Tom's Common Sense

Moving...

2007-10-21T11:40:00.003-04:00

By the time you read this post, I will moved this blog to another site. The last post with it's screwy formatting finally did it. I can't find the problem, and that's it. I've had other mysteries as well with Blogger come up over the past couple of years, but enough is enough.

The new blog is Tom's Place. (tomsplace.iblogger.org)

See you there!

Chrysler Contract Highlights

2007-10-19T16:21:00.001-04:00

Coming into work this morning, I heard on the radio that Chrysler's St. Louis Plant "overwhelmingly" voted down the national contract by an 81% vote while the Kenosha Wisconsin plant approved it with an 82% margin. Our voting will take place tomorrow afternoon, and it will be interesting to say the least.

I received a copy of the summary of the contract (salaried summary and hourly summary) a couple of days ago, and from what I read, I wasn't impressed. In fact, I was alarmed. Of course there are numerous items that I read that didn't strike me as being favorable to the Union Membership, and there just didn't seem to be much that the Company was giving up.

One of the items that I noticed was a change in COLA. COLA is very important to me - no one likes to see their paycheck lose it's purchasing power. The new formulation could actually reduce what I take home.

The next item I noticed is the wording of job security concerning life cycles of products. Who determines life-cycles of products? Management does. While there is a moratorium on idling or closing plants, that doesn't mean that the plants cannot be cut back to a minimal production and staffing level. While this can happen underneath the auspices of a revised business climate, and the company is certainly entitled to take these actions, what bothers me is that the Union Leadership is touting an increased job security level for its members through this agreement. Last, the summary does not state any commitments by Chrysler to the plants beyond the terms of agreement, which is true job security.

And it goes on...

I understand that one of the Union's chief negotiators is speaking out and wanting a return to the bargaining table, and a website (www.soldiersofsolidarity.com) has posted his letter to the rest of the Union leaders advocating this action. Additionally, the website has posted the following objections to the proposed contract agreement:

UAW-Chrysler 2007 Lowlights
Rather than compare what we got to what we had, the UAW-Chrysler “NEWSGRAM” makes bread crumbs look like meat and potatoes by comparing what bargainers gave away to what the company wished to take away.
“Chrysler had an agenda that was nothing but cutbacks.”
“Your bargaining team successfully resisted the company’s demand to cut your pay.”
Ignore the sales pitch and study the numbers. Not only will .10 cents per quarter be deducted from COLA raises but an additional $1.01 will also be deducted. As a result “your bargaining team successfully” cut $2.51 per hour over the life of the agreement. That is $100 per 40 hour week.
Lump sum payments are here today, gone tomorrow. Raises and cost of living adjustments are here today, and grow tomorrow. COLA and annual raises compound quarterly and pay dividends, week after week after week. COLA diversions compound deductions, month after month after month.
On top of that, new hires will start at $14 per hour, a standard well below the nonunion manufacturing average of $19.62 as cited by the UAW Research Department [www.uaw.org/facts/index.cfm]. Wages will be frozen for the next four years, but in 2011 everyone will be degraded.
Are you “core” or “non-core”? First class or second class? And what is the value of seniority if you can never transfer to a better job? The parties agreed “to consolidate classifications” [pg 121].
There will be two classifications among “core” workers: Team Member or Team Leader. “Every employee is a Team Member; there are no specialty job classifications.” [pgs 227-228]
Core workers will not be allowed to transfer to the better “non-core” jobs. If a worker is currently in a non-core job, they will be “red circled”. Management will have a powerful motivation to remove you and replace you with someone who will earn half as much.
“The parties have identified Non-Core product and process work totaling 8,000 jobs represented by the UAW that will be retained through a moratorium on outsourcing” [pg 159]. BUT in an “UNPUBLISHED LETTER” the parties agree “to meet and establish initial guidelines and parameters within 120 days of ratification that will be used to determine the application of the MOU” [pg 308]
In other words, we haven’t heard the last word. There’s more to come, including, “The parties will also determine appropriate application of core/non-core provisions to future Temporary Part Time (TPT) employees” [pg 308]. The future is increasingly temporary [see pg143].
Three facilities— Toledo Machining, Detroit Axle, and Marysville Axle — will be designated entirely non-core [pgs 154-155]. Nineteen Parts depots will be designated entirely non-core [pg 168]. All transport workers will be designated non-core [pg 151].
Despite the job security brouhaha in the “Newsgram”, all insourcing is “dependent upon a favorable business case” [pgs 159-160]. And despite the so called moratorium on outsourcing, the parties have “agreed to exit” janitorial, cardboard disposal, trash handling, ground, lawn care, snow removal, line sweepers, booth cleaning, machine cleaning, and chip handlers [pg 302]. But that’s just the beginning.
Skilled trades will be systematically reduced [pgs. 274-280]. “...any given classification may perform work normally belonging to another classification” [pg 275]
Forty-eight skilled classifications “will be incorporated into the Work Group Model based upon plant needs” [pgs 276-277].
“Implementation of the basic trade classifications into the Natural Work Groups is expected to occur no later than the end of the 2nd quarter, 2008” [pg 279].
Retirees were not spared. The VEBA is less than 50% funded. “In reality, the $11 billion you paid to get the health-benefit liabilities off your books will soon look outrageously cheap” [www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2007/10/11/Rescue-Memo]. But in reality, it’s $7.1 billion cash for $19 billion in liability. What’s a “debenture” to a private equity company? They can print stock at Kinkos. A seventeen year old prom queen wouldn’t buy that line from a quarterback in a tux.
According to Newsgram: “The company will pay an additional $1.5 billion to pay for retiree benefits from now until 2010 when the VEBA becomes operational.”
The company was already legally obligated to pay for retiree health care as a result of previous contracts. There was nothing “additional” about it.
If $1.5 billion is needed to cover retiree health care for the next two years, $8.8 billion will not last more than twelve years. Hence, the repeated phrases, “provide benefits at modified levels,” and “trustees will have the authority to make benefit adjustments” predict further rollbacks.
Stand your ground. There’s nowhere to run.
Labor Donated by Soldiers of Solidarity [www.soldiersofsolidarity.com ]

During our brief strike, many of us mused on the picket line what was going on at the bargaining table. After finding ourselves back at work the next day, it seemed that the strike was only for show. A comment in this article seemed to echo this sentiment:

The short strikes may have been more for show than an actual inability of the parties to agree on a new labor contract said David Cole, chairman of Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

“It’s hard to know what the real rationale was for the strikes, but it seems they were something designed to show that what the automakers and the union had agreed on was really important,” Cole said. “Now they can go to their members and say we have made concessions on wages and on health care costs, but we have fought for an agreement on job security.”

Did the Union negotiate a good agreement? I personally don't think so. Did they negotiate in good faith to the Membership? I think they did, but I also think that they gave up too much in wages and COLA for the sake of VEBA.

Whether or not we will ratify this agreement will depend on the voting this week, or if it's back to the table. In either case, it will be interesting.

Two Years and a Day Ago...

2007-10-16T20:40:00.000-04:00

...Tom's Common Sense came into being by publishing the "mission statement" for what the blog was to do. By and large, I think it's lived up to that semi-bold goal. After 230-some posts, I might be slowing down a little, and contemplating moving the blog somewhere else. But regardless, I'm still going to hold true to my beliefs and thoughts. I just wish that I had more time to write and visit the blogs of others on the blogroll. But in the end, it's still about the content, isn't it? So keep reading, and keep commenting. I'll be seeing you around the Internet!

Decisions, Decisions...

2007-10-15T15:44:00.001-04:00

As if we don't have enough to decide or worry about, it's always something new. So I'm faced with a decision...

What is it, you may ask?

Is it who I'm going to vote for in the primaries and general election? Will it be Queen Hillary, Breck Edwards, Baba Obama, Tepid Thompson, Grinning Guiliani, or Ramrod Romney? I'm not telling, but it won't be a Democratic candidate...

Is it going to be on an issue such as immigration reform, universal health care, Union activities, or defending my Constitutional Rights? Well, sorta, but not quite.

I'm thinking about moving this blog to another service such as Wordpress.com.

Don't get me wrong!! Blogger has been a great service for this exercise in free speech. But I'm always looking for something better, or maybe just different.

Blogger does have some good things going for it. Custom templates for one. As many of you know, this blog template has been tweaked, stretched, and dinked with for as long as this blog has been in existence. HaloScan adds trackbacks and well as a host of commenting & editing features. StatCounter adds loads of statistical information on who and where the hits to the blog are coming from. Adding the JavaScript coding for the neat scrollers and graphics makes this site unique from all the others out in bloggerland.

But there are some downsides. Currently, there is no way to back up your posts, so unless you keep copies of your posts somewhere, you could lose all of your work if Google/Blogger takes an unrecoverable dump without a way to restore the posts. With HaloScan, you do need a premium account to have the capability of exporting your blog's comments, so that is an option. But if you don't have posts to link the comments to, you're hosed anyway.

Another downside is that I like to write my posts offline and then upload them using Microsoft's Live Writer Beta. Even though it is made by Microsoft, it does a pretty decent job. The part about using this editor is that it will not allow me to add tags or categories to the posts that I'm writing. After submitting the post to be published, I then need to log into Blogger, access the posts editor, and then select the post just published and select the tags for that post. Just a bit cumbersome for my taste...

Last, to view all of this wonderful information from StatCounter and HaloScan requires that I log into each service separately. Yes, maybe I'm nitpicking somewhat, especially for what I'm getting for free, but I still need to see what's out there and may offer something better for the long run.

Wordpress.com addresses some of the above, but at a price. There are a number of standard templates to choose from with limited options for customization. Gone will be HaloScan and StatCounter as well as any Javascript scripts as the standard (free) part of the site will not allow this type of custom code. Wordpress.com does not offer the functionality of StatCounter's statistical functions and hit tracking.

On the plus side, posting with tags & categories is handled very well by Live Writer as well as other offline editors. Posts and comments can be exported to a XML file for importation into another Wordpress blog, whether it is another one on Wordpress.com or your own private website/blog (which is a long-term goal of mine). There is even the option of importing Blogger posts and comments (not HaloScan, though) into Wordpress.com, although there are some application notes for importing HaloScan comments back into Blogger and then importing everything into Wordpress.

So it comes down to a couple of questions: Is Wordpress worth moving to? And if it is, is it worth importing this site's posts to the new one and either manually or automatically moving the comments, or just start fresh?

More importantly, is it content that you are looking for, or the presentation, and will you link to the new site? (Personally, I think it's the content that's important, but that's me...)

Chrysler Picket Line Notes

2007-10-10T16:14:00.001-04:00

Against all my fears, we walked out of the building shortly after 11:00 this morning and headed for the picket line. Not a good feeling, I assure you.

I would much rather have been at my desk earning a living. But that's not the case.

My first taste on carrying a sign this afternoon was mixed. Yeah, there were those idiots that screamed and hollered at foreign cars as they turned in, and those that behaved like children on recess, but for the most part, things were well behaved. That could change if this lasts more than a week.

Second time around is tomorrow morning at 6:00 am. Not looking forward to it - it promises to be a cold morning with rain. Yuck...

UPDATE!!!

It appears that the strike against Chrysler is over. Details are pending, but at least I'll be back at work tomorrow.

Strike at Chrysler?

2007-10-09T19:46:00.001-04:00

The UAW has notified Chrysler that unless a new contract is agreed upon by 11:00 AM Wednesday, it will call a general strike and its members will walk off their jobs. This means that I could end up on a picket line Thursday morning (yes, my steward has already given me my assignment). I'm not thrilled about this one bit - I would much rather be working than have an unpaid vacation.

The main sticking points that have been reported include health care costs for both active workers and retirees & job security. Excerpts from msnbc.msn.com:

Chrysler's needs are different from GM's requirements, analysts said, so a deal requires cost cuts in different places.

"We think that they may be holding out for something more than GM got," said Aaron Bragman, an industry analyst for the consulting firm Global Insight.
Among the differences this time, analysts say, are health care givebacks granted to GM and Ford Motor Co. in 2005 that Chrysler didn't get, worth approximately $340 million a year.
Several analysts also said the company and union likely are apart on setting up a Chrysler-funded union-run trust that would take on the company's roughly $18 billion in retiree health care costs. Unlike GM, Chrysler also may be against giving specific job security promises by guaranteeing new cars and trucks will be built at U.S. factories, and it wants to hire out parts transportation rather than pay full UAW wages for it, the analysts said.
Cerberus, a private equity firm, probably doesn't want to put too much cash into the trust fund because it wants to turn Chrysler around and sell it, Bragman said. "They don't necessarily want to contribute a large amount of money to a long-term solution when Cerberus is more than likely a short-term owner."
Job security could be a tough issue because Chrysler and its new owner, Cerberus Capital Management LP, would be reluctant to commit to huge investments when the company is looking at potentially cutting some (vehicle) models, said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.
As a bargaining chip, Chrysler could back off from new factory investments that it has announced and make them contingent on a new agreement, Cole said.
A short strike might not hurt Chrysler much. Five U.S. plants were scheduled to be shut down during the next two weeks due to lower market demand for their products. The shutdowns were expected to last one or two weeks.
A short-term strike of up to three weeks would have little effect on the company, which has sufficient inventory to continue selling most of its vehicles, said Jesse Toprak, chief economist for the auto research site Edmunds.com.
"They might actually even benefit from it," Toprak said.

There probably are several readers of this blog who are thinking that Union workers are overpaid, spoiled, & otherwise lazy, and probably deserve an unpaid "time-out." Considering that the media jumps all over stories of Union worker malfeasance and misdeeds, it is easy to understand that sentiment. But lets think about a couple of items for a couple of minutes.

Think of the last time you have read or seen reports of executive "golden parachutes" for managers and CEOs that drove a company on the verge of or into bankruptcy, but still get paid multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses? How about obscene salaries of company executives running companies that complain about sub-standard profits for the quarter, and the need to cut costs (usually labor)? I guarantee you hear more about those than the average Union worker screwing up.

How about the way Walmart treats its workers? I saw a program on one of the pay cable channels that showed Walmart encouraging it's workers to apply for state Medicaid programs for their healthcare. And Walmart would not have any of its hourly employees work over 32 hours a week, otherwise they could be classified as full time workers and be eligible for full-time benefit packages.

Perhaps the way I look at a Union is simplified: To negotiate on the behalf of employees fair wages and benefits, and to prevent abuses of those same employees by the company employing them. The Union is not to run the company.

I think that I can speak (or write) for the majority of Union workers is that we want a fair wage for the work that we perform. You, the reader, probably think that you are being underpaid in your current job, and could always use a little more.

But I can also understand the resentment of the Union protecting the goof-offs, thieves, and idiots that bring the reputation of the rest of the hard-working Union Membership down. I have a couple of these people in my Unit that I wouldn't trust to shine my shoes, but in many ways, it is Management's fault for a) hiring them in the first place, and b) not taking disciplinary action to either train and/or fire them. I also blame the Union for allowing such actions to occur. Personally, I would like to see the Union adopt a Guild mentality - if a person doesn't stay productive and qualified for the job, then that person should be demoted or let go, i.e., they must earn that position. If the Unions are to remain relevant in today's business economy, they will need to adapt to the needs of that economy.

A comment about the timing of this potential strike: The timing for a strike couldn't be worse. Those workers who have been laid off due to plant shutdowns to reduce inventory are still being paid up to 95% of their normal wages by Chrysler. A strike would mean that they would not get that pay, but would receive strike pay (which is significantly less). A strike would actually save Chrysler money since Chrysler would not have to pay those wages, and would hurt the UAW workers. I think our Union Leadership screwed up big time on this issue. Chrysler has a financial incentive, although small, in allowing a strike to proceed.

I can see a strike being called Wednesday, possibly lasting around a week or less. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but we'll see what happens.

Is it any wonder...

2007-10-03T19:49:00.000-04:00

...that the public dislikes politicians, especially those in Congress?

Here's the best recent example of this:

I'm traveling this week, and the car I have has satelite radio. All the talk shows have segments highlighting the Senate Majority Leader's letter to Clear Channel Radio flaming Rush Limbaugh's use of the words "phony soldier." It doesn't matter that Rush's use is in reference to a debunked video of a person misrepresenting his service (he flunked out of basic training and didn't serve in Iraq as he claimed), it's still good for a Senate sponsored spanking.

What is so infuriating about this is that the politicians (mostly Democratic) are accusing Limbaugh of being less than Patriotic, and not supporting the troops. Excuse me?!?!? Exactly what have these various Democratic politicians been doing but calling the troops far worse names than what Limbaugh has falsely been accused of? Just look at Jack Murtha's comments for starters, and you get the idea.

While Rush can get on your nerves with some of his shameless self-promotion and ego boosts, he does bring out many points that would otherwise escape the media's attention. And this brings the ire of the Liberal politicos in this attempt to smear him and otherwise discredit his show and others like his.

Here's the point: The hypocrisy that the Liberal politicians have demonstrated is absolutely disgusting. It is no wonder that the approval rates for Congress are the lowest that have been in years, lower than the President.

Personally, I would vote each and every one of them out and start with a clean slate, and that includes a clean slate of all the Presidential candidates too. We need people, not politicians, running this country. People with common sense(!), integrity, and a selflessness that is not evident in today's government. People who are driven by a sense of public service, not power. I'm tired of the career politicians taking our tax dollars and lining their pockets or the pockets of their cronies with it. It is time to get the money and power out of politics and put the service back in. But then, I can be an idealistic you-know-what at times...

Yeah, I know, when pigs fly under their own power...

Rainy Days and Mondays (& Taxes)...

2007-10-01T15:47:00.001-04:00

...always get me down. Considering what the Michigan legislature did Sunday night, rain on Monday is so appropriate...

Excerpts from msnbc.msn.com:

The Legislature agreed to raise Michigan's income tax rate from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent and expand the 6 percent sales tax to some services. (Governor) Granholm signed both measures. Structural changes to state government — including the management of teacher and other public employee benefits — also are part of the package.

Raising the state's income tax to 4.35 percent will raise an additional $765 million for the state. The income tax bill is written so the rate will gradually drop back to 3.9 percent between 2011 and 2015.

Extending the sales tax to some services starting Dec. 1 will bring in an estimated $614 million for the 10 months remaining in the fiscal year at that point, or about $750 million annually,

The tax increases should erase most of a projected $1.75 billion deficit in Michigan's next budget. The final budget for the new fiscal year will include $440 million in spending cuts, including no inflationary funding increase for public universities and community colleges, Granholm said.

There are a number of problems that I see with this action by the Michigan government. First and foremost, the state is in a depression/recession. The unemployment rate is more than 7%, and this hike does nothing to attract businesses and people to the state. Instead, it encourages people and businesses to leave the state. Reduce the tax base, reduce the income to the state, and then what? Raise taxes again? Smooth move, morons...

The next problem is that the Legislature has been working on this new budget for over 7 months, and this is the best they could do? Why weren't cost cutting measures implemented from the last budget re-write? If the common person is expected to tighten their belt and not spend as much if they don't have the money, why can't the government? Although, to be somewhat fair, there is supposed to be large cuts in government spending, but we will see if that will be the case.

Last is the statement that "The income tax bill is written so the rate will gradually drop back to 3.9 percent between 2011 and 2015." Right...how often are taxes reduced? And by that time, most of the bozos that voted in the increase will be gone, and the tax hike would be permanent because of the same fiscal irresponsibility.

In many respects, we do not hold our politicians (government) accountable for the expenditures that they make. Indeed, how many studies and reports on waste, mismanagement, and sheer stupidity are published, but how many are actually implemented? Not many, I would presume. If they were, government (both Federal and State) would not find themselves running on deficits.

Yep, time to get rid of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy...

Strike is Over

2007-09-26T18:43:00.001-04:00

Yes, the strike was short-lived, and that's probably a good thing. But we'll see what really got agreed to, and what Ford and Chrysler have to deal with (along with the Union).

UAW Strikes GM

2007-09-25T20:23:00.001-04:00

Yesterday morning, 73,000 UAW GM employees walked off their jobs to put pressure on the company to resolve issues concerning job security, wages, layoffs, and how much production goes overseas. Of particular interest is the initial funding of the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA), which is the trust fund for retiree health care to be administered by the Union.

In today's economy and job market, I can totally understand the concern over job security by the Union membership. Layoffs and the closing of plants are life-changing events that some people cannot recover from. And wages are always a contentious issue - there is a standard of living that many workers have gotten used to, and a reduction in those levels in an age of uncertainty is unsettling at best.

From an earlier post:

The whole idea behind a Union is to first and foremost protect the worker from abuses from the company they work for. Fair wages and other benefits are also part of the contracts as well as a certain amount of job security if the company runs into problems. A Union is not about telling a company how to run its business!! If anything, the contract that the Union and company signs is to protect the worker from mistakes the company’s management may make, which should help the company plan better.

Where the Union has been stung before is two-fold: The company asks for concessions due to the company losing money for the year, and closing the plants due to non-profitability. The company then turns around and gives executives multi-million dollar bonuses. The lack of credibility on the company’s part is obvious.

This now puts pressure on GM’s negotiators to come up with a workable solution that satisfies the Unions but still provides a profitable scenario for the company. Not an easy task, especially with the volatility of the automotive sector with changing consumer tastes and foreign automakers increasing their market share while Detroit struggles.

Part of the solution (from the automaker’s viewpoint) is VEBA. Excerpts from Newsweek on msnbc.com include:

The costs of providing health-care insurance have risen 78 percent this decade, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Hewitt Associates. And that has caused many companies to drop coverage for retirees while others feverishly cut benefits. Last year three quarters of big American companies increased premiums for retirees under 65, and 58 percent raised rates on Medicare-eligible pensioners, according to the study.

Nowhere is the pain more acute than in Detroit, where General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are confronting a lifetime retiree medical tab of $100 billion. Providing medical insurance for 540,344 retirees and 180,681 workers adds about $1,500 to the cost of every car Detroit builds—which goes a long way toward explaining why America's automakers lost a combined $15 billion last year. So the car companies are taking a cue from Goodyear, negotiating with the United Auto Workers to rid themselves of their retiree medical obligations by setting up a union-controlled trust known as a voluntary employees' beneficiary association, or VEBA. (Among the benefits to employees: if an employer goes bankrupt, the retirees' medical plan is protected from hungry creditors.)

In contract talks that have stretched well beyond a Sept. 14 deadline, GM and the UAW are haggling over how to create such a trust. The companies want to kick in about $70 billion to fund the trust, analysts say. That would wipe retiree health-care expenses off their books, which would immediately improve their credit ratings, cut costs and free up cash for other uses.

The union, however, wants more money in the fund—closer to the companies' entire $100 billion obligation. The UAW may have good reason for wanting more. A retiree health-care fund set up by Caterpillar in 1998 went broke in 2004 when it couldn't keep up with runaway medical bills.

It is this last paragraph that concerns me. Medical costs continue to escalate, possibly more than what the fund is able to keep up with. If the fund gets into trouble and needs an influx of cash, where is that going to come from? And the costs for administering the fund will also need to come from somewhere, and that is also a drain on the fund.

Is VEBA really a long-term solution for health care? From the standpoint of GM, it is. Consider this statement:

GM wants the trust, called a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA, so it can move much of its $51 billion in unfunded retiree health care liabilities off the books, potentially raising the stock price and credit ratings. It's all part of the company's quest to cut or eliminate about a $25-per-hour labor cost disparity with its Japanese competitors.

Yes, I have concerns about a Union-managed retirement health-care fund. A statement from the same article by a Union retiree:

…says unions have no business taking on the risk of doling out medical benefits to retirees.

While the auto companies need to be profitable to stay in business, it cannot do so without the Union’s cooperation. And the Union membership cannot live without the auto companies staying in business. A catch-22 if there ever was one. The problem is for the company and Union to come to an agreement that benefits both for the long-term, not a quick-fix, greed-ridden short-sighted agreement. And what that will be remains to be seen, not in the short-term, but with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight.

Coming Back to Civilization?

2007-09-21T16:19:00.001-04:00

Coming back from a long, restful vacation is always interesting. One always wonders how fast reality displaces that peaceful feeling.

Mine came real fast. My desk at work earned a PhD while I was gone (that’s Piled Higher & Deeper), and I was assigned two more projects while I was gone to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Worse, I needed to come up with a presentation on one of those new projects by the end of the week, and still keep all the other projects running. I felt like a juggler with one arm tied behind his back trying to keep all the balls in the air. Sigh… There went the stress relief…

But the time away allowed Mrs. Common Sense and I some much needed time alone, and the unforgettable memories that make up any marriage. We had not been on an extended vacation away from home for 10 years. We were due, big time.

However, the world goes on, and one again wonders what is coming around the bend next.

For instance, OJ Simpson is back in trouble with the law. I have no idea how his latest run-in is going to shake out, and in some respects, I don’t care. I believe that this person got away with two murders, aided and abetted by the inept prosecution & law enforcement that is in Los Angeles, and the judge & jury that had no idea what they were doing. In some respects, that case shows how woefully inadequate our justice system is in dealing with celebrities and other high-profile cases – it becomes a popularity contest instead of justice & closure for the victims (or their families).

And this idiocy isn’t limited to celebrities either. The protests in Jena, Louisiana over the initial charging of 6 black youths with attempted murder over the beating of a white youth is incredible. While the initial charge was over the top, if the colors of the victim and defendants were reversed, the protesters would be screaming “hate crime” and nothing short of life imprisonment. From MSNBC.com:

The six black teens were charged a few months after three white teens were accused of hanging nooses in a tree at their high school. The white teens were suspended from school but weren’t prosecuted. Five of the black teens were initially charged with attempted murder. That charge was reduced to battery for all but one, who has yet to be arraigned; the sixth was charged as a juvenile.
The beating victim, Justin Barker, was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function later that night.

The only crime here was the assault of the victim by the 6 defendants. While the act of hanging the nooses from the tree is disgusting, the act didn’t break any laws. But that’s not going to dissuade the race-baiters and activists from a good protest.

Where I have problems with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their ilk (yes, ilk) is that they are not as color-blind nor as for equal treatment for all persons under the law as they would have you believe. No, they want their race to have special treatment. Multiple cases and incidents for both of these “gentlemen” speak for themselves if you care to do the research. The history there is that they stir things up, not resolve the problems or injustices.

