To what extent does genuine charity (ie, generously and freely given support) contribute to civility or, for that matter, to civilization? And, therefore, what does it say about the culture, country, religion. or other group of people from which it comes? Or doesn't come?
It's no secret that America is the most charitable country in the world. We send money, aid and people to countries in need. Freely given with no strings attached. In fact, we don't just 'send' stuff; we go. So it was with Haiti for example. What happened and didn't happen with that aid is a source of great frustration to many Americans but it won't keep us from doing what's right on our end.
I've wondered for some time about some other cultures and what they think and do regarding charity toward others whether they even know them or not. Whether the country needing charity is a friend or not. One of the cultures/groups I've been most curious about because I never hear of 'good stuff' they do is Muslims and Muslim countries. Well, The National Review just answered that question for me. The answer is disappointing.
Because Muslim countries seem to be hostile towards other countries so much (both non-Muslim countries and Muslim countries embracing a different branch of Islam), I didn't expect that charity toward others would be high on their priority list. But I didn't expect what The National Review discovered:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265437/uncharitable-andrew-c-mccarthy
I'm disappointed by that. I was hoping appearances were deceiving and that the news would be good.
To me, an honestly peaceful nature begets compassion then charity is one of the key byproducts of that. This leaves me wondering more than ever what Muslims mean when they claim theirs is a religion of peace. I recently challenged that, noting that peace is not just the absence of war. Real peace is not a passive thing; it's active. There seems to be real hateful, explosive, and dangerous rage lying just below the surface with far too many Muslims. Indeed, many (most?) Muslims who's prefer living in real peace appear to be reluctant to speak out against that hostile nature. Why? Is it true they fear retribution? Fear and peace don't go together folks.
What chance does genuine(!) peace by or within Muslim countries have then, especially considering they seem incapable of living in peace even with each other? What are the chances of defeating radical Islam if all of us on this planet don't start addressing this like grownups? They're important questions aren't they? In fact, deadly serious?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Can We PLEASE Move On To Important Matters Now?
As much as I appreciate the message of the Tea Party (less government, less spending, no debt), the movement has drawn to it a non-trivial number of people who take our focus off the message and have made us look like kooks. I'm happy the president finally produced his birth certificate and there are a few things worth highlighting in retrospect.
I've never mentioned it in my blog for two reasons. First, I never had any serious doubt about his birthplace. (No, I didn't write about it and then delete it to cover up what I said!). Second, I've strongly believed that we've had more serious issues to discuss.
I never liked the way the Tea Party played politics with this issue. I also didn't like the way the president played politics with it. After all, if he was really the 'uniter' that he claimed to be, he should have been more interested in eliminating the controversy (by producing the certificate) rather than using it to his political advantage (to paint the entire Tea Party as a bunch of kooks over the actions of a small minority).
The president was the first to act like a grown-up on this issue and I give him props for doing so. It is good for the country that he did it. For sure, there's no lack of serious issues to have a national debate about. I hope we can move on to those now.
I've never mentioned it in my blog for two reasons. First, I never had any serious doubt about his birthplace. (No, I didn't write about it and then delete it to cover up what I said!). Second, I've strongly believed that we've had more serious issues to discuss.
I never liked the way the Tea Party played politics with this issue. I also didn't like the way the president played politics with it. After all, if he was really the 'uniter' that he claimed to be, he should have been more interested in eliminating the controversy (by producing the certificate) rather than using it to his political advantage (to paint the entire Tea Party as a bunch of kooks over the actions of a small minority).
The president was the first to act like a grown-up on this issue and I give him props for doing so. It is good for the country that he did it. For sure, there's no lack of serious issues to have a national debate about. I hope we can move on to those now.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
President Obama Is Ending Oil Industry Subsidies ... A Good Move At Exactly The Wrong Time
What was it that one of President Obama's team said when this last recession began? "Never let an emergency go to waste!" He did NOT mean jump on the problem and fix it correctly and quickly. He DID mean that they should use it as an opportunity to advance the progressive agenda. Whether doing so actually accomplishes much with respect to addressing the current problem is utterly irrelevant.
So, now we have an oil and gas price surge. The price of gas is over twice what it was when Obama took office. What the people need is for the price of oil/gas to decrease. But what is his first action after it finally registers with him that this issue matters to his re-election? He says he's going to eliminate subsidies to the oil companies. How, exactly, will that address the problem we have with oil/gas prices? Answer: it won't.
Think about it. The oil companies are about to lose many billions(!) of dollars in government subsidies. What will that do to the price of oil/gas? Let's see. The oil companies have their income drop by a lot when those subsidies stop but they still want to make the same profit, right? So, how will they accomplish that? By RAISING oil/gas prices!!!
"Progressive Think": The oil companies are, by liberal definition, evil. The price of their product is going through the roof. They must be punished so take away their subsidies. That'll teach them! I guess we showed THEM!
One teenie weenie problem with that. It'll cause an increase in the price of oil/gas and make the problem that the American people want fixed worse!!! What you have to understand is that progressives aren't into fixing problems rationally. The price of oil/gas is rising, on its way to creating a real emergency in our country. Hey, they say, we have an emergency here! How cool! That gives us the opportunity to practice "never let an emergency go to waste" by punishing the evil oil companies and fake The People into thinking we're doing it to fix the oil/gas price problem.
So, this oil/gas price problem comes about and the first thing they do is get out their list of things they want to do TO the evil oil companies when they 'act up'. What's at the top of the 'To Do' list now? Eliminate subsidies to evil oil companies because they have the audacity to actually make a profit! Do our progressive leaders stop to think whether doing this will fix the oil/gas price problem? Of course not ... because it doesn't matter.
Progressives are thinking, well, already checked off the first thing we wanted to do via the previous emergency. Oil was spilled so we stopped the evil oil companies from drilling. What was the second item on our To Do list? Oh, yeah! Stop subsidies to them because industries we want to eliminate shouldn't receive subsidies.
Cool! Two emergencies related to oil happened on our watch and we've gotten our top two 'punish the evil oil companies' items checked off our To Do list: stop drilling and eliminate subsidies. It's been a good year. Yes, indeed, it's been a VERY good year! What, you commoners among the population don't like the fact that those two actions we took increased the price of oil and are driving it even higher? Not our problem ... we have our agenda to worry about. We're going green. Over your dead (economic) bodies.
So, now we have an oil and gas price surge. The price of gas is over twice what it was when Obama took office. What the people need is for the price of oil/gas to decrease. But what is his first action after it finally registers with him that this issue matters to his re-election? He says he's going to eliminate subsidies to the oil companies. How, exactly, will that address the problem we have with oil/gas prices? Answer: it won't.
Think about it. The oil companies are about to lose many billions(!) of dollars in government subsidies. What will that do to the price of oil/gas? Let's see. The oil companies have their income drop by a lot when those subsidies stop but they still want to make the same profit, right? So, how will they accomplish that? By RAISING oil/gas prices!!!
"Progressive Think": The oil companies are, by liberal definition, evil. The price of their product is going through the roof. They must be punished so take away their subsidies. That'll teach them! I guess we showed THEM!
One teenie weenie problem with that. It'll cause an increase in the price of oil/gas and make the problem that the American people want fixed worse!!! What you have to understand is that progressives aren't into fixing problems rationally. The price of oil/gas is rising, on its way to creating a real emergency in our country. Hey, they say, we have an emergency here! How cool! That gives us the opportunity to practice "never let an emergency go to waste" by punishing the evil oil companies and fake The People into thinking we're doing it to fix the oil/gas price problem.
So, this oil/gas price problem comes about and the first thing they do is get out their list of things they want to do TO the evil oil companies when they 'act up'. What's at the top of the 'To Do' list now? Eliminate subsidies to evil oil companies because they have the audacity to actually make a profit! Do our progressive leaders stop to think whether doing this will fix the oil/gas price problem? Of course not ... because it doesn't matter.
Progressives are thinking, well, already checked off the first thing we wanted to do via the previous emergency. Oil was spilled so we stopped the evil oil companies from drilling. What was the second item on our To Do list? Oh, yeah! Stop subsidies to them because industries we want to eliminate shouldn't receive subsidies.
Cool! Two emergencies related to oil happened on our watch and we've gotten our top two 'punish the evil oil companies' items checked off our To Do list: stop drilling and eliminate subsidies. It's been a good year. Yes, indeed, it's been a VERY good year! What, you commoners among the population don't like the fact that those two actions we took increased the price of oil and are driving it even higher? Not our problem ... we have our agenda to worry about. We're going green. Over your dead (economic) bodies.
President Obama's Approach To Doing Something About Rising Gas Prices Is Only To Look Good
Let me get it out of the way at the start (again). I told you so.
President Obama's response to problems that develop is to delegate a study of it to some group - usually he gives it to a bureacracy, often to a brand new bureaucracy. Even though we already have a bureaucracy charged with the responsibility to fix such things which HE created! This kind of response usually doesn't fix anything. They'll study it do death all the while the problem gets worse. And the fix is usually more government regulation, even when it was (as it usually is) government interference that helped cause the problem or made it worse.
This is how bureaucrats fix problems and President Obama is our Bureaucrat-In-Chief. They equate talking about a problem to actually doing something about it. I don't. They equate more government bureaucracy to actually doing something about it. I don't. They equate a solution that produces more bureaucracy and government control to an actual fix. I don't.
Take the skyrocketing price of gas. (Have you noticed it's going up? You sure did when it happened under Bush.) Here's what President Obama did about that:
Having them validate what I said is small satisfaction. It's not particularly satisfying because I take no pleasure in being right that our leadership will fiddle while Rome burns on this matter ... ie, they will study it to death while it gets worse and they'll likely come up with a solution that either should have been obvious in the first place, won't accomplish anything or will make the problem worse.
President Obama's response to problems that develop is to delegate a study of it to some group - usually he gives it to a bureacracy, often to a brand new bureaucracy. Even though we already have a bureaucracy charged with the responsibility to fix such things which HE created! This kind of response usually doesn't fix anything. They'll study it do death all the while the problem gets worse. And the fix is usually more government regulation, even when it was (as it usually is) government interference that helped cause the problem or made it worse.
This is how bureaucrats fix problems and President Obama is our Bureaucrat-In-Chief. They equate talking about a problem to actually doing something about it. I don't. They equate more government bureaucracy to actually doing something about it. I don't. They equate a solution that produces more bureaucracy and government control to an actual fix. I don't.
Take the skyrocketing price of gas. (Have you noticed it's going up? You sure did when it happened under Bush.) Here's what President Obama did about that:
- He decided to study it when the solution is obvious ... to anyone paying attention to history. The price of oil/gas has gone up before. Our government has tried things that worked and more that didn't. Why not just do what we know works and skip the 'study' thing? In a previous blog I listed the things that history tells us(!) work so why not just do those? Doing something that has worked before won't take any time at all to address the problem. A bureaucracy to study it will most certainly guarantee it'll take a while to do anything, most likely the wrong thing.
- He has already said that by creating a bureaucracy to study it, he IS doing something. To a bureaucrat that is the very definition of doing something positive. Even when it can't possibly produce results in the timeframe needed if it can produce real results at all. He just took responsibility away from people whose job it is to fix it. That should speed up a response!
- There exists(!) a whole bureaucracy whose responsibility is to deal with this ... which he created! So why create a new one? Because, even though a responsible bureaucracy already exists, creating a new one to do so makes him look like he's actually doing something. Appearance is everything to a bureaucrat.
Having them validate what I said is small satisfaction. It's not particularly satisfying because I take no pleasure in being right that our leadership will fiddle while Rome burns on this matter ... ie, they will study it to death while it gets worse and they'll likely come up with a solution that either should have been obvious in the first place, won't accomplish anything or will make the problem worse.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Afghanistan's Chaos Just Got A LOT Worse! Thanks For Nothing President Karzai!
