Just a few questions and observations:
--I have seen the new sign of the apocalypse. It is the Oreo Triple Threat; no, it's not enough to simply have double-stuff cookies. Now, two of those are melded together, an inspired thumb in the eye of all the nannies out there whining about the "epidemic" of obesity. Nothing says American excess quite like taking a single cookie packed with sugar and doubling it. Besides, an "epidemic" is not caused by self-inflicted activity.
--On the eve of the 10th anniversay of 9/11, I heard New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg justify the omission of clergy from tomorrow's ceremony by referring to the "separation" clause in the Constitution. Just one problem; there is no such clause in the Constitution and shouldn't the chief executive of the nation's largest city know that? I get the rationale for Bloomberg's decision; if you let in one priest, rabbi, or imam, you have to let in all of them. The Baptists, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, and quite possibly the atheists, will want their voice represented, too. Besides, it is a memorial service, not a prayer meeting.
--The new govt talking point is infrastructure..it's falling apart, we need to fix it, blah blah blah. What has happened to revenue from the gas tax, which goes to every state plus the feds and is suppposed to be a dedicated source of funding for street and road projects? We don't have an infrastructure problem, we have a how-govt-spends-money problem. Last I checked, gas prices are not going down and people are not driving less. So, the money should be there. Well, is it?
--Where I live, the weather folks recorded record or near-record highs about a month ago, and now the forecast mentions record or near-record lows. The scaremongers will say "climate change" since global warming cannot apply to low temperatures. Of course, that same crowd will point to man as the cause, something NO bit of science has been able to accomplish. That climate changes is a given; that man causes it is a belief and the mere repetition of opinion does not turn it into fact.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Questions no one is asking
-What is being done with revenue from the gasoline tax?
The stimulus plan was allegedly for shovel-ready infrastructure jobs; the president has talked about an infrastructure bank; and, a lot of people make mention of crumbling infrastructure. Well, aren't the revenues from gasoline sales that flow to both the federal and state governments supposed to be used for roads, bridges, etc., i.e. infrastructure? Obviously, that is not happening so, where is the money going?
The notion that a bunch of public works, make-work projects constitute meaningful economic rejuvenation is political pabulum for people either too lazy to factcheck it, or too partisan to care that it's a lie. The country already has an "infrastructure bank" and deposits are made every time you and your friends fill their gas tanks. Part of the tax from gasoline purchases goes to the feds, and part goes to the states where the transactions occur. But, to hear the political class, this gas tax is something they are unaware of, its revenues are a secret.
-How, exactly, do you "afford" tax cuts?
Working through this question first requires accepting that it is rooted in a great deal of intellectual bankruptcy and fundamental dishonesty. Taxes are taken by the govt from you, BY FORCE, to use for a variety of things that may or may not constitute genuine public services. Those who claim that tax cuts require affordability base their claim on the false premise that your earnings really are not yours, that they belong to govt which decides how much of your own money you can actually keep. To "afford" those cuts would imply that the money that does not accrue to govt is being generated from other sources, in which case one can rightfully ask, who pockets do those other sources tap? The answer, by the way, is yours.
I accept that the role of taxes is to fund certain functions that benefit the public as a whole - police and fire protection, education, streets and roads, defense, jails and courts, and a few others. But, I do not accept that what people earn belongs to the govt, that the public is required to funnel an endless pipeline of cash to the elected class, or that you or me keeping more of our own money somehow harms the republic.
-What is a moderate or, for that matter, an independent?
I understand voters registering as independents; I have done it, too, when living in areas that are so one-party dominant that you have to be independent in order to participate. But, what does this mean on the national level? Ideologies range from liberal to conservative, libertarian to socialist/communist, and most of us fall somewhere in those ranges. Finding candidates or even parties that reflect most of what each of us believes is not difficult.
Independents have a self-righteousness that they are somehow above the fray, that they are flexible enough to consider each issue on its own merits. They also have a heightened sense of self-importance based on the media's constant reference to independents as the deciders on national matters. Frankly, being independent or moderate sounds a lot like being either indecisive or inattentive, and easily manipulated by whichever side delivers the prettiest speech and more artfully vilifies the opposition.