Here’s my case in point: If they were as color-blind as they say they are, they would be pushing for hate-crime charges on the 6 black defendants. After all, didn’t the 6 black defendants beat up a white victim? And if past cases are to be used as examples, it shouldn’t matter what provocation took place – a physical assault took place.

And that’s the fallacy of “hate-crime” legislation. As far as I’m concerned, all crime is hateful in one respect or another. Hate crime legislation is not for the protection of the minority from the majority, but to provide additional penalties for crimes based entirely on hate. Which is another problem – how do you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what a person is thinking or what really motivated him to commit a crime? Justice should be blind, and race (or any of the other hate-crime labels) should not enter into the mix. Entering criminal charges based on crimes with differing race, beliefs, or other criteria as factors can be just as discriminatory as the actions the accused is charged with.

While the above may crank off some of the readers of this post (and I can just hear this one coming) and think that I’m a racist, please stop and be intellectually honest with yourself. Do you really think that one race is superior than another? Do you hate a person’s race or skin color? I don’t on either count.

In many respects, this incident is something that has been blown completely out of proportion by activists. I’m not saying that nothing happened of a racist nature (there was), but calling attention to this event in this manner does nothing but present an “us versus them” attitude which numbs the message that they supposedly want to get across – equal justice. No, they want the defendants freed and not prosecuted for the assault. There is the injustice – do the crime, do the time, not freedom for the criminal.

And they wonder why people, in general, ignore these protests, and distrust the justice system.

Let’s not even start on Congress’s lowest approval rating ever, HRC’s health care plan or promised tax hikes, or Dan Rather suing CBS…

Before I Go...

2007-09-07T21:28:00.001-04:00

Mrs. Common Sense and I are taking a long and well-deserved vacation. We haven't taken a vacation for a long time, and this one will be special. We will be celebrating our 15th wedding anniversary next Wednesday.

But before we go to a place without Internet access or cars(!), there are a few comments about the past week's events:

Fred Thompson finally announced his candidacy for the Presidency. It will be interesting to see if his bid is as well timed as he hopes it will be.

Osama bin Laden released a tape a week before the 6th anniversary of 9/11. It looks like he is just as vain as the civilization he wants to destroy - he dyed his beard and eyebrows!!

Cerberus has stolen or hired away a top gun at Toyota to run the sales and marketing for Chrysler. Then the next day they hired GM's man in China to help with globalization efforts. Does make you stop and pause and think about the future of Chrysler.

Volkswagen announced this week that they were moving their North American headquarters from Michigan to the suburbs of Washington DC. Another blow to Michigan...

The Michigan Legislature wants to raise taxes on anything from telephones (cell, land-line, & Internet) to health clubs. Just what a state in trouble needs - more taxes...

Another sex scandal in Washington. This time, a Senator plays footsie in an airport stall. Where are the politicians that actually stand for something besides themselves and their party? Is there no one with integrity?

The financial meltdown in the mortgage industry continues. Countrywide Financial, a major lender, is cutting 12,000 jobs from it's payroll in response to the flurry of bad loans, defaults, and the collapse of the housing market in general. Who knows where this will end?

Luciano Pavarotti died this past week from cancer. While not a fan of opera, his voice was one that would send chills down your spine with it's power and tone.

Finally, the Surge appears to be working, but we'll see what General Patraeus has to say next week with his report.

Later...

Katrina +2 Years

2007-09-02T21:07:00.001-04:00

This past week saw the two-year anniversary since Hurricane Katrina put New Orleans under water. Of course, the news agencies were all over this, citing failure after failure of the government to address the needs of the storm victims. And in some respects, they are right.

In other respects, what else would anyone expect from government? Government, by and large, is a taker, not a giver. Government is very quick to take a portion of your paycheck in taxes, but very slow in distributing funds (just the paperwork takes weeks to process). If I remember correctly, there are still portions of Florida that are still in recovery mode from Hurricane Andrew from 1992.

Government failed the people of New Orleans. First and foremost was the Mayor of New Orleans, who didn't order an evacuation of the city with the resources he had available to him (remember the infamous pictures of the drowned school buses?). He had plenty of time to implement disaster plans, but for some reason, didn't. Second was the Governor, who stuck her head in the sand and didn't call the National Guard to assist in evacuating the city, nor to provide relief efforts until days afterward the disaster. Last was the Federal Government, but not for the delay with FEMA aid.

The fault there was that there were numerous studies done and billions of dollars allocated for the levies to be reinforced. The levies were not reinforced as needed, but the funds diverted for other projects as deemed by various Federal politicians. I lay the blame squarely on the Federal government in not making sure that the funds were spent where best needed. (link here)

The other problem that I see is that the people of New Orleans (and other places in the United States) believe that the Government will take care of them, no matter what. The sad reality is that Government will not take care of them, and it is not the responsibility of the Government to take care of the individual's needs. We are being lead to believe to the contrary, but where in the Constitution does it state specifically that the Government is to take care of the individual? It doesn't, but we have been lead down that path, and we have blindly followed.

While I'm not a fan of Rudy Giuliani, he made this statement:

Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself.

When I listen to some of the stories brought out this past week, some of them are truly heart-wrenching, others are not. When I hear of people moaning and groaning that the Government isn't taking care of them and doing nothing to help improve their situation, my sympathy for that person hits a new low. When I hear of people trying to improve their situation by taking matters into their own hands, and requesting assistance to finish up that last part of putting their lives back together, then they have my admiration.

People need to take responsibility for themselves, period. Yes, there are those that need help to get back on their feet. But I oppose the "cradle to grave" or as Right-minded Frank would say "womb to tomb" support that certain segments of our society feels that they are entitled to. But I digress...

When I think of Government assisting the population, I always think of this quote:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan

Enough said...

Global Warming from China & India

2007-08-26T09:27:00.001-04:00

Looking through this Sunday's Parade magazine, I read an article titled What's Really Heating Up the Planet which states that carbon-dioxide released by coal mine fires in China and India could equal the total gasoline carbon-dioxide emissions by American drivers. Why hasn't this been front-page news on the global warming front?

Looking into this subject further, I ran across an article published on July 13, 2007 by The New York Sun titled The Wrong Fire. Some excerpts from this article include:

It is astounding that with all the expensive proposals to combat global warming no one is discussing reducing global carbon emissions by putting out mine fires. Although putting out fires in America would not have a significant effect, putting out fires in China and India would.

So as the former vice president, Al Gore, organizes Live Earth concerts, as Congress ponders raising fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and as Michigan's John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, proposes America's first carbon tax, uncontrolled Chinese coal mine fires are sending millions of tons of carbon into the air.
China loses between 100 and 200 million tons of coal a year — a significant fraction of its production of 2.26 billion tons — to mine fires, according to Holland's International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation. This results in carbon dioxide emissions in a range of between 560 and 1,120 million metric tons, equaling 50% to 100% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline.
It may well be less costly for us to put out the Chinese mine fires than to cut emissions at home.
Second to China is India, where mine fires burn between 3 and 10 million tons of coal annually, with emissions of 15 to 51 million metric tons. Emissions will only grow in the future as China and India expand production of coal to fuel their thriving economies.
Congress wants to impose billions of dollars of costs on consumers and American industries in order to reduce global warming. The energy bill making its way through Congress would substantially raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars and trucks, decimating the American automobile industry and increasing the unemployment rate in Michigan.
Another idea is cap-and-trade programs. Under these schemes, the government grants credits to favored industries, which then sell them to those who need to produce emissions. This system requires the correct allocation of credits and level of caps to be successful. In Europe, caps were set so high that emissions were not reduced significantly.
A carbon tax, proposed on July 8 by Mr. Dingell, is a more neutral way to reduce emissions. The tax would encourage Americans to reduce consumption of all fossil fuels — petroleum products, natural gas, coal and shale oil. Yet raising taxes is never popular, and few voters trust politicians to offset carbon taxes with reductions in income taxes.
Further, gases other than carbon contribute to global warming — so why stop at a carbon tax? Congress could copy New Zealand's new flatulence tax on sheep and cows, designed to reduce emissions of methane, another greenhouse gas. New Zealand's Treasury will collect $5 million a year.
Carbon offsets, often "feel-good" measures such as planting trees or cleaning the ocean, are an increasingly trendy way of reducing global carbon emissions. Vice President Gore, defending the size of his residence, said that he purchased carbon offsets, and Senator Clinton supports funding for new carbon sequestration technologies.
But the most efficient offset would be extinguishing international mine fires, and neither Mr. Gore nor Mrs. Clinton are proposing research for this.

Looking over the content in this article just reinforces everything that I have thought about our politicians addressing the issue of Global Warming. Rather than addressing the problem, they would much rather subject the people of the United States with onerous taxes and burdens. Meanwhile, while they are gathering power and money at our expense, what little heavy and medium industry we have left will be taxed and legislated out of existence.

What also bugs the hell out of me is that these same countries, China and India, are being given by the UN's Kyoto Protocol a pass on reducing their carbon emissions. Instead, they are allowed to pollute as much as they want because they have "developing economies." If the UN was serious about Global Warming, then China and India would be required to base their economies on green technology - that would show the decadent West how it's really supposed to be done. All this does is just helps to support a contention that the UN is anti-America (or anti-West), and seeks to bring the wealthier nations down to the level of the poorer nations.

I think the last paragraph of the article sums it up nicely:

We don't yet know definitively, despite much assertion, whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon or simply the product of lengthy climate cycles. But if we're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, let's tackle the biggest culprits first — the mines burning out of control in China and India.

Senators and Representatives of the United States, please put the welfare of your country first, not the rest of the world.

Made in China...

2007-08-14T19:13:00.001-04:00

Who said making things cheaper, i.e. in China, is better for business? Only a short-sighted person interested in the bottom line would…

China has been cheaply manufacturing many types of goods for many years, but the shine of the low-cost Empire is becoming increasingly tarnished over the past few months. Pet food contamination was only the beginning. Toothpaste contaminated with an antifreeze ingredient, defective tires, tainted medicine, and lead paint on toys appears to only have been the tip of the contamination iceberg.

Now there are massive recalls on these and probably dozens of other products that haven’t made it to the mainstream headlines. The cost of these recalls can be tallied up fairly quickly, but what about the all-important confidence of the consumer? Once a company has lost the confidence of its customer, it is very hard to get them back.

Don’t believe it? Look at the Big Three. When the Japanese imports hit American shores, the call went out that the Japanese had better cars with higher quality at a lower price. That perception is alive and well today thirty-plus years later. It doesn’t matter if the quality has improved according to numerous benchmarks and magazines, the perception is still there.

And it’s bound to get worse. There are massive influxes of cash and investments in Chinese manufacturing from the West, and the potential consumer market there is incredibly huge. Factories are being built at a staggering rate, not only to manufacture products for export to the West but for consumption inside of China itself. It only stands to reason that on this wild-west frontier of business that corners will be cut to gain the advantage of billions of dollars/euros/yuan available to those businesses that drum up lucrative contracts. With Chinese-built cars due to hit the American market within a couple of years, one really needs to wonder if these vehicles won’t be another set of Yugos in the making.

The Chinese government is ill equipped to regulate this burgeoning industry. Lack of experience, corruption, and a rapidly expanding industrial base all contribute to less than stellar quality and contamination concerns. But that is just the beginning of my concerns.

Part of what concerns me is that for all the billions being spent in China, the government there is still Communist. Not only is it Communist, it is backed by a million-man army with nuclear weapons. Billions can be lost should the government decide to nationalize all of the industry that the West has built. The world economy would crash, but the Chinese have isolated themselves from the rest of the world for years, and can do so again at the drop of a hat. But this won’t happen for some time – the Chinese aren’t done yet. No, they will wait until the rest of the world is utterly dependant on their country for goods, then they will slam the door shut.

Inviting industry to build in their country is a great way to build up their infrastructure. What isn’t commonly known is that the Chinese have been quietly buying bonds and securities from countries around the world. They now have so much that if they decided to dump these securities on the market, the economy of the world would crash and burn. Therein is my other concern. I believe the Chinese are waging an economic war, and doing it for the long term goal of dominating the world.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world is headed down this road. It looks like we are all in for a bumpy ride sometime in the near future, and hitting the wall in the long term.

And yes, I am trying to get my blog banned by the Chinese, and I've been successful in that endeavor.

Chrysler, Cerberus, and Daimler, Oh My!

2007-08-13T17:54:00.001-04:00

It's been a little over a week since Cerberus signed the papers getting Chrysler out of the clutches of the Germans (well, almost), and there's not much change. But then...

The Pentastar is back!! Finally, a symbol of the heritage of the company that just doesn't seem to die, no matter what happens. At least it's not a three-headed dog, even a three-headed Hemi-dog would have been too much.

Tom LaSorda got bumped from his top banana position down to 2nd banana. Not surprising since Chrysler hit the skids on his watch and Cerberus wanted someone else not connected with the previous regime to be in charge.

The Top Guy that Cerberus put in LaSorda's position is the former Home Depot CEO, Robert Nardelli. He floats over to Chrysler/Cerberus under a $250 Million golden parachute left over from his Home Depot days. How much money can a person be worth? Of course, since Chrysler is now a private company, Nardelli's salary doesn't need to be disclosed to shareholders, but it has been stated that he will earn only $1 for his first year (a la Iacocca) with future compensation dependant on his performance.

But the Germans (a.k.a Daimler) still have a little under 20% of the company. It will be interesting to see how they fit into the picture.

There is a lot of speculation at the company about how all of this will impact Union negotiations. Not much feedback yet, but we all know that healthcare is at the top of the list right along with the job bank. Will both sides play hardball? Too soon to tell, but I predict a lot of yelling.

I wonder if we'll all have to wear little shop aprons with the company logo on them...they had damn well better not be orange...

I’m Pro-Choice…

2007-08-02T11:00:00.001-04:00

…but not on the issue that you think.

On Tuesday, Rudy Giuliani proposed a unique health care plan that radically differs from the government managed system that the Democrats have touted. The Giuliani Plan, in essence, gives each family up to a $15,000 tax credit to buy health insurance, and anything left over from that credit would be rolled over for year to year medical expenses.

From an MSNBC Article:

Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama have proposed more detailed steps to deal with the 47 million Americans lacking health insurance. Edwards' plan has an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers or pay into a public program.
Edwards estimates that his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion per year and would be financed by repealing President Bush's tax cuts on those making more than $200,000 per year.
Obama's plan calls for the creation of a public program similar to the health plan offered to federal employees, and a National Health Insurance Exchange for consumers to shop among private plans. Employers would have to share the cost of insuring workers.
Obama estimates his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion per year, paid for by letting Bush's tax cuts expire on those making more than $250,000 per year.

OK, let’s think about this for a second or two. The Democrat’s plan is funded by taxes and managed by the government. So that’s more money out of your pocket (higher taxes), and when have you last heard of anything managed by the government being a success? And if the Democrats plan becomes reality, do you really think that it will hold costs down, i.e., your tax bill? Government is famous for spending your money.

Let’s also think of this too – at the present time, if a HMO screws up, denies or delays coverage for a medical procedure, and the person dies, their survivors can sue for damages & compensation. Do you think that you can sue the government for the same thing? I highly doubt that anyone would be successful in that endeavor.

So Giuliani’s plan is pretty attractive for more than a few reasons. Here are a few more:

First of all, it puts the consumer (you) in the driver’s seat for selecting the health plan that best suits you. A government plan would have only a few choices, the private sector has hundreds.

Second, it gets the employer out of the health-care business. Take a look at the automotive sector for instance. Several thousand dollars from each American-built car go into paying for the health insurance for its employees and retirees. The financial burden is huge, and does not help the Ford, GM, and Chrysler products compete against those brands that do not have this burden. Removing those costs would help businesses become more competitive not only domestically, but internationally as well.

Third, it keeps the government out of your personal health-care decisions. Yes, there will be those that make poor decisions (there always are), but we need our citizens to stand up and take personal responsibility for themselves instead of relying upon government to do it for them. A quote from Giuliani from the same article states:

"Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself."

Next, this plan has the potential to keep the size of government down. Less government, less taxes (or at least that’s the theory). All one has to do is look at the bloated Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid agencies, and you know what I mean.

Last, this would not be funded by tax increases, but on money that you have already earned in your job. Wouldn’t it be nice to not have a bigger tax bill, and take home more of what you earn? (Note: This last is my interpretation of the plan. It will be interesting to see how this does pan out.)

Whoever wins the next election seriously needs to look at this plan. At first blush, this is a unique approach to the health care costs facing this country's employed and employers. I believe it's better than the government becoming more of a "nanny-state" that the Democrats are promoting with their proposal. I already know that the argument will be made that there will be those that make poor choices, and that will be true. However, those people should be the exception, not the rule, and should not be the reason for dragging the rest of us down.

Yes, I'm pro-choice - for my health care options. How about you?

Patton Speech on Today's War on Terror & Iraq

2007-07-28T18:11:00.001-04:00

I normally don't post YouTube videos (actually, this is the first), but I heard this on Bill Bennet's Morning in America show on either Thursday or Friday (can't remember - too tired).

Warning - In the traditional Patton style, there is profanity, but the message is excellent.

Approval of Congress?

2007-07-26T17:40:00.001-04:00

By now, everyone has heard or read that the approval rating for Congress is below that of the President. While it is not surprising to me that this is the case, there are those that do not understand how this Democrat-controlled body has fallen so far from the promises that they touted during the last election cycle.

One of the first things that come to mind (and the biggest) is the immigration reform fubar. I don’t think that anyone was happy with the obvious closed-door backroom deals that were made to even bring this miserable piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate. This displeasure was made known to the Senators by the numerous phone calls and emails made by the concerned citizens of this country. If the Senators thought that they were doing the will of the people, this was certainly the loudest wake-up call that they have received in a long, long time that they were way off the reservation.

Next on my list is that the Democrats ran on the platform of reforming the Republican’s “Culture of Corruption” in which they were to clean Congress of misdeeds, earmarks, and wasteful spending. Never mind that William Jefferson (D-La) was caught with over $90,000 of FBI marked money in his freezer and was later indicted. Ignore the dust-up made by John Murtha over a challenge by Mike Rogers on Murtha’s blatant attempt at earmarking funds for a pet project. And let’s not mention all the deals that were made just to bring the aforementioned Immigration Reform Bill to the Senate floor. These are just a few of the many dealings along this line that this Congress has shown that it’s “business as usual” in the Capitol instead of the reforms that the Democratic leadership promised.

Then there are the incessant investigations into this, that, and the other. The political prosecution of Scooter Libby, investigation into the Attorney General’s office, NSA wiretap investigation, the detention of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, the calls to investigate and impeach the President are but a few of the antics that this Congress is busying themselves with instead of the more important issues facing this country. I’m now waiting for a Congressional investigation into steroid use in professional wrestling a la baseball. Need I say that the country is sick and tired of investigation upon investigation over nothing and non-issues?

Then there is the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. This Congress called for the President to change strategies, and he eventually did - and then they still complained even with the new strategy appearing to be working. Congress has called for a withdrawal of troops but lack the intestinal fortitude to withdraw funding for this conflict. And the Congress is trying their best to micro-manage the President and the military, even though it is not within their Constitutional authority to do so. Along with this is a shortsighted view of the big picture – i.e., the security of this country, and it is no wonder I feel more insecure knowing that these bozos are running the show.

Last are the obvious power politics. How many non-binding resolutions on the same subject can be voted on? Who cares that it involves a sleepover along with pizza and beverages? The results are the same – nothing significant gets done, no problems are solved, and more problems are the result. The only thing that these clowns are doing is playing power politics to have the next President be elected from the Democratic Party.

Quite frankly, with the antics of the Democrats in charge and the past actions of the Republicans, I’m not really sure if I want either party in the White House. It is a shame that there is not a credible third party out there that enjoys nationwide support. A change is needed in Washington, and I just don’t see it happening with the current political parties that we have to choose from.

Tale of the Trids

2007-07-19T18:57:00.001-04:00

Haven't done one of these for a while, and considering that I just went through workplace violence prevention training today, perhaps it's time to purge some of these non-conformist thoughts...

--------------------------------------

On an island in the South Pacific, there lived a tribe of natives called the Trids. They are a peaceful people, although, well, vertically challenged. But their island had everything that they could want or need. It was Paradise....except for the giant.

The giant lived on a mountain on one end of the island. Every now & then, usually once every couple of months, the giant would come down from the mountain into the village of the Trids and kick them around. No deaths, no broken bones, just lots of bruises. Only the very young and the very old were spared the wrath of the giant.

One day, a cargo ship was passing by the island, and stopped for supplies. On the ship was a Rabbi looking for a place to live for a while. He saw the island as a sanctuary, a place to relax while he sorted out the problems of life in general. The Trids welcomed the Rabbi as their guest, but they did warn him about the giant. He promised that he would do his best to help save them from the giant.

The cargo ship sailed away with the captain promising to return for the Rabbi in four months. And for about six weeks, everything was as if the Rabbi was in the Garden of Eden. Then the giant came down off his mountain.

The Trids heard the giant, and ran screaming through the village for everyone to run and hide. The Rabbi heard this commotion, and went to the front of the village to confront the giant.

And he saw the giant coming down the path from the mountain. And he was huge!! The Rabbi's confidence was fading with every step the giant took toward the village. Finally, the giant reached the village and stopped in front of the Rabbi.

The giant looked down on the Rabbi and started to chuckle a low, rumbling, bemused type of chuckle. With every passing second, the Rabbi's knees began to shake. The giant saw this, and chuckled louder.

Finally, the Rabbi couldn't take it anymore. He looked up at the giant and shouted, "You're not going to kick the Trids around unless you start with me first!! Well, get on with it!! Start kicking!!"

The giant let out the loudest chuckling laugh ever heard, shaking the very ground and echoing through the land. The giant leaned down and looked the Rabbi in the eye. The Rabbi thought he was a goner as the giant fixed him with a penetrating gaze with his yellow eyes.

Still chuckling, the giant said, "Silly Rabbi. Kicks are for Trids..."

Illegals Cost You Money, and So Do Politicians!!

2007-07-14T18:58:00.001-04:00

Gayle has this post over at Dragon Ladies Den which really tells how much our elected Senators were going to hose us for if the Immigration Reform Bill became law. I stand by my assessment that these jerks need to be replaced by someone with, well, a little more common sense than a rock.

It still amazes me that most of these Senators have law degrees, which means that they are supposed to have some smarts upstairs. But how can they be so stupid as to not see the reality of the situation? But then again...

Quoting from an earlier post:

In case any of you didn't know, a typical politician's primary job is not to serve the people who elected him. His primary job is to get himself (or herself) elected or re-elected. Second job is to reward all those contributors that gave $$ to help him get elected. Third is to get as many perks & benefits as he can while he is in office. Last on the list is the common person like you & I.

While there are some exceptions, they are the minority (or they're up for re-election), but I am just amazed at the arrogance of the politicians. After all, it's not their money, but yours. Earmarks, pork, and backroon deals all come together for power to the politician, not to the people that elected them. Why am I reminded of the Jimmy Stewart movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Then there is the open microphone incident that exposed HRC (a.k.a Hildebeast) and JE (a.k.a. Breck Boy) plotting to exclude their competition. If this doesn't demonstrate the elitism that these politicians believe in, then nothing will.

Term limits, financial responsibility of Congress, flat tax or a national sales tax instead of an income tax are all things I would like to see, but then again, I'd like to have a winning Powerball ticket too.

Friday the 13th vs. Global Warming

2007-07-13T21:15:00.001-04:00

Just when you thought it was safe to hide under the bed and cringe over the Algore prophesy of Global Warming doom, some facts come out. Of course, Al's not going to let a few facts get in his way of hawking carbon credits.

The American Thinker published an article a couple of days ago titled Global Warming and Solar Radiation. To summarize the article, Global Warming is not a man-made or caused phenomenon. Big surprise...

But then again, what else would you expect from someone who has great expectations of himself with an ego to match? A not so complementary article is here, which beats mine to pieces...

200 Posts and 10,000 Visitors...

2007-07-09T17:14:00.001-04:00

...and then I get tagged!! This time, Always on Watch ever so nicely slipped me the assignment of listing 8 things/habits. I normally treat such things as the electronic equivalent of a chain letter, but how can I say no to a teacher? I sure don't want detention, so here we go...

1) I was involved in sports 30 years ago, track mostly. Didn't do much between then and a year ago when my wife and I started training together. If I'm not careful, she's going to kick my ...

2) One of my ancestors signed the Declaration of Independence.

3) Learned how to play golf without a single lesson at 16, and was down to an 8 handicap after two years of playing. I'm now fighting to keep an 18 to 20...why does it get to be so hard when you get older?

4) Medically, I'm allergic to cats, but we have two and I'm not having any problems. Go figure...

5) I firmly believe that the Constitution of the United States outlines the most perfect form of government. Now if we can just keep the politicians from mucking it up...

6) Life is too short to not have fun. Are we having fun yet?

7) In God I trust - all others bring data.

8) I speak my mind and opinion without much sugar - sugar is for my morning coffee.

And no, I'm not going to tag anyone (unless you ask really, really nice...)

Pardon Me!?!

2007-07-06T20:58:00.001-04:00

Let's get one thing straight – Lewis “Scooter” Libby has not been pardoned by President Bush. His sentence has been commuted. He still pays a $250,000 fine, and will not be able to practice law. If he was pardoned, then he wouldn't have to pay the fine and he would be allowed to practice law.

So he didn't pull a Bill Clinton, who seemed to pardon almost everyone around him for similar and worse crimes. So why are the Democratic candidates (especially HRC) making so much of this? In a word – politics.

The problem that the Democratic candidates have is that they are not running against President Bush in the next election. They really don't have anything else to showcase what they stand for. National or universal healthcare is an issue that might fly at first blush, but if anyone with half a brain thinks about it for any length of time, this is one elephant that no one wants in the same room. All the candidates have stated is that they will raise taxes on the wealthy, but they differ on who exactly fits in that category. They also want to repeal the tax cuts that helped boost the economy (and exactly what do they think this will do?) They can try to hang their hats on Iraq, and they might get some traction there, but again, they are not running against Bush. And let's not even talk about the “culture of corruption” - both parties have major problems with this one.

So they are left with trying to make political hay over a commuted sentence. Big deal. But since they decided to bring up the rhetoric a notch or two, why don't we chew on this one for a couple of minutes...