Talk about an "Oh, Crap!" moment:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42743595/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
This has happened before if you recall but this very large escape is REALLY bad news. Khandahar is where we've just spent over a year in escalated attacks because it was the most significant pocket of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan where they had basically taken over the entire province. It had become an important stronghold for them but after our successful offensive recently completed, it became one of our most important successes in that country. Many of our soldiers died in that fighting. The offensive there came at great cost/sacrifice to us.
Worse, however, is what this staggering level of incompetence means to our efforts there. This totally invalidates ALL our preconceived notions about how stable Afghanistan might remain after we do leave. ALL our assumptions about the expected or hoped for success in that regard just completely evaporated. Many of our commanders' assumptions about how to successfully execute a war there may have just evaporated as well.
Make no mistake. This is a huge setback for our plans, including the plan to begin withdrawing this year.
While Karzai pontificates about some things we do, his 'professionals' in this fight against terrorism appear pretty incompetent. I'd be fine with Karzai never again complaining about how we're performing. It may be time to make a serious evaluation about changing tactics ... do whatever it takes to rid that country of terrorists out to kill Americans regardless what Karzai thinks of it. I'm not sure our current adminstration has the stomach for that but simply leaving would be worse as would continuing on as if nothing happened.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42743595/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
This has happened before if you recall but this very large escape is REALLY bad news. Khandahar is where we've just spent over a year in escalated attacks because it was the most significant pocket of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan where they had basically taken over the entire province. It had become an important stronghold for them but after our successful offensive recently completed, it became one of our most important successes in that country. Many of our soldiers died in that fighting. The offensive there came at great cost/sacrifice to us.
Worse, however, is what this staggering level of incompetence means to our efforts there. This totally invalidates ALL our preconceived notions about how stable Afghanistan might remain after we do leave. ALL our assumptions about the expected or hoped for success in that regard just completely evaporated. Many of our commanders' assumptions about how to successfully execute a war there may have just evaporated as well.
Make no mistake. This is a huge setback for our plans, including the plan to begin withdrawing this year.
While Karzai pontificates about some things we do, his 'professionals' in this fight against terrorism appear pretty incompetent. I'd be fine with Karzai never again complaining about how we're performing. It may be time to make a serious evaluation about changing tactics ... do whatever it takes to rid that country of terrorists out to kill Americans regardless what Karzai thinks of it. I'm not sure our current adminstration has the stomach for that but simply leaving would be worse as would continuing on as if nothing happened.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Listen Up Progressives! Are Your Pursuits REALLY Worth Ruining State And National Economies?
Relative to the title above I think I'll just let this link speak for me:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570704576275051374356340.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570704576275051374356340.html
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Mind You, I'm Just Trying To Understand S'up With Islam. It's Mighty Confusing At This Point!
Regarding my previous blogs about Islam, I'm mostly thinking out loud by way of those with respect to seeking to understand it. Like most of my friends, I'm still trying to figure out Islam and what Muslims really expect of us non-Muslims and how they view us. Most of what's in the news is kinda scary but then that's what The Media does so I try hard not to make too much of it. Nevertheless, I'm having a hard time figuring out what 'the peaceful side' of Islam is all about, assuming there is such a thing. Evidence of it is sure a lot harder to come by than about the hostile and 'harsh justice' aspect of it.
I have no clue what they mean by peace, for example. What is peace to them anyway? The absence of war or hostilities? That doesn't represent real peace to me. Harmony comes to mind when I think of peace in the abstract. Also, making a positive effort to get along and be tolerant. I sure don't see much having to do with living in harmony (in the active sense of the word, much less the passive sense) either in the Quran or, behaviorally, among Muslims (unless the people involved are all actual Muslims within the same branch of Islam).
I have no clue what they mean by peace, for example. What is peace to them anyway? The absence of war or hostilities? That doesn't represent real peace to me. Harmony comes to mind when I think of peace in the abstract. Also, making a positive effort to get along and be tolerant. I sure don't see much having to do with living in harmony (in the active sense of the word, much less the passive sense) either in the Quran or, behaviorally, among Muslims (unless the people involved are all actual Muslims within the same branch of Islam).
Wait A Minute! I Thought Islam Is A Religion Of Peace!
Before I get to what I want to say, please check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42730758/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Every time we get our dander up over some Muslim atrocity against us, moderate Muslims, if there really is such a person by Western standards, tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and that they really do want to live in peace with non-Muslims. They tell us that if we even want to TALK, in a national debate, about the threat of radical Islam, we're being prejudiced and unfair. And many (most?) liberals in our society go along with that and want us to fall on our collective sword for simply having the audacity to want to talk about a national threat. Our citizens' lives are being threatened and extinguished but we must not talk about what to do because it 'targets' Muslims. Never mind that we only want to talk about radical Islam. Never mind that the comparison of evils is killing versus talking ... and it's the latter that's a terrible thing to do. Good Grief!
Okay! Let's assume once more(!) that talking about radical Islam could gather into the discussion a sense of prejudice about Muslims. Let's once again try to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. We're supposed to believe that in spite of the fact that the two main branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, have been killing each other ... randomly ... for centuries? How on earth can a rational person believe that this is a religion of peace based simply on how they treat each other? If it's a religion of peace (ie, peace flows in their very soul) how can they justify randomly killing each other? When do we ever see the leaders of one branch of Islam in a country or between countries make efforts at peace with the other? It never happens! That alone tells a thinking person that they're oriented toward annihilating whomever doesn't agree with their version of Islam. That not only includes the other branch of Islam but ALL infidels (ie, non-Muslims) as well!
Add to that the fact that 'moderate Muslims' remain in the shadows most of the time and won't vigorously denounce this threat against us. A few outspoken ones do speak out but by and large the Muslim community is silent about it. One has to wonder why. Why don't they vigorously try to purge their religion of the radical element or at least call for it? Why do they have more to say about us wanting to talk about it than they have to say about members of their own religion doing this to us and throughout the world? Maybe it's because they know that doing that would be considered blasphemy, the penalty for which is usually death. Hmmmm. Doesn't the very fact that they fear death for speaking out in defense of peace within their religion confirm that the fundamental nature of Islam is to instill fear, not peace? The first reaction to a perceived(!) affront is more likely severe than peaceful?
Note I said 'perceived affront'. If peace is in the nature of Islam then fair justice should be the standard ... the default to which they're obliged to turn because their religion requires that they at least keep trying. But it isn't. A pastor in Florida burns a Quran (which of course is an obvious affront to the religion he professes!) and hundreds of 'average Muslims' go on a killing rampage against people who had nothing to do with it. There could have been no doubt that the people they were killing had nothing to do with what that pastor did. It was a random evil in response to something 99.99% of Americans think was completely wrong to do. What, then, is in the nature of Islam that's peaceful? Was the Muslim community more outraged over the pastor or the random killing by Muslims of innocent people? You know the answer because you read the news. I don't get it.
We must have an honest national debate about this very real threat from a too large percentage of Muslims who obviously have no peace running through their soul, much less see it as inherent in their religion. The really hard part will be when we decide what to do about it. If they think that just talking about it is unfair I can't wait to see their reaction when we do something which those in their religion have left us no choice about doing. We're supposed to sit idly by like most Muslims do and let radical elements do whatever evil they want to us? I don't think so. I'm inclined to resist being killed for simply living in this country. I want this evil, obviously radical, thing understood and dealt with.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42730758/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Every time we get our dander up over some Muslim atrocity against us, moderate Muslims, if there really is such a person by Western standards, tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and that they really do want to live in peace with non-Muslims. They tell us that if we even want to TALK, in a national debate, about the threat of radical Islam, we're being prejudiced and unfair. And many (most?) liberals in our society go along with that and want us to fall on our collective sword for simply having the audacity to want to talk about a national threat. Our citizens' lives are being threatened and extinguished but we must not talk about what to do because it 'targets' Muslims. Never mind that we only want to talk about radical Islam. Never mind that the comparison of evils is killing versus talking ... and it's the latter that's a terrible thing to do. Good Grief!
Okay! Let's assume once more(!) that talking about radical Islam could gather into the discussion a sense of prejudice about Muslims. Let's once again try to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. We're supposed to believe that in spite of the fact that the two main branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, have been killing each other ... randomly ... for centuries? How on earth can a rational person believe that this is a religion of peace based simply on how they treat each other? If it's a religion of peace (ie, peace flows in their very soul) how can they justify randomly killing each other? When do we ever see the leaders of one branch of Islam in a country or between countries make efforts at peace with the other? It never happens! That alone tells a thinking person that they're oriented toward annihilating whomever doesn't agree with their version of Islam. That not only includes the other branch of Islam but ALL infidels (ie, non-Muslims) as well!
Add to that the fact that 'moderate Muslims' remain in the shadows most of the time and won't vigorously denounce this threat against us. A few outspoken ones do speak out but by and large the Muslim community is silent about it. One has to wonder why. Why don't they vigorously try to purge their religion of the radical element or at least call for it? Why do they have more to say about us wanting to talk about it than they have to say about members of their own religion doing this to us and throughout the world? Maybe it's because they know that doing that would be considered blasphemy, the penalty for which is usually death. Hmmmm. Doesn't the very fact that they fear death for speaking out in defense of peace within their religion confirm that the fundamental nature of Islam is to instill fear, not peace? The first reaction to a perceived(!) affront is more likely severe than peaceful?
Note I said 'perceived affront'. If peace is in the nature of Islam then fair justice should be the standard ... the default to which they're obliged to turn because their religion requires that they at least keep trying. But it isn't. A pastor in Florida burns a Quran (which of course is an obvious affront to the religion he professes!) and hundreds of 'average Muslims' go on a killing rampage against people who had nothing to do with it. There could have been no doubt that the people they were killing had nothing to do with what that pastor did. It was a random evil in response to something 99.99% of Americans think was completely wrong to do. What, then, is in the nature of Islam that's peaceful? Was the Muslim community more outraged over the pastor or the random killing by Muslims of innocent people? You know the answer because you read the news. I don't get it.
We must have an honest national debate about this very real threat from a too large percentage of Muslims who obviously have no peace running through their soul, much less see it as inherent in their religion. The really hard part will be when we decide what to do about it. If they think that just talking about it is unfair I can't wait to see their reaction when we do something which those in their religion have left us no choice about doing. We're supposed to sit idly by like most Muslims do and let radical elements do whatever evil they want to us? I don't think so. I'm inclined to resist being killed for simply living in this country. I want this evil, obviously radical, thing understood and dealt with.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Another Task Force? To Study The Obvious ... Again? R U Kidding Me?
The price of gas is going up fast. President Obama blames 'speculators' and assigns a 'Task Force' to STUDY what's causing it and what to do about it. Is that his solution for even the most obvious things?
President Obama, I'll tell you what's causing it and it won't cost the country anything and won't take months to figure out while you have your peeps STUDY the obvious to death. What a HUGE waste of time. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!
First, the price of gas is going up because the price of oil is going up. Do I really need to explain THAT? I don't think so.
Why is it costing more dollars to buy a barrel of oil? Answer: Obama's 'money czar', Ben Bernanke, is printing money like crazy, thus devaluing the dollar in the international market place.
Why is the 'money czar' printing more money? Because it's Obama's economic/fiscal policy that goes by the catchy name, Quantitative Easing. We're now in the SECOND round of printing money out of thin air.
Why does Obama want him to print more money? To 'stimulate' the economy.
Why does Obama want to keep stimulating the economy? Because the fixes of the past two years aren't working very well.
President Obama, I've got news for you. "Speculators' are NOT causing this! Speculating on oil futures is strictly an investment market play. It does NOT directly affect the price of oil. It's like buysing Microsoft stock. Does 'speculating' on Microsoft by buying a ton of its stock drive up the price of its products? Of course not! The price of their products is determined by supply, demand and the usefulness/quality of those products. Their products' prices, ie. what CONSUMERS pay, are NOT determined by the price of (ie, investing in) their stock. In the same way, the price of the oil we buy is NOT determined by the price of (ie, investing in) oil futures.
This is NOT rocket science sir. Devalue our dollar by printing tons of them DIRECTLY causes a rise in the price of oil and everything else. You, sir, did this via your policies. It is NOT speculators' fault. It's sad that you need a task force to figure this out! Good Grief!
