Hampshire, of course, wants to continue to be the first, and from articles today, we find that the NH primary may end up being this year. Florida has tried to upstage South Carolina by scheduling its primary for the same date, and SC is responding by considering moving its date as well, perhaps also putting its primary in 2007. I haven't heard from the Iowa Caucus people yet, but can they be far behind?

What does this mean to us? I've already written extensively about the damage that the primary system has done to our ability to elect a good president, and invite you to read those earlier entries. Said simply, primaries raise the cost of running for the presidency, they take the candidate away from real life and put him/her on a "road show," and by moving from state to state as the press follows the crusade. The result is a general growth in vagueness of the candidate's platform, prompted by the desire to please each voter in each state of each primary. In trying to be "all things to all people," the candidate compromises himself/herself and backs away from issues of conscience and integrity. Consequently, we can hear Hilary acting like Rosie O'Donnell in New York, and then hear her quoting scripture and using a southern drawl in Alabama. Who is the real Hilary? Will we ever see her? Probably not.

In the classic concept of the political convention, some candidates would have "risen to the top" by campaigning in some -- not all -- primaries, non-binding, by the way. The delegates then would have a general idea of "who's hot and who's not," but no one would have a lock. It is in the heat and smoke of a hot August convention that a candidacy is forged, and real presidential material emerges. Sometimes, the winning candidate is a dark horse who has never won a primary. That's the way it's supposed to be.

So, it's bad enough that primaries have become binding and obligatory. It's bad enough that conventions are now coronations where the candidate with the biggest organization, the most money, and the best press has wiggled to the top. What could be worse? Moving them to earlier dates! What little struggle for excellence was left -- a hot summer full of personal contacts and campaigning -- is gone. What we have left is fund-raising, photo ops, and continual posturing. When it's over (and, for all practical purposes, it will be over before February is, and we will be left with over eight months of campaigning. The candidates of the major parties will be obvious. Instead of the desperate August-November run (usually about nine weeks), we have about 35 weeks to fill with mud-slinging, accusations, and general dirt. If the candidates are governors, senators, or representatives, some states will be left with absentee representation. Let's be honest there are only so many things you can do in a presidential campaign, and none of those things are very productive or conducive to strengthening our republic. In all honesty, a political campaign is a depressing period of negativism and pessimism, only occasionally broken up by an orchestrated "rally" where we can sing "Happy Days Are Here Again," but not really mean it.

Now I'm hearing that at least one party is considering moving the national convention to an earlier date. This will mean that even the cookie-cutter platforms will be in place earlier, depriving candidates of even more issues that should be in a campaign. There will be less individuality; instead, major candidates will be singing the party line.

Simply put, 2008 looks to be a boring, disgusting, useless election year. By January 1, the mud will already be flying; when we're supposed to be enjoying bowl games (which, curiously, are also moving in the wrong direction, timewise), we are hearing campaigning. An activity that was made for hot summer days, band boxes, corn on the cob, and fireworks, will instead be indoors in heated buildings as blizzards rage outside.

What can we do? I don't know, but I'm looking for an answer. We need to diminish the power of primaries, and keep the suspense of which candidate will emerge for the conventions. Put the conventions in the Dog Days of August, and turn the air conditioning up to 80 degrees. Just following these simple suggestions would give us a seedbed to spawn a candidacy that would make our hearts beat with excitement again. Wouldn't it be nice to vote for someone, instead of voting against the "other guy," like we've been doing for nearly 20 years now?

Oh, one more thing. Stop letting the IRS send 3 dollars per person to an "election fund." Make the candidates do something else. Do you really want the government funding presidential campaigns? That may be one reason why they're in the sad state they're in right now.

Time's Sudden Surge of Honesty

2007-05-03T09:55:00.000-06:00

I want to be the first to commend Time Magazine for coming clean on this issue. While most current publications and networks continue their wimpy sniveling, claiming to be "moderate" in their views, Time showed its true colors in the "Top 100 Most Influential People" feature today.

You will find people of real influence. There's Justin Timberlake. Ask most people about this bastion of American Excellence, and you will get an answer that includes the phrase "wardrobe malfunction" and a reference to The Super Bowl and Janet Jackson. And then, of course, there's Rosie O'Donnell. My, how my life has been influenced by her. So much so, that I won't even watch "The Flintstones" anymore -- in any form -- because she once played Betty Rubble.

Talk about influence. Every night, before I go to bed, I pray that Angelina Jolie will make the right decisions that determine my own national security, the price of gasoline, and the availability of health care in my local community.