Why don't we start with the Democrats favorite son, the former President Bill Clinton. Looking at his pardon record at the US Department of Justice, there are so many pardons that he issued it is unbelievable. Some of the most notorious are Marc Rich, who was pardoned while he was still evading authorities and after his family made a $1,000,000 “donation” to the DNC. Then there were the FALN pardons timed to help his wife gain the New York Puerto Rican vote in her successful bid for the Senate. Or how about his brother's drug sentence? All in all, Bill Clinton pardoned and commuted the sentences of over 180 people for various crimes.

Compare Bill Clinton to his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, who only pardoned and commuted the sentences of 78 people. The current President, George Bush, currently has a paltry 117 pardons and commutations.

In all fairness, many of the pardons issued by all the Presidents were for run of the mill items. But some really stand out, and others are for the same types of offenses. But the political rhetoric is incredible!!

So now the Democratic Presidential hopefuls are screaming at the top of their lungs, “Unfair! Unfair!” to which could I say “Can it!!” Or maybe we should keep quiet and let these buffoons continue to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, the more noise they make, the more scrutiny they bring upon themselves (especially HRC), and the more attention they will garner on their many faults.

The Declaration

2007-07-04T12:22:00.001-04:00

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Immigration Reform Defeat Backlash

2007-07-02T15:47:00.001-04:00

If anyone thought there wouldn't be any repercussions from last week's defeat of the Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate, they are dead wrong. In fact, the seeds of discontent sown by the citizens of the United States are bearing horrible fruit in the Senate and House.

Because so many people bombarded the Senators with their objections over the proposed Immigration Reform, the Senators are royally honked off. It isn't often that their constituents object to what this glorified elitist country club does – they are often left to “legislate” in peace without much scrutiny by the public at large. Not this time as talk radio informed millions of people what the Senators were trying to do behind closed doors. The result was thousands of phone calls and emails that clogged the switchboards and email servers.

So now our “esteemed” Senators are trying to bring the defunct FCC “Fairness Doctrine” back to life in the form of a law. The Fairness Doctrine requires that communications media either refrain from publishing controversial opinions or to present all sides of an issue. On the surface, this doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it is just as bad if not worse than the Immigration Reform Bill.

First of all, who decides what issue is controversial? Who defines what sides there are? The government? This definitely sounds like the beginnings of censorship, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Next, the proposal that has been floating around only targets radio, specifically talk radio (at least that's what I understand). Why not other media such as television and newspapers as well as commercial media websites?

And then there is free choice. You and I have the choice to listen to or read opinions as we wish. Air America died because no one wanted to listen to the Liberal opinions expressed on that station. In many respects, the market (you and I) determined that Conservative Talk Radio was what we wanted to listen to, probably because we were tired of the daily Liberal newspaper and TV mindwashing.

Last, where would this stop? Private blogs such as this one be forced to present all sides? That would mean that the fabled “thought police” would now roam the Internet, seeking out all the malcontents and free-speakers like you and I.

George Will had this quote from Supreme Court Justice William Douglas in his excellent article Fraudulent 'Fairness':

"The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV and radio."

I look at our elected official's actions during the Immigration Reform Bill debacle, and now with this latest assault on the populous at large, I cannot shake the thought of our elected officials being completely out of touch with the people who elected them in the first place and the laws of the United States that they are sworn to uphold. I'm reminded of two things – One, the Jimmy Stewart movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” and two, of a child being caught with his hand in the cookie jar just before supper. In the first case, Senators trying to weasel back-room deals with each other to get votes for their bills. In the second case, the Senators got caught trying to pull a fast one.

The bottom line to all of this is that the Senate (and probably all politicians) would much rather that we disappear until election time, because that is the only time that they really need us. As for me, I'll try and vote out any politician that voted for or supports the Immigration Reform Bill and the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of their party affiliation (providing that they meet a couple of my personal criteria).

National Health Care

2007-06-23T16:30:00.001-04:00

National Health Care. Just the words make me think of HRB's foray into the health care industry when her husband was President. Now with the 2008 elections around the corner, this issue is being raised again as a campaign platform.

It doesn't matter what side of this issue you are on. Everyone has valid points for their side of the argument. My two questions about the matter are: Who is going to pay for it, and who is going to manage it?

The short answer for the first question is: You are. You will pay for it in higher taxes, direct and indirect. Your income tax will increase. The goods you buy will most likely have their increased cost of materials rolled into the price (companies pay taxes on the raw materials used to manufacture their product). And if possible, the sales tax on those goods could increase too.

The answer to the second question, if the politicians have their way, is the government. Again, nations that have a national health care system manage it with a governmental department.

A quick look into nations that have nationalized health care show that they do indeed pay higher taxes. Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, France, and others have horrendously high percentages of their taxes going to their health care systems, but services and the health of the system itself is failing. An example is that France has 9.8% of its Gross National Product going to its health care system, and the system itself will be 70 Billion Euros in debt by the year 2020 (link here).

Does anyone else find this frightening? Look at the examples of current government-managed programs and you will understand my concern. Wasteful, redundant, mind-numbing bureaucracy will be the norm. Anyone who has dealt with a government agency and an insurance agency know that there is little difference between the two, but I would much rather deal with the insurance agency – I will get things accomplished much quicker.

What is also disconcerting is that the politicians supporting a national health care don't really have a good plan on how it will be funded, much less run efficiently. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are all in financial trouble. To add another government controlled bureaucracy is financially suicidal, and raising taxes will not be the solution. These bozos either don’t have a clue or don’t care how this policy will affect the country.

Last, is this really what we need to have? Hospitals, by law, are required to treat anyone without regard to their capability to pay. Yes, there are sad stories of people not being treated in time and dying. But look at the waiting lines for surgery in Canada and Great Britain, and one wonders if this would be an improvement over the current system. For some, yes, for others, it will not.

Quite frankly, if there is to be a nationalized health care system, I would not have it run by a government department. Rather, it should be run by a contracted non-profit private agency with an oversight from the Government Accounting Agency (GAO). Waste would be held to a minimum, and the contracted agency would need to show fiscal responsibility and high standards for patient care in order for the contract to be renewed. But then, that's me...

News Bytes & Comments

2007-06-08T05:39:00.001-04:00

Haven't posted for over a week, and that's just not good. Son is graduating from high school, so there's all that to get arranged & taken care of. He's also trying to get a job, and find a roommate for his assisted living arrangements. We think he has found a place to live, but there are so many details that need to be worked out.

Then there's the job. Have a project that's going to take up most of my time for the next 6 weeks. It's good that I have a job considering the state of the automotive industry in Michigan. It's bad that the OT will cut into what little free time that I have to write.

Upshot is that posting will be light or non-existent for the next few weeks. Don't worry - I'll be back!! Stay tuned and keep commenting.

But before I go, here's a few headlines and comments that have shown up in the past week:

Immigration Bill Pulled

The Senate immigration bill has been pulled from the floor of the Senate. This just might kill this horrible piece of legislation, but there are those who state that it will be back. I hope not...

Paris Hilton Out of Jail

Yep, she's out of jail, but not out of trouble. Now it's house arrest for 40 days with a rather unstylish electronic ankle bracelet. Why we care about what happens to this protected airhead is beyond me.

Democratic Candidate Debate

Verbal body slams were the on the agenda for this debate. It was interesting that the candidates attacked each other as much as they attacked the President. But there's no way I would vote for any of them. Obama is becoming a Black Militant. Edwards is bordering on the left-wing fringe. Clinton is stiff and smarmy, and who really wants Bill back in the White House?

Democratic Candidates Express Faith

Faith in what? Didn't hear anything on the sound bites that resembled anything but self-promotion.

Republican Candidate Debate

Much more agreeable debate. Were at least courteous in their disagreements with each other's opinions, & didn't stoop to character assassination.

Republican Candidates Express Faith

At least there were a couple that stated that their faith was based on God and Jesus Christ, and done so in a way that promoted God and not themselves.

Jefferson Charged

William Jefferson (D-LA) finally has been charged with multiple counts of criminal activities. About time.

Time to go. Stay tuned!

Cindy Sheehan Resigns

2007-05-30T17:46:00.001-04:00

As many of you probably already know, Cindy Sheehan has “resigned” from the protest over the Iraq war. The event as described in a MSNBC article has several snippets that I would like to comment on.

In what she described as a “resignation letter,” Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the “Daily Kos” blog: “Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

I’m sorry that America is not the country you want it to be. I’m not exactly happy about all of the things that happen here, but I am not naïve enough to believe that if I parade around the world protesting that everyone is going to follow my lead and do the same.

“I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement.”

And that’s exactly what will happen if you go out and protest. There will be repercussions of some nature from the opposition, especially from parents in a similar situation. Whether you will be strong enough to weather the criticism is something that is not for the faint-hearted.

When she had first taken on Bush, Sheehan was a darling of the liberal left. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.”
“…would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George W. Bush.” (Hardball, July 5, 2006, with guest host Norah O'Donnell)
Sheehan said she had sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war. What she found, she wrote, was a movement “that often puts personal egos above peace and human life.”

Congratulations, Cindy, you just found out you was used by the liberals to further their agenda. Once you outlived your usefulness, you were discarded like yesterday’s garbage. Making statements of wanting to live in a Socialist country with an anti-America dictator running it did nothing but make you appear like a wacko and make you a liability. Politics (and politicians) do not respect personal sacrifice, nor do they care about anything but the advancement of their personal agendas.

“Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.”

I can do nothing but agree with her statement (surprise!!). We are a fickle nation with misplaced priorities and limited attention spans.

Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations, said dwindling crowds at Sheehan's Crawford protests since her initial vigil may have led to her decision. But he also said he hopes she will now be able to heal.
"Her politics have hurt a lot of people, including the troops and their families, but most of us who support the war on terror understand she is hurt very deeply," Taylor said Tuesday. "Those she got involved with in the anti-war movement realize it was to their benefit to keep her in that stage of anger."

I agree with Miss Taylor. Cindy Sheehan has always struck me as a person with a deep amount of pain over her son’s loss. I think she started asking why her son died, and couldn’t come to terms with it. I do hope that she finds peace, and hopefully, heal the wounds that the loss of her son created.

In Flanders Fields

2007-05-28T17:21:00.001-04:00

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army

Freedom Isn't Free...

2007-05-25T19:21:00.001-04:00

...it must constantly be paid for in pain, blood, and lives.

This Memorial Day weekend, let us not only celebrate and remember the sacrifices of those soldiers, sailors, and airmen that have given their lives for this country and all it stands for, but the people behind them. The wives, families, and friends that they left behind with the memories of their passing and lives should also be remembered. Often, it is the ones left behind that carry the most pain.

My father is a Korean War Veteran. He doesn't speak of what went on over there - he prefers to remain silent on the horrors that he witnessed. He gave my mother a picture, which I now have, of him in Korea.

I had two cousins that were in Vietnam. One didn't come back, and the other one probably shouldn't have. Their respective mothers keep pictures on the mantle.

One of my friends spent two tours in Iraq. He made it back without a problem, but I know the unit he was with. He saw some action, but I'm too polite to ask him what happened over there.

Everyone reading this post knows someone within their family or circle of friends that has been in the military. Those families that have their sons & daughters in the military dread that knock on the door or the ring of the phone telling them that someone they love is gone. Even though this may not come to pass, this is their sacrifice - the waiting for that notice that they pray will never come.

These people all deserve our thanks - living and the dead - for their respective sacrifices for the freedom we all enjoy.

Just An Old-Fashioned Rant...

2007-05-21T20:52:00.001-04:00

Sometimes all you really want to do is just vent about what honks you off at the moment. So this is mine for the day.

The Senate will vote on the Immigration Bill to see if they will bring it to the Senate floor for debate. I've heard that this Bill is 1000 pages long, so our esteemed Senators will be voting on this document without having even read it. So a couple of questions beg to be asked:

How in the world can a document be 1000 pages long? It boggles the mind, but that is what happens when a bunch of beaurocrats with law degrees get together. How could anyone read it much less understand it is beyond my meager comprehension.

I've also heard, that despite the rhetoric, this bill adds nothing to the current laws regarding illegal immigration. The only thing that it adds is an out for the current illegals to get a card to make them "legal" workers, pay a fine, avoid prosecution, and get fast-tracked on the path to citizenship. As I've stated in a previous post, this is still a recipe for disaster. The 1986 Amnesty debacle is about to be repeated. Why do our Senators not see the problem with this "solution?"

I understand that the majority of illegal aliens residing and working in this country are only trying to make things better for themselves and their families. They have also broken the laws of this country be crossing the border illegally. What gets me going is that the media trys to portray them as victims instead of lawbreakers. Why do our elected officials not understand this?

An example of the above are various mayors in cities who have declared "safe zones" within their cities that are designated safe havens for the illegals. They defend their decisions by stating that they are under no compulsion to enforce Federal immigration laws. What??? Excuse me, but isn't one of the duties of an elected official to uphold the laws of this country, whether they are Local, State, or Federal? Where did I miss that in Civics Class?

Our elected officials should be ashamed of themselves. There are existing laws on the books that deal with the issue of illegal immigration. But all they have done is handicapped our Border Patrol and INS agencies with increased regulations and decreased funding. Border Patrol agents have been prosecuted for doing their jobs, and INS is swamped. The border is wide open for almost anyone to cross at will, and that includes terrorists mixed in with the illegals.

What should be done is close the border first - manpower and budgets need to have priority. Second is to find and prosecute all employers of illegal immigrants. Last would be to find and humanly deport those who do not leave voluntarily - let those people who want to leave first leave without any trouble.

Sure, this is a simplified plan. But simple works much better than a 1000-page doorstop...

Senate Immigration Bill

2007-05-19T19:58:00.001-04:00

Listening to the radio last week about the Senate's "agreement" just riled me to no end. The fact that a committee made this agreement in secret harks back to the age of backroom deals that smacks of illicit activities. Some of the details that have come out about the compromised (!) bill are somewhat expected. From msnb.com:

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that prioritizes immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

But what is really interesting are the comments that various politicians have made. Let's view & comment on a few:

"It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law." - Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Excuse me, Senator Specter, but we are a nation of laws the last time I checked. What needs restoring is the enforcement of the current laws, not a compromise that circumvents those same laws.

"I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

I too have serious concerns about this proposal, Senator Reid, but not the ones that you have. I do not like giving felony-level offenders (of which I understand illegal immigration is) a pass with a slap on the wrist, a fine, and permission to do it again. To whit -

"What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.

Representative Bilbray hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough common sense or thought given to the long-term actions that this Bill would inflict upon the country.

Proponents of the Bill point to Ronald Reagan's amnesty program from 1986 as precedent for this updated and improved Bill. This is one of the few times that I would say that Reagan was wrong. In excerpts from a New York Times Op-Ed piece published on May 24, 2006, Ed Meese had this to say:

In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
...
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
...
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
...
America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."

And here is the crux of the matter!! Unless the border is secured and the employers hiring illegal immigrants are prosecuted, we will find ourselves in the same mess in another 20 years.

We have already seen the political will-power of our Congressional Representatives and Senators on the issue of Terrorism. What sane person thinks that they will have the will-power to follow through on all of the funding and enforcement that comes along with with passing this Bill? No more than the 1986 law, I guarantee you that.

President Bush said:

“I appreciate the effort of senators who came together to craft this important legislation. This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom.”

President Bush, I respectfully disagree with you. If these people respect our country and "share our values," they would not have crossed the border illegally.

The Bill that I would like drafted, passed, and signed is funding to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. After all, if those cannot be enforced, then how in the world is new legislation going to work any better?

SOLD!!

2007-05-14T20:29:00.001-04:00

In case you didn't catch the business news, DaimlerChrysler accepted an offer of $7.4 Billion from Cerberus Capital Management for the Chrysler part of the business. Daimler will retain 20% of the business to be known as Chrysler Holding, but also assumes the former division's debt. What is surprising to me is that UAW President Ron Gettlefinger supported the transaction.

Where the company goes now is going to be interesting. Chrysler is in the middle of a restructuring to return the company to profitability in a couple of years. The upside is that the company is starting out debt-free thanks to Daimler assuming the debt. The downside is where the negotiations with the UAW (and with the rest of the staff) go. No doubt concessions for health benefits and retirement coverage will be on the table.

Will Cerberus pump up the company before dumping it? Only time will tell.

Let's Have a Reality Check - Gas Prices

2007-05-11T20:36:00.001-04:00

No doubt everyone is noticing that the gasoline prices have shot up. In our area, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.25, diesel is a surprising $2.75/gallon. But where does this stand with the other necessities of life?

The average Starbucks coffee - $3.00 for an 8 ounce cup (that's $48/gallon!)

A pack of cigarettes - $4.75 (from a billboard outside a gas station)

Movie with popcorn & drink (1 person) - $14.00

Monthly cell phone bill - $50.00 (if you have a good plan & watch the minutes)

Dinner for two at a decent restaurant - $50.00

Average price for a music CD - $15.00

Gallon of milk (on sale) - $1.89

Ticket to Wrestlemania - up to $1200.00!!!

Your freedom in this country - Priceless!

Just thought that things should be put in perspective...

Transportation Energy Independence

2007-05-05T22:12:00.001-04:00

We, as a country, need to get away from using Middle Eastern oil for our transportation needs. Why, you may ask? The short answer is that the Middle East is not the place we need to look for in guaranteeing the economic security of this country. And transportation is essential to economic growth and stability.

Part of the longer answer can be found in part of an earlier post, Energy Independence:

The oil producing region of the Middle East is under an uneasy peace at best. Suicide bombers and the conflict in Iraq are the most visible and most reported violent incidents from the area. The Palestinians have elected a known terrorist group, Hamas, as their leaders. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is among those listed in Parade Magazine as being some of the most ruthless dictatorships known with multitudes of human right violations. Of course, there is Iran making noises about wanting to join the nuclear club even though the president of Iran is clearly advocating using any and all means to wage war on Israel to wipe it off the map. Lastly, Islamic terrorists such as al–Qaeda are constantly stirring up trouble for everyone in the region.

Whether we like it or not, the United States has a vested interest in the Middle East for national security reasons. Again, according to the May 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, the United States relies on foreign oil for 52% of its needs. Should the flow of oil be interrupted, then the United States would have a severe impact dealt to its economy as all sectors (transportation, manufacturing, & energy generation) would be affected. Those groups that have accused the United States government with trading blood for oil are partially right as the Government has the duty to protect the economic welfare of the country. However, these same groups do not take the time to understand the reasons for the foreign policy sometimes enacted in the Middle East. For example: The first Gulf War was waged for a singular purpose, and that was to secure valuable oil resources in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein's control. If those resources were under the control of Hussein, then he would have been able to economically cripple the United States and the rest of the world. Those groups decried the loss of life in this conflict. One wonders what they would do or say if Hussein had control of the oil fields and turned off the oil, thus depriving them of the ability to drive to the supermarket only to find empty shelves since the food couldn't be delivered…

So what are some of the options for reducing or eliminating foreign oil for our personal transportation needs? Let’s explore a few:

Electric-Drive Technology

The battery-powered car has been around since the turn of the century. The latest commercial incarnation of this technology was GM’s EV1, which could only be leased. After only a few years, these vehicles were pulled from the market.

The main problem with pure electric-drive vehicles is their range. While the EV1 was advertised to have a range of between 60 to 80 miles on a single charge, those claims were tempered with a recommended upper limit speed to achieve that range. Often, the range was less because those speeds were not realistic when competing on a highway with other vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine.

The limitation of range and speed of these vehicles is due to the limitations of the battery technology. The batteries can only hold a limited charge, and the batteries take up space in the vehicle. Weight also becomes a consideration, so the practicality of the vehicle now becomes a compromise between range, weight, speed, and size of the vehicle. Battery technology is improving, and may one day store vast amounts of electricity in a small space, but that day is not here yet.

An alternate energy storage solution that has been proposed (and is currently be researched) is a super capacitor. A capacitor in its simplest form is a non-chemical means of storing an electrical charge (batteries use chemical reactions to generate electricity). This is a new technology, so developing a device that can be mass-produced in quantity and price is some time away.

What is not often expressed about using an electric-powered vehicle is how to charge it back up for the next use. The most often method is to plug it in to a power outlet in your garage. The problem is that the recharging of several thousand of these cars will put a burden on the power grid. Considering that during the summer in California, there are rolling blackouts due to increased usage of electricity does not bode well for charging a bunch of electric vehicles, even if it is at night. The answer to this problem is to build more power plants, but where and fueled with what? Coal pollutes worse than natural gas, and both emit the greenhouse gases that the environmentalist / Global Warming crowds oppose. Nuclear energy is a no-no with the anti-nuke crowd, and there are only so many rivers that can be dammed to furnish power (providing the site passes the environmental review and doesn’t endanger any fish).

Electric-drive vehicles have their use in limited quantities, but these vehicles will not be a wide-spread long-term solution.

Hybrid Technology

Hybrid technology has been touted as the next best step to an environmental friendly and foreign oil dependence solution. And in some respects, that is a correct assessment.

Hybrid vehicles combine an electric-drive vehicle and an internal combustion engine (gasoline or diesel) in an attempt to optimize performance while reducing fuel consumption. When the battery pack of the vehicle reaches a low charge level or the vehicle needs an added power boost (such as passing another vehicle), the engine starts up automatically, powering a generator, and thus supplying the additional power needed by the vehicle.

A variation of this technology is known as plug-in. Like the electric-drive technology that was examined above, the vehicle is plugged in a standard wall socket to initially charge the battery pack. The initial charge is only good for 20-30 miles of driving, after which the engine in the car would then generate the power needed to keep the battery charged. This method might help keep the power grid from overloading, but that remains to be seen.

As discussed in a previous post, there are some concerns that hybrids are not as environmentally friendly as they have been portrayed. The chemicals and minerals used in the current crop of batteries are obtained at a greater energy and environmental cost than what could be acceptable. Of course, this same problem affects the all-electric vehicle that was discussed above. However, advances in battery technology may help reduce these concerns and environmental impacts. But remember – the fuel to run the engine to power the vehicle on the road and charge the vehicle in the garage has to come from somewhere.

Bio-Fuels

Bio-fuels have been getting a lot of press recently as being the answer for the near and middle term solution for energy needs. Bio-fuels include ethanol (with gasoline blends and as a stand alone fuel) and bio-diesel.

Ethanol is derived from the fermentation of sugar. The source of the sugar in the United States is primarily from corn, although other sources are used in other countries. The most successful example that I can think of is Brazil, where their entire transportation energy needs are met by domestic ethanol production from sugarcane – no oil is imported to the country for energy consumption.

Bio-diesel can be derived from a number of sources. Soybeans (United States) and jatropha nuts (India) are just a couple of crops that can be raised for the purpose of manufacturing bio-diesel. Bio-mass (organic recycling) is being used in Europe. Additionally, canola oil and recycled cooking oil have also been used as fuels in diesel engines.

Bio-fuels are extremely attractive for several reasons. The first is that current internal combustion engines can use them with little or no modifications. The second is that the technology to use these fuels is known and relatively mature. The third is that this source of energy is renewable. Last, in some instances, bio-fuel can burn cleaner than petroleum-based fuel. But…

…there’s always a downside. Growing crops to turn into fuel takes land that could be used to grow food crops. In countries that must choose between growing food and growing energy, this would be a difficult position. Environmentally, this could also prove to be a disaster in the making as countries would clear land (such as rainforests) to grow these crops and thus potentially wipe out endangered species. Already there are reports from Mexico and Holland about the rising food prices or unavailability of crops for food (or beer – horrors!!).

Additional concerns would also be that there is a report that using ethanol could be bad for the environment, and could cause additional health problems (link here). Also, the miles per gallon from using ethanol is approximately 15% less than using gasoline, and 11% for biodiesel. And using these fuels will still generate certain levels of CO₂ which may not be acceptable even though they are supposedly “carbon neutral.”

Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas

From an internal company webpage that cannot be linked to the outside:

An alternative fuel is natural gas. This chiefly consists of methane (CH₄), and of all the fossil fuels, it has the lowest percentages of carbon that turns into to CO₂ on combustion. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO_x), soot and reactive hydrocarbons are also lower compared with liquid fossil fuels. One kilogram of natural gas, which is stored in pressurized tanks and therefore also called compressed natural gas (CNG), corresponds to the energy content of around 1.5 liters of gasoline. However, the low energy density compared with liquid fuels and the higher tank volume also cause disadvantages in terms of range and load area.

CNG is very attractive as a fuel that can be used to fuel internal combustion engines. I know for a fact that current engine technology can use CNG with little or no modification just by using a conventional carburetor and not fuel injectors. The main concern is the size and the weight of the tanks that would need to store CNG, and the safety of the tanks should there be an accident. Puncturing a tank could 1) be a fire hazard, and 2) have the potential to cause additional injury should the escaping gas propel an object.

An alternative to CNG is liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Many of us use this gas to fire up our grills for that cookout, but it can be used as a fuel in the same way as CNG. But it also has the same concerns.

Hydrogen Technology

Hydrogen is the potential "king" of all fuels. It burns up completely in combination with oxygen, and pure water vapor is emitted as an "exhaust gas". Some examples of regenerative production possibilities are electrolysis using regenerative electrical energy from the sun, wind, water or geothermal energy. Regenerative hydrogen can also be extracted from biomass. To provide reliable supplies for hydrogen-powered vehicles, a standalone filling station network is required.

The main problem with hydrogen is storage. Hydrogen is the smallest of all molecules, and containing the gas reliably is incredibly difficult as it tends to seep through tanks and other storage containers. This could lead to a dangerous buildup in an enclosed space. The image of the Hindenberg is always on person's mind when someone mentions hydrogen.

And therein lies an inherent problem with hydrogen. It must be stored under high pressure to store enough gas for a vehicle burning hydrogen to get a decent range. But there is hope.

There is research that may lead to a reliable and stable method of storing hydrogen. The research centers on bonding hydrogen into a metal or nano-material matrix. This would stabilize the gas from leaking into the surrounding atmosphere. The gas could then be released in a controlled fashion as to be used in a power source for a vehicle.

Which leads us into the next topic...