All you need to do to fix this is stop printing money, start retiring money that's in circulation, fix the debt, balance the budget, and start drilling for oil more vigorously here at home. Of course you will not do most of those and those you're willing to do will have to be studied to death. Studying it gives you a lame excuse to avoid doing all those things because you don't want to do any of them in a serious way. Make a decision for a change. Act like a leader and do the right thing whether it's what you want to do or not! Because, by the time you're done studying this problem you've gotten us into, our economy will have ground to a halt because of the price of oil. Feel free to take your time fixing this though. The only thing this will hurt is our economy. No big deal.
President Obama, I'll tell you what's causing it and it won't cost the country anything and won't take months to figure out while you have your peeps STUDY the obvious to death. What a HUGE waste of time. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!
First, the price of gas is going up because the price of oil is going up. Do I really need to explain THAT? I don't think so.
Why is it costing more dollars to buy a barrel of oil? Answer: Obama's 'money czar', Ben Bernanke, is printing money like crazy, thus devaluing the dollar in the international market place.
Why is the 'money czar' printing more money? Because it's Obama's economic/fiscal policy that goes by the catchy name, Quantitative Easing. We're now in the SECOND round of printing money out of thin air.
Why does Obama want him to print more money? To 'stimulate' the economy.
Why does Obama want to keep stimulating the economy? Because the fixes of the past two years aren't working very well.
President Obama, I've got news for you. "Speculators' are NOT causing this! Speculating on oil futures is strictly an investment market play. It does NOT directly affect the price of oil. It's like buysing Microsoft stock. Does 'speculating' on Microsoft by buying a ton of its stock drive up the price of its products? Of course not! The price of their products is determined by supply, demand and the usefulness/quality of those products. Their products' prices, ie. what CONSUMERS pay, are NOT determined by the price of (ie, investing in) their stock. In the same way, the price of the oil we buy is NOT determined by the price of (ie, investing in) oil futures.
This is NOT rocket science sir. Devalue our dollar by printing tons of them DIRECTLY causes a rise in the price of oil and everything else. You, sir, did this via your policies. It is NOT speculators' fault. It's sad that you need a task force to figure this out! Good Grief!
All you need to do to fix this is stop printing money, start retiring money that's in circulation, fix the debt, balance the budget, and start drilling for oil more vigorously here at home. Of course you will not do most of those and those you're willing to do will have to be studied to death. Studying it gives you a lame excuse to avoid doing all those things because you don't want to do any of them in a serious way. Make a decision for a change. Act like a leader and do the right thing whether it's what you want to do or not! Because, by the time you're done studying this problem you've gotten us into, our economy will have ground to a halt because of the price of oil. Feel free to take your time fixing this though. The only thing this will hurt is our economy. No big deal.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Blame Bush Thing Lacks A Factual Foundation
Take the 'Bush Recession' of 2001 - 2003 for example. Bush tax cuts not only caused that but hurt the recovery and reduced federal revenue, right? At least that's what those on the left claim. Hmmmm. Let's examine some facts.
Economists now largely agree that the cause of that recession was the Dot-Com collapse. Guess when that began. It was March 2000, nearly a full year before Bush took office. That was the month in which the NASDAQ began its precipitous fall, in the end losing 77% of its value. (Which, by the way is far more than the 55% it lost during the recession we're now digging out from under.)
Did you know that the market value of those high tech companies lost approximately $5 Trillion during the high tech bust? Did you know that economists now think that six increases in interest rates late in Clinton's last term was responsible for triggering the tech bust? You will hear that the recession began in March 2001 after Bush was elected and economists thought that at the time but they've since determined that the GDP was not the best indicator of when that recession really began. As a result, they moved the date back to March 2000 when the NASDAQ began its crash but you won't hear that from The Media or politicians on the left. Blaming Bush is more fun. Never mind that Bush's first tax cut didn't happen until after even the March 2001 date. How can one logically argue that his tax cuts caused the recession if his tax cuts came months later no matter which date one uses as the start of that recession? Apparently the blame Bush crowd is determined not to allow those inconvenient things called facts interfere with the mission to blame him anyway.
We also hear that the reduction to 35% in the tax rate for the rich contained in Bush's 2001 tax cut is mostly to blame for continued rising unemployment, falling federal revenues and for everything bad that's happened to our economy since then. There's just this one teenie-weenie problem with that argument. His tax cut for the rich to 35% didn't happen until May 2003! Yes, the 2001 tax cut legislation called for a 35% tax rate for the rich but it was to be cut in incrementally over 5 years. In 2001, the tax rate for the rich was reduced a paltry 0.5%, from 39.6% to 39.1%. For the following two years, 2002 & 2003, it was reduced another small 0.5% to 38.6%. That's bad news for folks on the left who claim the 35% tax rate caused a lot of problems. Now for the REALLY bad news (for those on the left).
The facts show that the economy started turning around in July 2003. Unemployment topped out at that point AND federal revenues began increasing. Guess what happened only one month prior to the start of the recovery when everything turned around? Bush's second AND BIGGER tax cut for the rich.
Bush's second tax cut for the rich at the end of May, 2003 wasn't even an additional tax cut. By then, 9/11 had dragged the other markets down as well and the Bush administration felt that the small(!) tax cuts so far (from 39.6% to 38.6%) were not getting the job done well enough so they got their second tax law passed which ACCELERATED the first Bush tax cuts immediately to 35%. Guess what happened about one month later. Unemployment topped out and immediately began a recovery to Clinton levels of 4.4% by mid-2006. Federal revenue decreases bottomed out and started back up.
Facts: Unemployment and federal revenue both turned around a month after the largest portion of Bush's tax cuts were implemented. Doesn't that sound like the exact opposite of what the left says about the Bush tax cuts?
The current problems in our economy are getting blamed on Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's bank bailouts. Well, just as in the argument above, when you look into the details, you find no evidence that those claims are correct. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264917/not-tax-cuts-not-wars-and-not-bailouts-kevin-d-williamson
Do the facts matter? Many folks on the left don't want to hear or discuss them. Should the facts matter? Well, DUH! If we're going to use Bush's tax policies as a basis on which to argue what to do or not do to fix our ailing economy, doesn't it matter what actually happened?
If we're going to increase taxes on the rich based on claims that Bush's tax cuts for the rich caused employment and revenue problems, shouldn't we care that those claims are bogus? What are the chances we'll arrive at a solution that works if we base our decision on things that aren't true? An honest person has to say we'll fail. Doesn't the recovery of our economy matter more than partisan politics? Well, it should, shouldn't it! Can The Left rise above it and do what's right for the country or are they so focused on the next election that doing the right thing for our economy doesn't matter? Today I have to say, it looks like they're more interested in maintaining partisan political myths than making decisions based on truths
Economists now largely agree that the cause of that recession was the Dot-Com collapse. Guess when that began. It was March 2000, nearly a full year before Bush took office. That was the month in which the NASDAQ began its precipitous fall, in the end losing 77% of its value. (Which, by the way is far more than the 55% it lost during the recession we're now digging out from under.)
Did you know that the market value of those high tech companies lost approximately $5 Trillion during the high tech bust? Did you know that economists now think that six increases in interest rates late in Clinton's last term was responsible for triggering the tech bust? You will hear that the recession began in March 2001 after Bush was elected and economists thought that at the time but they've since determined that the GDP was not the best indicator of when that recession really began. As a result, they moved the date back to March 2000 when the NASDAQ began its crash but you won't hear that from The Media or politicians on the left. Blaming Bush is more fun. Never mind that Bush's first tax cut didn't happen until after even the March 2001 date. How can one logically argue that his tax cuts caused the recession if his tax cuts came months later no matter which date one uses as the start of that recession? Apparently the blame Bush crowd is determined not to allow those inconvenient things called facts interfere with the mission to blame him anyway.
We also hear that the reduction to 35% in the tax rate for the rich contained in Bush's 2001 tax cut is mostly to blame for continued rising unemployment, falling federal revenues and for everything bad that's happened to our economy since then. There's just this one teenie-weenie problem with that argument. His tax cut for the rich to 35% didn't happen until May 2003! Yes, the 2001 tax cut legislation called for a 35% tax rate for the rich but it was to be cut in incrementally over 5 years. In 2001, the tax rate for the rich was reduced a paltry 0.5%, from 39.6% to 39.1%. For the following two years, 2002 & 2003, it was reduced another small 0.5% to 38.6%. That's bad news for folks on the left who claim the 35% tax rate caused a lot of problems. Now for the REALLY bad news (for those on the left).
The facts show that the economy started turning around in July 2003. Unemployment topped out at that point AND federal revenues began increasing. Guess what happened only one month prior to the start of the recovery when everything turned around? Bush's second AND BIGGER tax cut for the rich.
Bush's second tax cut for the rich at the end of May, 2003 wasn't even an additional tax cut. By then, 9/11 had dragged the other markets down as well and the Bush administration felt that the small(!) tax cuts so far (from 39.6% to 38.6%) were not getting the job done well enough so they got their second tax law passed which ACCELERATED the first Bush tax cuts immediately to 35%. Guess what happened about one month later. Unemployment topped out and immediately began a recovery to Clinton levels of 4.4% by mid-2006. Federal revenue decreases bottomed out and started back up.
Facts: Unemployment and federal revenue both turned around a month after the largest portion of Bush's tax cuts were implemented. Doesn't that sound like the exact opposite of what the left says about the Bush tax cuts?
The current problems in our economy are getting blamed on Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's bank bailouts. Well, just as in the argument above, when you look into the details, you find no evidence that those claims are correct. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264917/not-tax-cuts-not-wars-and-not-bailouts-kevin-d-williamson
Do the facts matter? Many folks on the left don't want to hear or discuss them. Should the facts matter? Well, DUH! If we're going to use Bush's tax policies as a basis on which to argue what to do or not do to fix our ailing economy, doesn't it matter what actually happened?
If we're going to increase taxes on the rich based on claims that Bush's tax cuts for the rich caused employment and revenue problems, shouldn't we care that those claims are bogus? What are the chances we'll arrive at a solution that works if we base our decision on things that aren't true? An honest person has to say we'll fail. Doesn't the recovery of our economy matter more than partisan politics? Well, it should, shouldn't it! Can The Left rise above it and do what's right for the country or are they so focused on the next election that doing the right thing for our economy doesn't matter? Today I have to say, it looks like they're more interested in maintaining partisan political myths than making decisions based on truths
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
NATO Sending Troops To Libya
Okay, let me get it out of the way. I told you so!
Ck it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42657450/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Anyone paying attention to history knew this would happen unless we were willing to let the Libyan rebels be annihilated. This is no Viet Nam but there are interesting parallels. The first military 'boots on the ground' were sent as 'advisers'. The South Viet Nam army needed more than advisers. So do the Libyan rebels.
How long will it be before the NATO military advisers have to start shooting back? How long will it be before we have to send in more troops to protect the advisers?
This is what ALWAYS happens when a country wants to participate in a war but not in a way geared toward actually winning it. Limited engagement is a formula for failure. As an ex-military man I hate that approach to war. It always means a bigger and longer engagement than it would have been if we'd gone in to win. And it'll mean more deaths than if we'd done it right ... for sure among Libyans but likely among NATO forces too.
Ck it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42657450/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Anyone paying attention to history knew this would happen unless we were willing to let the Libyan rebels be annihilated. This is no Viet Nam but there are interesting parallels. The first military 'boots on the ground' were sent as 'advisers'. The South Viet Nam army needed more than advisers. So do the Libyan rebels.
How long will it be before the NATO military advisers have to start shooting back? How long will it be before we have to send in more troops to protect the advisers?
This is what ALWAYS happens when a country wants to participate in a war but not in a way geared toward actually winning it. Limited engagement is a formula for failure. As an ex-military man I hate that approach to war. It always means a bigger and longer engagement than it would have been if we'd gone in to win. And it'll mean more deaths than if we'd done it right ... for sure among Libyans but likely among NATO forces too.