Let's not forget Al Gore. He made the list under the heading "Scientists and Thinkers." No doubt the man is an accomplished scientist; after all, he invented the Internet. But thinker? He still thinks he won the 2000 presidential election, and he didn't even win his home state. Not many candidates can say that.

Now, let's see who did not qualify. How about George W. Bush? That's right. The President of the United States did not make the top 100. Never mind that he can, with the stroke of a pen, veto something by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barak Obama, or Hilary Clinton (they are all on the list), or send Osama Bin Ladin into hiding in a cave somewhere (OBL is on the list, too), I guess he just doesn't have any clout. Maybe it's because the office of president is merely ceremonial, just a figurehead, and the more important issues are handled by congress. No, wait a minute, that can't be it. Queen Elizabeth made the list, and that's all she is. Maybe it's because his Dad was president before him, and Time doesn't feel that relatives of national leaders should qualify. Oops, forget that as well. Raúl Castro is on the list.

Maybe it's because they left off the purveyors of inflammatory party rhetoric. Nope. George Soros made the list. Maybe the people of the U.S. didn't want Bush on the list. That can't be it, either. In Time's listing of popular vote, we see George Bush comfortably in the top 100, but then again, maybe Time, thinking about poor Al the Thinker, wanted to let George see how it feels to win the popular vote and still not "get in."

Seriously, the list is a sad one. Oh, there are some people who deserve to be there, all right. Love her or hate her, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be on the list, since she will be in history books as the first female Speaker of the House. Condoleeza Rice is there, as well. But the list is sadly overbalanced with entertainers, athletes (is soccer really a sport?), actors and pretenders (George Clooney is there), and rock stars. It sends a message to the world: America is by far the biggest consumer in the world. We expect and think we deserve to be fed, filled, and entertained. If one of those fields is lacking, we expect to be subsidized. Do you know why nothing you buy at Wal Mart is "Made in America" anymore (that buzzing sound is Sam Walton spinning in his grave)? Because the rest of the world is kept busy making things for us to consume and throw away. We import everything. It takes the other 6 billion people in the world, working in manufacturing, just to keep up with the Black Hole that is America.

And we only have three exports: Politics, Sports, and Entertainment. I remember a few years back, living on the coast of South America. They had no Dr. Pepper or Dial soap, no USA Today or Snickers Bars. But they all knew who Michael Jordan was. I could walk the streets and hear Madonna singing "Daddy, Don't Preach" to uncomprehending ears (except mine). When the President of Peru decided to clean up congress and threw out the whole corrupt bunch (he was a good president, even though he himself had been made in Japan), the US thought it necessary to denounce the infringement of democracy in Peru. Anyone who has lived in Latin America knows that when God made automobiles and democracies, He did not have Latin Americans in mind. We go around the world trying to impose our narrow political viewpoint on countries who have neither the cultural nor the spiritual background that is a necessary seedbed for the processes of government that we have in our own country.

But back to Time. No hem-hawing on their part. They showed just how liberal and left-leaning they are. I am not a fan of Bill Clinton, but when he was president, in spite of his many flaws, I would never have been stupid enough to say that he did not deserve to be in the Top 100 Most Influential people in the world. He was President of the United States! Come on!

To the people at Time: we know you hate Bush. But your snub was childish and ill-advised. You don't have to like him to recognize his influence. Your idiocy was showing when you omitted him. If the blogged responses to your list are any indication, you obviously are tired of publishing a magazine, and hoping it will silently go away. But you have your pride. We know of your left leanings, of your sympathy for extreme causes. And you weren't afraid to admit it. I hope that major networks and other major publications will come clean as you did, and quit pretending to be "objective." You have helped us all.

So it Was All a Joke...

2007-04-25T06:54:00.000-06:00

Sheryl Crow came clean yesterday. Painted into a corner by her ridiculous comments, she cut a hole in the wall and got out, and the press gave her a free ride. She was just kidding about the toilet paper, after all.

That's the difference between a liberal environmentalist and a normal human being. When most of us tell a joke, we don't have to wait 24 hours to make sure that everybody "got it."

Liberalism, in case you haven't noticed, is possibly the most "un-funny" thing there is. They don't know how to tell or take a joke, so I find it interesting that they now have to tell all the rest of us when they have told one.

Did you ever hear the following joke?

Q. "How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?"

A. "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"

Liberals are unable to poke fun at themselves. They don't understand how George Bush can stand before the correspondents' dinner in Washington every year and joke about himself in front of a less-than-congenial crowd. He must have an angle; after all, they would.