Fuel-Cell Technology

One of the more intriguing power sources for vehicles are fuel cells. Essentially, fuel cells generate power through an electrochemical process, much like a battery. They convert chemical energy to electrical energy by combining hydrogen from fuel with oxygen from the air. Hydrogen fuel can be supplied in two ways - either directly as pure hydrogen gas or through a "fuel reformer" that converts hydrocarbon fuels such as methanol, natural gas, or gasoline into hydrogen-rich gas. The result of this combination is water vapor and electricity.

NASA has used fuel cells for years to power its spacecraft using compressed hydrogen and oxygen with great success. The main problem with this technology is that it is expensive, but cost should come down with time and development.

Tom's Vision for Fuel Independence

From an engineering standpoint, the internal combustion engine is fairly inefficient (30 percent efficiency at best) in providing energy for our personal transportation needs. Stop to think about it – every time a cylinder fires in your engine, you get the bang to convert the energy into mechanical motion, but a great deal of heat is also generated and goes out the tailpipe.

A better way is to directly convert the fuel into energy as efficiently as possible. In my mind, the fuel cell is just about the best direct fuel to energy conversion device thus far - fuel cells can achieve 40 to 70 percent efficiency, which is greater than the 30 percent efficiency of the most efficient internal combustion engines. Technical challenges toward developing fuel cells are many – safety, fuel supply & distribution, and cost are just a few of the problems that would need to be overcome. But this will not happen overnight – it will need to occur in stages. Until those challenges have practical solutions, then here’s the direction I think we need to go:

When I was in Germany, I drove a Mercedes C230 with a diesel engine. Outside of the initial startup rattle that sounded like a truck engine turning over, the engine was quiet and powerful. Getting the car up to cruising speed (250 kph = 155mph) on the autobahn was no problem, and the response of the vehicle was excellent. Using diesel engines in passenger cars as well as trucks & SUV's while supplementing the petroleum diesel fuel supply with bio-diesel would make an almost immediate impact on how much petroleum is imported to this country. This would be the first step, but would need time to implement as this industry would need to ramp up to meet the level of demand that is currently dominated by gasoline demands. Can it be done? Yes, but the stigma of diesel engine for passenger use in this country would need to be overcome.

The second step would be to pour the development money into the R&D for both battery and fuel cell technologies. The vehicle configuration that makes the most sense to me is a battery-powered vehicle that can be recharged by a plug in and by a fuel cell for those extended trips. Such vehicles are quiet, powerful, and as a side benefit, environmentally friendly. A hydrogen infrastructure would need to be developed as well as a beefing up of the electrical power grid for the extra demand, but this is all possible.

The third step? Mr. Fusion, but that’s way out in the future, but we will need to get back to that later…

Remember you read it here first!!

Politicians - Bah!! Humbug!!

2007-05-04T21:14:00.001-04:00

After watching the politicians over the past several weeks, I begin to wonder if I need to go to the doctor and have my blood pressure checked. Let's just run down the list:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stating for the record that the war in Iraq is lost. Thanks loads for ~~supporting~~ stabbing the troops in Iraq in the back just because you want to make political power plays.

Speaker of the House Nancy Peloci running off to Syria & donning a headscarf while making like an Ambassador. Shameful actions from a shameless politician.

Congress passing and the President vetoing a funding bill for the troops. Never mind that there were approximately $20 Billion in pork attached to the bill. Now that the point(?) has been made, Congressional leaders now state that they want to play nice and support the troops...

Immigration is becoming a hot topic again. Several candidates have stated their support for illegal immigrants. Excuse me, but do they know what the word "illegal" actually means, or have they taken one too many payoffs selling their souls to the highest bidder?

Both the Democrat and Republican candidates for President have had their first debates. While I did not see them, I've heard lot of comments from both sides of the political spectrum. The general consensus is that there was no new information revealed, and that the debates were boring. We need another Ronald Reagan, not anemic know-nothing wanna-be's.

Finally, the assertion that the Democrats were voted into power just to bring the troops home from Iraq. No, the Democrats were voted into power because the Republicans didn't seem to be effective in winning the war in Iraq. Considering that the Republicans do not fight back or refute the majority of charges the Democrats make against them or President Bush only emboldens their behavior.

What is the bottom line on all of this? The enemies of the country sees this BS as weakness. All they have to do is wait us out, and we'll run away. The rest of the world also sees weakness, and perceives this country as someone that cannot be trusted to keep promises or support them. After all, if this country cannot stand up to a terrorist organization that has killed people on our soil and cannot finish the job in Iraq, then what respect will this country be left with? We might as well as hand the keys to the country off to the terrorists...

I have grave concerns over the future of this country, especially with the current crop of politicians in Congress and the ones running for President. Both Parties are out of touch with mainstream America, and listen only to the screaming extremists (both left and right). Power politics result, and nothing gets done except compromising this country's future.

And we only thought that we had to worry about the Goracle's ranting about global warming...

This and That

2007-04-25T18:17:00.001-04:00

Not really having the time to blog now that the weather has warmed up and yard work has commenced, let’s instead take a look at some of the headlines from this increasingly strange world of ours…

Virginia Governor May Close Loophole

Virginia's governor said Tuesday he may be able to close the loophole that allowed a mentally ill Virginia Tech student to acquire the guns he used to kill 32 classmates and faculty last week.

While I think that this needs to be done for the public safety, I also think that this is going to meet some opposition. Why, you ask? Just think of the outcry if mental health records are now going to be part of a public record. Instead of a safety issue, it will become a privacy issue.

Iran Arrests 300 ‘Insufficiently Veiled’ Women

Break out the burkas!! Iran is now cracking down on women (and men) that the mullahs consider to be under-dressed (or perhaps, out of uniform). Police are enforcing the regulations. It’s amazing to me that the National Organization of Women have not commented on these types of actions against and/or repressions of women’s rights (at least to my knowledge).

Al-Qaida Group Claims Killing of 9 GIs in Iraq

Anyone who thinks that Al-Qaida is gone should realize that they are merely biding their time to strike again.

The Case for a Global Carbon Tax

The (Bush) administration had several narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but among its main arguments was that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO₂emissions from those plants will be five times the total reductions in CO₂mandated by the accords.

Finally, someone has pointed out that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accords was rejected was because of China and India. While cutting down CO₂ emissions would be a good thing for everyone (not just because of “Global Warming”), the author correctly points out that these CO₂ emissions come from coal, which by itself has a whole host of environmental problems. What the author gets wrong is that the US is supposed to get China and India to not build coal-fired power plants. And that will be difficult because China and India are trying to build their economies the fastest (and cheapest) way possible. The author’s idea is to implement a global carbon tax to reign in these countries. I wonder if Al is listening…

Kim Basinger Hires Security for Daughter

After hearing the daughter’s father (none other than Alec Baldwin) rant on a voice mail, who can blame her? Oh yeah, Rosie defended Alec’s rant – go figure? One angry person defending another… And speaking about Rosie…

Rosie Leaving the View

To which I ask – What took so long?

I’ll be working on a long post, so it might be a week or two before the next post. This one is a continuation of Energy Independence, which was posted over a year ago. It’s a subject worth revisiting considering the events and topics of the past year (Global Warming, the Middle East, Environmentalism, Energy, and so on).

Nugent Speaks Out On Gun-Free Zones

2007-04-23T18:21:00.000-04:00

Ted Nugent gave an opinion on gun-free zones on CNN that's pretty interesting to read.

Hat tips to The Educated Shoprat and 2 Valuable for the heads up.

The Virginia Tech Shootings

2007-04-18T17:12:00.001-04:00

More and more information is coming out about Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student who went on a killing spree that left 32 dead & 19 wounded before killing himself. From several accounts, this was a deeply disturbed person.

While our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all the victims of this tragedy, there are those who will take (correction: are taking) advantage of this horrendous event. For example:

The media will analyze this event trying to find out why this person acted the way he did. The victims will be glorified almost to the status of sainthood. And all of this will evaporate with the next hot news item.

The anti-gun crowd will use this event to try and further erode our 2^nd Amendment rights. Even though the weapon(s) used were legally purchased per the laws of the State of Virginia, we all know there will be a call for stricter gun laws.

Let me comment on the above examples:

As I have stated before in this blog and in the comment sections of other blogs, the media at large is an entertainment industry, not a news-reporting agency. News stories will be used, but they will be slanted and spun to provide the most interest possible to the widest audience. Ratings are king, and whatever can be done to raise the ratings will be done. What then happens is that people and the facts will be misrepresented or the full story not disclosed. And as soon as the story has run its course or interest begins to drop, then the media moves to the next hot topic.

The victims will soon be footnotes in this tragedy, but Cho will be the fodder for talk shows for the next several months. His life will be dissected in excruciating detail in an effort to find out what went wrong. Speculation will replace whatever facts that cannot be found, and the talking heads will recycle everything in different ways to present their point of view. Only when everyone is sick of hearing about Cho will the analysis cease.

I already know that the anti-gun crowd is gearing up to use this tragedy to push their agenda. I’m not sure what the requirements are in Virginia to purchase a weapon, but it sounds like there wasn’t a mental health or criminal background check, or a waiting period. At the very least, I’m predicting both of the above will shortly be introduced as bills to the Virginia Legislature.

But even then, a determined person such as Cho would have found a way to either get a weapon or some other device to carry out his mission of murder. From the reports I’ve seen, he planned this for a long time – he could afford to wait.

While Virginia Tech is a gun-free campus, Cho lived on campus. He had a weapon in violation of the rules, but obviously that didn’t matter. So the age-old argument that “if guns are banned only criminals will have guns” holds true in this case.

So if Virginia Tech was not a gun-free campus, would Cho have been stopped by a person with a legally purchased firearm and reduced the number of people killed or injured? One would like to think so, and I would like to post the following thoughts to the readers of this blog.

Why are the anti-gunners afraid of guns? They are inanimate objects just as much as the computer you are currently using to read this. They have no minds of their own and unlike a dog, will not run over and bite someone because they don’t like them. In essence, they are like a rock, unmoving unless acted upon by some external force.

Actually, what the anti-gunners are afraid of are people. Yep, people. But they are not afraid of sane, responsible people like you and I. Rather, they are afraid of people like Cho, angry and violent for no apparent reason, or of criminals wishing to do harm in the course of a crime. So their reasoning is that if guns are removed from the public, then these people would no longer have the capacity to cause harm. To which I would respond: Look what 19 people on a mission of death did with knives and boxcutters.

I would further respond with a question: If you are so afraid of people causing you harm, then who would you trust to protect you if you give up your right to self-defense? If you answered government or the police, stop to think for a second. Police cannot be everywhere at the same time nor will they be able to respond instantly to an emergency (that has been proven more times that anyone can count). And furthermore, the government is composed of people!! The argument falls apart.

I would like to close out this post with the recounting of two separate but related events that happened in 1983.

I had just gotten some food in a restaurant, and had just picked up my tray when a wild-eyed seedy looking man burst through the doors. He was carrying a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, waving it around, screaming for everyone to freeze and he wanted money. The clerk behind the counter froze, not moving, petrified with fear. He turned his attention to her, waving the shotgun under her nose demanding that she open up the cash register. Suddenly, he whirled around in my direction, fired both barrels, and fled out the door.

Good part, he missed me totally – he was using double-00 buck and the spread pattern of a sawed-off shotgun is pretty wide (the shot went all around me, missing by fractions of an inch). Bad part was the guy next to me caught two – one in the shoulder which severed an artery, and the second through his leg, which went completely through.

Of course, blood and tissue is everywhere, and I can’t hear anything from the blast. I spent the next 10-15 minutes with my hands inside this guy’s shoulder holding on to what was left of his artery trying to keep him from bleeding to death. When the paramedics arrived, they had to first motion to me that they were going to take over, and second, get my hands uncramped enough to get my hands out of the way for them to patch him up for transport. Not a good day in the least.

After this incident, I applied for and received a CCW permit (they had not caught the would-be robber). As I was taking night classes at the time, I also went the University Campus Security Office, told them what had happened, and that I had a permit to carry. While they generally did not permit students from carrying weapons on campus (professors could), they made an exception for me, considering the circumstances. Good thing, too, given what almost happened two months later.

Walking back to my car at night (I lived off-campus), a car pulled up and 4 huge guys got out. I weighed only 135 pounds at the time, and these guys weighed at least 190+ each. I started backing up while they were hooting and hollering about how they were going to “mess up the white boy” (they were black). One of them appeared to be getting something out of the back of the car (I think it might have been a baseball bat). I kept backing up, holding my briefcase in front of me while reaching around behind me under my coat to get my gun. I had just unsnapped the holster and told them that they really didn’t want to do this when a police car turned the corner.

The guy closest to the car dropped back into the car whatever he was getting and called to his buddies. Two officers got out of the car and asked what was going on. They answered nothing, and the officers told them to keep moving along (they seemed to know them). They drove off, and the officers asked me if I was OK. I told them yes, and continued to tell them that they arrived at the right time. They originally thought that I was referring to my safety until I explained that if they had not arrived when they did, some of the people they just let go would have been severely injured. I showed them my weapon (still in the holster with the safety strap off), and asked if they needed to see my permit. They looked at each other, told me no, and to be on my way.

In the first case, I was defenseless, a lamb waiting to be slaughtered should my executioner deem it was my time. In the second case, I had a chance if it came to the worst possible scenario. And you know, if the same type of incident happened at my University that happened at Virginia Tech, I would guarantee that I would go down fighting.

Again, my heartfelt sympathy, prayers, and best wishes to the families and friends of the Virginia Tech students. May you all find peace.

School Shootings

2007-04-16T20:19:00.001-04:00

At this point in time, there are 33 people dead (gunman included) at Virginia Tech University. No other details as to why the gunman did it or who he is.

Our prayers go out to the victim's families, and the people who witnessed this tragedy.

The Prius Polluter?

2007-04-08T06:56:00.001-04:00

According to Central Connecticut State University's The Recorder Online, the Toyota Prius causes more pollution than a Hummer. Most of this is due to the materials used in its construction. Also, it takes more energy to create and run one of these vehicles than a conventional car.

What is not addressed in the article is the question: What do you do with the Prius batteries once they wear out? Batteries can only be charged and recharged so many times, and the chemicals used in them will degrade over time. And some of the chemicals used are pretty nasty. And let's not forget the amount of energy that will be required to recycle the batteries as well.

I have my own ideas on what an economically-friendly personal transportation system could be in the future, and the technologies are being developed or are already here. But that's a post for a later time.

In the meantime, remember that the hype on eco-friendly cars, global warming, and carbon-credits is not what it is cracked up to be. More than ever, I believe that there are political agendas being addressed instead of real problems.

What's Next?

2007-04-05T20:56:00.001-04:00

Global Warming? You must be kidding? We were greeted with 2" of snow this morning after having record highs this past week. More snow to come with the temperatures to match. Hey Al, you sick twisted moron! That's snow out there, not a heat wave melting the tires off of my truck!!

Next on the list is that Kirk Kerkorian is bidding on Chrysler. A surprise to say the least. What's even more interesting is that he would give the Unions, employees, and the management the chance to own part of the company. Good move on his part - if you own part of the company you work for, you tend to have that personal stake & pride in what you do. No word on if the Board is seriously considering this offer (which is better for the employees than an investment firm buying the company). But we will still have to wait on pins and needles for the outcome of this version of "Deal or No Deal."

But is there any justice either? Ford is paying their CEO $28 Million for four months of work. Considering that the company lost 12.7 billion in 2006 and workers are getting less than a $1000 bonus, I think this is a little bit excessive. Of course, tell that to all of the employees let go from the company who got the shaft instead.

On a happier note, the British sailors are home. What the aftershocks will be after this latest incident with the Iranians is anyone's guess.

Finally, the Masters are being played in Augusta this weekend. I plan on watching the final round (too much other stuff to watch everything).

British Sailors Freed!!

2007-04-04T12:42:00.001-04:00

I am personally glad that the British sailors have been freed by the Iranians. Even more so that no shots were fired and (hopefully) no one got hurt.

The whole purpose of this incident was for Iran to send a message to the world - We'll do as we please, no matter what the UN says. After that point was made and they got all the propaganda they could out of it, the sailors were freed.

What will be interesting is when the next deadline for the Iranians to comply with ceasing nuclear development comes and goes. What will the Iranians do next?

Britain's Hostage Crisis

2007-04-02T19:40:00.001-04:00

Great Britain is in trouble. Fifteen of it's military people are being held hostage by the Iranians, and there is no answer as to when they would be released. Worse is that several of the sailors & marines have issued statements condemning their own government. Worst is an Associate Press poll which states that the English people do not favor military action to get their people back even if negotiations fail.

It really doesn't matter if you believe the British or Iranian accounts for the reason the sailors were taken. The facts are is that they were taken from under British guns without a shot, presumably in Iraqi waters, and did so with the expressed knowledge of the British government as the commander of the warship repeatedly asked for permission to fire in defense of the men and women under his command, and was denied. In my mind, that would depress the morale of the British armed forces, and I certainly hope that a similar situation would not occur if any aggressor tried to board and/or take American military personnel.

What is important is that Iran is showing the world that they will abide by no one's rules but their own. Calls for the cessation of Iran's nuclear program by the Useless Nations were met with defiance. Iran will continue down this path no matter what the UN does with it's sanctions (of which Iran would tell them what to do with them).

Europe is now getting a taste of what they have been defending. The EU has Iran as one of its biggest trading partners, and Iran is thumbing its nose at the EU. Of course, the EU is expressing shock and outrage at Iran's actions, but do you think that there would be anything that they would do to come to Britain's aid? HAH!! Don't hold your breath!!

The fact is that Europe has been inundated with Muslim immigrants, and they are demanding that the various governments of the EU accommodate them! With the flap over the Mohammad cartoons and the riots in France, the nations of the EU is on perilous grounds. They do not need a uprising to screw up their domestic and economic tranquility, so now they will look to the UN to solve the problem.

And who will the UN look to? After they get done with issuing resolutions and sanctions, they would look to the US to help enforce them. To which I would say “go away.” Their actions as a group of nations during the 10 years between the Gulf Wars is atrocious and abysmal, and they definitely have not supported the US in our enforcement of their resolutions.

While I realize that Great Britain is one of our best allies in the world, they also have to stand up for themselves. Allowing a third-rate nation take its soldiers when there was the opportunity to defend them was idiocy at its worst. Should the US support them if they ask for it – yes, but the US should not be leading the charge.

The EU needs to figure out what to do for themselves with this problem with Iran and other countries like it. In the case of Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon capable of fitting on top of a missile, and drop it somewhere in Europe because someone published another Mohammad cartoon...

And by the way, kissing a** and making nice won't do it. It was tried around 70 years ago, and it didn't work.

Today's Headlines From Around the World

2007-04-01T07:17:00.001-04:00

Bin Laden Surrenders to Afghan Authorities.

Iran Releases British Sailors - "It was all a big misunderstanding."

North Korea Opens Nuke Facilities for Inspectors

All Corrupt Politicians Resign - Congress Emptied - Elections to be Held in November

Al Qaeda Follows bin Laden's Example & Surrenders in Iraq

The Iraqi Government Resolves All Quarrels With Sectarian Leaders - A United Iraq At Last!

Iran Announces Nuke Program Halted, Ahmadinejad Resigns, Elections to be Held, and Holocaust Did Occur

Hillary Announces Withdrawal from Presidential Race

US Troop Funding Crisis Resolved

Islamic Radical Imams Call for Halt on Suicide Bombers - "Does not lead to Paradise"

Hamas & Hezbollah Disband

We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality...

Politics and (Junk) Science

2007-03-28T10:18:00.001-04:00

Mention Global Warming and a rather heated debate usually erupts about whether or not humans are causing it. Of course, various studies would be cited to support or not support this opinion (and yes, I’m calling it an opinion, not a scientific fact). But before you start flaming me to a toasty golden brown, kindly consider the rest of this post.

Many of us have been raised with the notion that scientists, by & large, are benevolent people, working for the betterment of mankind. Mention the word “scientist” and what is the mental image that you get? More often than not, you will conjure up a person in a spotless white lab coat mixing chemicals in a test tube or peering through a microscope. The exception to this rule is usually the wide-eyed “mad scientist” that is portrayed in the late-night horror shows, but even then, these misguided scientists generally have a goal in mind – the betterment of mankind according to their warped vision.

More recent movies and portrayals still show scientists in this light, but with an increased sense of reality. I can recall a couple of movie scenes of where the scientists are concerned with the continuation of their work because of the lack of available funding.

We should all realize that scientific studies take money, sometimes lots of it. This funding comes from both private and public sources, the last being your tax dollars being routed through research grants. Continued funding from either source is dependant on results or the promises of the desired results. Note the last statement – “desired results.” After all, who wants to fund any research if it doesn’t produce what you want?

Here’s where the politics begins to enter into the scientific field. What researcher wants to have his pet project run out of money & get canceled? None, I would wager. And the desperation runs higher if the researcher has spent years working on the project. So the research scientist now resorts to politics to keep the funding flowing. And this will sometimes put the scientist in a rather compromised position – how to present the data to insure continued funding? There’s an old saying that states –

Figures don’t lie, but Liars figure.

And that’s exactly what happens. The data is manipulated in such a way that supports the sponsor’s opinions and views. This is when science becomes junk science, and the scientist is nothing more than a parasitic shill.

We have been conditioned that scientists and researchers are ethical people, concerned only with the Joe Friday version (just the facts, ma’am) of what the research can prove. Unfortunately, where large sums of money are concerned along with a life’s worth of work that just will not be the case. This is where I have a problem with the arguments for humans causing Global Warming.

I stated in an earlier post:

…computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect. I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now…

If Global Warming were truly caused by human activity, then every scientific community around the world would be in total agreement with the data and raising the alarm. The fact is, they’re not, and they are having pretty ugly arguments over it too.

Global Warming is an unproven theory based on computer modeling. Computer modeling is only as good as the data used in the model and the sophistication of the program to manipulate that data in as realistic manner through algorithms (mathematical formulas). And there isn’t a person or persons alive that can write such a sophisticated program to allow for each and every variation of the Earth’s climate. If that were the case, then why can’t your weatherman tell you what the weather is going to be in exactly one month from now?

Just for grins & giggles, what variations could affect this model? Well, let’s see….

Solar flare activity
Volcanic eruptions
Large meteor impacts with the atmosphere and/or ground (can you say “extinction”? I knew you could…)
Any other “acts of God” you could imagine

Now the program could take into account the above, but the varying degrees of random activity of each of the above in combinations with each other will introduce wide variations in the results. We could predict anything from no effect to the end of the world as we know it. Having programmed a fair amount in my career and performed simulations with multiple variables in specific applications, I know the above to be true.

So here’s where I have a problem with blindly accepting the results of these models that humans are the cause of or are contributing to Global Warming. On one hand, these computer models cannot possibly take into account every single variable and predict with any certainty the climate of the earth over the next couple of weeks much less in ten years time. On the other hand, we have research scientists who have made a career in predicting the climate trends and have already reversed themselves once in my lifetime. This all adds up to one big steaming pile of manure.

I’m not alone in this assessment. One of the websites that I have listed to the right is the Global Warming Hysteria Blog. Then there’s the sixth-grade class that debated this subject after performing some research and concluded that (hat tip to jimmyb). And finally, there are the numerous news reports of scientists and climatologists disputing the findings of the Global Warming researchers (and getting death threats besides). Don’t believe me? Then do your own research and educate yourself.

So why is such a fuss being raised over a theory? The short answer is politics and power. Environmentalists are a powerful lobby in Washington, and will seize upon anything possible to promote their agenda.

Don’t get me wrong – we need to be environmentally responsible. It is our planet, and we shouldn’t trash it up. But some of the agendas this group promotes would cost extreme amounts of money for very little (if any) return. Global Warming is one of those.

However, between a couple of Hollywood movies dealing with global weather catastrophes and a powerful politician supporting these views, the old adage of “saying something long enough and often enough to become fact” is becoming true. This is nothing more than propaganda at its very best. And just like all the other successful propaganda and marketing schemes used in the past, this one is sucking in people (and entire countries). After all, scare tactics work very, very well.

The upshot is that you and I will be pressured, forced, or otherwise mandated to bow to the Goracle’s version of environmentally friendly. And some of these choices are not, in the long run, environmentally friendly nor energy-efficient. But more on that in a later post…

Sorry, folks, but I think our scientists and researchers need to stay out of the politics and stay in the lab. They should also stick to reporting facts as facts, and not spin it around to suit whatever is the buzzword for the day.

Washington Politics

2007-03-23T16:27:00.001-04:00

I don’t know about the rest of you, but the politicians in Washington are really p*****g me off. And I’m talking about both Democrats and Republicans.

With today's House passage of the military spending bill with the caveat of removing the troops from Iraq, the Democrat’s strategy is very, very clear. Their goal is to remove any power base and/or credibility that the President has. By implementing their “slow bleed” strategy, they are undermining the President’s authority to direct military operations to get our troops out of Iraq and leave a functioning government in place. They are also attacking his Attorney General for the firings of eight US Attorneys, calling it a political move (even though President Clinton fired 93 when he took office, which was sheer politics). The Democrats are taking every opportunity, big and small, to snipe, criticize, and undermine the President and the Republican Party.

This wouldn’t be so bad if the Democrats weren’t so hypocritical. Screamer of the House Pelosi stated that under her leadership that ethical behavior will be of the highest priority. Really, Nancy? Then why do you claim to support Unions but vehemently oppose workers unionizing in your vineyards? Or how about censuring William Jefferson (D – Louisiana) for having $90,000 of FBI marked money in his freezer? Or Harry Reid’s shady land deal in Nevada? Or including 20 million dollars of non-related pork in the aforementioned bill? Come on, give me a break!!

The Republicans aren’t much better. President Bush has not responded very forcefully to accusations and attacks from the Democrats. This is perceived as weakness by the Democrats and our enemies abroad. And the Republican members of Congress have not rallied to the President’s side like the Democrats did with Clinton’s impeachment. Rather, they have been like a bunch of pathetic sheep trying to run away from the Democratic wolf. That does not speak well of their commitment to their party or to their principles.

Principles – now there’s a question! Do politicians have any? From an earlier post –

In case any of you didn't know, a typical politician's primary job is not to serve the people who elected him. His primary job is to get himself (or herself) elected or re-elected. Second job is to reward all those contributors that gave $$ to help him get elected. Third is to get as many perks & benefits as he can while he is in office. Last on the list is the common person like you & I.

