Anyone else tired of Kim Jong-un? I mean, enough already of the entire leadership of North Korea -- or "NoKo" by some "journalists" in a sick attempt to be cute. Is the chaos he is causing in the region worth it to either the U.S. or Chinese to continue with diplomacy? Sadly, the answer is yes, but what's to be done about it?
China does not need a strong nuclear neighbor creating difficulty along it's Southern border. If Pyongyang were to launch nukes, that would surely bring the armies of the world close enough to make Beijing hyper-nervous, which would be bad for everyone. Let's not forget Russia also shares a border. Vladivostok is a major port for Russia and they can't risk having naval traffic clogging shipping lanes, not to mention potential nuclear fall-out.
The U.S. has a major ally in South Korea. We keep hearing about the Chinese owning so much of our debt, but look at many of the items you own - they were either built or designed in Korea. South Korean companies are behind most of our smartphones, tablets, printers, refrigerators, and a growing segment of our car manufacturing. South Korea must be protected by America.
Or does it?
South Korea became a major world economy because the U.S. made it possible. After the horrors of the Korean War ended we set up a base on the border. There are walkways between buildings at U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan that cross into NoKo's territory. A former co-worker once told me that if you didn't run between buildings, sharpshooters from the North side of the border would take pot-shots near their boots. Those are U.S. soldiers on the front lines -- not politicians -- literally staring eye-to-eye with the enemy through gun sights.
While our military has been keeping the dragon at bay, Seoul and the rest of the Korean peninsula has been sleeping safe at night. Developing. Growing. At U.S. taxpayer's expense - on top of selling us their products and getting rich.
What if we decided we'd had enough? Just suppose the U.S. said to the Republic of Korea, "We've held your hand for over 60 years. It's time to survive on your own."
We've not been keeping NoKo away from South Korea - we've been keeping the South Koreans from going North. At one point the Koreans of the South would've never thought of aggression against the North as nearly every one had a relative across the border. However, that's no longer the case. (To be fair, this isn't my opinion. I used to work for a major South Korean company and most of my co-workers were from Seoul, who would tell me as much.)
It's not as though we would be leaving our friends defenseless. They have one of the world's largest standing armies and the infrastructure to survive anything, other than perhaps a nuclear strike. However, I don't think Kim Jong-un is willing to hit his cousins to the South as that may be what finally makes his citizens turn against him. Kim Jong-il was a master at making his people hate the U.S. so as to distract from the capitalist behemoth across the demilitarized zone. Is he a carbon copy of the father, or even crazier? The next few weeks will tell.
So... we leave. What happens next? South Korea, China and Russia will have no choice but to amass their military along the border just to show strength and their annoyance with the boy dictator. If NoKo were to pull a "Hail Mary" and launch nukes at any U.S. target Japan, China and Russia would be in the way. Japan is chomping at the bit to end the instability (most importantly they have Godzilla on speed-deal). The U.S. wouldn't really be gone -- we have assets all over the Western Pacific and Indian oceans, and in nearly every other country in the region. Should something happen we're good to go.
It's time for us to take off the training wheels when it comes to South Korea. They can defend themselves. Others in the area, with nukes no less, are there and we're a short drone flight away. It's time for Koreans to deal with their own family dysfunction.
While tasty... the kimchi just isn't worth the trouble.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Why Romney Lost
It's been a month since slightly over half of the American electorate went bat-poop crazy leaving the rest of us shaking our heads and asking, "What happened?!" Many in the world of punditry and the Twitterverse have done analysis, outlining details and facts better than I could. For a master class in "what happened" one need only read Ann Coulter's post-election columns. The perspective I bring is one of an election judge, which allowed me to make observations of behavior within the polling location, and living in a recently-flipped blue county within a red state.
1) Democrats are sheep: The pattern I most noticed all day while serving as an election judge was that those who voted for Obama, almost always without fail, voted straight party, while Republicans went down the ballot carefully considering each race. All things being equal, I'd rather have people vote race by race and really consider each vote. However, I noticed that when Democrats voted straight party, they almost always also selected Obama/Biden. They didn't have to. The single-party vote takes care of that. It's a waste of time and strictly a "feel good" measure... which is another trait of Democrats -- "feelings." At this point you may be wondering how I know how people voted. The answer is simple - we used paper ballots and sometimes the machine would jam and with the voter watching to make sure I didn't do anything remotely considered to be tampering, I would gently guide the ballot into the feeder of the ballot counter. Even if the ballot was upside down, you could see where the Sharpie ovals would "bleed through" the page. One or two ovals - Democrat. Multiple ovals - Republican. Also, because Democrats are sheep that must have guidance from someone they perceive to be a government bureaucrat, all day long Democrat voters would hold their ballot up in the air, walk towards me, extending their arms so that the ballot was in my face, and ask, "Did I do this right?" I would respond, "Well, I can't tell you whether or not your votes are right or wrong, but let's put it in the machine. If you messed something up the machine will beep." Also, some Republicans didn't finish their ballots and many ignored the races on the back side of the ballot. I would get asked, "Do I have to finish this?" I'd tell them they didn't have to vote in every race, knowing that meant some Republican down-ballot candidate was going to likely lose to the straight Democrat party votes (and I was proven right when the bottom two races went almost entirely Democrat).
The answer isn't necessarily to universally end the straight party vote. Rural county party representatives say that the single vote option best benefits Republicans. Urban representatives say it best benefits metropolitan Democrat voters. So, it's the classic "us vs. them" argument when it comes time to consider whether or not to keep the option. I'm told my blue county may try to end the practice, but keep it in other parts of the red state. Since I'm a local control kinda American (as were our Founding Fathers) I think this is the proper solution.
Side note: I saw a write-in candidate on one ballot just as it went through the machine with "Ron Paul" scribbled in the blank. I asked the guy if he saw the list of official write-in candidates posted at each voting station and he said he did. When I told him Ron Paul wasn't on that list, he angrily said, "Whatevah!" and stomped off. Thank you. You voted for Obama.