Bully-In-Chief
For a couple of weeks prior to his speech about how he wants to reduce the debt and control spending President Obama made grandiose pronouncements about how we all need to work together. He's on record saying it's counter-productive for the parties to castigate one another via claims that the other side wants to kill grandma and similar kinds of labeling. He's on record saying, multiple times, he wanted to hear a serious Republican proposal and that he'd work with them on resolving differences. He's on record holding an olive branch out to Paul Ryan, the Republican's lead man on debt and budget reform.
For the record, Ryan has gone out of his way not to castigate the opposition by avoiding generalizations about the evil opposition wanting to kill grandma. He took President Obama at his word and accepted the challenge to act like grownups on this subject.
Then President Obama gave that speech about his proposal last week. The list of invitees was interesting. A seat in the front row at such events is normally considered to be a positive gesture by a president. Unfortunately for Ryan, he was set up. President Obama launched into a public(!) castigation of Ryan's budget plan with exactly the kind of vitriol that he asked Republicans not to do and which they, including Ryan, respectfully did not do. Here's what one article in The National Review said about Obama's speech:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264869/audience-listening-andrew-c-mccarthy
This is not serious leadership by a president on a serious matter facing the country. A leader does NOT publicly castigate one side over the other before any effort is made to get together and reconcile differences. Making a proposal and at the same time castigate the leading opposing proposal is NOT consistent with either wanting to work something out cooperatively or with achieving consensus in the long run. You don't start out a major offensive on a national problem by publicly embarrassing the leader of one side of the argument. Obviously, President Obama knows nothing whatsoever about real diplomacy or, for that matter, decency.
As shocking as President Obama's behavior was, the worst aspect of it is that his speech does more to divide our nation than bring us together. Worse than that, it makes it less likely we'll come up with a decent solution to the problem that fairly represents the interests of those on both sides of the issue. Even worse than that, it makes it less likely we'll arrive at a solution at all. He basically declared war on Ryan's plan, rather than present an attitude of working out our differences. That's NOT how one starts an effort to fix a serious problem the entire nation faces which BOTH parties helped create.
The arrogance of the man is astounding! And it's behavior that's beyond inappropriate for a president of the United States under any circumstances, much less at the beginning of an important national debate.
For the record, Ryan has gone out of his way not to castigate the opposition by avoiding generalizations about the evil opposition wanting to kill grandma. He took President Obama at his word and accepted the challenge to act like grownups on this subject.
Then President Obama gave that speech about his proposal last week. The list of invitees was interesting. A seat in the front row at such events is normally considered to be a positive gesture by a president. Unfortunately for Ryan, he was set up. President Obama launched into a public(!) castigation of Ryan's budget plan with exactly the kind of vitriol that he asked Republicans not to do and which they, including Ryan, respectfully did not do. Here's what one article in The National Review said about Obama's speech:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264869/audience-listening-andrew-c-mccarthy
This is not serious leadership by a president on a serious matter facing the country. A leader does NOT publicly castigate one side over the other before any effort is made to get together and reconcile differences. Making a proposal and at the same time castigate the leading opposing proposal is NOT consistent with either wanting to work something out cooperatively or with achieving consensus in the long run. You don't start out a major offensive on a national problem by publicly embarrassing the leader of one side of the argument. Obviously, President Obama knows nothing whatsoever about real diplomacy or, for that matter, decency.
As shocking as President Obama's behavior was, the worst aspect of it is that his speech does more to divide our nation than bring us together. Worse than that, it makes it less likely we'll come up with a decent solution to the problem that fairly represents the interests of those on both sides of the issue. Even worse than that, it makes it less likely we'll arrive at a solution at all. He basically declared war on Ryan's plan, rather than present an attitude of working out our differences. That's NOT how one starts an effort to fix a serious problem the entire nation faces which BOTH parties helped create.
The arrogance of the man is astounding! And it's behavior that's beyond inappropriate for a president of the United States under any circumstances, much less at the beginning of an important national debate.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Overlooked Unconsitutional Discrimination
Age discrimination is real. That's why raising the retirement age will bankrupt lots of our elderly. Just because the government raises the retirement age doesn't mean companies will be willing to hire you at 65. After all, they lose interest in hiring people over age 50.
Don't think it's an issue? Well, MSNBC things so but they won't admit it. Check out this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42606268/ns/business-careers/
If age doesn't matter in hiring and firing ... as according to the constitutional amendment against discrimination says it shouldn't ... then why are the list of things this article recommends you leave off your resume include: age and year of graduation (quoted from Lynne Sarikas, Director of the MBA Career Center at Northeastern University)?
It's the only form of discrimination there's almost nothing serious being done to prevent; nothing serious is being done to enforce the laws against it. It's rampant and has even become institutionalized. I don't believe politicians who claim that they're sticking up for older Americans if they won't do anything about this. Which means I don't believe any politician regarding representing the interests of the elderly. So much for a fair society. I thought progressives were all about social justice. Are they or aren't they?
Don't think it's an issue? Well, MSNBC things so but they won't admit it. Check out this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42606268/ns/business-careers/
If age doesn't matter in hiring and firing ... as according to the constitutional amendment against discrimination says it shouldn't ... then why are the list of things this article recommends you leave off your resume include: age and year of graduation (quoted from Lynne Sarikas, Director of the MBA Career Center at Northeastern University)?
It's the only form of discrimination there's almost nothing serious being done to prevent; nothing serious is being done to enforce the laws against it. It's rampant and has even become institutionalized. I don't believe politicians who claim that they're sticking up for older Americans if they won't do anything about this. Which means I don't believe any politician regarding representing the interests of the elderly. So much for a fair society. I thought progressives were all about social justice. Are they or aren't they?
More Important, How Is It Working Out For Libyans?
Gadhafi's forces continue to pummel his own citizens and we stand by ready to ... do what exactly?
Why exactly are we doing this? Oh yeah, limited engagement because we don't want other countries to think we're the bad guys any more. I wonder how many of those Libyan citizens now crying out for our help were among those criticizing us in the past for using our military the way they now want us to use it there? I wonder how many of them (and other middle east Muslims who now want us to do more) were among the hundreds of thousands (millions?) dancing and celebrating in the street after 9/11?
Why exactly are we doing this? Oh yeah, limited engagement because we don't want other countries to think we're the bad guys any more. I wonder how many of those Libyan citizens now crying out for our help were among those criticizing us in the past for using our military the way they now want us to use it there? I wonder how many of them (and other middle east Muslims who now want us to do more) were among the hundreds of thousands (millions?) dancing and celebrating in the street after 9/11?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
How's That Limited Engagement Thing Working Out For Us President Obama?
Do you really need more proof that President Obama's "limited engagement" "let other NATO members do it" thing isn't working and cannot work?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42623663/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Oh ... and I told you so! :-( It WAS entirely predictable by anyone paying attention to actual history and how the real world works.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42623663/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Oh ... and I told you so! :-( It WAS entirely predictable by anyone paying attention to actual history and how the real world works.
Libya Going Up In Smoke While We Wait For The Unwilling And Incapable To Do What Needs To Be Done
It's sad to stand idly by and watch what's happening to citizens of Libya at the hands of a brutal dictator while the UN does nothing and NATO can't get the job done without our help. Check out the latest crimes against humanity there:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42619645/ns/world_news/
For the past 20 years, other nations have vigorously criticized us for our so-called imperialism and the use of our military to stop terrorism and dictatorial atrocities. Well they got their way as a consequence of our last presidential election. We're letting others do the heavy lifting now in Libya. Do you see what's happening as a consequence of that choice? Is that really okay with you all? They and the 'America is not an exceptional nation' crowd got what they wanted. They should either grow a spine and do the heavy lifting or get off our case when we make the sacrifices for which they lack the will or stomach.
The citizens of Libya, a country that has roundly criticized us in the past, are now clamoring for us to use military force to come to their aid. My, how different it becomes when it's your own country in trouble and no other country in the world seems to have the ability to come to your rescue, much less the stomach for it. You'd think that Arab/Muslim countries would want to help the people of Libya more than any other country would want to. Nope, not interested. That would mean practicing principles most of their countries' leaders aren't willing to practice at home. Dictators send their armies to other dictators' countries to conquer them, not to help them.
Clearly, from the Libyan situation, the UN is incapable of practicing the principles in its charter and NATO is incapable of a competent response without us doing most of the heavy lifting. What choices does that leave the civilized world? Let Libya and other equally repressive countries continue to be ruled by ruthless dictators or stop telling us not to use our military. Maybe we make mistakes in the use of our military but the alternative seems to be far worse doesn't it? Are the Libyan citizens really better off for our non-involvement? And is the world a safer place as a result? Hmmmmm?
To those who've critized us in the past for doing things militarily and are now criticizing us for not doing them, make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Decide which kind of world you want to live in and let us know. If you really don't want us to do so much, we'd really like to spend less money on our military. In which case, you understand, all you other developed nations will be needing to spend more on your military. Considering the state of your economies, good luck with that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42619645/ns/world_news/
For the past 20 years, other nations have vigorously criticized us for our so-called imperialism and the use of our military to stop terrorism and dictatorial atrocities. Well they got their way as a consequence of our last presidential election. We're letting others do the heavy lifting now in Libya. Do you see what's happening as a consequence of that choice? Is that really okay with you all? They and the 'America is not an exceptional nation' crowd got what they wanted. They should either grow a spine and do the heavy lifting or get off our case when we make the sacrifices for which they lack the will or stomach.
The citizens of Libya, a country that has roundly criticized us in the past, are now clamoring for us to use military force to come to their aid. My, how different it becomes when it's your own country in trouble and no other country in the world seems to have the ability to come to your rescue, much less the stomach for it. You'd think that Arab/Muslim countries would want to help the people of Libya more than any other country would want to. Nope, not interested. That would mean practicing principles most of their countries' leaders aren't willing to practice at home. Dictators send their armies to other dictators' countries to conquer them, not to help them.
Clearly, from the Libyan situation, the UN is incapable of practicing the principles in its charter and NATO is incapable of a competent response without us doing most of the heavy lifting. What choices does that leave the civilized world? Let Libya and other equally repressive countries continue to be ruled by ruthless dictators or stop telling us not to use our military. Maybe we make mistakes in the use of our military but the alternative seems to be far worse doesn't it? Are the Libyan citizens really better off for our non-involvement? And is the world a safer place as a result? Hmmmmm?
To those who've critized us in the past for doing things militarily and are now criticizing us for not doing them, make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Decide which kind of world you want to live in and let us know. If you really don't want us to do so much, we'd really like to spend less money on our military. In which case, you understand, all you other developed nations will be needing to spend more on your military. Considering the state of your economies, good luck with that.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Too Many Distractions and Too Much Stimulation
To the previous blog about the sorry state of our education system and the sorrier state of parental involvement I wanted to talk about a couple of generalities. Those are too many distractions and too much stimulation for our kids from birth through high school.
About a week ago I read an article whose writer concluded that too many distractions and too much stimulation are significant contributors to the rise in ADHD. While I have no knowledge in that area I have to agree that makes sense. If you stimulate and distract kids from birth through high school is it any wonder they grow up lacking the ability to focus and concentrate on something for longer than a millisecond? It's called conditioned response and it's a well-known VERY predictable psychological outcome. It makes total sense does it not?
Based on admittedly limited observations I agree with that author's opinion. It not only makes sense but I see ADHD behavior all around. For the past year I've been a math tutor in a local adult GED program. I was amazed how many of the students demonstrated varying degrees of either ADD and ADHD. Every term there was at least one student who was borderline disfunctional. If not for their dedication to complete their GED and a LOT of very patient teaching and copious amounts of likewise patient tutoring they would have failed. To THEIR credit they all succeeded.
So, what kinds of distractions are we talking about? Cell phones, the internet, an environment filled with noise, excessive activities (gotta always be doing something), and/or a disfunctional family life. Oh, and hormones!
And what kinds of stimulation are we talking about? Video games, action movies, various types of stimulating TV programs, incessant texting and talking on cell phones, legal and illegal drugs, and/or caffeine (coffee or soda). Oh, and hormones!