Lost in the political power plays is the security of this country. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are too busy maneuvering to effectively address the critical issues of this country – terrorism, illegal immigration, health care, & economic trade balance. They have forgotten that they serve the people of this country, and their personal welfare is supposed to take a back seat.

These power plays portray an apparent chaos within our government, and that emboldens the enemies of this country. After all, if the government can’t keep its s*** together, then they are weak and can be safely attacked without too much fear of reprisal.

Then there is the consistency factor, of which the lack of adds to the chaos. Our government does not pick an issue, comes to a consensus, and sticks with it. While this may be good in some respects to re-evaluate strategies to see if they are working, to give up at the first sign of difficulty is a recipe for disaster. Here are a couple of examples that I can think of off the top of my head:

Terrorism – After 9/11, our President, with the blessings of Congress, vowed to go after terrorists where ever they may hide. In other words, this country was declaring war on all terrorists and the countries where they were given shelter. Fast forward several years, various members of Congress are reneging on that promise, instead stating that we should negotiate with terrorists, and give these animals the same rights as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

Immigration – Securing our borders is paramount to retaining our sovereignty as a nation. Both parties have dragged their feet on this issue for various political reasons. Yes, there’s funding for “the wall,” but that funding could disappear as quick as a fart in the wind. However, Border Patrol authorities are still overwhelmed and under-funded, so there is little additional enforcement. Finally, instead of talking a hard line to Mexico and other Central American countries in his recent tour of Central American countries, President Bush referred to the illegal immigration problem as a “migration” problem, softening the stance and seriousness of this problem. WHAT!?! Migration is the legal immigration from one country to another, not crossing without permission.

Yes folks, I’m upset with our elected officials in Washington with the power politics and maneuvering. And you should be to.

Michigan's Economy

2007-03-21T18:37:00.001-04:00

Many of you are aware that Michigan’s economy is sinking and sinking fast. Just a couple of weeks ago, Comerica, a bank that was headquartered in Michigan for over 100 years announced that it was moving to Texas. Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, pulled up their Ann Arbor research facility earlier this year. Rumors around Detroit is that Chrysler is the next candidate to go on EBay. All the while, the Governor seems to be oblivious to the condition of her state and is running all over the world looking for new business. What’s going on?

Jay had a pretty good take on this subject in his post Tax Hikes Are Not "Investment". In it, he said:

I live in Michigan, a state in great economic trouble. Our state government is in a budget shortfall and instead of trimming the fat, our governor wants to raise taxes. But, she maintains, these taxes are really “investments.”
How will raising taxes help our ailing state? It won’t.
First, taxation is never investment. Period. Ever. “But aren’t taxes to build libraries and schools investments?” No. “What about roads… we need to pay to maintain our roads.” No. Taxes are taken from people by force, not consent.
Most of us pay taxes because we don’t want to face consequences of disobedience. I obey and pay rather than throw my life away.
Investments, however, are something I make voluntarily. I choose to invest. I can choose to avoid investments. I control, at least to some degree, my investments and how they work for me.
Taxes are not investments.
Michigan, economically, looks like Rocky Balboa in one of those “Rocky” fight scenes where he gets beat up savagely by Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang or Ivan Drago. It isn’t a pretty picture. Raising taxes will only make the pounding worse.
Already businesses are experiencing trouble collecting from their customers. Raising taxes, and adding new taxes to our service industries, puts many financially-struggling companies in a terrible position. Now they will owe the state while still fighting to collect from customers. This is a terrible time to exacerbate cashflow problems.
When states add taxes, they must build their infrastructure to oversee the collection of these taxes. Now, in addition to a government that won’t cut, we see more layers will be required to collect these taxes.
Michigan businesses will need to pass the burden on to the consumer. Consumers are already hurting with taxation.
Tax hikes are not the answer.

Why would any company want to relocate to or stay in Michigan? The main industry, automotive, isn’t healthy either – many GM & Ford workers are accepting buyouts and relocating to other states that have better economies and job opportunities.

I believe that the tax structure is out of line for both businesses and the residents of this state. The small business tax was revoked to promote small business expansion, but the Governor is proposing and pushing for a 2% tax on services, which would inhibit small businesses. Property taxes are pretty high too – there are a number of people that cannot afford the taxes, especially considering that jobs are fading into the sunset for many people.

In addition, state spending of services provided is out of line. The Governor and the legislature are at odds on which state funded services to cut or reduce. Where this is going to end up is anyone’s guess.

The magnitude of Michigan’s financial difficulties was not disclosed until after the election, then everything hit the fan. To not have this information prior to the election did not help the voters make an informed decision about tax-related issues, nor about holding various politicians accountable for their poor decisions. This is one of the reasons that I am unsympathetic to the Governor’s plan to use either raising or creating new taxes to get the State out of this financial mess (see Michigan’s 2% Service Tax). And the recent polls support this position.

The fact is that State finances are politically controlled. That does not mean that the revenues generated by taxes will be spent wisely, but will be spent on whatever high profile topic that will generate as much positive publicity that will benefit the politicians in power. The bottom line is that the politicians will generally not take the hard line and do what is necessary to cut extraneous spending and help the taxpayer (you & me along with businesses) make a good go of it.

Some of you out there know about a game called SimCity (there are several versions). This is a game that challenges the player to run a city. In it, the player assumes the role of mayor, controlling the tax rate and expenditures for services like roads, water, trash collection, police & fire protection, and so on. I guarantee you that raising taxes will cause businesses to leave right along with people and factories, no matter how big or strong the city. And, as people leave, debts rise, and the city implodes, the mayor (you) would be voted out of office

What I would like to see is that each and every politician play this game with the conditions and policies that they would like to implement. That way, maybe, just maybe, they would understand what their irresponsible fiscal policies would do to Michigan’s economy, and that the taxpayer should vote them out if they don’t do the right thing (providing the voters quit blindly voting the same people in...)

The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore

2007-03-13T20:58:00.001-04:00

Unless you have been living under a rock, Al Gore is now the High Grandmaster for the Prevention of Global Warming. Although his movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award for a documentary (?), I call into question his real motives for jumping on this bandwagon. But first of all, let me clarify my position on the subjects of the environment and global warming.

We all should do our part for not trashing up or poisoning our world. I make sure that the cars are in good repair so they don’t belch blue smoke all over the place & get decent mileage. I don’t pour used motor oil on the ground, but make sure that it is properly disposed of. My trash is bagged accordingly, and that all recyclables are put in the recycle bin. I use the minimum of fertilizer on my lawn, and the same could be said of pest control methods that are used around the house (two cats help here). In general, my household generates as little waste as possible, and compared to several families around me, we generate the least (we would throw away less if it wasn’t for that damn junk mail…).

I do believe that the Earth is indeed warming up, and that it is part of a natural cycle. If this were not a natural cycle, then we would still be in an Ice Age with sheets of 50’ thick ice covering where I now live. I also believe that humans, for the most part, have a minimal impact on generating the so-called greenhouse gases. For instance, volcano eruptions will spew out thousands of tons of ashes and gases into the atmosphere at a level many times that of what the human population would be able to emit in the same amount of time (links here, here, and here). If you believe that humans can control or have an effect on what Nature does do, then humans would have been able to control & predict the weather and all sorts of natural disasters such as volcano eruptions and earthquakes.

At this point in time, computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect (i.e., junk science). I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age that was coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now. This reversal calls into doubt the motives of these scientists as well, but that’s not the point of this post.

The real subject of this post is Al Gore. Can he be trusted? What are his motives? What is he really doing in the name of Global Warming? I think I may have him figured out, and of course, I have a little bit of help from my friends and the Internet. So let’s dig into this self-proclaimed savior of the Earth.

The first time I became aware of Al Gore was when he was selected and later elected to be the Vice-President opposite of Bill Clinton (just like the majority of you). With Hillary running most of the show with her health care and other initiatives, Al’s role in the Clinton Administration was minimal to say the least. But later actions and words, especially during his run for the Presidency and now during his campaign against Global Warming, showed the character of the man. Some prime examples that come to mind are:

During a photo shoot to promote environmental responsibility for water conservation, Al was photographed paddling around in a canoe, presumably to show that if everyone conserved water, everyone could enjoy the benefits of conservation. What was not widely reported was that there was a drought in the area, and that over 30,000 gallons of water was released into the stream to raise the water level 6 inches. The stream was too low, too many rocks were showing, and the canoe was bottoming out. Not very photogenic...

During his campaign for President, Al made the claim that he invented the Internet. No, not quite, Al. Al voted on funding to expand what was then a crude communications network that was used between universities, research facilities, and the military. That expansion became the Internet that we all now use without a second thought. Fund, yes, invent, no.

During the class-action suits against the tobacco companies, Al came out and stated that tobacco was an evil curse. He carried on for several weeks until it was found out that part of the Gore fortune was made from the raising and selling tobacco leaf. He quieted down after that.

Recently, Al’s involvement in buying “carbon-offset credits” to offset the pollution from his private jet from a company that he owns in total or in part (haven’t established that yet) has been reported & commented on by various news outlets. Additionally, the energy inefficiency of the various homes that he owns throughout the country was also reported. This does not look good for a person that repeatedly states that he is for the environment and not for himself.

In understanding Al Gore, you must first understand that he is a politician through and through. He will state almost anything to garner attention, support, and accolades from the public. He is a career politician, and a shameless self-promoter, ready to favorably position himself on whatever issue that is in the public eye.

Another thing that you must understand about Al is that he is a hypocrite. It is that “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality that is revealed in the examples above. It is this elitism that is most disturbing about this man.

Finally, I believe that Al is a Liberal with a Socialist agenda. Consider this from the post Globalization:

Way back when Al Gore and Ross Perot were having a discussion (debate) on NAFTA, Al was trying to make the case for NAFTA by using the example of Valmont Electric moving their operations from Danville, Illinois to Mexico. He stated that Mexico’s standard of living would eventually rise to meet that of the United States, and businesses like Valmont would stop moving to Mexico.

Only a Socialist would want everyone to be equal in wealth, even if it is across an international border and to the detriment of your own country. Equal, of course, unless you are one of the elites calling the shots…

So what is his motive for becoming the High-Priest of Global Warming? In essence – power. He is still smarting from losing the election to Bush, and wants to stay in the public spotlight. The Democratic Party hung out the “do not apply” sign to Al after he lost the election, and this is a way of trying to get the sign taken down & back in the race for the President. But if he doesn’t get another shot at the Presidency, he can certainly get richer by speeches on Global Warming and buying carbon-offset credits from himself (of which I would almost bet that he uses as a tax-write-off). If he can swat a few noses along the way and exert power over those people who didn’t support him, then so much the better.

No, Al isn’t the wild-eyed environmentalist wacko preaching from the altar of Global Warming that some people portray him as. He is a smart & conniving man that has an agenda. And that agenda, which is to gain as much power and wealth as he can, will ruin this country and countless lives unless he is exposed for what he is – a shameless, greedy political hack. Only then will his quest for power be negated.

And no, I don’t trust him. Not one teeny bit…

Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome

2007-03-11T21:19:00.001-04:00

For those of you who watched Heartbreak Ridge, you would recognize the title of this post. For those of you who don't, this is the mantra of the Marine Corps Recon Unit as stated by the character Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway (played by Clint Eastwood). And in some respects, it is the unofficial mantra used by all of our military forces.

If any of you remember the earlier days of the current Iraq conflict, it was reported by our media that the Marine and Army forces were welding sheet metal on the Humvees because they were unarmored and offered no protection from small arms fire and shrapnel from roadside mines. And that's a perfect example of our soldiers improvising with local materials to adapt to a situation, and overcome potential casualties. Now, thank God, there is better protection for our troops as armor and vests became available.

But if Screamer of the House Pelosi and Moron Murtha have their way, those days could return. Their "Slow-Bleed" political strategy of slowly withdrawing funding & support of our troops by limiting the President's options in conducting the war would have just that effect. Who would actually suffer would be our troops, who would do the bleeding, and not necessarily in a slow, controlled fashion.

Those of you that have read my various comments on other blogs as well as on this one know that I'm not particularly thrilled that our troops are in Iraq, but we are there. Our troops need the support & backing of everyone to accomplish the mission. But this back-stabbing method of forcing withdrawal through a cowardly political sham thinly veiled as a public service is a disgrace.

If the Democrats are really serious about forcing the President to withdraw the troops, then put a Bill forward cutting the funding for the War through the process and vote on it. They don't want to do this because they do not want to take responsibility of the aftermath of the withdrawal - complete civil breakdown in Iraq. Yes, they'll take the credit for bringing the troops home, but not the mass casualties that a civil war in Iraq would bring. But that's not their way to directly approach their goal.

It's all a political game, a strategy designed to to embarrass the President, and to keep & solidify their power. It's not about the troops, it's a political opportunity to advance their agenda. But the price is going to be the blood of our troops and potentially the long-range security of our country. After all, what enemy is going to respect a country that cannot finish what it started, and commits political & ideological suicide?

And quite frankly, it is these political-power maneuverings that disgust me. It is no wonder that I have low opinions of our elected politicians and concerns for the long-term well being of our country.

Alternative Candidates?

2007-03-08T20:08:00.001-05:00

Readers of this blog know how highly I regard our elected officials. For those of you who need a refresher, click here.

At this point in time, no one on the political scene really thrills me. So maybe we should have someone else in the highest elected office. So let's try...

Any other ideas?

The Thinker's Way

2007-03-06T20:38:00.001-05:00

Once in a while, I'm able to pick up a non-electronic information source and absorb data by turning flattened solidified wood-pulp and observing the characters printed upon said flattened wood-pulp. Of course, I'm referring to that underrated object otherwise known as a book. Our children have a vague notion of what a book is since they like getting their information from the Internet, but I digress...

The book I picked up was “The Thinker’s Way” by John Chaffee. This book leads the reader through exercises to develop critical thinking skills (among other things). While I’m just beginning to read this book and absorb the concepts (and this is not something that can be done in a short time), I ran across the following passage that I thought I would share with you.

We live in a world full of closed-minded and dogmatic people, convinced they are always right. Our society has suffered a decline in values, an environment in which telling the truth, acting honestly, and treating people differently have been sacrificed in the name of the bottom line or “success.” Discriminatory attitudes toward virtually every group are commonplace, and are rivaled only by people trying to gain advantage by casting themselves as victims. Our society has become increasingly factionalized, led by pandering and often corrupt politicians who magnify these divisions for their own purposes. Children are forced to endure an educational system that is often more concerned with the transfer of information that with genuine learning, a system that emphasized conformity over personal development. We are inundated with mindless television shows, virulent hate-talk on the radio, and music played too loud to let yourself think. We are forced to deal daily with people who are irrational, disorganized, confused, and inarticulate. In many respects we are experiencing the answer to the question: “What happens when people live in an unthinking way?”

What a powerful paragraph!! How can anyone dispute these words? One can only comment and expand on these observations.

How many of us out in bloggerland have been close-minded & not willing to change when confronted with facts and opinions contrary to our own? I know that I have, but I have made changes to my value system when confronted with verifiable facts & rational arguments. There are other values that cannot be changed because to do so would change the core of my being. And I imagine that the majority of people out there are the same way.

But what many of us here in this new medium are doing is having a conversation on many different subjects. In essence, exchanging ideas and opinions to others, either to put forth our points of view and change the world in our own way, or just to rant about what we perceive to be wrong with the world, our work, or life in general. For many of us (me included), this is a chance to think about and comment on the world that we all live in, and perhaps change someone’s viewpoint in the process. Isn't that what it's all about?

Now some of you may have objected to the previous post and comments, and that's fine. Offending someone is often a risk that we all take when we write our posts. I wrote the post in such a way that would illustrate the hypocrisy of taking a stance on defending the innocent on one hand, and yet allowing them to be killed on the other. I expected to get flamed, but you'll also notice that I didn't get an answer to the question at the end of the post (probably a hard-core Liberal hasn't landed here - yet). Regardless, I wanted you to THINK about your values, and where they stood in contrast to others. Was I successful in the effort? You tell me.

The point is that it is easy to react to whatever is on the news (or posted in a blog), and dash off a ranting post or retort. But what good is that if doing so, you don’t think about what is really going on or what you’re saying? We’ve become enamored with the quick sound bite and forming an opinion from a minimum of information without a second thought. That’s dangerous. And I’ve done it, much to my regret, and so have many of you.

Perhaps it is this thought and experience that has taught me some caution over the years, the desire to dig into what the facts are and thinking about them before inserting foot into mouth. It’s also the reason that many times I’m behind the curve on many of the hot topics floating around the blogsphere. And that’s OK with me – I would much rather allow situations to develop and have the facts come out before posting erroneous information.

But then, over-analysis has its drawbacks too – anything can be analyzed to death without coming to a reasonable conclusion. For instance, I got the following email recently:

A Japanese company (reported to be Toyota) and an American company (General Motors?) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A team of senior managers was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was needed, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager and one rower.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program," with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.
The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.

But does that mean I’m not going to post an opinion on any number of topics? What do you think? Of course I’m going to post opinions & beliefs – would you think otherwise? After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong or right it may be. I just hope that my posted opinions & comments are informed and interesting to all 8 ½ readers of this blog…

Later…

Common Ground With Liberals?

2007-02-28T08:20:00.001-05:00

This topic has been rattling around in my brain for a couple of weeks, and I finally had time to write it up.

In many respects, I can understand the Liberal mindset on issues. They have the same concerns that I have, even though I do not agree with their methods on how to accomplish the stated goal. For example...

The stated Liberal concern for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is their safety. I too am concerned for the men and women of our armed services, and do not want them to be killed or wounded. Our reasoning on how that may best be accomplished and whether Iraq is a lost cause or not differ (and I have written numerous posts on this subject), but we do agree that the sons & daughters of Americans need to be protected.

Let's next take a look at the educational system. Liberals want our children to be protected from bullying and harm. At the same time, our children need to be endowed with high self-esteem. While I agree with the need for zero tolerance for violence policies and our children needing high self-esteem, we differ on the methods. Where I believe that responsibility for actions and accomplishment lead to high self-esteem and social responsibility, the Liberals want to give unearned praise as the way for establishing this feeling and social attitude (I know, because I've seen it firsthand in my son's school). But again, we do agree that our sons & daughters should have the best school experience possible in as safe an environment as we can give them.

One of the most important topics that we agree on is our children's safety. Expanding on the above, we want our children to be safe no matter where they may be – in school, at the mall, driving a car, at a party, etc. As such, sometimes ridiculous policies are placed in the schools for their safety. One such example is the removal of pop machines from school property. I would much rather that the children take responsibility for their actions rather than the Liberal tactic of making excuses for their actions and removing the pop machines. While I do think that removing the machines was a good thing, it's the principle of the matter. But regardless of this Liberal victim mentality, we agree that the health and well being of our children is important.

We also agree that children need to be raised in a responsible manner. After all, a prominent Liberal wrote a book on how it takes a village to raise a child. I personally think it takes two committed and loving parents (man & wife) to do the job correctly. But again, raising children is important – after all, they are our flesh and blood.

Last is the issue of Global Warming. Liberals, by & large, state that man is creating the Global Warming situation. I do agree that the data shows that the Earth is on a warming trend, but I do not agree that it is man-made or if mankind is influencing this trend. Depending on which “expert” and model is being looked at, mankind’s activities are having no effect, some effect, or a huge impact upon the Earth’s weather. Some years ago, the scientists were concerned that the Earth was cooling down, and that a new ice age was just around the corner. Now these same scientists are concerned that the Earth will turn into the next Venus. But regardless of how you look at the data and which side of the issue you are, the main concern is that we both want to leave an Earth for our children and grandchildren to live in and enjoy.

I think that I've established some common ground on how important children are to both Liberals and Conservatives. They need to be nurtured and protected from the ills of the world until they are ready to take their place in it. They are to be given the best possible chance to succeed in life, to be happy and productive in whatever career they may choose. Which leads me to one question:

If children are so precious that they must be protected against all harm, real and imagined, then why, why, do you support, in any of its grotesque & horrific forms, the abortion of innocent unborn children?

Light Posting

2007-02-24T20:51:00.001-05:00

The posting will be very light for the next couple of weeks. We are trying to get the son set up for assisted living before the end of the school year & graduation. So all the paperwork needs to be filled out in advance & approved beforehand.

It's also difficult to visit everyone on the blogroll list. I will try to pop in every now & then to everyone's blog & try to leave some rational comments.

Later...

Chrysler for Sale?

2007-02-21T20:06:00.001-05:00

The buzz around Detroit these days is that DaimlerChrysler (DCx) is putting the Chrysler Division up for sale, and that GM is interested. The rumor also includes the juicy teasers that Nissan, Toyota, and Hyundai are also looking at buying the automaker. I personally don’t think any of this is going to fly.

But what if GM really does want to buy Chrysler? What would they want out of the deal?

Well, the Jeep brand-name for one. That was one of the reasons that Chrysler bought AMC way back when. But that would directly compete against the Hummer series (especially the H3). Sure, Jeep has brand-name recognition, but GM has spent millions in promoting the Hummer as a superior vehicle. I can’t see GM throwing away that much money, but then again, they’ve thrown away more on stupid projects that never saw the light of day.

Another thought would be Chrysler’s minivan market share, but it’s hard to believe that GM couldn’t drop enough money into the pot to come up with a minivan that would beat all comers. They just haven’t done this because there just isn’t enough justification for the investment.

The last thought would be the design. Chrysler’s designs are breathtaking, definitely different than what Ford or GM currently has. But if GM wants the designers, they can hire them away from Chrysler with a lot less money than what it would take to buy the company (rumored to be $5 Billion before liabilities).

On the downside is that GM is closing plants left and right. Chrysler’s recently announced restructuring plan is accelerating the cuts already planned. And if the two do merge, thousands from both companies will be out of jobs. And I guarantee that would not be good for either company – whatever brand loyalty there may be could evaporate in the wind, and investigations by the government and others would be intense.

No, I just cannot see GM buying Chrysler – just too much flak if the deal goes through. Could you imagine the amount of fallout from the Union, government, and employees of both companies? Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

What about the other companies? Let’s take a look at a couple of these companies.

Toyota has enough spare cash lying around to buy both Ford and GM, and then drive Chrysler out of business through sheer marketing. But they don’t want to buy any American plants or companies. They are doing just fine on their own without having to deal with the legacy costs of these companies, not to mention dealing with the Unions. They’re firing on all cylinders – why muck things up now?

Nissan recently tried an alliance with GM. Things fell apart, and Nissan is probably more interested in solidifying their positions in the various markets rather than stir things up.

Hyundai is an interesting company. They may want to buy Chrysler to help break deeper into the US market. But again, there are those legacy costs, and they may not have deep enough pockets to put up the money. I seem to remember that some years ago, Hyundai was nearly bankrupt, but my memory has faded somewhat.

So what’s left? Besides the above rumor & speculation, there is a theory that this is a ploy by person or persons unknown to jack up the stock prices of both GM and DCx (and if this is truly the case, then the SEC has cause to jump in and nail a few people). But there is just one more final thought.

The contract with the Union is up this year for Ford, GM, and DCx. What if this is just a ploy to get DCx’s Union to concede items at the bargaining table? DCx earlier tried to strong-arm the UAW to reduce health care benefits to the level that was conceded to Ford & GM. But since DCx was fairly profitable at the time (and paid the executives pretty healthy bonuses), that request was promptly rejected. So now the semi-subtle hint is now out there that if the UAW doesn’t play ball on DCx management’s terms, Chrysler will be sold to the highest bidder (and let the bloodletting begin).

Well, that’s my take on this rumor. It will be most interesting to see what transpires in the next couple of months.

Non-Binding Resolution?

2007-02-17T14:54:00.001-05:00

Earlier today, in a rare Saturday session, the Senate narrowly defeated a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge to Iraq. Does anyone think that this is anything other than political posturing?

This whole episode is most unsettling. We all want our troops to come home. What we differ on is the method and timing. Do we want our troops to come home with heads held high and the mission accomplished, or heads and tails between their legs in defeat?

What I would like to ask our "representatives" is this: If our troops come home early, then what happens to the Iraqi people?

Consider the words of a famous Democrat:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

Should the troops leave early, I believe that Iraq will descend into chaos, and opportunistic countries like Iran and Syria would either take over Iraq in whole or in part (most likely as a puppet government). And what happens to the freedom so recently achieved to the Iraqi people? Gone like the wind after a sandstorm.

Perhaps one of my personal favorite Presidents had something to say about this:

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. - Ronald Reagan

But where is the moral courage of our politicians?

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. - John F. Kennedy

How prophetic! Indeed, our chosen leaders, by and large, do not have the "quality of courage" to do the right and moral thing - see this war through to the end that needs to be done. But then again,

Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

I don't make it any secret that I have low opinions of our politicians. Power politics at the expense of what is right, moral, and beneficial to this country's well-being is despicable. There's more than one post on this particular subject. And that is exactly what today's vote was.

Of a larger concern is where the Democrats (and some of their Republican sympathizers) along with the Liberal Moonbat media will treat the radical Islamic death-seeking terrorists (including al Qaeda). Talking will not solve this problem - action will. The choice of action or inaction will decide the future of this country and its citizens.

I'll leave you with two more quotes:

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. - John F. Kennedy

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. - Ronald Reagan

When Will the Layoffs Stop?

2007-02-16T16:43:00.001-05:00

This past week (February 14^th), DaimlerChrysler announced that 13,000 employees would be cut from the company’s payroll, and plants will cut back on shifts while closing a plant in 2009. The timing of the announcement strangely coincided with the following historical item:

The announcement was the latest in a series of automotive related companies cutting their workforces since 2001. DaimlerChrysler, GM, Ford, Dana, Visteon, and Delphi (to name a few) have all let employees go as part of a restructuring plan. And quite frankly, I don’t think that the layoffs are done yet. If it’s like any of the other industries that have gone through this before, then we’re in deep trouble.

I remember the steel, airline, and machine-tool industries of old – strong and vibrant, second to none in their capacities and services. Where are they now? Gone, or in deep financial trouble if they are still around. These same industries went down the path of downsizing, layoffs, and restructuring when they ran into problems. And look where they ended up.

I could, at this point, go on a rant about globalization, unfair trade practices by other countries, and the unresponsiveness of the domestic companies to their customers. I could also comment on the lack of responsiveness of our elected officials to the plight of companies based in the United States, compare free trade vs. fair trade agreements, and mention the anti-American business commentaries of the various news outlets. These are the realities of business in this day and age. But the real casualties of this reality are the American workers.