2) Republicans gave up on the big cities: As our big cities became more and more dependent upon the government, and voted to keep politicians in place who promised more, those fed up with the system left for more conservative suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas in between. Thus, the cities became more and more liberal, which is reflected in elections. While states are allotted votes under the winner-take-all electoral college system, two states decided to take matters into their own hands and split their votes -- Maine and Nebraska. If two states with near-homogeneous populations are willing to take this path, shouldn't the more diverse states? Imagine living in Illinois (okay, stop choking and go with me for a minute). If you live in a small city like Rushville, your vote for president really won't matter no matter who you favor. About 75% of the entire population of Illinois lives in Chicagoland. Unless you vote in liberal cities like Chicago or East Saint Louis, voting for a Republican means nothing in the end. There was some evidence that Illinois was in play this last election, but only if conservative Blacks in Chicago took a long, hard look at the ballot and really thought about it. However, as outlined above - they probably didn't. If we were able to break up our larger states (New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, California) and even some of the solidly Liberal medium states (Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin), then perhaps even a lukewarm Republican presidential candidate would have a chance against a cult of personality Democrat candidate.
What started this transition in the larger cities from Conservative to Liberal? 100 years ago, only the (relatively) rich could afford to live in the cities and the poor worked the land to feed themselves and sell their harvests to those in the cities. When the truly rich in the big cities started to consider the poverty around them, their sense of guilt pushed for government run charitable programs, which eventually lead to FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society." Suddenly the poor in the countryside realized they didn't have to work so hard and could join miscreants in the big cities and have easy access to social programs. No more did they have to toil all day in the Sun for low wages, but could go from Welfare office to Welfare office for all of their needs... everything from food, to medicine to Obamaphones -- oh, wait; that came later. As social programs caused cities around them to crumble, the new post-WWII and post-Vietnam Middle Class wanted away from failing schools, crime and panhandlers for something more bucolic: the suburbs and the very farms where their food used to be grown but now sported "master planned communities." They could afford the commute into the big cities for their jobs and for special trips for entertainment, shopping, dining, etc. But as the bigger cities have crumbled even more, those sports arenas, malls and large office complexes have followed the outward migration. Still, the "super rich" live in the big cities without any concern as to costs, but the Middle Class in those cities are stretched thinner and thinner and are out-numbered.
3) The primaries brought out the worst in people: During the primaries I saw more invective hurled at Republicans - from other Republicans - than from Democrats, and not from the candidates. I mean, voter-on-voter hatred, not candidate-on-candidate mudslinging. From my personal experience, during one of the GOP candidate debates Michele Bachmann started a pre-planned response to a question with "Afghanistan is important." I tweeted "Yes, Michele, Afghanistan is important. Now get on with your point." (I may be mis-remembering slightly but that's not important to this story so just hush.) More than one person attacked me for that saying I obviously favored Romney (which I didn't at the time), that I was against the only Conservative on the stage (which was far from true), and that I wasn't a true Republican. All I did was encourage her to get to the point. For those familiar with debating practices, none of the candidates on either side have used good techniques for several cycles. Dan Quayle was probably the last to incorporate excellent debating skills in his showdown with Pinocchio-esque Al Gore. The circular firing squad Ronald Reagan warned against was never more visible than this past election season.
To save us from ourselves, the perceived GOP front-runners should meet in a year, figure out among themselves which four or five have the best shot (and if they're honest with themselves, they'll know), and the others should just bow out. Democrats didn't have to divide and conquer - the GOP electorate did that for them. With fewer candidates, the camps will be larger... and better funded.
With a confused electorate interpreting complicated ballots, an "us vs. them" mentality, Republicans leaving the large cities and surrendering large voting blocks, the takers in our society having easy access to free stuff, and a vicious strain of political cannibalism, it's no wonder Romney couldn't win.
So, Romney didn't lose. We failed him.
1) Democrats are sheep: The pattern I most noticed all day while serving as an election judge was that those who voted for Obama, almost always without fail, voted straight party, while Republicans went down the ballot carefully considering each race. All things being equal, I'd rather have people vote race by race and really consider each vote. However, I noticed that when Democrats voted straight party, they almost always also selected Obama/Biden. They didn't have to. The single-party vote takes care of that. It's a waste of time and strictly a "feel good" measure... which is another trait of Democrats -- "feelings." At this point you may be wondering how I know how people voted. The answer is simple - we used paper ballots and sometimes the machine would jam and with the voter watching to make sure I didn't do anything remotely considered to be tampering, I would gently guide the ballot into the feeder of the ballot counter. Even if the ballot was upside down, you could see where the Sharpie ovals would "bleed through" the page. One or two ovals - Democrat. Multiple ovals - Republican. Also, because Democrats are sheep that must have guidance from someone they perceive to be a government bureaucrat, all day long Democrat voters would hold their ballot up in the air, walk towards me, extending their arms so that the ballot was in my face, and ask, "Did I do this right?" I would respond, "Well, I can't tell you whether or not your votes are right or wrong, but let's put it in the machine. If you messed something up the machine will beep." Also, some Republicans didn't finish their ballots and many ignored the races on the back side of the ballot. I would get asked, "Do I have to finish this?" I'd tell them they didn't have to vote in every race, knowing that meant some Republican down-ballot candidate was going to likely lose to the straight Democrat party votes (and I was proven right when the bottom two races went almost entirely Democrat).
The answer isn't necessarily to universally end the straight party vote. Rural county party representatives say that the single vote option best benefits Republicans. Urban representatives say it best benefits metropolitan Democrat voters. So, it's the classic "us vs. them" argument when it comes time to consider whether or not to keep the option. I'm told my blue county may try to end the practice, but keep it in other parts of the red state. Since I'm a local control kinda American (as were our Founding Fathers) I think this is the proper solution.
Side note: I saw a write-in candidate on one ballot just as it went through the machine with "Ron Paul" scribbled in the blank. I asked the guy if he saw the list of official write-in candidates posted at each voting station and he said he did. When I told him Ron Paul wasn't on that list, he angrily said, "Whatevah!" and stomped off. Thank you. You voted for Obama.