Is it any wonder our kids can't concentrate for long on much of anything, including (or especially!) homework and classroom teaching? By allowing these things to run amok in our kids' lives we set them up not only to fail in school but to enter adult life lacking the ability to make something of themselves and succeed in life.
Just as in the previous blog, the primary people responsible to control these factors are parents. Kids need boundaries and responsibilities from an early age. More so now than ever. Most of them won't like that but that's the way it needs to be. They're too immature to know what's good for them. They don't have to like it and we parents aren't obliged to give them what they want all the time. In fact, it would be irresponsible of us to do that. We're responsible to give them the best start in life of which we're capable, not to make every effort to be their friends or to 'make them' like us.
Good and effective parenting is not a popularity contest. It's more like a seemingly endless series of skirmishes on the battlefield of life.Oh, but it's worth it because there ARE those inevitable and very gratifying moments when you'll be glad you did it reasonably well. They will grow up respecting you and most likely loving you all the more for caring enough to give them what they needed rather than what they wanted. You will make mistakes but they won't matter in the larger scheme of things if you make an honest effort to be responsible in these ways.
About a week ago I read an article whose writer concluded that too many distractions and too much stimulation are significant contributors to the rise in ADHD. While I have no knowledge in that area I have to agree that makes sense. If you stimulate and distract kids from birth through high school is it any wonder they grow up lacking the ability to focus and concentrate on something for longer than a millisecond? It's called conditioned response and it's a well-known VERY predictable psychological outcome. It makes total sense does it not?
Based on admittedly limited observations I agree with that author's opinion. It not only makes sense but I see ADHD behavior all around. For the past year I've been a math tutor in a local adult GED program. I was amazed how many of the students demonstrated varying degrees of either ADD and ADHD. Every term there was at least one student who was borderline disfunctional. If not for their dedication to complete their GED and a LOT of very patient teaching and copious amounts of likewise patient tutoring they would have failed. To THEIR credit they all succeeded.
So, what kinds of distractions are we talking about? Cell phones, the internet, an environment filled with noise, excessive activities (gotta always be doing something), and/or a disfunctional family life. Oh, and hormones!
And what kinds of stimulation are we talking about? Video games, action movies, various types of stimulating TV programs, incessant texting and talking on cell phones, legal and illegal drugs, and/or caffeine (coffee or soda). Oh, and hormones!
Is it any wonder our kids can't concentrate for long on much of anything, including (or especially!) homework and classroom teaching? By allowing these things to run amok in our kids' lives we set them up not only to fail in school but to enter adult life lacking the ability to make something of themselves and succeed in life.
Just as in the previous blog, the primary people responsible to control these factors are parents. Kids need boundaries and responsibilities from an early age. More so now than ever. Most of them won't like that but that's the way it needs to be. They're too immature to know what's good for them. They don't have to like it and we parents aren't obliged to give them what they want all the time. In fact, it would be irresponsible of us to do that. We're responsible to give them the best start in life of which we're capable, not to make every effort to be their friends or to 'make them' like us.
Good and effective parenting is not a popularity contest. It's more like a seemingly endless series of skirmishes on the battlefield of life.Oh, but it's worth it because there ARE those inevitable and very gratifying moments when you'll be glad you did it reasonably well. They will grow up respecting you and most likely loving you all the more for caring enough to give them what they needed rather than what they wanted. You will make mistakes but they won't matter in the larger scheme of things if you make an honest effort to be responsible in these ways.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
President Obama: Our Education System Failure CANNOT Be Fixed With Money
In his speech yesterday, President Obama said we need more "investment" in education. After all, he said, "South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science". What he didn't tell you is that they pay half as much per pupil.
Only Sweden pays more per pupil than we do. If money were the solution we wouldn't be at the bottom of all developed countries in test scores! HELLO!
Over the past 15 years we've increased education spending by 60% ABOVE the rate of inflation. Think about that. Adjusted for inflation, we're spending 60% more than we were 15 years ago. If money were the solution a rational person has to conclude that test scores should have gone up dramatically.
The problem has much more to do with no one holding our kids responsible to learn! Not the education system. Not teachers. Most sadly, not parents. And that latter one is probably our biggest impediment to getting our kids test scores up where they should be near the top of all nations.
Someone needs to tell our kids who's in charge. For that matter, someone needs to tell PARENTS(!) they're in charge and responsible(!) and it's well past time they started behaving that way. That means: checking how their kids are doing in every class every day, looking over kids' work after it's graded, helping their kids with their homework in a disciplined way (ie, every day if necessary and NOT by doing it FOR them!), talking with teachers how the kids are doing, applying REAL DISCIPLINE to kids who's grades are "C" or lower. On that last one, real discipline is grounding, forced study time at home under parental supervision, taking away privileges. Yes, TV, computers, cell phones, and driving a car are PRIVILEGES. Think about it. Are ANY of those things more important than a decent education?
Loving your kids ought to include ensuring they get a good K-12 education, good nutrition, adequate sleep, and good exercise. Love them enough to ensure they get off to a good start in life. Or don't you care whether they do? It's YOUR responsibility, not the schools'! An involved parent can make up for a LOT of short-comings by schools. If you're not doing your part you have no business blaming others. And if you have no interest in ensuring your kids get these things, maybe parenting isn't for you.
Only Sweden pays more per pupil than we do. If money were the solution we wouldn't be at the bottom of all developed countries in test scores! HELLO!
Over the past 15 years we've increased education spending by 60% ABOVE the rate of inflation. Think about that. Adjusted for inflation, we're spending 60% more than we were 15 years ago. If money were the solution a rational person has to conclude that test scores should have gone up dramatically.
The problem has much more to do with no one holding our kids responsible to learn! Not the education system. Not teachers. Most sadly, not parents. And that latter one is probably our biggest impediment to getting our kids test scores up where they should be near the top of all nations.
Someone needs to tell our kids who's in charge. For that matter, someone needs to tell PARENTS(!) they're in charge and responsible(!) and it's well past time they started behaving that way. That means: checking how their kids are doing in every class every day, looking over kids' work after it's graded, helping their kids with their homework in a disciplined way (ie, every day if necessary and NOT by doing it FOR them!), talking with teachers how the kids are doing, applying REAL DISCIPLINE to kids who's grades are "C" or lower. On that last one, real discipline is grounding, forced study time at home under parental supervision, taking away privileges. Yes, TV, computers, cell phones, and driving a car are PRIVILEGES. Think about it. Are ANY of those things more important than a decent education?
Loving your kids ought to include ensuring they get a good K-12 education, good nutrition, adequate sleep, and good exercise. Love them enough to ensure they get off to a good start in life. Or don't you care whether they do? It's YOUR responsibility, not the schools'! An involved parent can make up for a LOT of short-comings by schools. If you're not doing your part you have no business blaming others. And if you have no interest in ensuring your kids get these things, maybe parenting isn't for you.
AP Says Most Americans Think Their Taxes Are Fair!
New AP headline: 54% of Americans think their taxes are fair. Sounds impressive. Until you factor in the fact that 40% of Americans pay no federal taxes. Is it any surprise that people are satisfied with their taxes when they pay none or almost none?
It's amazing to me that the AP folks think that means something important. It's even more amazing to me that many Americans will take the AP's headline to mean people are happy to pay taxes. Folks, they're not saying they're happy about the taxes they pay; they're happy they don't pay any!
In fact, it is NOT fair that 40% of Americans pay no taxes. No one should get a free ride. Everyone should pay at least a little for the benefits we ALL derive from things the government does. Getting a free ride is not a right. Paying a little ought to be considered a responsibility by Americans. For sure, the percentage paying no federal taxes should not be a whopping 40%!
It's amazing to me that the AP folks think that means something important. It's even more amazing to me that many Americans will take the AP's headline to mean people are happy to pay taxes. Folks, they're not saying they're happy about the taxes they pay; they're happy they don't pay any!
In fact, it is NOT fair that 40% of Americans pay no taxes. No one should get a free ride. Everyone should pay at least a little for the benefits we ALL derive from things the government does. Getting a free ride is not a right. Paying a little ought to be considered a responsibility by Americans. For sure, the percentage paying no federal taxes should not be a whopping 40%!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
President Obama (Paraphrasing): Bush's Policies Were Better Than I Thought
Referencing my previous blog, isn't President Obama's 'enlightenment' regarding Bush's policies the same, in essence, as his saying "Bush was actually practicing better policies than I gave him credit for all these years I've been castigating him for them. In fact, I like them so much that I've decided to keep most of them without much change after all."
Monday, April 11, 2011
Another Bush Failing Embraced By Obama
In 2006, then Senator Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling saying the following:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops herre.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem [not a spending problem]."
[And that was when the debt was 'only' $8 Trillion. Since then Democrats have pushed it well past $14 Trillion and is still going up fast. (Remember that these 'cuts' we're hearing about only reduce this year's debt by a small percentage. These decreases in spending will still keep the debt going up until the first year we spend LESS than we take in. I'm guessing we won't have a balanced budget ... ie, START actually reducing the national debt ... for another twenty years. Think about that!)]
Fast forward to today, April 11, 2011, when Obama is president and declared the following:
"Raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this ecnomy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administrations's policies, you can play around with."
It's NOT okay to "play around with" raising the debt ceiling when it's Bush and a Republican congress doing it but it's completely okay when it's Obama and Democrats in congress doing it. Then (2006) it was by definition stupid, irresponsible and an abdication of leadership to raise the debt ceiling. Now by definition it's smart, responsible and leader-like to do so.
The Media has been trying to convince us for the past 3+ years that everything President Obama does is smart, responsible and leader-like by definition. Now they have a problem however. There's no way on this issue for The Media to nuance both of Obama's positions as senator and president into being entirely correct. It must be painful for them to report on this flip-flop.
In defense of his new-found (ie, flip-flop) support for raising the debt ceiling President Obama said in effect that one cannot know the importance of things like this until they become the president. Is that so, sir?
Well, we've heard a lot of that explanation while Obama has been president. While Bush was president, Obama criticized and opposed nearly all of Bush's policies. As candidate Obama said he'd reverse all those bad things he was so critical of. And his motto reflected that promise ... "Hope and Change". Remember how that was directed primarily at Bush's policies? How many of the Bush policies of which he was so critical has he changed as he promised?
Close Guantanamo? Nope. Change terrorist trials from military tribunal to US Courts? Nope. Stop rendition? Nope. Get out of Iraq faster than Bush promised? Nope. (As a candidate Obama said he'd get troops out of Iraq 6 months faster than Bush's plan. A couple months after becoming president Obama quietly changed it back to the same date Bush has planned. Now, he's considering keeping them there longer!) Wrap up Afghanistan and get out quicker than Bush was doing? Nope. Do away with the Patriot Act? Nope. Fix the economy and get employment under 8% in six months? Nope ... not even close. Fix Social Seurity, Medicare and Medicaid and make them solvent? Nope. (In case you hadn't noticed, his health care reform only postponed(!) medicare's insolvency by about 15 years and he's done nothing to fix either Social Security or Medicaid.) Get the national debt under control? Nope. (In fact, until last week he still wanted to keep spending lots more than the government takes in.) Lead a new spirit of cooperation and reaching across the aisle? Are you kidding me? Until Republicans took back the House this year he refused to even talk with them. To them he said "we won so we get to do it our way" and to conservative Republican citizens who protested his policies he said "sit down and be quiet". Put an end to divisiveness? For sure, no. (Now he appears more cooperative but that's obviously only because Republicans took control of the House.)
There are PLENTY more examples but you get the idea. So, why should we be surprised that, as president, Obama flip-flops and now says that raising the debt ceiling is a good thing to do?
Also, by what kind of adjective should one compare his promises with his actions? Was he naive about what's necessary to run the country? Obviously! Was he more inexperienced than those who voted for him believed? Yes! Hypocritical? Yes, definitely. Close-minded? Yes. Arrogant? Yes. Acting like the president of ALL The People? Absolutely not. Partisan in his actions and words? ABSOLUTELY. Divisive in his actions and words? Absolutely.