To the liberal mind, humor is just another way to get what you want, when you want it. The thought of actually entertaining someone serves no purpose. Liberal "humor" must fall into one of three categories: sarcastic, insulting, or dirty. I spoke of "Rosie's rant" in the last post, and have since seen her performance before a women's achievement group. Fortunately, we were spared the R-rated four letter words, but there were enough PG-13 ones left to let us know one thing for sure. She doesn't know how to be funny.

Most Americans understand the therapeutic value of a belly-laugh. Liberals don't. Whether it's John McCain (a liberal wannabe himself, but he's too funny) singing "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" to a Beach Boys' tune, or the famous Reagan mike test, liberals take things seriously. I've never met one that saw the humor of life in general. Take, for instance, the time they were trying to shut down ALL logging in the Pacific Northwest. Why? Why, the spotted owl, of course. Poor little endangered creature was very delicate. Not only did she nest in only one type of tree; the forest had to be full of them. Even the thinning of trees in a commercial forest would eradicate this poor little creature from the ecosystem. Then they found a spotted owl nest in a Wal-Mart sign. Now that was funny! At least most Americans would think so.

So thanks, Sheryl, for letting us know you told a joke. We know how hard it is to do that, but you were very noble. You stayed within the ethos of your own philosophical group. You explained the rationale behind telling the rare joke: "We're just so happy that people are talking about global warming, even if it's brought on by a joke," she said. It also gave her a chance to insult Karl Rove, one of the easier slow moving targets of the left -- somewhat easier than Dick Cheney, but a little harder to hit than Adolph Hitler, but this is just for point total, after all.

All I ask, Ms. Crow, is that the next time someone to the right of you politically, socially, or morally, decides that humor is apt for the moment, that you give him or her some leeway to tell a joke as well. I know you won't understand, totally, but realize that they might actually just be trying to entertain the ignorant multitudes like myself and other normal Americans.

Give Someone Enough Rope...

2007-04-24T15:17:00.000-06:00

Why even worry about challenging the radical fundamentalist segment of the environmental evangelists? Pope Al and his merry band of disciples manage to shoot themselves in the foot regularly.

Sheryl Crow is an excellent example. When I first found out she was doing a global warming tour, it was while she was in Dallas. Sam Champion, a pretty good weatherman for "Good Morning America," had been sent there to cover her concert, but handily, Dallas was having an Easter season snowstorm which had really put a damper on the global warming tour and he got to cover it in person, bundled-up and breathing frost. I never did hear how many frozen Texans braved the cold to go listen to her global warming concert.

Traveling the US in her biodiesel bus, she proclaims the "gospel" of green responsibility. She has two new ideas: first, limit the average American toilet paper consumption to one square per necessity (as Dave Barry would say, "I am not making this up"); secondly, purchase "dining sleeves." These nifty little accoutrements would, I suppose, attach to a stylish evening ensemble somewhere near the wrist. Instead of nasty napkins, gentlemen and gentlewomen of refinement would wipe their mouths on their sleeves. I suppose they would be laundered and re-used -- the sleeves, I mean, not the people.

I only have a few isolated fears about this assault on global warming:

1.) Who is going to monitor the "one-tissue-square-per-visit" law? Will the federal government need to institute another cabinet position to enforce this requirement? Are there exceptions? Who decides? Do we need to add a few more judges for the new cases that will be before the courts? Who determines the dimensions and thickness of the squares?

2.) What do we do with the "dining sleeves" after we use them? Isn't hot water laundering somewhat wasteful? Certainly we don't re-use them. Do we get them with buttons, snaps, or velcro? I have a better idea than the dining sleeve. British nobility used to do it, so I'm sure it's good enough for us: let's get more little fluffy dogs. During a meal, we can wipe our greasy fingers on the dogs as they go by. That's what rich British people did during the Elizabethan Era. The dogs will probably lick the food off later. This way, there is no waste or laundering! If anybody knows Ms. Crow, please tell her she can use my idea and save the embarrassment of trying to figure what to do with a soiled dining sleeve. Lap dogs work much better, especially fluffy ones. I don't know if Chihuahuas would work. I recommend miniature collies, or maybe even terriers.

3.) How do we appease the great paper-producing lobbies that are about to receive a double blow to their economic well-being? They sell table napkins as well as -- other types. Scott, Kimberley-Clark, and many other major corporations which employ thousands of people may have to cut back on production.

I would add that there is one bright side to this story. We got a two-for-one, because this event also gave Rosie O'Donnell a little more rope as well. I would tell you about it, but I'm embarrassed to repeat any of it. She said it on network TV, and I'm surprised that Barbara Walters didn't have a coronary, because it was off-the-wall, even for Rosie.