2) Republicans gave up on the big cities: As our big cities became more and more dependent upon the government, and voted to keep politicians in place who promised more, those fed up with the system left for more conservative suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas in between. Thus, the cities became more and more liberal, which is reflected in elections. While states are allotted votes under the winner-take-all electoral college system, two states decided to take matters into their own hands and split their votes -- Maine and Nebraska. If two states with near-homogeneous populations are willing to take this path, shouldn't the more diverse states? Imagine living in Illinois (okay, stop choking and go with me for a minute). If you live in a small city like Rushville, your vote for president really won't matter no matter who you favor. About 75% of the entire population of Illinois lives in Chicagoland. Unless you vote in liberal cities like Chicago or East Saint Louis, voting for a Republican means nothing in the end. There was some evidence that Illinois was in play this last election, but only if conservative Blacks in Chicago took a long, hard look at the ballot and really thought about it. However, as outlined above - they probably didn't. If we were able to break up our larger states (New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, California) and even some of the solidly Liberal medium states (Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin), then perhaps even a lukewarm Republican presidential candidate would have a chance against a cult of personality Democrat candidate.
What started this transition in the larger cities from Conservative to Liberal? 100 years ago, only the (relatively) rich could afford to live in the cities and the poor worked the land to feed themselves and sell their harvests to those in the cities. When the truly rich in the big cities started to consider the poverty around them, their sense of guilt pushed for government run charitable programs, which eventually lead to FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society." Suddenly the poor in the countryside realized they didn't have to work so hard and could join miscreants in the big cities and have easy access to social programs. No more did they have to toil all day in the Sun for low wages, but could go from Welfare office to Welfare office for all of their needs... everything from food, to medicine to Obamaphones -- oh, wait; that came later. As social programs caused cities around them to crumble, the new post-WWII and post-Vietnam Middle Class wanted away from failing schools, crime and panhandlers for something more bucolic: the suburbs and the very farms where their food used to be grown but now sported "master planned communities." They could afford the commute into the big cities for their jobs and for special trips for entertainment, shopping, dining, etc. But as the bigger cities have crumbled even more, those sports arenas, malls and large office complexes have followed the outward migration. Still, the "super rich" live in the big cities without any concern as to costs, but the Middle Class in those cities are stretched thinner and thinner and are out-numbered.
3) The primaries brought out the worst in people: During the primaries I saw more invective hurled at Republicans - from other Republicans - than from Democrats, and not from the candidates. I mean, voter-on-voter hatred, not candidate-on-candidate mudslinging. From my personal experience, during one of the GOP candidate debates Michele Bachmann started a pre-planned response to a question with "Afghanistan is important." I tweeted "Yes, Michele, Afghanistan is important. Now get on with your point." (I may be mis-remembering slightly but that's not important to this story so just hush.) More than one person attacked me for that saying I obviously favored Romney (which I didn't at the time), that I was against the only Conservative on the stage (which was far from true), and that I wasn't a true Republican. All I did was encourage her to get to the point. For those familiar with debating practices, none of the candidates on either side have used good techniques for several cycles. Dan Quayle was probably the last to incorporate excellent debating skills in his showdown with Pinocchio-esque Al Gore. The circular firing squad Ronald Reagan warned against was never more visible than this past election season.
To save us from ourselves, the perceived GOP front-runners should meet in a year, figure out among themselves which four or five have the best shot (and if they're honest with themselves, they'll know), and the others should just bow out. Democrats didn't have to divide and conquer - the GOP electorate did that for them. With fewer candidates, the camps will be larger... and better funded.
With a confused electorate interpreting complicated ballots, an "us vs. them" mentality, Republicans leaving the large cities and surrendering large voting blocks, the takers in our society having easy access to free stuff, and a vicious strain of political cannibalism, it's no wonder Romney couldn't win.
So, Romney didn't lose. We failed him.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
The World's Most Dangerous Man - Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg is the most dangerous man in the world. However, pending the result of the next Presidential Election, he may not keep that title.
Bloomberg is only the mayor of a city and not a nationally elected official, nor the leader of even a state or country. He has no representation at the international level, so why does he deserve this title?
Let's look at things he's done that have lead to the destruction of our society:
He shouldn't even be in office, according to the New York City's term limits laws: He jumped party from Democrat to Republican, to get elected in a post Bill Clinton world. His timing was fortunate for him, as Rudy Giuliani was immensely popular after September 11, 2001 (the same day as the first day of the primaries in NYC), and New Yorkers wanted to stay the course. Shortly there after, Bloomberg proved his Republican side was a passing fad. Being one of the world's wealthiest men, he had the financial resources to launch a campaign funded by his own money to levels envied by other politicians. So that he could run for an illegal third term, he had the term limits rules changed, gave huge donations to the Independence Party, got on their ticket, then after winning the election had the term limits rules changed back. If you can't play the field the way it's striped... re-stripe the field.
He comments before facts are ever known: When Pakistan-born (but U.S. citizen), Faisal Shahzad failed at his attempt to detonate a bomb in New York's Times Square in 2010, the next night on CBS Evening News Bloomberg said the bomb could have been placed by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Precisely because it could have been about "anything" he should've waited for the facts. He fell into the same ideological trap numerous others have - linking the shooting of Gabby Giffords to the Tea Party (she was shot by a fan), linking the shooting in an Aurora, Colorado to a member of the Tea Party (no evidence other than someone with a similar name), linking the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City to conservatives (McVeigh wasn't)... the false connections to conservatives is long - and never true. This is a dangerous precedent and one that others could copy, although perhaps not as skillfully.
He changes society under the guise of "health": His recent ban on soft drinks over 16 ounces isn't about "health," it's about taxes. If Bloomberg were really concerned about the health of the citizens of New York City, he would ban them entirely, like when Giuliani banned smoking in much of the city. No, Bloomberg is a money man, and looked at the dollars. If you want the same amount of your favorite soft drink, you simply buy more, thereby increasing the amount of revenue earned by the city in sales tax. New York City is one of the few places on Earth where "free refills" are uncommon (not that I've ever seen it there at all). So, you have to buy more to get the same amount as before. It's about the money. Unfortunately, what happens in NYC, usually spreads to the rest of the county.