The American worker (and I’m talking about both blue and white collar, Union and non-Union) has gone from being a valued and essential part of a company to a commodity that can be bought & sold at will. And it doesn’t matter if you are a highly trained professional or a line-worker – you are all expendable if the bottom line isn’t where it should be and the executives need a quick-financial fix. There are no guarantees.

In other words, everyone as well as everything is a commodity, ready to be bought, sold, or disposed of as need be. Loyalty of the company to the employee and the employee to the company is now a thing of the past. And that is a very uncomfortable feeling for those of us that are still employed.

It’s even worse for the folks that have lost their jobs. Finding another job is a major problem because of all the other people looking for a job at the same time. Here in Michigan, finding another job is an ordeal because of the number of people that are out of work and looking. For example, it took my wife 8 months to find a job after she was let go just because of the employment situation. Most people either give up or move to another state to find a position, and often it’s not a position that pays as well as the one they lost.

There are no easy solutions to people losing their jobs, nor are there easy answers for keeping the jobs we have. In many respects, we can just look on in dismay, plan for the worst, and hope for the best. And that is depressing.

What the future will bring is anyone’s guess. Will things get better or worse? When will the layoffs stop? I don’t have that magic crystal ball. Do you?

Michigan's 2% Service Tax

2007-02-11T16:50:00.001-05:00

This past week, Governor Jennifer "Granola" Granholm, imported Canadian Democrat, announced that to get Michigan out of its budget deficit, a 2% tax on services would need to be imposed. This is most likely to replace the small business tax that was removed this past year.

The problem is that this tax would still affect the small business owner. Most small businesses provide services such as haircuts, snow removal, lawn care, and the like. Since the economy is moving toward a "service-based" economy, this is particularly onerous.

One of the things about this whole affair that torques me off is that the State's finances were not disclosed until after the election. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican is not the issue - we, the voters, were denied the information that might have helped up make a decision of whether or not our elected officials were effective or not.

The next thing that gets me going about this is the threat that if this doesn't pass the Legislature, state-funded services would be cut. Road repair, police and fire services could be reduced. What is this? Blackmail?

This last really p****s me off! Once again, the working stiff gets stiffed while our elected officials sit high, dry, and fat. Here's my proposal to our governmental officials:

Go through each department and cut out the waste. Non-essential services and duplicate departments such as the Redundancy Department of Redundancy should get the ax if not reduced.
Corruption must be uncovered and stopped. This costs taxpayers millions in falsely awarded contracts. We all know this happens in various state construction jobs, so quit turning a blind eye to it.
Michigan is one of the few states that provides 4 years of benefits to Welfare recipients. Most only provide 2 years. Let's get with the program - all those 2-year folks are heading to our state, and Joe Taxpayer doesn't want to support them anymore.
Reduce your own healthcare benefits. If you are truly representing the common man, then you should also feel some of his pain. Look at what is happening to Ford, GM, and Chrysler employees, and maybe you'll understand.
When was the last time your pay was cut? In many corporations, if things get bad, the belt gets tightened, and salaries are frozen or reduced. And underperforming staff was cut (we'll get you in the next election...)

Maybe I'm being simplistic about all of this. Maybe I'm not. But I definitely called it when I stated that if the Democrats were (re-)elected, there would be new taxes. And here in the State of Michigan, that's exactly what is going to happen.

Who Is Special?

2007-02-06T19:20:00.001-05:00

Before going on with this post, I would like to assure all of the readers of this post that I am not a racist, a bigot, and nor do I believe that any one race is superior to another. People are people, and how they conduct themselves is a reflection upon themselves, not about the color of their skin. Whether or not they want to make an issue of skin color, I leave that to the well-established organizations that have a history of such actions & views. Any comments alluding to the contrary will be subject to the Blog Comment Policy posted at the right.

As many of you know, February is Black History Month. This means that my work is now plastered with placards, posters, and art celebrating the ethnicity of Americans of African descent. I personally do not have a problem with this – everyone should be able to relate to and celebrate their heritage.

Other months and weeks celebrate Hispanic, Asian, and Native American ethnicity, and also have their own posters, art, and whatnot showing the rich culture that these groups have. And yes, there is a Gay, Lesbian, and Trans-gendered display for that community that gets put up once a year. But there is nothing celebrating the White, Caucasian, or European stock that populate this country.

Why is it that only certain groups get their days in the sun while a certain group does not? Now while I admit to being of mixed-Irish decent, St. Patrick's Day just doesn't cut it in my humble opinion. One day of revelry (?) does not make up for a month of hoopla (and even then there are some accounts that the day has a negative connotation about the Irish, but I digress). But if I or others of my ethnic background make a fuss about this apparent inequality, we are promptly branded racist, hate-mongering bigots.

This is one of the reasons that I believe that diversity, as a whole and in practice, is a sham. If we truly want to celebrate a diverse culture, we would not single out one race or skin-color for omission nor raise one up above all others. And if one ethnic group points out the inequality, they shouldn’t be flamed for it.

From another angle on the same subject, I was listening to a local radio station, and there was a statement that Detroit was the most segregated city in the United States. There was a further announcement that there was going to be a symposium to discuss the issue (translation: problem). Is this really a problem or not?

I hate to state the obvious, but people of similar ethnic backgrounds tend to band together. There is this herding instinct, one that wants to have familiar or similar faces and backgrounds around us. Be honest with yourself – do you have more friends of a similar race to yourself, or from a different race? What is your real preference? Nothing to be ashamed of – that's just the way humans are.

But the problem is that there are people thinking that this is inherently wrong behavior. These pointy-headed social engineers (PHSE) believe that to think differently than their paradigm means that you are racist and a hate-monger. Sorry, Professor PHSE, that is a false assumption for your perception of perceived problem.

The fact of the matter is that you and I most likely have more friends of similar skin color than not. This doesn’t mean that we are racist or bigoted. In fact, I get along with just about everyone whether or not they are the same skin color as I am or not. But the PHSEs don’t like this, and lobbied for laws and regulations to force the issue.

I’m not talking about the civil rights acts that guarantee everyone a fair shot at jobs, housing, or education. Rather, the ones that I am thinking of are ones that state quotas (explicit or implicit) for the same subjects: jobs, housing, and education.

As an example, there is a regulation that states that each large corporation must award a certain percentage of business to minority-based or owned suppliers. To do otherwise would incur higher taxes or fines. These businesses know this, and typically charge higher rates for their services. Is this fair to a non-minority owned business?

Another example is Michigan’s Proposal 2 that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters last election. It stated in part:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

And the courts are now battling the will of the people stating that this is unconstitutional! In effect, the courts are arguing that some places in these institutions should be reserved, i.e., a quota, for people that may not otherwise qualify or have the opportunity to attend school or get a job. Excuse me? Shouldn’t the best qualified people be hired for the job or an educational spot instead of a person that isn’t? Here would be my argument to the court:

Suppose that a person who does not have the ability or education is hired for the job of designing and building a highway bridge. They are contracted merely because the contract that needed to be filled was reserved for a person of that ethnic or social background. Would you want to be the first person to drive over that bridge after it’s completed?

Because of this argument, I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race, gender, or social standing. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the affirmative action programs are supposedly helping.

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post titled Equal Diversity. In it I wrote:

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissension, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.
His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

So whether it is an ethnic holiday, applying for a job or education, or anything else, we should be color-blind, and so should our government, education, and employment institutions. It’s either all or nothing as far as I’m concerned – I’m fed up with the double-standards and favoritism. How about you?

A Minor Announcement...

2007-02-05T20:41:00.001-05:00

We interrupt this blog to make a late-breaking (like next day) announcement:

COLTS WIN!!!

We now return you to your irregularly scheduled blog...

Superbowl 2007 Prediction

2007-02-03T17:49:00.001-05:00

The Superbowl contest between the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Bears is just a little more than 24 hours away. So...

The pundits have Indianapolis winning by 7 points.

The Common Sense Household want a close game with excellent and entertaining commercials. At $2.3 Million per 30 second spot, they had better be good...

Oh yeah, the Common Sense Household have one more thing to say about who we are predicting who will win the Big Game:

GO COLTS!!!

Over & out...

Must Be Global Warming....

2007-02-02T17:08:00.001-05:00

I lost a post that I was working on. Poof!! Evaporated like a puddle in the middle of the desert. And it was a good one too...

The wife (Mrs. Common Sense) wrecked her car. Actually, someone did it for her - the moron was driving too fast and instead of slowing down to avoid an accident, took the front end off her car. She is OK, mad, depressed, POed, frustrated...you get the picture. Also her cell phone was a casualty of the accident, so it had to be replaced.

Since Global Warming is being blamed for so much, I think I can safely blame it for losing the post, my wife's accident, and not being able to post for a while between the two events...

Blasted eco-nuts...

American Idle - The New Season

2007-01-29T18:24:00.001-05:00

Yes, American Idle is back for another season. Yes, I purposely misspelled the last word for a couple of reasons. One is that the number of people that show up who obviously have nothing better to do. The second is that I don't want to run afoul of using a trademarked name in my blog. In this age of litigation gone wild, I just can't be too careful, especially if Simon has had a bad day...

My wife, son, and I watched the New York auditions over the weekend (recorded, of course – to fast-forward through the commercials and the screeching sour notes). It was mentioned that the show had not held auditions in the area for some time, and I think they could have passed for another couple of years. The people that they selected to make the trip to Hollyweird didn't really seem to me to having the right stuff to make it all the way. But while the train wrecks were not necessarily classic, they did stand out as being downright awful!

Never have I seen so many people think that not only did they have talent, but they could sing on-key! Of course, nothing was further from the truth. And then they would argue that they should have another chance, that they can do better, it's their dream, and all of the other rubbish that people will say when they don't get their way. But there were a couple of standouts in this category.

The first one was the gentleman (and I use the term loosely) that wore a chinchilla boa and promptly declared that he was a superstar. When confronted with the fact that he wasn't a superstar (yet) unless he made it through this round and won the contest, he had the audacity to state that he was absolutely a superstar. He knew this because his family, his friends, and his therapist all said so. Ooooooooookkkkkkkk.......NEXT!! Of course, he cussed out everyone in sight, asked to see Simon's work visa, and generally made an ass of himself. At least he has the attitude of a superstar if not the talent....

The second was a woman who stated up front that she should be the next American Idle even though she admitted that she didn't have any talent for singing whatsoever. Her argument was that if she would be taught how to sing, her success would show that she would was truly deserving of the title of American Idle. While innovative, her argument didn't pass the laugh test, and she was shown the door.

While we were talking about the show later, I thought of how many people we didn't see on the show, and that all we saw were the best and worst of the auditions. Of course, people like to watch the crashes, and try to pick out the eventual winner. The mediocre get lost in the shuffle.

So the next thought that I had on the subject was unless you are really, really good, why on earth would you want to try out for this type of a talent competition? Unless you are a person that thrives on failure, why would you think or believe that you would have a chance? Then it hit me...

These people have been brainwashed into believing that if they think good thoughts and just try, then they will get anything that they want. This is an outgrowth of the low standards that the schools have in order to build up self-esteem. Thus, any effort is rewarded with a good grade or whatever the person is trying to achieve. No wonder some of these people looked shocked when they were told that their audition was abysmal, pathetic, and downright horrible. Almost makes you sorry for them once you understand that this could be one of the first doses of reality that these people had to face. Almost...

I'm not going to go on a rant about our society's obsession with self-esteem, the school's lack of higher standards, or the inability of people to grow up in the real world. Instead, look around you in the world that you inhabit, the people you come in contact with, and then wonder how it got to be this way. I have a short, one word answer for you....

LIBERALISM!!!

'Nough said. Rant over. Flame on!!

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

2007-01-27T17:57:00.001-05:00

That seems to be the question of the century. War in Iraq, terrorist attacks worldwide, nuclear weapons development and missile testing by questionable nations run by despots & dictators are just the tip of the iceberg. So what's really going on? Why can't we all get along and have some peace in the world?

I don't profess to be a professional in psychiatry, nor am I an anthropologist. But there are observations that I have made over the years, and classes taken in psychology & human behavior which seem to explain some of the reasons why the world seems to be going to Hell on the express train. Then there is the history of the human race that overshadows it all.

Ah, history!! Constantly repeated, and the human race never learns from it's mistakes. Throughout the entire recorded history of the human race, there has been conflict and war. Causes of this bloodshed are many as they are varied. But these conflicts seem to boil down to three causes: Power, wealth, and to a lesser extent,(dare I write it) sex. Hmm....sounds like the typical human, doesn't it?

Should you care to look back at ancient history, you would find many wars fought over land (power & wealth), trade (ditto), and women. Think of the Trojan War, and you'll get the idea. However, power craved by various rulers throughout history has made and destroyed countless nations. Let's fast forward to the current world situation.

Let's start with Islamic terrorists. Should they die killing the infidel, i.e., become a martyr, their religious leaders state that they will sit on the right hand of Allah (a position of power), be fed dates and other delicacies (wealth), and receive 72 virgins to pleasure them throughout eternity (sex). Considering that most of the suicide bombers that are blowing themselves up are poor, illiterate, and desperate, this seems like the triple play to paradise.

How about Iran's leader? He's looking for favor from Allah if he manages to wipe Israel off the map. Huge bonus points for killing all of the Jews. If he succeeds and dies in the attempt, he gets to sit even closer to Allah, and gets more delicious food to eat. Sorry, your limit is still 72 unless Allah decides to supersize your order...

In another part of the world, how about Kim Jong Il? He wants and needs power like a drug. Power is what keeps him the leader of North Korea and its people. He learned this from his father, and fully intends to keep it as long as he is alive. What does he gain from it? Everything that he desires and more. And if he can get more, he will.

What about all of the other dictators & despots? Being in those powerful positions means that they control a country and its people. It also brings great wealth, so if something goes wrong, they can then flee to a friendly country to live out the rest of their lives (or at least as long as the gold lasts). This last is what happened to Idi Amin. He fled Uganda and ended up in (are you ready for this?) Saudi Arabia! He stayed in exile for over 20 years before dying in Saudi Arabia. And I doubt that he was lonely for female company.

Last, let's travel back to the Middle East to the late Saddam Hussien. Take the chapter of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. As stated in a previous post, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was motivated by money. To quote from the post:

Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt.

There is an old saying that's very true - "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." And in the case of many of the countries worldwide, there are no limits to what these rulers can and will do.

So how do we get along with these countries & rulers that just don't want to get along with other countries? Diplomacy can only go so far, especially if one of the countries is not intending to honor any agreements or treaties. The dreaded Useless Nations can pass ridiculous resolutions, silly sanctions, and corny condemnations. All of these really don't mean much - there are plenty of countries that will help the target country get by (Saddam sure did with a little help from his friends). So what's next?

One of the solutions to this was put forth in the comments section of the same post. The "Just Peacemaking" theory is one solution put forth by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which is a Quaker-based organization, and was described by Dan as:

... one point behind Just Peacemaking theory is that peace need not be something desired by both sides. For instance, in Nicaragua, the Contras were terrorists trying to overthrow the Ortega presidency. They didn't care about peace, they went around killing, raping and "disappearing" those who stood in their way.

But while they didn't care about peace, they DID have their own interests at stake. THAT's the primary idea behind Just Peacemaking theory. Every entity has their own interests at stake. The idea is, find their interests and make them see that it is not in their own best interests to continue down the paths of violence.
In Nicaragua, the Contras were receiving funding from the US. So, peacemakers realized that if US and world citizens were in the villages being attacked by the contras, the contras would not be likely to attack. Not because they cared a thing about American peacemakers, but because they were aware of political realities enough to know that if they killed Americans, their funding (already tenuous) would certainly go away.
It's actually fairly cool. Even if you're not a pacifist, this approach makes a great deal of sense if you want to avoid the expense of war (it was a whole lot cheaper to have the Witnesses for Peace go to Nicaragua than it would have been to fund an army to fight the Contras - and more effective).

While this approach sounds appealing, and probably more cost-effective than a war, but this will not work in all situations. The particular situation that I'm referring to is the suicide bombers listed above - they are driven by religious fervor and the promise of an eternity in Paradise. They do not have the self-preservation motivation as the Contras listed above. The same statement could also be applied to the current leadership in Iran should they continue on the course they have set out for themselves.

So what is the answer for one country (or people) getting along with another? That depends on the country and situation.

If a country is reasonable in negotiations through diplomacy & compromise, great! Agreements can be worked out to the mutual advantage of each, and peace can be enjoyed by both countries. Otherwise...

A final note: I do not believe that the human condition will ever experience peace throughout the world at the same time. At least not in this life...

Colts Win!!!

2007-01-21T22:23:00.001-05:00

COLTS WIN!!!

It's really going to be fun - two of my favorite teams will be playing in the Superbowl, but I'm leaning toward the Colts. I'm looking forward to a good game.

And I know that Teresa's happy!

She's Running!!

2007-01-20T17:09:00.001-05:00

And was there any doubt that she wouldn't?

In case you missed the big announcement. Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) announced her intentions to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 Presidential race.

At the moment, the pundits are picking HRC to win the nomination. Obama doesn't have the fundraising potential that the HRC machine does, and not enough experience in government. HRC has Bill, but all the baggage to go along with it. So who's it going to be?

To be honest with you, I do think the United States is ready for the first woman or first black president. Just not either of these two.

I've already mentioned my opposition to HRC in previous posts (here, here, and here) for various reasons. Her history in politics and her actions as First Lady leave much to be desired (don't break the china - it's going to New York with me...)

Obama rose from law professor to state senator to United States senator in less than a decade. He is the only African-American now serving in the Senate and only the third since Reconstruction. Is he attractive to voters? Yes, but two years in the US Senate may not be enough experience for some of the hard-core Democrats who feel that Obama may not be the right person to toe the party line. But then again, this just might be what the Democrats need to get their act together.

Only time will tell...

Clinton's to Blame for Iraq!!

2007-01-19T21:51:00.001-05:00

Amy Proctor has an article posted on her site which is extremely interesting, and highlights the hypocrisy that is the Democratic Party (or at least an extremely short attention-span & memory problems).

Iraq, Iran, al-Qaeda, and the United States

2007-01-15T10:58:00.001-05:00

Behind the curve again, but I really wanted to see how the reactions of the media, Congress, and the public would be to President Bush's speech in which he laid out plans for Iraq before I threw in my 2 1/2 cents worth in a long post...

Last week, President Bush announced that there would some 22,000 troops sent to Iraq to stabilize the region and to assist the Iraqis in securing their country. Is this too little, too late? Many people out there think that this could be the case, and that opinion includes all the political spectrum - left, right, conservative, liberal, and everyone in between. One poll stated 60% opposed, and another stated 70%.

In many respects, it depends on how the troops are deployed, and what "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) they would have to follow. Considering that the previous ROE handicapped our troops in protecting themselves and restricted what they could do, the new ROE is a welcome relief. But our troops will still need to watch their backs as the media & arm-chair generals second guess every move that they make & every round they fire while ducking sniper fire & IED explosions.

I've stated in previous posts that I am not thrilled that we are in Iraq, but in some respects, it was inevitable that the United States would be drawn into the Middle East in some sort of prolonged military action. What!?! No, I'm not kidding, but very serious. Lest you forget, the United States is extremely concerned about the stability of the Middle East. Besides the new terrorist concerns, there is still the energy sources of the Middle East that the economy of the United States (and the majority of the world) depend upon. Of course, this is only one person's opinion, but bear with me.

Those of you may remember that in 1979, the Shah of Iran fled the country as Islamic revolutionists established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Shah ended up in the United States for treatment of cancer, and the newly established Iranian government demanded that the Shah be extradited to Iran for trial and execution. This led to the takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran as the United States refused to hand over the dying Shah. A rescue operation was mounted By President Carter, but it failed miserably. On January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after the newly elected President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were released after having spent 444 days in captivity.

Iran was having other problems besides worrying about what President Reagan would do about the hostages. Iraq's Saddam Hussein, seeing the political turmoil in Iran and sensing weakness, attacked Iran in September 1980. The land war was extremely brutal, with massive casualties being incurred on both sides due to chemical weaponry and human wave attacks. Also, Iran and Iraq both attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the United States conducted military operations in order to protect the shipping of neutral nations as well as that of United States concerns. The war between Iran & Iraq lasted 8 years, and set up the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 2 years later.

The Iran/Iraq war devastated the economies of both countries. According to Wikipedia, Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt. Wikipedia further states:

Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by occupying Kuwait, it will be able to solve its financial problems. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target.

Thus, Iraq invaded Kuwait as a move calculated to erase its debts, and secure the revenue generated by the Kuwaiti oil fields. Of another concern would be an expanded access to the Persian Gulf through port facilities.

Saudi Arabia was understandably nervous with potentially hostile Iraqi troops on its border. Armed with a United Nations resolution and the Saudi government's blessing, a United States led coalition began deploying to Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion and to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

It was during this time that Osama bin Laden, a seasoned leader of Mujahideen from Afghanistan, offered the services of his organization to the Saudi government to repel any invasion by the Iraqi forces. He was turned down as the Saudi government went with the United States led coalition. Wikipedia goes on to say:

Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked....Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.

So now at the end of the first Gulf War, we have three known enemies in the Middle East: Iraq (for driving them from Kuwait), Iran (for military activities during the Iran/Iraq War), and al-Qaeda (for defiling the Islamic homeland). A dangerous mix, indeed...

During the time leading up to September 11, 2001, Iraq's Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the world by violating numerous United Nation resolutions, genocide via chemical weapons, etc... In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred, which was financed by al-Qaeda. Iran, I believe, was quietly funding terrorist organizations like Hamas to provide distraction from it's own agenda of developing nuclear weapons and this missiles to deliver them. Various terrorist attacks such as those on the USS Cole in 2000, nightclubs frequented by US servicemen, and bombings of US embassies around the world were largely ignored even though there were casualties. That was about to change...

September 11, 2001 changed everything about how the Middle East was viewed, especially when linked to terrorism. No longer could these violent acts be swept under the rug as before - the attacks had come to our neighborhood. The War on Terrorism had begun.

Fast forward to today's events: The United States is in Iraq, having replaced Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. Iran is saber-rattling with the threat of developing nuclear weapons and has it's eye on Iraq. And al-Qaeda is in the background, quietly planning the next attack.

So here's the bottom line:

The United States must succeed in Iraq, i.e., to leave Iraq with a fully functioning government able to defend itself from enemies within and outside of its borders. There are several reasons why the above must be achieved:

1) National and international pride and credibility. There, I've said it. For a superpower to enter into an engagement such as this and not complete the job destroys our credibility with the international community. Being defeated in an effort that we claim to be at the core of our country, i.e., the pursuit of freedom and self-determination, will render the US as a 2nd rate country with a cap pistol.

2) If the US does not succeed, this country will be perceived by our enemies as being weak. That will embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda to redouble their efforts to disrupt the activities of this country (private and governmental) through increasing attacks on US assets in both international and domestic locations.

3) Iran chomping at the bit to take over Iraq (or at least make it a puppet government) is a frightening prospect. If they succeed, this action would further destabilize the Middle East. It's bad enough that Iran has nuclear ambitions and an apocalyptic leader stating that another country/people should be wiped off the face of the earth. But could you image the territory and natural resources that Iran would then control? If you thought gas prices were bad last summer, get ready for some severe pricing increases both here and abroad. And the rest of the Middle Eastern countries would be forced to cater to Iran's will.

4) We've already seen Sunni and Shiite violence under these conditions, but could you imagine if there were absolutely no authority, no law, no government for keeping the peace? Civilian casualty counts would skyrocket as religious fighting would increase by leaps and bounds. The killing fields of Cambodia come to mind...

5) Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda could find homes in which to establish training camps. This would allow them to plan, plot, and train in relative peace & security to inflict casualties upon the rest of the world.

Yes, it is in all of our interests that the United States succeed in Iraq. This will mean keeping our troops there for some time, and whether or not an extra 20,000 or so will make a difference will depend on how they are deployed and the ROE that they can operate under. The United States cannot fail, not only for our sake, but for the sake of millions of people in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The real question in much of this is:

Will our politicians, our duly elected leaders, grow backbones, have the intestinal fortitude, and suck it up, i.e., put aside political agendas, to do the right thing for the United States and the rest of the world?

Cat's New Year's Resolutions

2007-01-07T12:36:00.001-05:00

This was sent to me by "Santa Paws," who somehow found a super-secret file with the cat's New Year resolutions. How the cats managed to type all this in is beyond me, especially since they tend to eat the computer mouse...

My human will never let me eat their pet hamster, and I am at peace with that.

I will not slurp fish food from the surface of the aquarium
I will not eat large numbers of assorted bugs, then come home and throw them up so the humans can see that I'm getting plenty of roughage.
I will not lean way over to drink out of the tub, fall in, and then pelt right for the box of clumping cat litter. (It took FOREVER to get the stuff out of my fur.)
I will not use the bathtub to store live mice for late-night snacks.
We will not play "Herd of Thundering Wildebeests Stampeding Across the Plains of the Serengeti" over any humans' bed while they're trying to sleep.
I cannot leap through closed windows to catch birds outside. If I forget this and bonk my head on the window and fall behind the couch in my attempt, I will not get up and do the same thing again.
I will not assume the patio door is open when I race outside to chase leaves.
I will not stick my paw into any container to see if there is something in it. If I do, I will not hiss and scratch when my human has to shave me to get the rubber cement out of my fur.
If I bite the cactus, it will bite back.
When it rains, it will be raining on all sides of the house.
It is not necessary to check every door.
I will not play "dead cat on the stairs" while people are trying to bring in groceries or laundry, or else one of these days, it will really come true.
When the humans play darts, I will not leap into the air and attempt to catch them.
I will not swat my human's head repeatedly when they are on the family room floor trying to do sit ups.
When my human is typing at the computer, their forearms are *not* a hammock.
Computer and TV screens do not exist to backlight my lovely tail.
I will not puff my entire body to twice its size for no reason after my human has watched a horror movie.
I will not stand on the bathroom counter, stare down the hall, and growl at NOTHING after my human has watched the X-Files.
I will not drag dirty socks onto the bed at night and then yell at the top of my lungs so that my humans can admire my "kill."
I will not perch on my human's chest in the middle of the night and stare until they wake up.
I will not walk on the key board when my human is writing important adagfsg gdjag ;ln.