The critical questions are these. Can he change his fiscal policies quickly enough to keep our country solvent (regarding debt and spending)? (They haven't worked so far. We're scary close to an economic collapse.) Can he actually change his attitude on various policies that most Americans oppose or are his shifts in that direction purely political expediency (until Democrats control everything again)? Will he govern more to the middle (we're a center-right country, remember?) or remain committed to the progressive agenda? Time will tell. I do worry what would happen should Democrats take back full control in the next election. If they do, it's more apt than not to be full steam ahead with the progressive agenda.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops herre.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem [not a spending problem]."
[And that was when the debt was 'only' $8 Trillion. Since then Democrats have pushed it well past $14 Trillion and is still going up fast. (Remember that these 'cuts' we're hearing about only reduce this year's debt by a small percentage. These decreases in spending will still keep the debt going up until the first year we spend LESS than we take in. I'm guessing we won't have a balanced budget ... ie, START actually reducing the national debt ... for another twenty years. Think about that!)]
Fast forward to today, April 11, 2011, when Obama is president and declared the following:
"Raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this ecnomy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administrations's policies, you can play around with."
It's NOT okay to "play around with" raising the debt ceiling when it's Bush and a Republican congress doing it but it's completely okay when it's Obama and Democrats in congress doing it. Then (2006) it was by definition stupid, irresponsible and an abdication of leadership to raise the debt ceiling. Now by definition it's smart, responsible and leader-like to do so.
The Media has been trying to convince us for the past 3+ years that everything President Obama does is smart, responsible and leader-like by definition. Now they have a problem however. There's no way on this issue for The Media to nuance both of Obama's positions as senator and president into being entirely correct. It must be painful for them to report on this flip-flop.
In defense of his new-found (ie, flip-flop) support for raising the debt ceiling President Obama said in effect that one cannot know the importance of things like this until they become the president. Is that so, sir?
Well, we've heard a lot of that explanation while Obama has been president. While Bush was president, Obama criticized and opposed nearly all of Bush's policies. As candidate Obama said he'd reverse all those bad things he was so critical of. And his motto reflected that promise ... "Hope and Change". Remember how that was directed primarily at Bush's policies? How many of the Bush policies of which he was so critical has he changed as he promised?
Close Guantanamo? Nope. Change terrorist trials from military tribunal to US Courts? Nope. Stop rendition? Nope. Get out of Iraq faster than Bush promised? Nope. (As a candidate Obama said he'd get troops out of Iraq 6 months faster than Bush's plan. A couple months after becoming president Obama quietly changed it back to the same date Bush has planned. Now, he's considering keeping them there longer!) Wrap up Afghanistan and get out quicker than Bush was doing? Nope. Do away with the Patriot Act? Nope. Fix the economy and get employment under 8% in six months? Nope ... not even close. Fix Social Seurity, Medicare and Medicaid and make them solvent? Nope. (In case you hadn't noticed, his health care reform only postponed(!) medicare's insolvency by about 15 years and he's done nothing to fix either Social Security or Medicaid.) Get the national debt under control? Nope. (In fact, until last week he still wanted to keep spending lots more than the government takes in.) Lead a new spirit of cooperation and reaching across the aisle? Are you kidding me? Until Republicans took back the House this year he refused to even talk with them. To them he said "we won so we get to do it our way" and to conservative Republican citizens who protested his policies he said "sit down and be quiet". Put an end to divisiveness? For sure, no. (Now he appears more cooperative but that's obviously only because Republicans took control of the House.)
There are PLENTY more examples but you get the idea. So, why should we be surprised that, as president, Obama flip-flops and now says that raising the debt ceiling is a good thing to do?
Also, by what kind of adjective should one compare his promises with his actions? Was he naive about what's necessary to run the country? Obviously! Was he more inexperienced than those who voted for him believed? Yes! Hypocritical? Yes, definitely. Close-minded? Yes. Arrogant? Yes. Acting like the president of ALL The People? Absolutely not. Partisan in his actions and words? ABSOLUTELY. Divisive in his actions and words? Absolutely.
The critical questions are these. Can he change his fiscal policies quickly enough to keep our country solvent (regarding debt and spending)? (They haven't worked so far. We're scary close to an economic collapse.) Can he actually change his attitude on various policies that most Americans oppose or are his shifts in that direction purely political expediency (until Democrats control everything again)? Will he govern more to the middle (we're a center-right country, remember?) or remain committed to the progressive agenda? Time will tell. I do worry what would happen should Democrats take back full control in the next election. If they do, it's more apt than not to be full steam ahead with the progressive agenda.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Welcome To The Real World President Obama
May need to stay in Iraq longer? Really? Check it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519332/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
President Obama is learning that the real world works much differently than in a classroom. It appears he ran more on wishful thinking than reality, eh? So, how many of his promises has he actually fullfilled? What about all those Bush policies he was going to do away with? How many has he ended up continuing? Most of them. Everything's turning out to be much harder to pull off in the real world compared with words in a campaign. Not a surprise to most of us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519332/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
President Obama is learning that the real world works much differently than in a classroom. It appears he ran more on wishful thinking than reality, eh? So, how many of his promises has he actually fullfilled? What about all those Bush policies he was going to do away with? How many has he ended up continuing? Most of them. Everything's turning out to be much harder to pull off in the real world compared with words in a campaign. Not a surprise to most of us.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Democrats Aren't Serious About Reducing Our Debt. They're FAILING At Their Job!
So, here's the damage done this past decade starting with Bush coming into office:
6 years of Republican controlled congress: $3.2 Trillion new debt.
4 years of Democrat controlled congress: $5.0 Tillion new debt on top of that.
Let me translate that for you. Democrats piled up 56% MORE debt in 2/3 the time that Republicans did. Here's another comparison based on average debt increase per year:
Republicans: $0.53 Trillion/year
Democrats: $1.25 Trillion/year
And if you blieve the media hype that Democrats only spent more because of the recession Obama inherited (ie, Republicans made them do it), Democrats spent $1 Trillion the year BEFORE the recession hit ... that's double what Republicans spent previous years.
Democrats have been piling up debt 2 1/2 times more per year than Republicans!!! It's a fact so why not admit it? Whether they 'had to' or not, we still must reduce the debt it created, right?
Democrats' solution to budget and debt reductions: take it as slow as possible. $36 Billion decrease in the current budget ... R U Kidding Me? That's only 2.4% of this year's budget deficit and a paltry 0.25% of the national debt. At that rate we'll achieve a balanced budget in about a hundred years. That's INSANE! Not to mention SUICIDAL! Our economy will NOT survive that long!
Who's trying to be serious about debt reduction based on everything we're hearing by ALL media: Republicans. Why? Because they know it WILL destroy our economy and they're at least acting like they care. Pretty much every respected economist says the debt will destroy our economy. The presdent's OWN debt commission said so. Why is it that only Republicans are the least bit serious about fixing this problem?
Who's NOT trying to be serious about debt reduction (they're vigorously opposing serious budget reductions): Democrats. Why? Because it'll be painful to Americans. Translation: they'll lose votes from the millions of Americans who want government to take care of them instead of acting like responsible people and doing whatever it takes to make a living for themselves.
Wake up people! Before it's too late! Our dollar could cease being the standard currency very soon. When that happens we'll be in a world of hurt, especially with all this debt! Most of you out there don't seem to know it's about to happen and you don't seem to know the consequences. You think chaos can't happen here? Think again!
6 years of Republican controlled congress: $3.2 Trillion new debt.
4 years of Democrat controlled congress: $5.0 Tillion new debt on top of that.
Let me translate that for you. Democrats piled up 56% MORE debt in 2/3 the time that Republicans did. Here's another comparison based on average debt increase per year:
Republicans: $0.53 Trillion/year
Democrats: $1.25 Trillion/year
And if you blieve the media hype that Democrats only spent more because of the recession Obama inherited (ie, Republicans made them do it), Democrats spent $1 Trillion the year BEFORE the recession hit ... that's double what Republicans spent previous years.
Democrats have been piling up debt 2 1/2 times more per year than Republicans!!! It's a fact so why not admit it? Whether they 'had to' or not, we still must reduce the debt it created, right?
Democrats' solution to budget and debt reductions: take it as slow as possible. $36 Billion decrease in the current budget ... R U Kidding Me? That's only 2.4% of this year's budget deficit and a paltry 0.25% of the national debt. At that rate we'll achieve a balanced budget in about a hundred years. That's INSANE! Not to mention SUICIDAL! Our economy will NOT survive that long!
Who's trying to be serious about debt reduction based on everything we're hearing by ALL media: Republicans. Why? Because they know it WILL destroy our economy and they're at least acting like they care. Pretty much every respected economist says the debt will destroy our economy. The presdent's OWN debt commission said so. Why is it that only Republicans are the least bit serious about fixing this problem?
Who's NOT trying to be serious about debt reduction (they're vigorously opposing serious budget reductions): Democrats. Why? Because it'll be painful to Americans. Translation: they'll lose votes from the millions of Americans who want government to take care of them instead of acting like responsible people and doing whatever it takes to make a living for themselves.
Wake up people! Before it's too late! Our dollar could cease being the standard currency very soon. When that happens we'll be in a world of hurt, especially with all this debt! Most of you out there don't seem to know it's about to happen and you don't seem to know the consequences. You think chaos can't happen here? Think again!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Stalemate's Coming In Libya. Big Surprise!
This 'limited' war is about to produce the entirely predictable result: an unaccepable outcome for the Libyan people. It gives me no great satisfaction to say I told you so! Check it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
What history has proved ALWAYS results from the way we approached this (self-imposed limited engagement against a tyrant) is producing the same result once again. Who'd have guessed? Only anyone paying any attention to history; even history as recent as our Iran and Iraq wars.
If your means are inconsistent with the desired ends, what do you expect to carry the day? Luck? Against despotic tyrants? Are you kidding me? @ Good Grief People!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
What history has proved ALWAYS results from the way we approached this (self-imposed limited engagement against a tyrant) is producing the same result once again. Who'd have guessed? Only anyone paying any attention to history; even history as recent as our Iran and Iraq wars.
If your means are inconsistent with the desired ends, what do you expect to carry the day? Luck? Against despotic tyrants? Are you kidding me? @ Good Grief People!
Congressional Democrats: It's YOUR Fault!!!
The reason we don't have a budget and the reason we're going through the pain of a possible government shutdown is because DEMOCRATS FAILED TO DO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY last year and pass a budget when it was due. THEY could have done ANYTHING THEY WANTED WITH THE BUDGET LAST YEAR AND REPUBLICANS COULDN'T HAVE STOPPED THEM! So, WHY DIDN'T THEY? Ans: because they CHOSE not to!!!
What's REALLY disgusting about that is that they did it for purely political reasons, rather than doing what the American people needed and wanted them to do! It was nothing less than a total abdication of their constitutional responsibilities (as if the constitution actually means much to them anyway).
This budget thing going on right now is one thing they CANNOT blame on Republicans because Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House when the budget was due! It's REALLY interesting that The Media doesn't seem to care about holding them accountable for their failure. Blaming Republicans for not cleaning up DEMOCRATS' MESS faster is more fun for them.
Everyone knows WHY Democrats didn't pass a budget when they were supposed to. They get to blame whatever pain we're going through now (the tough budget fight AND the cuts) on Republicans. They didn't have the courage to do what is needed to fix our very serious fiscal problems. Y'know what that makes Congressional Democrats? A bunch of conniving, irresponsible cowards!
What's REALLY disgusting about that is that they did it for purely political reasons, rather than doing what the American people needed and wanted them to do! It was nothing less than a total abdication of their constitutional responsibilities (as if the constitution actually means much to them anyway).
This budget thing going on right now is one thing they CANNOT blame on Republicans because Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House when the budget was due! It's REALLY interesting that The Media doesn't seem to care about holding them accountable for their failure. Blaming Republicans for not cleaning up DEMOCRATS' MESS faster is more fun for them.