He gave Occupy Wall Street to the rest of the world: The Occupy Wall Street movement, once it finally figured out what it wanted to do after several Facebook polls, failed to affect Wall Street one bit - other than destroy the small businesses around it. Locally-owned "mom and pop" businesses were out thousands of dollars making repairs to restrooms, replacing broken windows and cleaning up after Occupiers. Bloomberg could've shut down the movement - um, for "health" reasons at the very least. The Occupy camp was filthy and contained the worst of humanity - rapists, public defacators and bongo players. Bloomberg initially said he'd close down the camp in privately-owned Zuccotti Park, but then changed his mind. It was later revealed that Bloomberg's current squeeze is the PR person for the company which owns the park, and they didn't want to be targeted by the low-grade terrorists in the Occupy movement. By failing to stop the movement in its earliest phase, it gave them strength and motivation to spread to other cities. People have been killed - some from murder, others from exposure to the elements - in the camps around the world. Blood is on his hands.
These are but a few of the reasons to call Bloomberg what he is - dangerous. Doing research for this piece, I found dozens of websites and blogs criticising the man and going into much greater detail than I care to.
Hopefully, Obama will not win re-election and replace Michael Bloomberg as the World's Most Dangerous Man. Stay tuned.
Bloomberg is only the mayor of a city and not a nationally elected official, nor the leader of even a state or country. He has no representation at the international level, so why does he deserve this title?
Let's look at things he's done that have lead to the destruction of our society:
He shouldn't even be in office, according to the New York City's term limits laws: He jumped party from Democrat to Republican, to get elected in a post Bill Clinton world. His timing was fortunate for him, as Rudy Giuliani was immensely popular after September 11, 2001 (the same day as the first day of the primaries in NYC), and New Yorkers wanted to stay the course. Shortly there after, Bloomberg proved his Republican side was a passing fad. Being one of the world's wealthiest men, he had the financial resources to launch a campaign funded by his own money to levels envied by other politicians. So that he could run for an illegal third term, he had the term limits rules changed, gave huge donations to the Independence Party, got on their ticket, then after winning the election had the term limits rules changed back. If you can't play the field the way it's striped... re-stripe the field.
He comments before facts are ever known: When Pakistan-born (but U.S. citizen), Faisal Shahzad failed at his attempt to detonate a bomb in New York's Times Square in 2010, the next night on CBS Evening News Bloomberg said the bomb could have been placed by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Precisely because it could have been about "anything" he should've waited for the facts. He fell into the same ideological trap numerous others have - linking the shooting of Gabby Giffords to the Tea Party (she was shot by a fan), linking the shooting in an Aurora, Colorado to a member of the Tea Party (no evidence other than someone with a similar name), linking the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City to conservatives (McVeigh wasn't)... the false connections to conservatives is long - and never true. This is a dangerous precedent and one that others could copy, although perhaps not as skillfully.
He changes society under the guise of "health": His recent ban on soft drinks over 16 ounces isn't about "health," it's about taxes. If Bloomberg were really concerned about the health of the citizens of New York City, he would ban them entirely, like when Giuliani banned smoking in much of the city. No, Bloomberg is a money man, and looked at the dollars. If you want the same amount of your favorite soft drink, you simply buy more, thereby increasing the amount of revenue earned by the city in sales tax. New York City is one of the few places on Earth where "free refills" are uncommon (not that I've ever seen it there at all). So, you have to buy more to get the same amount as before. It's about the money. Unfortunately, what happens in NYC, usually spreads to the rest of the county.
He gave Occupy Wall Street to the rest of the world: The Occupy Wall Street movement, once it finally figured out what it wanted to do after several Facebook polls, failed to affect Wall Street one bit - other than destroy the small businesses around it. Locally-owned "mom and pop" businesses were out thousands of dollars making repairs to restrooms, replacing broken windows and cleaning up after Occupiers. Bloomberg could've shut down the movement - um, for "health" reasons at the very least. The Occupy camp was filthy and contained the worst of humanity - rapists, public defacators and bongo players. Bloomberg initially said he'd close down the camp in privately-owned Zuccotti Park, but then changed his mind. It was later revealed that Bloomberg's current squeeze is the PR person for the company which owns the park, and they didn't want to be targeted by the low-grade terrorists in the Occupy movement. By failing to stop the movement in its earliest phase, it gave them strength and motivation to spread to other cities. People have been killed - some from murder, others from exposure to the elements - in the camps around the world. Blood is on his hands.
These are but a few of the reasons to call Bloomberg what he is - dangerous. Doing research for this piece, I found dozens of websites and blogs criticising the man and going into much greater detail than I care to.
Hopefully, Obama will not win re-election and replace Michael Bloomberg as the World's Most Dangerous Man. Stay tuned.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
D.C. Isn't Broken, But It Needs Fixing
"Washington is broken!" That's the mantra from both sides of the aisle now. Washington, D.C. ain't broken... it works exactly the way the people we sent there want it to work.
Every politician wants to "fix Washington" but what is there to "fix"? Our founding fathers set up a system whereby the will of the people can be carried out. Neither the legislature nor the executive branch can out-do each other. The Supreme Court exists to make sure anything enacted by the legislature doesn't violate the Constitution. The Court was never designed to be equal to the other two branches, much less to become more powerful. Yet, that is what happened.
Our elected officials are content to let the Court handle the tough decisions:
Gay marriage? Let the Court decide.
Affordable Care Act? Let the Court deal with it.
Deficit ceiling? Oh, eventually the Court will have to settle it.
The Constitution was written that if the Court declares a law unconstitutional, Congress can simply write a new law around it, or the people can vote to amend the Constitution. It's a great system and unlike anything that came before. As outlined in the landmark book, "Men In Black" by Mark Levin, the Court slowly took greater and greater power away from Congress until it achieved the ability to re-write law.
The Court this week handed out the most irresponsible decision ever in its ruling regarding Obamacare. Not only did they not strike down the law, but actually re-wrote portions of it so that it would be Constitutional. This is a violation of their duty, as they are not the lawmakers of this country. Even Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent when she was in the majority - something that just doesn't happen.
Our representatives have decided they no longer want to do the hard work of making the sausage. They'd rather let someone else make the decisions they can't so that they can face their constituents and bravely proclaim, "It wasn't me! Send me back to Washington and I'll fix it!"
Those in D.C. who whine that the lobbyists hold all of power also innocently swear their hands are tied. If Congress wanted, they could make the practice of lobbying Congress illegal but they refuse. But they won't deal with the lobbyists because, again, they'd have to make the sausage and couldn't lay the blame on others.