You don't want to know...

Carefully Worded News Items Show Bias

2007-04-18T09:31:00.000-06:00

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld a controversial law banning a specific abortion procedure critics call "partial birth," a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal, and political implications for the divisive issue.

In other words, only "critics" would dare call it "partial birth." And it is only this ruling against it that will have implications for such a "divisive issue."

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic, and offer a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

Vote 5-4 for abortion, and it is a "mandate." Vote 5-4 against abortion, and it is a "sharply divided" court... And of course, it was a "basic right" to abortion that was "guaranteed" in the Roe v. Wade case. I don't see any biased language there. Do you?

...The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

The "health exception" is why the Supreme Court has routinely stricken down legislation banning this obscene practice. The propaganda that was fed us, of course, is that the "life of the mother" has precedence over the life of the baby (but we call it a "fetus" which helps us de-personalize it, despite the fact that we were all 'fetii' at one time, with the possible exception of some lawmakers and justices who were probably hatched in a more reptilian manner).

I have never figured out how a partial birth abortion could help the health of the mother. In case you haven't heard, the partial birth process involves pulling the baby feet-first from the womb until just the head is left inside. Since the head is still in there, it's not yet a "person" and the brain can be damaged and/or removed by rather heartless procedures. When a normal child is being born feet first, it is called a "breach" birth, and such a form of birth can damage the mother permanently. With partial birth abortions, the child is intentionally turned around and the mother is put at risk of a "breach" birth and the potential dangers it involves. To suppose there is any consideration of anyone's life -- mother or child -- is utmost hypocrisy.

So some people on the Supreme Court have come around to thinking like human beings again. I can only hope the other four get there some day. While I'm at it, I guess I ought to add something also about another victim of abusive surgery -- the Fourth Amendment.

It was the Fourth Amendment that was abused and twisted to allow the Roe v. Wade ruling that overrode state sovereignty regarding the killing of the unborn. I need to add first that before Roe v. Wade, abortion was not prohibited by the federal government. It was an issue left to the states. Some states had allowed abortion decades before Roe v. Wade. All that ruling did was force all states to allow it. Beforehand, someone had to go to a state that allowed it. That state then got to perform it, pay for it and/or arrange billing, and then live with the decision. Doctors who had a conscience also had an option to move to a state where they would not be forced to violate their hippocratic oath. The Roe v. Wade ruling just made the drive a little shorter for those who wanted the procedure, forced all 50 states to allow the procedure, and paved the way for taxpayers' money to pick up the tab.

And the basis for this? A so-called "right to privacy" in the Constitution. Actually, that right was intended to prohibit illegal search and seizure and the investigation of a citizen without "probable cause." This was interpreted as the right to -- yes, you guessed it -- kill babies!

What the 4th amendment actually says is that no one may illegally enter a safe, private place, and remove or endanger the inhabitants or their possessions. How does that guarantee abortion? It sounds like an abortion, actually!

If the Roe v. Wade decision is ever overturned, the media tells us that our country will be driven back into the dark ages. Women will be frequenting back alleys, and dying in hospitals because the doctors' hands are tied. Actually, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, nothing would change immediately. The decision regarding abortion would merely be put back into the place it belongs -- the authority of the states, as was intended by the framers of the constitution. Then if, oh, say, Massachusetts wanted to kill the unborn, force doctors to do it, subsidize hospitals and clinics that did it, and pay for the procedure while taxing their residents, they could do it. But if, oh, say, Idaho decided they did not want to do this, no one in Washington, D.C., or anywhere else could tell them they had to. Sounds pretty totalitarian, doesn't it? But what if some poor Idaho girl needed to terminate a preganancy? Maybe she could move to Massachusetts? What if some doctor wanted the big bucks for a quick procedure? He could go there, too! What if some doctor with a conscience in Massachusetts decided he could not kill unborn babies anymore, but he wanted to keep his license? Hey, he could move to Idaho or some other state that didn't force him to do the procedure! Or how about a pharmacist that didn't want to sell the "morning after" pill as if it were a Tic-Tac or a Tylenol? He could move, too!

There's one drawback, of course. States would have to pay for their own decisions in this area. There would be no more federal funding. Oops, that might be the catch. We sure don't want to slow down the production of the big cash cow we call Medicaid and Medicare. We might actually have some money left in it by the time Generation X gets ready to retire.