Everyone knows WHY Democrats didn't pass a budget when they were supposed to. They get to blame whatever pain we're going through now (the tough budget fight AND the cuts) on Republicans. They didn't have the courage to do what is needed to fix our very serious fiscal problems. Y'know what that makes Congressional Democrats? A bunch of conniving, irresponsible cowards!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Trouble With Collective Bargaining In The Public Sector
I'm not opposed to collective bargaining in general. Not a big fan of it but I recognize the necessity of it to prevent abuses upon employees. ABUSES mind you.
Collective bargaining in the private sector serves the interests of both sides ... managers (those who pay one's salary and need to maintain an effective workforce) and employees (who get paid a fair salary for good work).
'Managment' has an interest in keeping the company running which includes making some profit, ensuring investors get something for their money, producing a quality/competitive product, ability to set the company's strategy with enough freedom, and staying in business. The people granting salary increases and benefits have something to say about those, as they should in order to keep the business healthy economically and other ways. They have and ought to have the ability to control costs sufficiently to keep a healthy bottom-line or they won't be in business long. Collective bargaining works for them because they're the ones who have responsibility for the money side of the business.
Employees, on the other hand, need a safe workplace, fair work practices and fair wages in return for an honest day's work. They need some control over that so they're not taken advantage of by a dictatorial company leadership. If not for unions, company leadership has the ability to make life miserable for them. Which in fact happened back in the day and is why we have unions.
Unions in public employment has serious built-in problems. The big one is that the people with whom employees 'collectively bargain' are NOT the ones who pay for their wages and benefits. Management's incentive to do what's right for the people who pay the bills is almost completely lacking. It's an obvious formula for problems.
In government, there's actually an incentive at play for managers to give employees more or less whatever they want, not what citizens can afford. Not only does the money NOT come from that management but higher pay and more benefits gets more votes to the managers who give away the most stuff to employees. Managers don't have a big problem giving away the company's wealth because it's not their wealth. Public sector managers have little accountability to the people who pay the wages and benefits, the citizens of America. In fact, if their product or its costs get out of control, public management aren't the people hurt the most. They're accountable to no one for keeping a healthy bottom-line or product (ie, service to citizens).
The biggest problem with public employee unions is that the people who pay the negotiated pay and benefits increases are NOT AT THE BARGAINING TABLE. In that sense what they're doing is NOT REALLY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AT ALL. It's more a form of collusion to rip off American taxpayers with almost no oversight from them. Public employment managers have almost no incentive to do the right thing for the citizens from whom the money comes. The only incentive to speak of is to give employees what they want. That's a formula for financial ruin, period.
It's also a formula for a disfunctional government that's prone to becoming bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient, and ineffective. Why is it a surprise that our education system has failed us beginning with the very year that politicians put government, especially federal government, more in charge? Don't you see the connection? 30+ years of the Department of Education screwing with our education system has gotten us what exactly? Education results that took our system from the best in the developed world to the worst in only 30 years.
How can a system that operates so free of oversight by and accountability to the people who pay the bills be expected to produce those peoples' desired results or TRULY represent their interests? Hello? IT CAN'T! For example, those who work in the education system claim to be the experts. If so, exactly why haven't they fixed our broken education system? We've given them everything they've asked for over the past 30 years and look what it got us. Clearly, it is NOT "all about the kids" as they keep claiming.
It's time we citizens took back control of our government and the nonsensical bloated bureaucracy that's had pretty much a free reign for way too long. Our country is completely broke, way in debt and our education system is completely broken in terms of results. It's not the citizens fault! It's the fault of those doing that work for us! They're clearly not capable of self-correction so we need to get back involved. Our public employees and their managers had better get used to more scrutiny. Lord knows, they've made it absolutely clear it is needed if our country is to ever prosper again.
Collective bargaining in the private sector serves the interests of both sides ... managers (those who pay one's salary and need to maintain an effective workforce) and employees (who get paid a fair salary for good work).
'Managment' has an interest in keeping the company running which includes making some profit, ensuring investors get something for their money, producing a quality/competitive product, ability to set the company's strategy with enough freedom, and staying in business. The people granting salary increases and benefits have something to say about those, as they should in order to keep the business healthy economically and other ways. They have and ought to have the ability to control costs sufficiently to keep a healthy bottom-line or they won't be in business long. Collective bargaining works for them because they're the ones who have responsibility for the money side of the business.
Employees, on the other hand, need a safe workplace, fair work practices and fair wages in return for an honest day's work. They need some control over that so they're not taken advantage of by a dictatorial company leadership. If not for unions, company leadership has the ability to make life miserable for them. Which in fact happened back in the day and is why we have unions.
Unions in public employment has serious built-in problems. The big one is that the people with whom employees 'collectively bargain' are NOT the ones who pay for their wages and benefits. Management's incentive to do what's right for the people who pay the bills is almost completely lacking. It's an obvious formula for problems.
In government, there's actually an incentive at play for managers to give employees more or less whatever they want, not what citizens can afford. Not only does the money NOT come from that management but higher pay and more benefits gets more votes to the managers who give away the most stuff to employees. Managers don't have a big problem giving away the company's wealth because it's not their wealth. Public sector managers have little accountability to the people who pay the wages and benefits, the citizens of America. In fact, if their product or its costs get out of control, public management aren't the people hurt the most. They're accountable to no one for keeping a healthy bottom-line or product (ie, service to citizens).
The biggest problem with public employee unions is that the people who pay the negotiated pay and benefits increases are NOT AT THE BARGAINING TABLE. In that sense what they're doing is NOT REALLY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AT ALL. It's more a form of collusion to rip off American taxpayers with almost no oversight from them. Public employment managers have almost no incentive to do the right thing for the citizens from whom the money comes. The only incentive to speak of is to give employees what they want. That's a formula for financial ruin, period.
It's also a formula for a disfunctional government that's prone to becoming bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient, and ineffective. Why is it a surprise that our education system has failed us beginning with the very year that politicians put government, especially federal government, more in charge? Don't you see the connection? 30+ years of the Department of Education screwing with our education system has gotten us what exactly? Education results that took our system from the best in the developed world to the worst in only 30 years.
How can a system that operates so free of oversight by and accountability to the people who pay the bills be expected to produce those peoples' desired results or TRULY represent their interests? Hello? IT CAN'T! For example, those who work in the education system claim to be the experts. If so, exactly why haven't they fixed our broken education system? We've given them everything they've asked for over the past 30 years and look what it got us. Clearly, it is NOT "all about the kids" as they keep claiming.
It's time we citizens took back control of our government and the nonsensical bloated bureaucracy that's had pretty much a free reign for way too long. Our country is completely broke, way in debt and our education system is completely broken in terms of results. It's not the citizens fault! It's the fault of those doing that work for us! They're clearly not capable of self-correction so we need to get back involved. Our public employees and their managers had better get used to more scrutiny. Lord knows, they've made it absolutely clear it is needed if our country is to ever prosper again.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
How's That Limited Response Thing Working Out Sir?
Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42440124/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
So, President Obama, how's that "limited" and "measured" response thing working out for you? Y'know, that policy whereby other countries do the heavy lifting instead of us all the time? Better yet, how's it working out for the Libyans?
So, President Obama, how's that "limited" and "measured" response thing working out for you? Y'know, that policy whereby other countries do the heavy lifting instead of us all the time? Better yet, how's it working out for the Libyans?
Why No News About Libya Today? After All, Weren't Combat Operations Completed Yesterday ... Again?
Why isn't there ANY news today on MSNBC talking up the fact that we are FINALLY done with combat operations in Libya? We ARE finished with them aren't we? After all President Obama promised(!) we'd be done yesterday when he went back on his word and extended our combat mission.
So, why isn't it a big deal when we end our combat role in a foreign war? Isn't that something to celebrate? Hmmmmmm.
Maybe it's because we're not really done with combat operations there (as of 4/4/2011) and neither the President nor The Media want to admit it? Maybe, as I've said multiple times before, the world, especially NATO and the UN, cannot or will not do the policing that they love to criticize us for doing?
Stay tuned!
So, why isn't it a big deal when we end our combat role in a foreign war? Isn't that something to celebrate? Hmmmmmm.
Maybe it's because we're not really done with combat operations there (as of 4/4/2011) and neither the President nor The Media want to admit it? Maybe, as I've said multiple times before, the world, especially NATO and the UN, cannot or will not do the policing that they love to criticize us for doing?
Stay tuned!
Obama: A Shutdown Would Be "Inexcusable"?!?!
President Obama, we wouldn't BE in this situation of needing to deal with the budget if Democrats had done their constitutional duty and passed a budget last year when they were totally in charge of the federal government ... House, Senate and White House.
Why didn't they pass a budget prior to the election as the constitution requires? Because:
1. If they passed the budget they wanted that would keep spending going: keeping the spending going just before the election when a large majority of Americans were getting really fed up with too much spending would have made their election results even worse!
2. If they passed a budget that cut spending: the 'governmment will take care of you' crowd (most Democrats, especially progressives) would castigate them for cutting entitlements, welfare, education, etc ... even though that's what must be done ... according to Obama's OWN economic advisory team.
Democrats didn't have the courage to do either their constitutional duty or the right thing for the country (cut spending) so they chose to do nothing(!), knowing Republicans were prepared to do that in which case they could use it against them in the next election. They saw it as a win-win-win.
Win #1: with no budget to restrict their spending, they could just keep piling up the debt with no budget accountability ... because there was no budget.
Win #2: they KNEW Republicans were committed to cutting spending so, if Republicans took over the House (which anyone with half a brain knew was going to happen), they could let the Republicans cut what NEEDED to be cut and then blame them for all the heartless cuts (that they didn't have the courage to make).
Win #3: they KNEW that if Republicans won control of the House, Democrats could hold up the budget with irresponsible claims about too much cutting and then use the "Republicans are shutting down the government" argument against those heartless and irresponsible GOPers.
Only problem with what they chose to do is it makes them losers in every literal and figurative sense of the word.
To me, it was cowardly of Democrats to not pass a budget when needed and for the reasons they didn't do it. It was pure politics of the worst and most irresponsible kind. Playing political games while allowing our federal budget and debt spiral further out of control is just sick.
The reason we're having this problem with getting a budget done HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS OR BEHAVIOR. The ONLY reason we don't have a budget now is because Democrats had total control of the federal government and could have passed ANY BUDGET THEY WANTED LAST YEAR WHEN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED THEM TO DO SO.
Got a question for you. Haven't all legislators sworn to uphold the constitution? The hard fact is, therefore, that they're the ones in total violation of their constitutional duty to pass a budget. Period! It has nothing to do with Republicans now having to carry their water and do Democrats' job for them.
Why didn't they pass a budget prior to the election as the constitution requires? Because:
1. If they passed the budget they wanted that would keep spending going: keeping the spending going just before the election when a large majority of Americans were getting really fed up with too much spending would have made their election results even worse!
2. If they passed a budget that cut spending: the 'governmment will take care of you' crowd (most Democrats, especially progressives) would castigate them for cutting entitlements, welfare, education, etc ... even though that's what must be done ... according to Obama's OWN economic advisory team.
Democrats didn't have the courage to do either their constitutional duty or the right thing for the country (cut spending) so they chose to do nothing(!), knowing Republicans were prepared to do that in which case they could use it against them in the next election. They saw it as a win-win-win.
Win #1: with no budget to restrict their spending, they could just keep piling up the debt with no budget accountability ... because there was no budget.
Win #2: they KNEW Republicans were committed to cutting spending so, if Republicans took over the House (which anyone with half a brain knew was going to happen), they could let the Republicans cut what NEEDED to be cut and then blame them for all the heartless cuts (that they didn't have the courage to make).
Win #3: they KNEW that if Republicans won control of the House, Democrats could hold up the budget with irresponsible claims about too much cutting and then use the "Republicans are shutting down the government" argument against those heartless and irresponsible GOPers.
Only problem with what they chose to do is it makes them losers in every literal and figurative sense of the word.