This week Congress tried to look brave by voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress in relation to the "Fast and Furious" scandal. After months of putting up with perjury by the AG, obvious tactics to delay the release of files and a shady Executive Privilege announcement to progect Holder, Congress can finally say it did something productive with the investigation. In an act of even greater bravery members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked out proving once again they'd rather play politics and let someone else deal with the problem than actually get to the truth about the deaths of hundreds - including U.S. Border agents. Such brave leaders their constituents have.
The Executive Branch isn't any better. President after president has created agencies to handle things all in the name of the public good - the EPA, Labor, Education, you name it. The EPA now has the authority to regulate business. It's one thing to let them advise and consult, but it's another for them to be able to tell private businesses how to conduct themselves. "It wasn't me! Put me back in the Oval Office and I'll fix it!" Congress could cut their funding, but then the other side of the aisle would wail and gnash their teeth in the press and at town halls. So, they blame the unknown administrators for the very agencies they claim hold the power. So again, it goes to the Court.
So here we have it, American - leaders who say with one side of their mouth that things are broken, but with the other side say they're helpless to do anything about it. The fact is, under the Constitution they've sworn to uphold, they can do something about it but would rather not "fix" anything. It's a system set up to reward inactivity and failure while being able to shove our problems off on a group of nine people, or really five with a simple majority, who are unaccountable to the people, and who knows what sort of closed-door deals they make with each other. Congress is supposed to vet the justices, but are oftentimes too affraid of what their opponents will say on the campaign trail. So, they let through nominees with obvious political leanings that run counter to the Constitution, just so they can have someone to blame when an unpopular ruling comes out.
This week the Court grabbed the last bit of power they needed to make them the most-powerful group in the country. 312 million people are now at the mercy of five judges they hope will "like" them. This is absurd... and our representatives let it happen when they were supposed to be fixing things.
Every politician wants to "fix Washington" but what is there to "fix"? Our founding fathers set up a system whereby the will of the people can be carried out. Neither the legislature nor the executive branch can out-do each other. The Supreme Court exists to make sure anything enacted by the legislature doesn't violate the Constitution. The Court was never designed to be equal to the other two branches, much less to become more powerful. Yet, that is what happened.
Our elected officials are content to let the Court handle the tough decisions:
Gay marriage? Let the Court decide.
Affordable Care Act? Let the Court deal with it.
Deficit ceiling? Oh, eventually the Court will have to settle it.
The Constitution was written that if the Court declares a law unconstitutional, Congress can simply write a new law around it, or the people can vote to amend the Constitution. It's a great system and unlike anything that came before. As outlined in the landmark book, "Men In Black" by Mark Levin, the Court slowly took greater and greater power away from Congress until it achieved the ability to re-write law.
The Court this week handed out the most irresponsible decision ever in its ruling regarding Obamacare. Not only did they not strike down the law, but actually re-wrote portions of it so that it would be Constitutional. This is a violation of their duty, as they are not the lawmakers of this country. Even Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent when she was in the majority - something that just doesn't happen.
Our representatives have decided they no longer want to do the hard work of making the sausage. They'd rather let someone else make the decisions they can't so that they can face their constituents and bravely proclaim, "It wasn't me! Send me back to Washington and I'll fix it!"
Those in D.C. who whine that the lobbyists hold all of power also innocently swear their hands are tied. If Congress wanted, they could make the practice of lobbying Congress illegal but they refuse. But they won't deal with the lobbyists because, again, they'd have to make the sausage and couldn't lay the blame on others.
This week Congress tried to look brave by voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress in relation to the "Fast and Furious" scandal. After months of putting up with perjury by the AG, obvious tactics to delay the release of files and a shady Executive Privilege announcement to progect Holder, Congress can finally say it did something productive with the investigation. In an act of even greater bravery members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked out proving once again they'd rather play politics and let someone else deal with the problem than actually get to the truth about the deaths of hundreds - including U.S. Border agents. Such brave leaders their constituents have.
The Executive Branch isn't any better. President after president has created agencies to handle things all in the name of the public good - the EPA, Labor, Education, you name it. The EPA now has the authority to regulate business. It's one thing to let them advise and consult, but it's another for them to be able to tell private businesses how to conduct themselves. "It wasn't me! Put me back in the Oval Office and I'll fix it!" Congress could cut their funding, but then the other side of the aisle would wail and gnash their teeth in the press and at town halls. So, they blame the unknown administrators for the very agencies they claim hold the power. So again, it goes to the Court.
So here we have it, American - leaders who say with one side of their mouth that things are broken, but with the other side say they're helpless to do anything about it. The fact is, under the Constitution they've sworn to uphold, they can do something about it but would rather not "fix" anything. It's a system set up to reward inactivity and failure while being able to shove our problems off on a group of nine people, or really five with a simple majority, who are unaccountable to the people, and who knows what sort of closed-door deals they make with each other. Congress is supposed to vet the justices, but are oftentimes too affraid of what their opponents will say on the campaign trail. So, they let through nominees with obvious political leanings that run counter to the Constitution, just so they can have someone to blame when an unpopular ruling comes out.
This week the Court grabbed the last bit of power they needed to make them the most-powerful group in the country. 312 million people are now at the mercy of five judges they hope will "like" them. This is absurd... and our representatives let it happen when they were supposed to be fixing things.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Someplace Where I Used To Work
The current hot song is the dark, intoxicating "Somebody That I Used To Know" by Goyte. I can't let go of that song, and not just because the lyrics describing a break-up eerily resemble my own break-up, but because I'm undergoing the ending of another kind of relationship. Just shy of my five year anniversary at work, I was told my services would no longer be necessary. You see, kids, in a right to work state, they can release you without cause. This seems harsh, but it keeps the unions weak and actually makes the job market more stable.
The kicker is, they actually asked me to stick around and train my replacement, once they hired one. Rather than go through that soul-crushing exercise again (I went through that Hell in 2001), I went right out and found another job! Conservatives aren't content to sit around... awaiting a government handout. To add insult to injury to my 12 bosses who thought they were leaving me in a bad place - rather than what has become the reverse by leaving so quickly - the new job is one floor below where I've been slaving away without recognition, and in a small building with very few companies under its roof. They're going to still see me every day.