Dems First 100 Hours

2007-01-04T20:25:00.001-05:00

The Dems are in charge, and thus far, the agenda that they have set does not impress me. There isn't much that seems to be new. The majority of the bills now before Congress have already been in committees before the first of the year, and need to be voted on. Here's the list:

Introducing legislation intended to curb the power of lobbyists.
Committing to no new deficit spending.
Fully enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Raising the minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour. Pelosi pledged that there will be no congressional pay raises until the minimum wage is upped.
Enacting legislation allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies over prescription drug costs for Medicare.
Promoting and increasing funding for stem cell research.
Cutting interest rates on college loans by 50%.
Beginning to roll back subsidies to oil companies.
Fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

What I'm afraid of is that once they run out of steam on these issues, they will turn their attention to their thinly veiled threat of impeachment proceedings. This will be the wrong action to take in my opinion. The Dems ran on a platform of being different than Republicans, and this would be an opportune moment to show leadership instead of vindictiveness. After all, what would the point be (and political advantage) of trying to impeach a sitting lame-duck President? None, if you get right down to it. All this would do is be viewed as a revenge investigation for Clinton's impeachment investigation, and would further polarize the nation. Thus, this will probably be far down on the list for the Dems to start up

But the radicals are pushing for impeachment, cutting funding for the troops & bringing them home before the job is done, Patriot Act revisions/scrapping, terrorist rights, and the like. So far, these are not on Congress's short list. And that's going to anger the radicals. Already I've heard a sound bite of Cindy Sheehan carrying on about her pet project, and I know that's only going to be the beginning. After all, the Dems stirred up the radical left base of their party to get elected, and these people want satisfaction.

But what is missing is also important. Illegal immigration, for instance, is nowhere to be found on any agenda, and probably won't anytime soon. And if possible, it will be ignored until the next election. I also don't see any "America First" programs from the economic side either to protect the American worker from unfair and predatory business practices by other countries and companies. Lost in this is any comment on world affairs & policies concerning Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda, and any other threats to the United States.

Yes, it will be very interesting to see if the Dems are really the leaders that they tell everyone they are, or the same stinkers that got voted out of office twelve years ago...

Post-Execution Iraq

2006-12-30T07:37:00.001-05:00

Now that Saddam Hussein has been executed, it is almost anyone's guess as to what is going to happen in Iraq.

There are those who are stating that Hussein died a martyr's death. Well, if you call hanging a martyr's death, so be it. But don't you have to believe in something greater than yourself and be executed for that belief to qualify as a martyr? Even though he carried a Koran to the gallows, there is no evidence that he believed in anything but himself throughout his excessive and murderous life.

There are others who celebrate his death, the execution of a Hitler-like dictator that reportedly had a hand in the killings of millions of his own people through his death squads and military. Even though he was convicted by an Iraqi court for just a fraction of those deaths, I believe that the families of those victims are satisfied that this monster is dead.

Will there be violence in Saddam's name? Yes, at least in the short run. He did not die as a hero should, pistol in one hand and a flag in another, but with a noose around his neck. Thus, his value as a rallying figure is minimal.

No, the violence in Iraq will continue along the same lines as before, Sunni vs. Shiite, tribe vs. tribe, and all the various power-hungry factions that arose in Saddam's absence. It is this violence that the newly formed government of Iraq must deal with. And the effectiveness of the Iraqi government in dealing with it's internal issues will determine the stability of the country, and thus, the region.

Just In Time for the New Year!

2006-12-28T16:06:00.001-05:00

Yes, that's right, you may not have asked for it, but here it is - another new look for Tom's Common Sense!

I hope everyone likes it, and if not, let me know what you would like to see changed. But positive feedback would be appreciated!

My thanks to Benning for letting me beg/borrow/steal his flag background for the title.

Remembering President Ford

2006-12-27T08:59:00.001-05:00

Got the paper out of the chilly newspaper box, and saw that President Ford passed away. A real gentlemen is gone.

One of the things that I remember of President Ford was that he was a golfer. Not a very good one, mind you, but just a hacker like the rest of us. Spectators took their lives into their own hands while watching him play, but they didn't care. After all, how often could you say that you were hit by a tee shot from a President?

Another thing was that he was a klutz. How many times have the news and parody media shown President Ford falling down the stairs of Air Force One? Too many, and I personally think he did it better than Chevy Chase...

But above all, he was a gentleman, and laughed off the stupid stuff mentioned above. He took over the Presidency in a tumultuous period of American history, and handled it with as much grace as anyone could under the circumstances. He shrugged off two (!) assassination attempts with barely a comment, and went about the business of running the country.

He demonstrated the art of being a gentlemen by staying away from commenting on current and past President's policies and actions, unlike a couple of his successors. In interviews, he steered away from making those comments, preferring to comment on other events of the period. It's a shame that they do not follow his example.

Yes, we lost a real gentleman today...

On the Eve of Another Christmas & New Year

2006-12-24T08:23:00.001-05:00

This was from the Christmas Eve Mallard Fillmore cartoon:

In an age in which Christians around the world are persecuted, tortured, and killed for daring to utter their Lord's name...Thank God for a Nation in which people of all religions may worship in freedom.

The country we live in, no, blessed with, is truly wonderful. This nation of ours has freedoms that most of the world does not enjoy. One of those is the freedom to worship (or not) according to your conscience. However, there are those who want to force you to bow to a black rock in the middle of a foreign land five times a day. If you don't, then your life is worth nothing.

I watched the Glenn Beck special in which Islamic Extremism was featured. The images presented in this program as created by the Muslim clergy, news, and entertainment media were most disturbing. It's not easy to watch crowds being whipped into a frenzy, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Nor is it reassuring that people considered to be "infidels" are not considered to be people, but must be killed wherever they are found. And let's not talk about what they really think of the Jewish people and Israel simply because it is so dehumanizing as to be ridiculous.

What bothers me the most is that our media ignores the reality of this threat. We do not hear of or read about very often the anti-American & anti-Israeli rhetoric, calling for the destruction of our respective countries. Nor is it brought to the forefront that they truly hate us with all of their hearts, and wish nothing but death for us.

This hate runs deep. Talking will not solve our differences. This is a belief system that does not have room for compromise, not even for slight differences within their own religion. Otherwise, why are the Shiites and Sunnis killing each other in Iraq? If it were otherwise, the word "tolerance" would be used, not abused.

And yet, there are those who think that the United States should leave Iraq, ignore the terrorist threat of radical Islam, and bury this country's head in the sand. Indeed, they wish to withdraw American influence from the world and reduce this country's status in the world to that of a third-rate nation instead of the superpower that this country truly is. I thought that Bill Whittle in his essay, Power, expressed it best:

Those that would have us disarm, withdraw, apologize and retreat make the assumption that by removing American Power from the world, the planet will become a harmonious village of diversity and mutual respect. Remove American capitalism, and the world’s people will trade solar cars for indigenous beads, our European moral betters will hand over their cash to the third world until all are perfectly equal, and everyone will live in a sustainable ecological paradise. Remove American cultural power and Britney will be replaced with Beethoven, and an exquisite and reasonably priced Pate de Foi Gras Existentialist Meal can be had at a corner drive-in where the former McDonald’s once stood.
This is utter nonsense. It has never been true for a single page of the history of the Damned Human Race. There has never -– never –- been a day in human history when some form of power has not flooded the world, or competed to do so; and those times when the power was most one-sided reveal themselves to be the times of greatest relative peace, stability, and advancement of that quaint notion known as civilization.
This is not merely a European construct. We see this iron rule in Inca and Aztec histories in South America, in Shaka’s Zulu nation, in Chinese empires and Japanese Shogunates, Native American tribal relations, and wherever else we turn our eyes.
The idea that all would be well if only America would retreat from the world and stay at home is a pernicious and seductive one. It appeals not only to those that hunger after the freedom to do mischief in our absence as it does to our natural sense of isolationism. It has been the mantra of communists, totalitarians and elitists of every vile stripe for well over a hundred years. It is utterly and completely wrong. Political power has never been removed from the world -– it has only been replaced. And so our choice –- now pay attention you No Blood For Oil types -– is not between power and no power. It is a choice only of what kind of power will fill that vacuum. Chinese? Russian? European? We have seen all of these before. The horrors they have inflicted, with far less absolute power than the US wields, do not leave me pining for those alternatives. Someone is going to be the world power, or tear the world apart fighting for it. And no matter how hard we may wish it, the winner will not be a Blindfolded Jury of Archangels.

And yet, we blunder on down a path that leads to self-destruction. Our media and politicians make excuses for Islamic terrorists, thinking that they are misunderstood and that we, as a country, need to understand why they hate us. That way, we can change so that they will "like us," and will stop the killing.

Unfortunately, the killing has been going on for centuries, and will not stop anytime soon. A religion that goes ballistic over cartoons and cannot stand scrutiny is a religion that doesn't need excuses, but accountability for it's actions and justification for its existence. To state that it is a religion of peace and yet foment violence against non-believers is hypocritical in the extreme.

A famous American said in a speech:

"We, the American People… find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us…We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them -- they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader…to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
"How then shall we perform it? -- At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? -- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln, Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838.

Whether we like it or not, I believe that the Islamic terrorists are going to do their damnest to make this into a religious war from whatever it can be called now. They will use the classic good vs. evil argument, an us-vs.-them conflict in the name of a jihad (religious war, for those of you in Rio Linda). They will plot, plan, and execute attacks that will cause large numbers of casualties. And the elites idiots among us will wring their hands crying, "We don't understand! We were talking!" Understand this, you Brie-eaters - there are people in the world that want to kill you just for the reason that you exist!! And we still seem to pursue the idiotic mantra of appeasement to those who wish nothing more than to destroy our country and subjugate us to their religion.

I know that this isn't the traditional Christmas Eve post, but Christ stated:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34, NIV

Slightly out of context with the passage, but it does illustrate that there will be conflict & war brought in the name of religion and belief in God & Christ. And I believe that this war has come upon us, although slowly and very low key until recently.

I do pray that I am wrong, that reason will prevail among our political leaders and those in the Middle East. That there will truly be Peace on Earth. But that will only happen if everyone decides that it will be so.

May everyone find Peace within their own hearts, and so enlighten the world.

Tis the Season...In Iraq

2006-12-19T20:06:00.001-05:00

You know it's the season when your routine gets interrupted trying to find just the right gift. That impacts the blogging schedule. Oh well...

Today I heard that President Bush is considering sending more troops into Iraq & Afghanistan. To which I say that there had better be a plan in place for those troops to win this conflict instead of walking around with targets on their backs. There is a goal in mind - a self-sustaining democratic Iraq - but the current strategy is not working. If the current strategy is not working to achieve the goal, then change the strategy and not the goal.

The Iraq government must step up & work harder in taking control of their own country. Yes, the United States can assist in setting up their law enforcement & government, but it will be up to them to sustain their own country. And unfortunately, talking alone will most likely not accomplish this.

As pointed out in the Iraq Study Group's report, there are many various power & religious factions in operation in Iraq. Not all of them want to be part of the newly formed government, but would much rather set up their own country within a country. How the Iraq government wants to deal with this situation will be very interesting, and whether they succeed or not will determine the stability of the country and the region.

President Bush may give the Christmas present of more soldiers to Iraq, but I pray that this gift would be put to good use and not wasted.

Iraq Study Group - Work In Progress

2006-12-12T20:52:00.001-05:00

While reading this report (I'm not done yet), it struck me that the Iraq people do not have a national identity nor a loyalty to their country. Saddam and the dictators through the years have taken care of that. The Iraq people have loyalties to their tribe, their religious sect, and their country (in that order).

The Iraqi politicians have their work cut out for them. Resolving centuries-old feuds with religious sect differences is an almost insurmountable task. Adding to the problem is that each of these different groups is not willing to compromise with any of the others. Then there are the Saddam loyalists that are lurking in the background...

The Iraq police and military do need to step up and take control of their country. How soon is the question. It does beg the question of how much training do they need - I am presuming that some of them had training & credentials under Saddam's regime, although the question of loyalty does pop up. And there is no question that these policemen and soldiers have taken far more casualties than the US military as a result of terrorist activities.

The bottom line is that none of this is going to happen overnight. While the US can kick butt militarily, it's after that battle is won that the real war, the political one, must be fought and won as well. My question is: Will the politicians, both Iraqi and US, have the wherewithal to get the job done?

the Dry Bones Blog

2006-12-12T20:26:00.001-05:00

I ran across this blog while reading the paper, strangely enough. The author publishes a daily cartoon in Israel, and definitely puts some perspective on the policies of this country.

The latest is a toon from 1992 dealing with James Baker, and in his words,

James Baker is one of the architects of today's Middle East mess. Now, close to 15 years later, Baker is back. As is Jimmy Carter. Trying to sell us their same old tired, failed ideas about appeasing Arab dictators and pressuring the area's only democracy. Again.

Here's the link:

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-and-baker-1992.html

Celebs Gone Wild!

2006-12-06T18:28:00.001-05:00

While the pundits have a chance to dissect the recommendations of the Iraq Policy Group for what to do in Iraq (and I have a chance to read the report), I thought I would comment on the actions of another influential group on the Left Coast – celebrities!

The actions of various celebrities over the past few weeks have been, well, excessively strange, but very familiar. Examples include:

Kramer, aka, Michael Richards, using the “N” word in a tirade on a couple of hecklers. It didn't really matter that these two bozos were ripping his routine (which, by the way, is the nightmare of many a stand-up), he was the one that had to fall over his checkbook, make tons of apologies, and kissing the ring of Al “Shakedown” Sharpton for forgiveness. After all, you can't use the “N” word under any circumstance and expect to make in the Leftist Movement that is Hollyweird.

Then over in another part of the entertainment section is the train wreck called Britney Spears. Not only is she hanging out with closet porn actress Paris Hilton, she's really hanging out!! She's picking up lots of tips on how to expose yourself from the Queen of Exposure. Getting out of a car without underwear seems a bit radical for this pop star, but then who knows what goes through the minds of people who seem to need constant attention.

Another segment involves the talk show circuit. I understand that Clay Aiken subbed for Regis Philbin, and that Kelly Ripa wouldn't let Clay get a word in edgewise. Clay put his hand over Ripa's mouth to make a comment, and Ripa objected stating, “You shouldn't do that – you don't know where that hand has been!” That got a big laugh from the audience, and a bigger flame from Rosie O'Donnell. Rosie's comment was that Ripa made an anti-gay statement. What!! Where is Rosie's mind? Oh, never mind...

But then on the “View,” Rosie's new show, Danny DeVito shows up drunk. Another train wreck, another casualty. But then again, if I had to show up on the same show as Rosie, I might have a couple of stiff ones just to go through with it.

I know I've missed a couple here & there, but I think you get the point. Hollyweird and all of it's various denizens are just, well, weird!!

Revised Plans...

2006-12-01T21:13:00.001-05:00

Well, I guess everyone's plans change. Mine are.

On the good side, it looks like Christmas came early to the house. Just finished wiring & hooking up a broadband connection to the house. And it is nice and fast! Better than dial-up any day. Reasonable too - special through the cable TV company.

On the bad side, any of you looking at the Index will find that it's out of date. With the recent sickness in the house and yours truly playing nurse (no catcalls out there!), plans for getting much of anything done in the way of blogging & updates went way by the wayside.

Trying to figure out how to modify this template to work with Blogger Beta is just not worth it. I'll probably change this template to one of the canned ones & work from there. Not happy about it - put in a lot of work on the template, but the new ones definitely have some advantages. Just need some time to do it, and make sure Haloscan works with the new template.

Changing to a new blog hosting site probably isn't worth it either. Awardspace may be a free server, but hosting a blog is not good on that site. All that needs to happen is for the database portion of the server to get overloaded, and poof!! no blog. The web portion of the server is OK though, and haven't had any problems there. So if any of you want to play around with making up your own pages on a free server would work. Besides, most of you are tied into Blogger anyway, and I've found a decent offline editor for Blogger, so I'll probably be sticking with Blogger.

So if there are changes to the site, don't panic! It's just another work in progress.

Thanksgiving 2006

2006-11-23T20:42:00.000-05:00

Thanksgiving this year, well, has been different.

My son has been sick, and didn't want to make the trip down with us. So we came down ourselves after making sure that he was supplied with soup, crackers, telephone numbers, etc. He knows how to take care of himself, so that wasn't the concern. After all, he is 18...

We get into Indianapolis last night around 7:30, check into the hotel, and went over to the mother-in-laws. Before anyone dings her, she is one of the sweetest persons I have ever known. Everything is fine, until...

My wife wakes up, and wouldn't you know it, is sick. On Thanksgiving day, after 6 hours on the road, a night in a hotel, and my wife is sick, sick, sick. Not the Thanksgiving we were wanting, nor expecting. You know how hard it is running around Thanksgiving morning trying to find medicine, crackers, Gatorade, etc.?

Finally, she feels better to make it over to her mom's, and we have a decent dinner, although she is not feeling like eating much. After dinner, she sleeps the rest of the afternoon. Makes for an interesting Thanksgiving, that's for sure!

We're now back at the hotel, wife is feeling better & ready to sack out. Hopefully, I'll stay well, at least enough until we get back to Michigan tomorrow.

Hope that everyone has experienced a Happy Thanksgiving, and has enough turkey for a week's worth of turkey sandwiches!

November 06 Drive By Blogging

2006-11-20T19:39:00.000-05:00

Haven't done one of these for a while. Just nothing really jumping out at me to pound on in depth, so just a little something to write (and think!) about.

First of all, I would like to wish everyone (all 6 1/2 readers of this blog) a Happy Thanksgiving. Hope everyone arrives at their respective feeding station (i.e., relative's house) safely, not make an obvious pig of themselves, and return home stuffed but not mounted. At least that's my plan (sorry, Teresa - looks like I'll be in Indianapolis too...)

Have you noticed the Democrats toning down themselves? Now it looks like they are not going to proceed with impeachment hearings, raising taxes, repealing the Patriot Act, NSA listening policies, and pulling the troops out immediately. Have they come to their senses, or is it just politics as usual, waiting to slip a fast one in without anyone noticing? I hope that the moderation is not an act, and that they will do the right things for the country (and us!).

The item that's still on my political radar is Pelosi trying to get an impeached judge (charged with soliciting a bribe) appointed head of the intelligence committees. That just doesn't make sense, especially since the Dems ran on a platform of "hate Bush because he and his administration are corrupt," and yet want this bozo in one of the most sensitive positions in government. Makes you wonder if someone offers this guy a big enough bribe that he would give up everything. But then again, all they would have to do is look at the New York Slime to find out the latest sensitive information that we don't want the bad guys to know...

Has anyone noticed that the figures for the economy are being reported in a better light than before the election? I have, and it just indicates to me that the media is biased toward one political party. What really bothers me about this is that freedom of the press was supposed to provide an independent but fair reporting of events. Editorials belong on the opinion page, not the whole damn newspaper (or TV/radio news broadcast). While censorship to keep things balanced is never a good thing, I am happy that there are other news sources out there that slant things the other way to keep things balanced out.

John Kerry thinks that he is still a contender for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination dispite his latest episode of foot in mouth disease. John, hang it up - HRC will cut your throat before that happens. Think "Manchurian Candidate" with one of your past associates from Vietnam (you were there, right?), and you should get the general idea.

And did you see that HRC's blast from the past health care plan got axed by the Dems? Surprising to me, but then again, they might want to save it for HRC's run for the Presidency. At least that's my take on it.

I'm going to be doing a little housecleaning over the holidays. First of all, The Stickman Chronicles will be deleted off Blogger. I don't have enough time to write for one blog consistently, much less two. I know that I haven't promoted this blog very well, and for a good reason - just no time to keep it updated. So take a last look before it fades not so gracefully into history. Second, I'll be working on Tom's Common Sense @ Awardspace, trying to get it up to snuff. Please visit there & let me know if you like it or not. Last, there will be one last update to the template on Tom's Common Sense @ Blogger to put a few things into order before the eventual migration to Awardspace (or other spot). This will include (hopefully) some Blogger Beta tags for catagories and an updated index.

UPDATE: Tom's Common Sense @ Awardspace is having problems - just might have to find another host. Anyone out there have any suggestions for a cost effective host? Thanks!

Again, Happy Thanksgiving!!

Dems Next Move

2006-11-17T18:59:00.000-05:00

Now that Nancy P. is now the next Speaker of the House, and that the Dems are the majority in the Senate, I'm now concerned that the Dems, especially the more radical ones, will start raising all sorts of finger-pointing and armchair quarterbacking.

The indications are that the Dems will now start an endless barrage of hearings & investigations. That's bad. There are way too many things that need to be taken care of instead of messing around with stupid stuff.

I can see the Dems pushing all the buttons for investigating President Bush for grounds of impeachment. If they start on this "starting the war on Iraq on false pretenses" garbage, I think they should impeach themselves. They saw the same intelligence as Bush, and voted for the war. Many of the complaints that the Dems have with Bush's actions were voted on by them or were established as prior practice by previous presidents. Of course, they are still honked off about Clinton's impeachment hearing for perjury, but that's a different argument.

The bottom line for this is that the Dems have a real chance to show that they are better than the Republicans, but I think they are going to blow it with an insane and useless witch-hunt. They really didn't have anything to run on this past election except the "hate Bush" mantra. Too bad they didn't have any more substance to run on besides that.

The next couple of years will be interesting to say the least. Politicians on both sides of the aisle will be positioning themselves for a run at the Presidency. We'll see if the Dems can run on anything besides the "hate Bush" in a presidential campaign in which a person named Bush won't be on the ballot.

Dems Hate Hillary?

2006-11-13T15:09:00.000-05:00

Now that the shouting about the midterm elections is just about over, the speculation of who the next Democratic Presidential candidate is now starting to hit the pundit airwaves.

Despite what the Dems say, Hillary Clinton (now labeled HRC because I just hate typing that name) is a divisive force. That’s right, divisive - you either love HRC or you hate her, and there just doesn’t seem to be a middle ground from what I’ve heard. As an example, here’s something that I’ve been saving for some time:

Hatin’ on Hillary: N.H. Dems lambaste Clinton By Brett Arends Boston Herald Business Columnist Monday, August 7, 2006 - Updated: 09:36 AM EST
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it.

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”

No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups.

But these weren’t Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t even independents.

These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as “likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.

“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”

Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.

He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.

His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”

Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.

But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.

Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”

We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”

Satanic.

And: “Political wh***.”

(Note: I don’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)

There are caveats. Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.

But Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.

He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees.

“There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says. In the race for the nomination, “she is ripe for plucking,” he says.

Sen. Clinton’s team could not be reached for comment.

New Hampshire is small, but it’s a bellwether state with clout.

Its primary probably holds the key to the Democratic nomination. And New Hampshire, alone, swung from Bush to Kerry in ’04.

It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state.

New Blog Created

2006-11-13T15:04:00.000-05:00

Well, I've created another blog at this location:

tomscommonsense.awardspace.com

The plan is to dual post at both this blog and the one listed above until next year. That will give me time to shake out the bugs, and review any comments anyone has on this blog and the new one.

Visit the new blog & let me know what you think!

Thanks, Tom

Blogger Beta Woes

2006-11-12T18:30:00.000-05:00

Have you ever thought that you were making things better and then find out that all you did was shoot yourself in the foot? Yep, I did that here on this blog...

Blogger Beta is supposed to be better in the long run, but that's to be seen. Yes, it lets you have "labels" for you to search & categorize your posts for easier searching (for you & me), but I've discovered a few "uh-oh"s along the way.

For those of you who use Haloscan & like the feature that Haloscan has of noting which comment goes with which post by title, that feature will not work when you've changed to Blogger Beta (BB). That's because that BB uses a Google account password, and it just can't navigate through to the blog's postings. I'm sure someone will eventually figure out how to wade through it, but it's a pain for the moment.

Another item that bugs me that's related to the above is being able to write posts offline & post them from an editor such as w.Blogger. Again, the Google account blocks that as well. Sure, I can write stuff, log into BB, and post it using the editor, but that's just a pain. And emailing posts is not really an option - the posts could take up to a day to show up. Frustrating, it is...

I'm sure that someone way smarter than me will be able to figure this out, but I'm really starting to look seriously about moving Tom's Common Sense to another system. Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to export the posts to another location because Blogger doesn't have an export function, nor with the Google account stuff in place, the usual export/import functions in systems like Wordpress will not work.

Of course, this was all done to increase security of the system, and improve it. And by the way, the Blogger accounts will eventually be moved to using Google accounts. In the meantime, I'm just a little upset. Oh well...

Election Day

2006-11-07T12:31:00.000-05:00

OK, who (or what) did you vote for today? Here are my votes...

I voted for sunshine (got rain), lower taxes (we'll see), and truth (probably not from politicians anytime soon).

What or who I didn't vote for were those politicians that support abortion. I guess you know who I voted for now, don't you?

Enough said...

Michigan Politics

2006-11-06T18:37:00.000-05:00

On the eve of the midterm election, I thought it would be interesting to comment on two of the races here in Michigan: The offices of Governor & Senator.

For the office of Governor we have the incumbent, Jennifer Granholm (D), and the challenger, Dick DeVos (R). Granholm's tenure as Governor has seen difficult times as the state's economy has suffered with the woes of the auto industry. DeVos is a multi-millionaire businessman who inherited a family fortune. Both have accused each other of losing jobs, and have taken credit for creating them as well. Damaging to Granholm (in my opinion) is repeated statements of giving her administration time to correct the state's economy, stating that she is "thrilled" at the economic plan's progress when it was tanking, and stating that we "will be blown away" in five years, implying that she needs another term to see the turnaround. DeVos has made some business decisions that cost Michigan jobs while running Amway, but seems to have not stepped on too many toes in that regard. The advantage seems to be DeVos, although there has been some serious mud thrown by both candidates.

For a seat in the US Senate we have the incumbent Debbie Stabinow (D) and the challenger, Mike Bouchard (R). Stabinow has been a fixture in the US Senate for a long time. Bouchard has been the Oakland County Sheriff for some time now. Plenty of accusations have been thrown out by both candidates, and plenty of promises. Unfortunately, I really haven't seen a whole lot from Stabinow that I agree with, but then again I'm not exactly thrilled about a politician using the Sheriff's office as a politcal stepping stone.