To me, it was cowardly of Democrats to not pass a budget when needed and for the reasons they didn't do it. It was pure politics of the worst and most irresponsible kind. Playing political games while allowing our federal budget and debt spiral further out of control is just sick.
The reason we're having this problem with getting a budget done HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS OR BEHAVIOR. The ONLY reason we don't have a budget now is because Democrats had total control of the federal government and could have passed ANY BUDGET THEY WANTED LAST YEAR WHEN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED THEM TO DO SO.
Got a question for you. Haven't all legislators sworn to uphold the constitution? The hard fact is, therefore, that they're the ones in total violation of their constitutional duty to pass a budget. Period! It has nothing to do with Republicans now having to carry their water and do Democrats' job for them.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Obama Had Better Be Preparing The Opposition Forces How To Govern!!!
Another reason the Libyan thing could be a disaster is if Western nations are not helping the rebels to understand how to transition the government from tyranny to freedom. If the rebels are as disorganized about doing that as they are at fighting Kadhafi, the radical and/or despotic forces in the Muslim world WILL take advantage of it and take over there.
Muslim countries have NO idea how to transition from tyranny to freedom. It's easier to put some kind of dictator in charge and just try to get by with that. Just because they throw the bums out does not guarantee freedom will take over. It takes work to get there. HARD work! It also takes thinking in a manner they've never done before. By definition, they need help whether they think they do or not!
President Obama, working with other Western nations, you had better be prepping the rebels for the tough work ahead (after taking over the country) leading their nation to a level of freedom they seek and need. If you and other Western nations don't do that ... if you FOOLISHLY think they can do it on their own ... it'll be the SAME mistake Bush 2 made in Iraq for which you and your Democratic buddies criticized him so harshly (although justifiably). You WILL be doomed to make the same(!) mistake he did! Chaos will ensue in Libya and things most likely will get mighty ugly in a very short time. Obama has repeatedly criticized Bush 2 for not being prepared for the aftermath. Will he learn from that or repeat Bush's error? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
Muslim countries have NO idea how to transition from tyranny to freedom. It's easier to put some kind of dictator in charge and just try to get by with that. Just because they throw the bums out does not guarantee freedom will take over. It takes work to get there. HARD work! It also takes thinking in a manner they've never done before. By definition, they need help whether they think they do or not!
President Obama, working with other Western nations, you had better be prepping the rebels for the tough work ahead (after taking over the country) leading their nation to a level of freedom they seek and need. If you and other Western nations don't do that ... if you FOOLISHLY think they can do it on their own ... it'll be the SAME mistake Bush 2 made in Iraq for which you and your Democratic buddies criticized him so harshly (although justifiably). You WILL be doomed to make the same(!) mistake he did! Chaos will ensue in Libya and things most likely will get mighty ugly in a very short time. Obama has repeatedly criticized Bush 2 for not being prepared for the aftermath. Will he learn from that or repeat Bush's error? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
Do You Really Believe Today Will Be The Last Of Our Libyan Combat Operations? Really, Now!
Based on the history of despots, dictators and most Muslim countries, it's logical to believe that today will NOT be the last of America's combat operations in Libya. President Obama could imprudently make it appear so in spite of the reality in Libya but it'll be an illusion unless Kadhafi and the rest of his regime (including his sons) are gone.
If Kadhafi stays in power or sufficient amounts of his regime remain, Libya will continue being a problem for the Libyan people, the middle east and us. Not having as our absolute goal getting them out of power is foolish and short-sighted. Did we not learn anything from the first Iraq war or, for that matter, the history of that region of the world?
Getting them outa there would be the best thing to do. It is a HUGE risk however, because, by our foreign policy, we'll have no say in who takes over for that regime. Libya could end up with something worse.
In the end, it'll be up to the Libyan people. Do they want to continue thousands of years of turmoil or are they ready for real freedom? It IS a clear and simple choice. It won't be easy to achieve but they have to understand that some of the most difficult work will come AFTER Kadhafi's regime is gone. Do they have the will and courage to see it through? Sadly, history strongly suggests they won't.
I remain hopeful for a good outcome for the Libyan people and for the sake of that region. I'm cautiously optomistic but ONLY if Kadhafi and all significant elements of his regime are booted out of there. But to think our work there is done after today is foolish.
If Kadhafi stays in power or sufficient amounts of his regime remain, Libya will continue being a problem for the Libyan people, the middle east and us. Not having as our absolute goal getting them out of power is foolish and short-sighted. Did we not learn anything from the first Iraq war or, for that matter, the history of that region of the world?
Getting them outa there would be the best thing to do. It is a HUGE risk however, because, by our foreign policy, we'll have no say in who takes over for that regime. Libya could end up with something worse.
In the end, it'll be up to the Libyan people. Do they want to continue thousands of years of turmoil or are they ready for real freedom? It IS a clear and simple choice. It won't be easy to achieve but they have to understand that some of the most difficult work will come AFTER Kadhafi's regime is gone. Do they have the will and courage to see it through? Sadly, history strongly suggests they won't.
I remain hopeful for a good outcome for the Libyan people and for the sake of that region. I'm cautiously optomistic but ONLY if Kadhafi and all significant elements of his regime are booted out of there. But to think our work there is done after today is foolish.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
End Of Combat In Libya: Well That Didn't Last Very Long President Obama!
I've been saying all along that it's delusional of President Obama to think NATO can do international policing without us doing most if not all the heavy lifting. Well, now they're asking us to continue combat missions in Libya. No big surprise to anyone with much common sense in my opinion. That NATO cannot handle Libya by themselves should have been obvious to him. Just because he wants them to do more heavy lifting in military matters doesn't mean they're either willing or able to do so. As always, it's up to us.
I can't find anywhere on the 'major networks' where they're reporting on the request by NATO to continue with our combat missions (probably because they know it'll make Obama look bad). So, here's the information that I had to get from Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/02/ease-libya-mission-qaddafi-holds/#
I've said for years that Obama's attempt to get other countries to handle military needs in their back yard was unrealistic. They have neither the monetary resources nor the backbone to do what he wants. It really bothers me how naive our president is.
I can't find anywhere on the 'major networks' where they're reporting on the request by NATO to continue with our combat missions (probably because they know it'll make Obama look bad). So, here's the information that I had to get from Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/02/ease-libya-mission-qaddafi-holds/#
I've said for years that Obama's attempt to get other countries to handle military needs in their back yard was unrealistic. They have neither the monetary resources nor the backbone to do what he wants. It really bothers me how naive our president is.
American Combat Missions In Libya Ended Yesterday, April 2, 2011. Yeah, Right!
President Obama ended combat missions in Libya yesterday ... Saturday April 2, 2011.
No big commentary here ... just a footnote for history sake about Obama's thinking that wars like this can be handled in a limited fashion. Let's see how long this 'end of combat misstions' lasts. It'll be interesting to hear Obama's justification for resuming combat missions ... when, not if, that happens.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/01/ending-air-combat-role-libya/#
No big commentary here ... just a footnote for history sake about Obama's thinking that wars like this can be handled in a limited fashion. Let's see how long this 'end of combat misstions' lasts. It'll be interesting to hear Obama's justification for resuming combat missions ... when, not if, that happens.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/01/ending-air-combat-role-libya/#
Friday, April 1, 2011
Which Is The Bigger Outrage, Really?
A church pastor in Florida burned a Quran. It's a stupid and sick thing to do. Burning Qurans is not something that I want America to be known for. It's an insult to all Muslims and it demonstrates a level of intolerance the large majority of Americans oppose.
But then this happens. A mob of 'average citizens' in Afghanistan storms a UN compound and randomly kill UN workers over what an unrelated person did on the other side of the planet. Let's see. Burning a book (okay, a holy book!) versus killing innocent people who are in your country as volunteers to help rebuild your country/society. Which is a worse offense? Maybe I should ask, which ought to be the worse offense in a sane world? This is soooo far from 'civil'. In fact, it seems to be the very definition of barbaric.(Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.)
When I hear Muslims call Americans intolerant (for things like wanting to understand what's behind radical Islam for example) and then I hear about a mob of average muslims murdering innocent people (who were actually loving on them, resepecting them and sacrificially demonstrating compassion toward them) because of what some totally unrelated loon in Florida did I wonder where the balance is?
If Islam is truly a religion of peace, how could Muslims do something like this to innocent people who are sacrificially and selflessly(!) helping them? I haven't heard yet but I don't expect all the murdered UN workers to have been Americans. What does that say about the Muslim form of justice? Even if they were Americans, the mob had no way of knowing it in advance so they obviously didn't care who they killed. For all they knew, some of the murdered UN workers could have even been Muslims too. I doubt those in the mob had any way of knowing that either.
Muslims cannot call it justice to murder innocent people. Real justice doesn't work that way. Real moral justice isn't delivered at random. In fact, the Quran is very strong on delivering harsh justice ... to those who committed an offense. Cut off the hand of a thief, lashing, etc. It's all done to specific people for their offenses. Justice cannot be random and still be justice.
So, there's nothing just or moral about what that mob did in the name of their religion of peace. If there's real peace in their hearts as so many Muslims claim, how can peace-loving Muslims murder someone engaged in trying to make their lives better? In what nature of religion is such a thing possible, much less be acceptable?
If Muslims want non-Muslims to believe that Islam is religion of peace they have an odd way of trying to prove it. The mob made a point for sure. I think I get it now.
What's interesting about my religion and ironic about this circumstance is that I'm called to forgive and to love those in that mob anyway. As you might imagine, I'm struggling with that right now but it's what I must try to do. It's what I'm accountable to do. So, how do I accomplish that? What will my reaction be? Well, it starts by: 1) forgiving them even though I don't want to and 2) praying for them to find real peace and learn to appreciate people who sacrificially try to help them in their challenging lives.
But then this happens. A mob of 'average citizens' in Afghanistan storms a UN compound and randomly kill UN workers over what an unrelated person did on the other side of the planet. Let's see. Burning a book (okay, a holy book!) versus killing innocent people who are in your country as volunteers to help rebuild your country/society. Which is a worse offense? Maybe I should ask, which ought to be the worse offense in a sane world? This is soooo far from 'civil'. In fact, it seems to be the very definition of barbaric.(Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.)
When I hear Muslims call Americans intolerant (for things like wanting to understand what's behind radical Islam for example) and then I hear about a mob of average muslims murdering innocent people (who were actually loving on them, resepecting them and sacrificially demonstrating compassion toward them) because of what some totally unrelated loon in Florida did I wonder where the balance is?
If Islam is truly a religion of peace, how could Muslims do something like this to innocent people who are sacrificially and selflessly(!) helping them? I haven't heard yet but I don't expect all the murdered UN workers to have been Americans. What does that say about the Muslim form of justice? Even if they were Americans, the mob had no way of knowing it in advance so they obviously didn't care who they killed. For all they knew, some of the murdered UN workers could have even been Muslims too. I doubt those in the mob had any way of knowing that either.
Muslims cannot call it justice to murder innocent people. Real justice doesn't work that way. Real moral justice isn't delivered at random. In fact, the Quran is very strong on delivering harsh justice ... to those who committed an offense. Cut off the hand of a thief, lashing, etc. It's all done to specific people for their offenses. Justice cannot be random and still be justice.
So, there's nothing just or moral about what that mob did in the name of their religion of peace. If there's real peace in their hearts as so many Muslims claim, how can peace-loving Muslims murder someone engaged in trying to make their lives better? In what nature of religion is such a thing possible, much less be acceptable?
If Muslims want non-Muslims to believe that Islam is religion of peace they have an odd way of trying to prove it. The mob made a point for sure. I think I get it now.
What's interesting about my religion and ironic about this circumstance is that I'm called to forgive and to love those in that mob anyway. As you might imagine, I'm struggling with that right now but it's what I must try to do. It's what I'm accountable to do. So, how do I accomplish that? What will my reaction be? Well, it starts by: 1) forgiving them even though I don't want to and 2) praying for them to find real peace and learn to appreciate people who sacrificially try to help them in their challenging lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)