So, as I prepare to leave one employer for another, I've already become emotionally separated from the old job, not caring that I'll still be so close. As the Gotye song works it's way around my brainstem, I've internally changed the lyrics to "Someplace Where I Used To Work."
I have a lot of such places in my background, as do so many other Americans as companies forget the concept of loyalty and the economy takes an increasingly larger hit on our employers. Democrats in Congress, the White House, and in courthouses at all levels have scared employers. They're just not hiring because they don't know what bailout will come next to crash the economy, and even if Obamacare is declared unconstitutional later this summer, the horse has left the barn... companies have learned they can offer employees fewer insurance benefits and we've taken it. We were just too scared to leave and find new jobs. Employees lost the great healthcare poker game.
I keep hearing about the improving economy (from the major media outlets, of course), when the obverse is true. Remember during the George W. Bush era when unemployment was 4.6%? Of course not - nearly everyone with a pulse was employed but you did't hear about. Now it's well over double that and again we're not hearing anything to protect Obama. Take for example the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. Even though it's the nation's fourth most-populated metropolitan area, it has among the lowest unemployment rates at around 7%. However, in the past few weeks, it's largest employers have announced humungous lay-offs: AmericanAirlines, JCPenney, Whole Foods (technically an Austin company, but with a major presence in DFW), and the area's biggest employer: Dallas Independent School District.
For thousands of employees in DFW, and around the country, they all have new names on their resumes of someplace where they used to work.
But the problem could get even bigger. The past few years has seen some companies that fled to foreign soil to save a buck quietly returning. Considering that the US now has the world's highest corporate tax rate, I think that trend has just ended. I have four relatives that constantly travel to India, China, the UAE, and Eastern Europe to hold meetings with their employees. One had to move his family to a former Soviet block country just so he could see his children every week. Our companies and wealthiest citizens are leaving. Bill Gates didn't "retire" because he was tired of thinking of new things. The worst kept secret on Grand Cayman is his suite covering an entire floor of one of its most exclusive hotels. He's moving assets there to avoid taxes - and I don't blame him.
If we don't vote out the Socialist In Chief and his controllers in the House and Senate (you honestly don't think he is in charge, do you?), and recall the taxes that are stiffling our businesses and driving away the wealthy - who hire the rest of us, and start using the resources God gave us so that we could improve beyond the caves... if we don't do these things with THIS election, then for most of us, The United States of America will be "somplace where we used to work."
The kicker is, they actually asked me to stick around and train my replacement, once they hired one. Rather than go through that soul-crushing exercise again (I went through that Hell in 2001), I went right out and found another job! Conservatives aren't content to sit around... awaiting a government handout. To add insult to injury to my 12 bosses who thought they were leaving me in a bad place - rather than what has become the reverse by leaving so quickly - the new job is one floor below where I've been slaving away without recognition, and in a small building with very few companies under its roof. They're going to still see me every day.
So, as I prepare to leave one employer for another, I've already become emotionally separated from the old job, not caring that I'll still be so close. As the Gotye song works it's way around my brainstem, I've internally changed the lyrics to "Someplace Where I Used To Work."
I have a lot of such places in my background, as do so many other Americans as companies forget the concept of loyalty and the economy takes an increasingly larger hit on our employers. Democrats in Congress, the White House, and in courthouses at all levels have scared employers. They're just not hiring because they don't know what bailout will come next to crash the economy, and even if Obamacare is declared unconstitutional later this summer, the horse has left the barn... companies have learned they can offer employees fewer insurance benefits and we've taken it. We were just too scared to leave and find new jobs. Employees lost the great healthcare poker game.
I keep hearing about the improving economy (from the major media outlets, of course), when the obverse is true. Remember during the George W. Bush era when unemployment was 4.6%? Of course not - nearly everyone with a pulse was employed but you did't hear about. Now it's well over double that and again we're not hearing anything to protect Obama. Take for example the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. Even though it's the nation's fourth most-populated metropolitan area, it has among the lowest unemployment rates at around 7%. However, in the past few weeks, it's largest employers have announced humungous lay-offs: AmericanAirlines, JCPenney, Whole Foods (technically an Austin company, but with a major presence in DFW), and the area's biggest employer: Dallas Independent School District.
For thousands of employees in DFW, and around the country, they all have new names on their resumes of someplace where they used to work.
But the problem could get even bigger. The past few years has seen some companies that fled to foreign soil to save a buck quietly returning. Considering that the US now has the world's highest corporate tax rate, I think that trend has just ended. I have four relatives that constantly travel to India, China, the UAE, and Eastern Europe to hold meetings with their employees. One had to move his family to a former Soviet block country just so he could see his children every week. Our companies and wealthiest citizens are leaving. Bill Gates didn't "retire" because he was tired of thinking of new things. The worst kept secret on Grand Cayman is his suite covering an entire floor of one of its most exclusive hotels. He's moving assets there to avoid taxes - and I don't blame him.
If we don't vote out the Socialist In Chief and his controllers in the House and Senate (you honestly don't think he is in charge, do you?), and recall the taxes that are stiffling our businesses and driving away the wealthy - who hire the rest of us, and start using the resources God gave us so that we could improve beyond the caves... if we don't do these things with THIS election, then for most of us, The United States of America will be "somplace where we used to work."
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
We Are... Irate!
Few college football crowds chant with as moving, intimidating and as sharply focused message as the one by Penn State's fans: "We Are... Penn State!" In my college/grad school years, I was able to travel to many storied locations and see crowds proclaim their love for a team, but none more so than Penn State's fans. I've also been fortunate to stand on the sidelines, mere yards, from some of the greatest college football coaches in history, and had that privilege with Joe Paterno. I didn't get to speak with him but was within earshot (quite a feat in a loud stadium) and watched him interact with his players and coaches the way a great general would with his soldiers to ensure victory.
This man was one of my idols growing up. But as with most childhood idols, I now wonder if he deserved that distinction. This is not a "hit piece" on the man or the university, but in the past few months things have changed. I intentionally waited until after JoePa's death to compose my thoughts, rather than add to the circus during his final days.