The polls show almost statistical dead heats for the above races - Granholm leads DeVos by 2%, and Stabinow leads Bouchard by 4%. In my own unscientific and unreliable poll, which consisted of looking at the number of political sign on people's lawns as I drive around Oakland County, I've come up with something slightly different.

In the race for governor, there seems to be more DeVos signs out than Granholm (approximately 60-65% vs 40-35%). In the race for the US Senate, there have been far more Bouchard signs in people's yards vs. just a handfull (10!!!) that I've seen. I only counted 1 yard per sign (in other words, multiple signs in one yard only counted as 1), but that's still a bunch. And no, the size of the sign did not count extra (remember, size doesn't always count!). It will be interesting to see if the sign poll accurately reflects the election results. Of course, milage may vary...

The Politicians Are Calling!! The Politicians Are Calling!!

2006-11-01T20:07:00.000-05:00

One of the things that I absolutely hate about this election year is the increased number of political phone calls. I don't know about any of you, but I've been getting an average of two phone calls a day for the past two months, and I'm absolutely sick of them. And they have been coming from both political parties.

Almost none of the phone calls have been "nice.", i.e., informative calls. They have mostly been the nasty, negative attack variety. "My opponent voted against you having a job, a car, a dog, and a house with a white picket fence!" Or, "Elect me and I'll stop the corruption in government demonstrated by my opponent!" "My opponent wants to turn your house into the next landfill site (for the public good, of course)!" Is it any wonder that the majority of voters appear to be confused & disgusted with politicians?

The part of these phone calls that just take my breath away is that they almost always state that they have a plan to correct what faults their opponent has with their plan. What's interesting is that they never state what the plan is!! The challengers state that they have a plan to create jobs, reduce unemployment, guarantee healthcare & pensions, and make sure that there's a chicken in every pot, but are always short of how they are going to do that. The incumbents say the same thing. To the challengers - give us details on how you are going to do what you promise. To the incumbents - why haven't you started your plan before now?

What us, the voters, need to realize, is that politicians love to grandstand, puff themselves up, minimize their many faults and maximize their opponents, all for the purpose of getting elected. An earlier post, A Politician's Job, outlines their real priorities.

Now before some of you want to flame me for this statement and defend your favorite elected official, realize that I'm speaking about the majority of politicians, not the few who give a damn & have the personal character, ethics, and guts to stand up for what is right for the public & not put themselves first. Of course, there are very few of them, which makes the following joke almost always true:

How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips move...

Perhaps I'm being too hard on our politicians. But then again, they have given all of us on both sides of the aisle plenty of ammunition. Scandals ranging from sexual impropriety to bribes to corruption to dumb statements have been aired by the media (although more for one party than the other). Perhaps we, the voters, should hold our elected officials to higher standards. But then again, who are we kidding? It's as bad or worse as Diogenes looking for a honest man in the world.

The real problem is that politics is a dirty business, and very few upright & honest men are willing to put themselves through the hell that the media & the opposing party dishes out. Thus, let the mudslinging ensue.

In less than a week, we will be exercising our civic duty to go and vote for the candidates of our choice. Whoever wins will be who we are stuck with. All I can ask of anyone reading this post is that you vote your conscience, and not be bound by blind political loyalty. Vote for the person who will get the job done the right way without the BS and hypocrisy.

Scary Kerry!!

2006-10-31T20:24:00.000-05:00

By now, most of the readers of this blog have heard of the latest outrageous comments by John "I Served In Vietnam" Kerry. He stated to a group of students:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

The implication is that stupid people are in the military.

I must take issue with that implication - the graduates of West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy are among the most intelligent people on the planet with phenomenal leadership skills. And many of the volunteer soldiers serving in our armed forces are professionals in from fields such as engineering, police, law, and business. And I guarantee you that I would not want stupid people in charge of multi-billion dollar weapon systems and nuclear weapons.

While Kerry has not apologized for his comments, he has made a rather superfluous explanation that it was a joke gone bad. Oh really?

My take on this is that Senator Flip-Flop has a rather low opinion of the people serving in the military. Otherwise, such a reference would never have been made. Perhaps he has a low opinion of himself as a result of serving in the military, hmmmm?

But what is really scary is that this idiot could have been elected President!!

Superhero Day

2006-10-27T16:51:00.000-04:00

Heard on the radio yesterday & today that in a Long Beach High School they were celebrating a "superhero day" where the students could dress up as their favorite superhero. Three senior girls dressed up as Captain Underpants and showed up in flesh-colored leotards, capes, and, of course, underpants. The principle thought that the costumes were just a little too suggestive, and sent the girls home to change.

There's a couple of things that I'm a little confused about (OK, more than a couple, but we won't discuss that at this point in time):

Long Beach is in California, where it seems that almost anything goes anyway. What seems to be the problem with girls dressing up in flesh-colored leotards, capes, & underwear if you can't see anything? Linda Carter did that while acting in the "Wonder Woman" series...
This High School has other related activities scheduled for their Senior Week: Monday was Switch Day, where boys dressed like girls and vice versa. Tuesday was Nerd Day. Wednesday was Superhero day. Thursday is Spirit Day, where they wear school colors, blue and white. Friday is Pirate Day. So exactly when do the students learn anything?

Yep, students sure are preparing for life and learning after high school - on your tax dollar!!

What I Think...

2006-10-23T20:49:00.000-04:00

This is what I think on a few choice subjects...

The War in Iraq:

When it was announced that the United States was giving Iraq's Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in response to the non-compliance of UN resolutions, I really didn't like the implications. Going into Iraq without UN support, i.e., alone, was not the right thing to do. I was concerned that the second Bush was going to do what the first Bush didn't do (and was severely criticized for) - get rid of Saddam Hussein. While the intelligence at the time supported the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had too much time to bury or otherwise get rid of his WMD arsenal. However, as I've posted here and on numerous comments on other blogs, the United States cannot leave Iraq without a self-sustaining government - the danger of Iraq descending into chaos and taking the region with it is too great.

The War on Terrorism:

As stated in several previous posts, negotiation with terrorists should never be an option. They should be found and prosecuted with every means at the disposal of the United States government and the governments of the world. And it can be done if the politicians get out of the way...

War in General:

War is the last resort after diplomacy has failed, and should be avoided, but not at all costs. Giving away everything you believe in just for the sake of peace is a deal with the devil, and will not, in the long run, achieve the desired result of peace. War is unhealthy for all the participants, both for soldiers and civilians alike. I do not want war, nor do I promote it - I just know that in some situations it cannot be avoided.

Immigration:

Illegal immigration is a blight on our country, and a subject that politicians would rather avoid. Just mentioning this topic raises many feelings that are not, shall we say, are very civilized. I do not have a problem with people immigrating to this country legally, but to reward those that come here by illegal means and then defend their actions grates against my law-abiding nature. It also gets me that illegal immigrants are eligible for Social Security benefits, driver's licenses, & other governmental services (your tax dollars!!), and the politicians just give the wink & a nod & ignore this problem.

Michigan's Proposal 2:

Michigan's Proposal 2 states:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

* Ban public institution from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institution affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

* Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

On the surface, this looks like a good idea. I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race or gender. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the program is supposedly helping. In an earlier post, I wrote the following of what Martin Luther King had envisioned for the Negro people:

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

Flawed Compromise Thinking

2006-10-21T16:40:00.000-04:00

It doesn't really matter if you are dealing with a used car salesman, a North Korean dictator, or an al Qaeda terrorist, negotiation relies on two things: If all parties are willing to give up something to get what they want, and if they are willing to keep their word. Which of the previous three people do you think you could strike a deal with that would stick?

There are so many people out there that are repeating the line "Why can't we all get along?" and yet never stop to think about why that is. They believe that everyone is just like them, rational and willing to talk things over to the point of working out whatever problem there is between them, and sticking to the agreement. The fatal flaw in this line of thought is that everyone isn't like them, isn't trustworthy, and will do theirdamnest to break any agreement at the earliest point in time when they can get away with it and it is most advantageous to them.

Need examples? OK, here goes...

North Korea snookered ol' Bill into giving them nuclear technology, and then broke their promise & built a nuclear bomb. Radial Islamic terrorists will break their word to all infidels because their interpretation of their religion will allow it (talk to Israel on their negotiation history with any of the multitudes of Arab countries around them). From the historical perspective, there's always poor Neville Chamberlain who gave away another country in a futile attempt to keep Nazi Germany from going to war (and we know how that turned out). Last, Iran's nuclear program is on & off the table so much that I've lost track of where they are at, but would you trust their president to keep his word on anything dealing with the restriction of nuclear weapons development in Iran? Not with him promising the end of Israel first and the rest of the world second to create an Islamic-controlled world...

Is there any question that this is why diplomacy, negotiations, and compromise will not work in the long run with Islamic radicals/terrorists such as al Qaeda & Hezbollah, countries such as North Korea & Iran, and a host of other untrustworthy nutjobs from around the world? Not in my mind.

Yes, I do agree that peace should be given a chance to work, but you had better be prepared and have the resolve to go to war. Otherwise, we might as well just give up & pledge allegiance to Allah, put the women in burkas, scrap the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and put all of the "undesirables" according to Islamic law (such as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, homosexuals, Feminists, free-thinkers & other non-Islamics) to death.

Call Now For This Special Offer!!!!

2006-10-17T19:46:00.000-04:00

Yes, if you call now, you can receive, at no cost to you, the celebrated Bill Clinton / Jimmy Carter Nuclear Proliferation package!! No money down (ever!)!! Be the first in your hemisphere to own a nuclear power plant and all the perks that go with it!! IS THAT A DEAL OR WHAT?!?!?!

Included in this exclusive package offered by the respectable Despot & Dictator Appeasement Company (LLC) are all the materials & resources needed to build TWO - yes, TWO of your own nuclear reactors! Also included are easy to follow instructions, and over $1,000,000,000 to fund this once in a lifetime opportunity!!

And if you call before supplies run out, look at the Bonus Gifts that you will receive:

A Micheal Jordon Autographed Basketball!! (Micheal Jordan not included, display case extra)
A lifetime supply of peanuts!! Just perfect for watching missile launches!!
And to wash down those peanuts, a limited supply of Billy Beer!!
Lead lined underwear!! Now you can watch the blue glow of nuclear fission in your own personal nuclear reactor and protect those valuable family assets!
A Classic Movie subscription to such classics as Dr. Strangelove, A Boy and His Dog, the Mad Maxx series, and other post-nuclear apocalypse favorites.
A lifetime pass to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library, where you can view such exhibits such as:
- A blue dress once worn by Monica (small stain on the shoulder).
- A cigar reputed to have been "smoked" without actually being lit.
- Papers from Travelgate and the Rose Law Firm.
And as a special Bonus, vacation property in the famous Whitewater retirement community!!

But wait!! That's not all!!

As part of this special and exclusive offer, a non-inspection package that will keep those pesky Useless Nations nuclear inspectors out of your hair!! Yes, you have the freedom to build in peace those wonders of nuclear power. But only if you call now!! Operators are not standing by!!

Call now at 1-800-GET-NUKE!!

(Some restrictions apply. Not to be used for developing nuclear weapons - only your promise is necessary to secure this offer. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.)

130 Posts & A Year Later...

2006-10-15T12:23:00.000-04:00

Yes, this is the 130th post of Tom's Common Sense, and exactly one year after the first post. It's been an interesting ride.

I originally wanted to post about my concerns with the business situation at Delphi, but soon was drawn into other subjects - politics, social issues, humor, Iraq, terrorism, and others. Some things have stayed the same, others have changed.

Also, not being content with the standard Blogger templates, the look of Tom's Common Sense has changed several times, and an index of past posts by subject was created to allow you, the reader, to see what I've had to say about various subjects. Hopefully, this has helped some of you, although this might change in the future. Blogger's Beta looks promising in allowing each post to have a subject, similer to Wordpress and others. If anyone has switched over to the new Blogger Beta, please let me know what you think of it.

Other improvements to the template most commented on have been the Points to Ponder as well as the Notable Posts. I'm looking at changing these slightly as it requires that I modify the template each time these need to be changed. And that's a pain at times.

The biggest change is that I'm having problems visiting everyone else's blogs - life is busy between job & family. I'm not on the road as much, and this has reduced the time that I once had (I would write posts and visit everyone else's blogs instead of watching TV). Hopefully, I will touch base with everyone once in a while, and I thank everyone for visiting this blog. Your comments and support have been overwhelming.

Last, I would like you, the reader, to tell me what you like or dislike about this blog. Subjects, look of the blog, or what you would like to read about. Any additional Points to Ponder that you would like to contribute and what your favorites are. Same goes for the posts that would appear in the Notable Posts. Operators are not standing by, but the comment section and email address are open for your comments.

Again, Thank You Everyone!

Appeasement Still Doesn't Work!!

2006-10-09T21:00:00.000-04:00

And neither, apparently, do good wishes, either...

I'm writing about how our buddy Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton gave a reported $1 Billion in technology, information, and materials to North Korea in exchange for nothing but a promise to use all that stuff to help the people of North Korea. So now North Korea has the bomb, a missile to deliver that bomb, and still has people starving in the streets. What a bargain!!

What's really disturbing is that Iran and North Korea are the remaining two countries of the infamous "Axis of Evil." With the Useless Nations potentially cracking down on North Korea, don't you think that Iran just might buy the bomb from their buddies? I do, and their first target will be Tel Aviv (that's in Israel for those people in Rio Linda). What happens after that will be anyone's guess.

At least they'll have another exhibit to display at the Clinton Presidential Library - A picture of smoking ruins under a mushroom cloud. It should display nicely next to that blue dress with the stain on the shoulder...

The Service-Based Economy

2006-10-05T06:07:00.000-04:00

While digging through some old files to figure out what to pitch & what to keep, I ran across the following article originally written by the editor of Manufacturing Engineering magazine in 2003:

Wake Up, Brie Eaters!

Brian J. Hogan, Editor

Not long ago, Ingersoll Milling Machine closed its doors. Another great US machine-tool company bites the dust, and its closure isn't worth an inch of copy in the typical American newspaper. What has happened, and continues to happen, to the US machine tool industry is symptomatic of something much broader - a general failure on the part of this country's political leadership to understand the value of American industrial society.

Keeping a machine tool industry, and a manufacturing culture, alive and well is basically a political decision. Germany has made that decision, as have Japan, Italy,Taiwan, and Switzerland. China clearly understands the importance of machine tools, and the manufacturing enterprise.

In contrast, the people who form much of our political leadership are the kind of liberal-arts-loving snobs who think engineering colleges are trade schools, and physics/math/chem/biology majors are boring nerds. When people of this sort wind up running big companies, they view the engineers who work for them as servants, and their factory-floor workers as interchangeable serfs. When they go into politics, they spend their time pacifying the latest trendy group of victims. To this layer of self-satisfied individuals, neither the machine tool industry nor the manufacturing enterprise matters. These brie-munching, wine-sipping characters will sit lumpishly and watch the destruction of the technical foundations of the US, understanding nothing, and doing nothing.

The prosperity of the US rests upon the real wealth generated by a short list of activities: extractive industries, agriculture, and manufacturing. Every other line of work takes the money earned in these fields and shuffles it around & distributes it. Your local lawyer does not generate wealth, and neither does ye olde stockbroker.

Technology supports the economy of this nation-state, but our politics are dominated by people whose technical expertise doesn't extend beyond using a television remote. This situation is dangerous. The brie eaters have got to wake up and support what is left of the US machine tool industry. In fact, they've got to encourage the revival of that industry, and move to strengthen US manufacturing, or the entity we call the United States will be in the soup.

None of this means I'm attacking offshore builders or offshore manufacturers for goodness sake, those companies bring superb technology and wonderful products into the US, and their equipment is keeping US manufacturing alive. I'm complaining about our so-called leaders and legislators who are indifferent to manufacturing. They don't understand or refuse to understand that machine tools really are, as the Japanese say, Mother Machines. Politicians who ignore the condition of the machine tool industry are fools.

While the above example uses the machine tool industry as an example of a declining industrial base, there are many other industries that are just as affected. I can think of the automotive industry right off the bat. Just this past week, in view of declining sales and manufacturing reductions, parts supplier Detroit Axle is now starting to offer buyouts to its Union employees. GM, Ford, and Delphi (just to name a few) have all offered buyouts as part of their restructuring plans. This declining ability to make parts and products will eventually weaken this country.

The point is that I remember my high school economics class making the arguement that the real worth of a country is its industrial capability to manufacture goods. These goods have an intrinsic worth which is the sum of materials and time used to make them. Now we are entering into what is known now as a "service-based" economy.

This economy is the ability to shuffle money around based on time and talent. On the surface, it just doesn't seem to be too bad - we sell our services to overseas companies, and they sell us our material goods. Doesn't sound too bad, does it?

One of the problems is that intellectual property is such a tricky thing to keep proprietary. Once something has been done, then it can usually be reverse engineered by those companies or countries without the ethics or legislation to prohibit these actions. Think of pirated DVDs for sale in China (and beyond) and I think you get the general idea.

Another problem is that if your country buys its machinery or goods from another country and it breaks down, then how are you going to get replacement parts or the widget fixed? If that supplier doesn't have an office or supply depot in your country, it could take months to get a replacement part or a service person to come & fix it. I have seen this very situation more often than what I care to admit.

Government's position in this process is two-fold: The first is to promote policies that encourage manufacturing companies to set up shop and remain in the United States. These policies could range from tax incentives to development loans or grants. These policies are used by foreign countries to companies to provide them not only an incentive to stay within their borders, but to bolster their economies as well. For them, it's a win-win situation, especially if it allows them to compete on the world stage.

The second is to make sure that companies compete on a "level playing field". NAFTA, CAFTA, and granting foreign countries favorable trading partner status does nothing to secure jobs and factories in this country. When the economies of third world countries have a standard of living far below that of the United States, the advantage goes to them as wages are hugely disproportionate. I have posted several articles on this topic, and the upshot is that their economies & standards of living will not rise to meet ours, but ours will fall to meet theirs.

The governor of Michigan has gotten a lot of heat in campaign ads, and rightly so. Michigan has lost so many manufacturing jobs it is pathetic. The economic plan is a disaster, and no relief is in sight.

But it doesn't matter what part of the country you live in, this should be a nationwide concern. If the jobs go elsewhere, what else is next?

So in this midterm election, make sure you know where the candidates of your choice stand on this issue. You have just a little over 30 days to find out before the election.

Paddington Bear Kills 2500!!

2006-09-26T21:01:00.000-04:00

Paddington Bear, a favorite of children everywhere, has been implcated earlier this month in multiple deaths in Milford, NH. He was caught at the scene of the crime dressed in a yellow raincoat and hat.

Mr. Bear is accused of murder by one of the most heinous methods - suffocation. The crime occurred at the New Hampshire Fish and Game Hatchery. The details of the crime are somewhat sketchy, but it is surmised that Mr. Bear blocked a drain in a tank, depriving oxygen to 2500 trout. The motive for the crime is unknown as Mr. Bear has asserted his 5th Amendment Rights and isn't talking to the investigating authorities.

The investigation is continuing into the crime, and the attorneys for the victims may pursue Mr. Bear for damages if the investigation finds that this is a hate crime as defined by Federal statutes.

At this time, the crime does not appear to be terrorist-related. To bear this out, a group calling itself the I.R.A. (Islamic Rights for Animals) has issued a fatwa on Mr. Bear since some of the victims may have been followers of Mohammed, which has prompted authorities to move Mr. Bear to an undisclosed toybox.

For the actual AP report on this incident, the link is here.

4th Time the Charm?

2006-09-25T20:08:00.000-04:00

As reported by MSNBC.com, the Pope met with Muslim diplomats earlier today to mend relations after his remarks about Islam during a September 12 speech at Regensburg University. This is the 4th time that the Pope has tried to defuse the situation.

The remarks that got the Islamic clerics & "others" upset were the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith." Pope Benedict XVI has since said that the comments were taken out of context, and he regretted that Muslims were offended. The reaction by the aforementioned offended Muslims has included protests, violence, and murder. The most publicized of these was the execution of a nun in Somolia who forgave her attackers as she was dying.

This is absolutely incredible to me! As stated in the "Points to Ponder" scroller to the right, Why must I tolerate your intolerance? Why is it that if there is the slightest criticism of Islam, these people go ballistic and start running amok? Worse yet, why must these people be excused from their actions? Why does the world as a whole put up with these idiots?

It can't be on account of it's a criticism of a religion. Christians and Jews certainly don't get a pass on this - I think of all the criticism offered in the media of these religions (cartoons and other items bordering on the obscene), and what the Mohammed cartoons showed was extremely mild. Israel certainly didn't get a pass on their little war with Hezbollah.

Actually, it might be a little more sinister than what one might think. I am starting to believe that the world, through the Useless Nations, would rather see the civilized West (Europe and the US) bear the brunt of the Islamic terror attacks. Many of the countries in the UN are third-world dictatorships that really don't want their people to have any freedoms at all. If the Islamic terrorists keeps the West busy chasing them, then maybe the West will leave them alone. What they don't realize is that if the West falls, or enacts an isolationist-type policy, then they just might find these jokers in their respective laps.

And yet no one really seems to understand the danger that this type of radical Islam puts the world into. I remember a World History class some 30 years ago in High School. The topic was Islam and how it shaped the Middle East. The teacher stated the following:

Islam is a religion of conquest - it was spread by subjugation. The soldiers would ride into a villiage and wipe out any resistance. Afterward, they would gather up all the villiagers, and separated the leaders. The Imam riding with the soldiers would then ask them one by one if they would accept Islam as their religion and Allah as their god. If not, the leader would be forced to kneel, and he was beheaded in front of the assembled villiagers. This process usually didn't last very long as the villiage saw which way this was going, so they would take vows to accept this new religion. Afterward, they would ride to the next villiage and repeat the "conversion" of the infidels.

This is the radical Islamic mindset - convert or die! This is their mantra - this is their mission. And with the radical Iranian president hell-bent on nukes, I really wonder if the world hasn't gone mad in ignoring this threat.

Where is this all headed? Well, I can certainly state that it shouldn't begin with apologies for statements that are historical in nature. I stand by the following statement made in a previous post:

People who apologise for, make excuses for, or otherwise try & appease these nutcases are only making things worse. Firm, decisive action will eventually need to be taken against these promoters of violence. The question is, who's going to do it? The moderate Islamic sects, or the rest of the world. The first is preferable, the second is not.

Indeed, who is going to rein in these purveyors of the "religion of peace"? I certainly hope that the US doesn't get sucked into this alone.

Unions for Democrats? Why?

2006-09-20T20:20:00.000-04:00

I already know that this post is going to rile a few of my Union brothers & sisters, but I'm going to let fly anyway...

I've been a Union member now going on 6 1/2 years and getting the Solidarity Union magazine all that time. Every time I pick up the magazine & leaf through it the message is that Republicans are against Unions, and Democrats are our friends. Vote Democrat, and all things will be better - jobs will stay in the US of A instead of going to China or Mexico. What?? I must respectfully disagree with this recommendation.

First off, I do not believe that either political party is particularly Union friendly unless it's around an election time. That's when the statements start flying around the airwaves that the opposition party is against Unions and their party will keep jobs in the state or country. It doesn't matter whether the statements are true or false, it just depends which message ticks off the right people, or whom has been brainwashed the most.

The Union Leadership touts that the Democrats are "for the little guy." Nonsense!! The Democrats are for themselves, and whatever will get their members elected and bring more power to the party. Here's a couple of examples:

Does anyone remember the debates about NAFTA? I still remember watching Al "I Love Trees" Gore having a discussion on NAFTA with Ross Perot. In it, he stated that NAFTA was a good thing because it would raise the Mexican's standard of living up to that of the United States worker, and then the two countries would be able to compete on a level playing field. I almost died on the spot!! First of all, the Mexican government sets the wages of all the workers in Mexico - I know this for a fact. And even if that wasn't true, how many generations would it take for this to happen? I don't think we could lose enough jobs to Mexico for their bankrupt economy to come up to 2nd class world-standards & the average person's standard of living to get anywhere close to that of the poorest US worker (Union or not). Who was in power when NAFTA was voted on? If I remember correctly, Democrats had the White House and both Houses of Congress.

If that wasn't recent enough, then who granted "Most Favored Trading Partner" status to Communist China? Yep, Uncle Bill and the Democrats (although I think Congress may have been Republican at the time, but Bill pushed for it). And guess what? Union jobs are going to China, and even the Mexicans are losing entire factories to China (and you should hear them scream!).

Now I'm not suggesting that the Republicans are pure as the driven snow on this issue - they just don't seem to be as covert or deceptive about what they are for or about. They are definitely pro-business at the expense of the Unions, although I am starting to think that they are tending toward a neutral position. But stop to think about this for a second - if businesses are doing well, wouldn't they be more receptive toward favorable Union contracts? One could hope, but as there is a constant reminder in Solidarity that this might not be the case.

The Electrolux company is moving a factory from Greenville, Michigan to Juarez, Mexico. It's not that the factory wasn't profitable, it just wasn't profitable enough. Corporate greed? Maybe, but it must be remembered that the company is responsible to the stockholders to maximize the earnings of the company to pay dividends on the shares that these investors have bought. The company is beholden to the stockholders, not to the Union, workers, or the management of the company.

The whole idea behind a Union is to first and foremost protect the worker from abuses from the company they work for. Fair wages and other benefits are also part of the contracts as well as a certain amount of job security if the company runs into problems. A Union is not about telling a company how to run its business!! If anything, the contract that the Union and company signs is to protect the worker from mistakes the company's management may make, which should help the company plan better.

The issue that I have is that the Union Leadership should not blindly endorse any one politcal party over another - it should pick and choose political candidates on their merits. I don't believe that Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the Unions, but he helped set up an economic boom that lasted through the Bush (1) & Clinton years, and that hugely benefitted the Unions. Unfortunately, that has been undone by shortsighted but long-reaching treaties such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and China's hugely profitable (for them) trading status.

So when you vote this upcoming midterm election, have the presence of mind and the foresight to investigate each candidate. Vote for the candidate of your choice based on his/her merits, and not their political affiliation. Don't vote for someone merely on the base that an organization that you belong to says to vote for that candidate. It's your vote, and your choice.