A 5-4 vote is only a small victory, but lest we forget, it was the same 5-4 vote that kept innocent children on Death Row in 1989. It was a 5-4 vote in 1972 that voided all death penalties on the books. But that day, remember, it was a "mandate," not a "sharply divided" court, that made the decision and overrode 50 state legislatures.

Definitely Not Another Pretty Face

2007-04-12T07:32:00.000-06:00

My mother used to say to me, "Fools' names, like fools' faces; always seen in public places." She was addressing my need to write my name on things that didn't need them. As with many of her other sayings, the lesson stuck. After all these years, that was the first thing I thought about in this whole Imus thing. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have no desire to serve anyone but themselves. I don't understand why these two people have been given a place in the sun. "Reverend" Jackson has always considered himself the successor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Am I the only one who realizes that Jackson doesn't hold a candle to Dr. King?

Both of these so-called "men of the cloth" broadcast "ME! ME!" whenever they speak. Their messages, as one of them would probably phrase it, are "deleterious icons of negativity" in our culture. When was the last time you heard either of these two people say anything nice about anyone?

When O.J. Simpson is accused of murdering his wife, it is a situation that needs the cool heads of the American jurisprudence system, not Jesse Jackson reminding us that O.J. is black and being profiled. When the Rodney King situation occurs and the situation spreads like wildfire, the last thing we need is Jesse Jackson with a can of gasoline. This man who, I remember, made more money in the 1980's than George H.W. Bush and paid less taxes, reminds us constantly of the "oppressed" and the "downtrodden," who are victims of American society. When Jackson stands before the Democratic convention and calls Republicans "baby killers," does no one but me see the ironic humor? Why does he not have to back his words with facts like everyone else?

Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton ever had jobs? Has either one of them ever had to punch a clock or fill out an application? How can they understand the problems and trials of the unemployed and the bankrupt? How can they know what it's like not to be able to buy groceries or pay a medical bill?

How do these millionaires come off declaring themselves to speak for the poor? Both of these men are using and abusing the black population of America. Have they every done anything for the people they claim to represent? A hundred years from now, what will the history books say about them, if anything? Dr. King will be there, and probably Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and other Black Americans who have contributed to the betterment of everyone's life -- be they black or white.

If there were some way we could just ignore them, I think they would go away. Why can our networks not just leave them alone? Instead, they turn every negative event into a "photo-op."

Fools' names, like fools' faces; always seen in public places. Two millennia ago, a scriptural writer said, "You show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." To two "reverends," I offer this same advice. Try doing something positive. We're tired of looking at you and hearing your whining. Use the millions of dollars you both have to do something constructive. Try making a difference somewhere.

Thank You, Essence Carson

2007-04-11T11:44:00.000-06:00

Thank you, Essence, for bringing a moment of light into an otherwise obnoxious, disgusting story. I saw you on "Good Morning America" this morning. When Robin asked you if there was a difference between the words Imus used, and the way that hip-hop and rap singers use them, you were, of course, supposed to say, "Yes, there is. Those are expressions of our own culture, of our blackness, and we earned the right to use them after years of white oppression."

Instead, you said, "No." You said that the words were just as bad and obnoxious when millionaire trash-talkers say them as they are when shock jocks say them. And for that, I thank you for the breath of fresh air. I don't know anything else about you, what you believe, how you feel about life in general, but on GMA this morning, you presented yourself as a decent, admirable human being who knows the difference between what is decent and what is not.

You hit the nail on the head, whether you meant to or not. We have been so desensitized by the garbage we have tolerated and allowed our sons and daughters to pay the purveyors millions of dollars, that it is hypocritical to pretend to express shock when some wild cowboy uses the same words.

It is NOT okay to use demeaning, vulgar, or obscene words, no matter what color, religion, or gender persuasion you might be.

Essence, you didn't have much to say this morning. Coach Stringer did the talking, and she's a pretty likeable person herself. But what you did say, you said with truth and conviction. I hope your voice is the first of thousands, even millions, that decry the fact that these poisonous words and concepts are being said by anyone. I read on your profile that you want to work in the music industry after you finish college. I cannot think of a better person for it. Maybe your positive contributions will push out some of the ridiculous trash that passes for "music" currently.

You are wiser and more honorable than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the whole media put together. And again, I thank you for being yourself this morning. I don't know what effect Imus' words had on everyone else, but they gave you a platform to say the right thing. They didn't demean you; they elevated you to the level where you deserve to be seen. I hope you spoke for your whole team. If you did, I'll be rooting for you, not only to win it all in the NCAA next year, but to be put in places of leadership where we can hear more of what you have to say. Thanks for everything!