Recently I encountered a Penn State alumni wearing a Penn State cap, sweater and sweatpants. I'm a long way from Pensylvania so seeing anyone from Penn State is rare. We talked about the team, spirit of the fans and Joe Paterno and John Cappelletti -- the TV movie about Joey Cappelletti is how I first came to know about the program. Only a few hours later the story about Jerry Sandusky came over the TV. I was heart-broken -- first for the unnamed boy in the story, then for the Penn State family. I quietly wondered if this was an isolated incident and if JoePa had known.
Immediately, the nation's sportscasters and news anchors began beating the drum, "What did JoePa know and when did he know it?" I'd hoped there was only one boy... one victim of a man who had committed one of the gravest of sins - that of harming a child. Within days, talk radio was filled with callers making seething comments like, "There had to be THOUSANDS of boys over the years!" None of us may know the entirety of Sandusky's crimes nor the number of victims. One is enough. He must be punished. Sadly, if JoePa knew and allowed it to continue, then he should've been punished as well.
A particularly strained moment came when someone on Twitter posted (paraphrase) that "all gays molest boys." I asked him to modify his statement with "some" instead of "all" but he refused. He then added (paraphrased), "If you add in priests, then there are thousands of child molesters out there." Again, I asked him to back off the vitriol and not paint all priests in such a light, but he refused. Had his comments been out of a painful experience, either directly or through a child of his own, or was he so angry with how Sandusky had gone unpunished for so long, that he felt he had to lash out? Either way, I was offended in more ways than one and subsequently blocked him.
Not all gay men molest children. We may never really know all the numbers, but I was never molested, have never molested a child, nor know anyone who has. The number can't be any greater than heterosexual molestation. However, one is more than enough.
Rarer is the child-molesting priest. I'm not even Catholic and get offended when people paint all priests into that category. The vast majority of priests are honorable men called to serve God. I know someone who was molested by a priest in one of the greatest scandals ever to hit the Catholic church. He never sued, got the help he needed, started a family and more importantly -- never left the church. My wish is that Sandusky's victims will behave similarly and also recover.
Sandusky will be punished both on this Earth and in the afterlife for his crimes, and I pray that the victims, whether or not they come forward, will be able to lead normal lives. But what I will not tolerate are ignoramuses who take this vile animale and prop him up as an example of all gay men.
So now, while I remember Joe Paterno a little less fondly, it is my turn to be irate.
This man was one of my idols growing up. But as with most childhood idols, I now wonder if he deserved that distinction. This is not a "hit piece" on the man or the university, but in the past few months things have changed. I intentionally waited until after JoePa's death to compose my thoughts, rather than add to the circus during his final days.
Recently I encountered a Penn State alumni wearing a Penn State cap, sweater and sweatpants. I'm a long way from Pensylvania so seeing anyone from Penn State is rare. We talked about the team, spirit of the fans and Joe Paterno and John Cappelletti -- the TV movie about Joey Cappelletti is how I first came to know about the program. Only a few hours later the story about Jerry Sandusky came over the TV. I was heart-broken -- first for the unnamed boy in the story, then for the Penn State family. I quietly wondered if this was an isolated incident and if JoePa had known.
Immediately, the nation's sportscasters and news anchors began beating the drum, "What did JoePa know and when did he know it?" I'd hoped there was only one boy... one victim of a man who had committed one of the gravest of sins - that of harming a child. Within days, talk radio was filled with callers making seething comments like, "There had to be THOUSANDS of boys over the years!" None of us may know the entirety of Sandusky's crimes nor the number of victims. One is enough. He must be punished. Sadly, if JoePa knew and allowed it to continue, then he should've been punished as well.
A particularly strained moment came when someone on Twitter posted (paraphrase) that "all gays molest boys." I asked him to modify his statement with "some" instead of "all" but he refused. He then added (paraphrased), "If you add in priests, then there are thousands of child molesters out there." Again, I asked him to back off the vitriol and not paint all priests in such a light, but he refused. Had his comments been out of a painful experience, either directly or through a child of his own, or was he so angry with how Sandusky had gone unpunished for so long, that he felt he had to lash out? Either way, I was offended in more ways than one and subsequently blocked him.
Not all gay men molest children. We may never really know all the numbers, but I was never molested, have never molested a child, nor know anyone who has. The number can't be any greater than heterosexual molestation. However, one is more than enough.
Rarer is the child-molesting priest. I'm not even Catholic and get offended when people paint all priests into that category. The vast majority of priests are honorable men called to serve God. I know someone who was molested by a priest in one of the greatest scandals ever to hit the Catholic church. He never sued, got the help he needed, started a family and more importantly -- never left the church. My wish is that Sandusky's victims will behave similarly and also recover.
Sandusky will be punished both on this Earth and in the afterlife for his crimes, and I pray that the victims, whether or not they come forward, will be able to lead normal lives. But what I will not tolerate are ignoramuses who take this vile animale and prop him up as an example of all gay men.
So now, while I remember Joe Paterno a little less fondly, it is my turn to be irate.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Does England Still Exist?
“Of course it does, you dumb bloke!”
Lately though, I’m not so sure the once mighty empire still exists. While the US was keeping the world safe, the United Kingdom has been centralizing its government in a Soviet, communist-style copycat manner for some time. It was so slow and subtle, I’m not even sure the average Brit noticed.
When you send a letter to anyone in America via US Mail or other carrier, you list their name, street address, city, state and Zone Improvement Plan Code ("ZIP"). When you send a letter to someone in Canada, you do the same, but of course swap “state” for “province” and then add “Canada.” Same goes for France, Argentina, Spain, etc. However, when you send a letter to anyone in the UK, you put in their information and then “UK” instead of a country designation. The UK is made up of the countries England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and various other territories (Isle of Man, Guernsey, Shetland, Jersey, etc.), but effectively, those countries have been made irrelevant in a move to “nationalize” the postal system.
It doesn’t stop there. Much has been talked about recently on talk radio and in the blogosphere about the UK’s National Health Service. There are some regional offices with local authority and regional names in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but they all report back to NHS. There’s also the National Audit Office and National Archives. I’m sure there are more, but the point is, the UK is trying to eliminate localized governments in favor of a one state solution.
There are lessons to be learned from history about attempts to centralize government and delocalize sovereignty – Rome, Egypt, the Aztecs and Mayans… even England itself shrank in the past 200 years from the largest empire on the face of the Earth, to a few small countries. Napoleon might’ve just conquered all of Europe, had he not spread himself so thinly, that he couldn’t concentrate on the local issues.
Our own government, while we were busy living our lives and focusing on the emerging democracies worldwide, has started nationalizing more and more and taking control away from local authorities. Granted, we need a Federal Bureau of Investigation, but do we need a Department of Education? Education is the most personal contact most people have with government, and is often our first exposure as children. If any part of the Federal Government needs to be local and not mandated from the top down, it’s education. The DEA takes decision making away from local schools, which are run by locally-elected officials. Is there a play-off system for local school board members to work their way up to the DEA? No, the leader is an appointment position… unaccountable to the taxpayers. Of course for every appointment, there are thousands of lower-level bureaucrats – all siphoning away your tax dollars. (Incidentally, good luck finding the U.S. Secretary of Education on their website – I guess he doesn’t want us to be educated about who is making decisions.) But I've already blogged about the DEA.
As with the UK National Health Service, the US has the Department of Health and Human Services, which will not only grow to be the biggest part of government under “Obamacare” but also be the biggest suck out of your paychecks and have the greatest impact on your daily life. Some unknown bureaucrat, not your physician, will be making decisions about everything from what you eat to how you sleep.
That’s why it’s imperative that the United States remain “states.” Other countries have “states” (Mexico, Australia, etc.), but only the USA recognizes local sovereignty – for now. That’s one reason why the Tea Party is so important in the current political climate. The Tea Party serves as a reminder of our earliest days when our nation’s founders wanted local representation, local governance and local accountability. Have we lost our way so terribly that we’re reverting back to the same system of government where unelected, unaccountable, and in some cases unidentifiable, bureaucrats are being our cradle-to-grave nannies?
It’s time to say "No!" to big government; "No!" to taxation without local representation; "No!" to bureaucrats hiding behind layers of other bureaucrats. We must not allow our local sovereignty to be diminished and absorbed into the giant national sponge that is Washington, DC. North Dakota must not become Scotland. Florida must not become Wales. California must not become England. Texas must not… well, Texas can always secede and potentially become a more powerful country than the rest of USA.
There is one glimmer of hope for the UK, however. The Scottish National Party is trying to secede from the UK, but still remain part of the EU. Other separatist groups are taking a step further and even trying to get out of the EU as well.
So, if "England" no longer exists... will 50 sovereign states be next?
Lately though, I’m not so sure the once mighty empire still exists. While the US was keeping the world safe, the United Kingdom has been centralizing its government in a Soviet, communist-style copycat manner for some time. It was so slow and subtle, I’m not even sure the average Brit noticed.
When you send a letter to anyone in America via US Mail or other carrier, you list their name, street address, city, state and Zone Improvement Plan Code ("ZIP"). When you send a letter to someone in Canada, you do the same, but of course swap “state” for “province” and then add “Canada.” Same goes for France, Argentina, Spain, etc. However, when you send a letter to anyone in the UK, you put in their information and then “UK” instead of a country designation. The UK is made up of the countries England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and various other territories (Isle of Man, Guernsey, Shetland, Jersey, etc.), but effectively, those countries have been made irrelevant in a move to “nationalize” the postal system.
It doesn’t stop there. Much has been talked about recently on talk radio and in the blogosphere about the UK’s National Health Service. There are some regional offices with local authority and regional names in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but they all report back to NHS. There’s also the National Audit Office and National Archives. I’m sure there are more, but the point is, the UK is trying to eliminate localized governments in favor of a one state solution.
There are lessons to be learned from history about attempts to centralize government and delocalize sovereignty – Rome, Egypt, the Aztecs and Mayans… even England itself shrank in the past 200 years from the largest empire on the face of the Earth, to a few small countries. Napoleon might’ve just conquered all of Europe, had he not spread himself so thinly, that he couldn’t concentrate on the local issues.
Our own government, while we were busy living our lives and focusing on the emerging democracies worldwide, has started nationalizing more and more and taking control away from local authorities. Granted, we need a Federal Bureau of Investigation, but do we need a Department of Education? Education is the most personal contact most people have with government, and is often our first exposure as children. If any part of the Federal Government needs to be local and not mandated from the top down, it’s education. The DEA takes decision making away from local schools, which are run by locally-elected officials. Is there a play-off system for local school board members to work their way up to the DEA? No, the leader is an appointment position… unaccountable to the taxpayers. Of course for every appointment, there are thousands of lower-level bureaucrats – all siphoning away your tax dollars. (Incidentally, good luck finding the U.S. Secretary of Education on their website – I guess he doesn’t want us to be educated about who is making decisions.) But I've already blogged about the DEA.
As with the UK National Health Service, the US has the Department of Health and Human Services, which will not only grow to be the biggest part of government under “Obamacare” but also be the biggest suck out of your paychecks and have the greatest impact on your daily life. Some unknown bureaucrat, not your physician, will be making decisions about everything from what you eat to how you sleep.
That’s why it’s imperative that the United States remain “states.” Other countries have “states” (Mexico, Australia, etc.), but only the USA recognizes local sovereignty – for now. That’s one reason why the Tea Party is so important in the current political climate. The Tea Party serves as a reminder of our earliest days when our nation’s founders wanted local representation, local governance and local accountability. Have we lost our way so terribly that we’re reverting back to the same system of government where unelected, unaccountable, and in some cases unidentifiable, bureaucrats are being our cradle-to-grave nannies?
It’s time to say "No!" to big government; "No!" to taxation without local representation; "No!" to bureaucrats hiding behind layers of other bureaucrats. We must not allow our local sovereignty to be diminished and absorbed into the giant national sponge that is Washington, DC. North Dakota must not become Scotland. Florida must not become Wales. California must not become England. Texas must not… well, Texas can always secede and potentially become a more powerful country than the rest of USA.
There is one glimmer of hope for the UK, however. The Scottish National Party is trying to secede from the UK, but still remain part of the EU. Other separatist groups are taking a step further and even trying to get out of the EU as well.
So, if "England" no longer exists... will 50 sovereign states be next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