Most of us have a belief system, most of us have a notion of what the proper role of govt is and of what constitutes good or bad policy. Being moderate sounds like working within a huge gray area that has very small pockets of black and white, totally unlike real life. People make decisions on where to work, where to live, who to be friends with, what stores to patronize, and who their kids hang out with based largely on black and white factors.
None of these questions is especially difficult, IF people are willing to confront and answer them honestly. But, it is easier and more colorful to retreat to pat answers that are often heavy on misdirection and virtually bereft of rational thought. Then again, if rational thought were in abundance, we would have another term for the questions - moot points.
The stimulus plan was allegedly for shovel-ready infrastructure jobs; the president has talked about an infrastructure bank; and, a lot of people make mention of crumbling infrastructure. Well, aren't the revenues from gasoline sales that flow to both the federal and state governments supposed to be used for roads, bridges, etc., i.e. infrastructure? Obviously, that is not happening so, where is the money going?
The notion that a bunch of public works, make-work projects constitute meaningful economic rejuvenation is political pabulum for people either too lazy to factcheck it, or too partisan to care that it's a lie. The country already has an "infrastructure bank" and deposits are made every time you and your friends fill their gas tanks. Part of the tax from gasoline purchases goes to the feds, and part goes to the states where the transactions occur. But, to hear the political class, this gas tax is something they are unaware of, its revenues are a secret.
-How, exactly, do you "afford" tax cuts?
Working through this question first requires accepting that it is rooted in a great deal of intellectual bankruptcy and fundamental dishonesty. Taxes are taken by the govt from you, BY FORCE, to use for a variety of things that may or may not constitute genuine public services. Those who claim that tax cuts require affordability base their claim on the false premise that your earnings really are not yours, that they belong to govt which decides how much of your own money you can actually keep. To "afford" those cuts would imply that the money that does not accrue to govt is being generated from other sources, in which case one can rightfully ask, who pockets do those other sources tap? The answer, by the way, is yours.
I accept that the role of taxes is to fund certain functions that benefit the public as a whole - police and fire protection, education, streets and roads, defense, jails and courts, and a few others. But, I do not accept that what people earn belongs to the govt, that the public is required to funnel an endless pipeline of cash to the elected class, or that you or me keeping more of our own money somehow harms the republic.
-What is a moderate or, for that matter, an independent?
I understand voters registering as independents; I have done it, too, when living in areas that are so one-party dominant that you have to be independent in order to participate. But, what does this mean on the national level? Ideologies range from liberal to conservative, libertarian to socialist/communist, and most of us fall somewhere in those ranges. Finding candidates or even parties that reflect most of what each of us believes is not difficult.
Independents have a self-righteousness that they are somehow above the fray, that they are flexible enough to consider each issue on its own merits. They also have a heightened sense of self-importance based on the media's constant reference to independents as the deciders on national matters. Frankly, being independent or moderate sounds a lot like being either indecisive or inattentive, and easily manipulated by whichever side delivers the prettiest speech and more artfully vilifies the opposition.
Most of us have a belief system, most of us have a notion of what the proper role of govt is and of what constitutes good or bad policy. Being moderate sounds like working within a huge gray area that has very small pockets of black and white, totally unlike real life. People make decisions on where to work, where to live, who to be friends with, what stores to patronize, and who their kids hang out with based largely on black and white factors.
None of these questions is especially difficult, IF people are willing to confront and answer them honestly. But, it is easier and more colorful to retreat to pat answers that are often heavy on misdirection and virtually bereft of rational thought. Then again, if rational thought were in abundance, we would have another term for the questions - moot points.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It is not a deal, it's discrimination
They were actually proud of themselves. A group of opthalmologists engaging in a self-congratulatory commercial about the free cataract surgeries they had performed for "deserving" people. What made those folks deserving exactly, beyond (presumably) their inability or unwillingness to pay for the services they received? What makes them more deserving than anyone else who is doing what they have to do to get by, whether their efforts are wildly successful or marginal? And, that got me thinking, which anyone who knows me would say is a dangerous thing.
This business of cutting special deals for folks, based on age or occupation, has a word. That word is discrimination. American law forbids businesses from treating customers differently. That means they CANNOT charge military members or cops or teachers or anyone else less for a product than they charge the general public. It is a ploy cloaked in self-righteousness, since the beneficiaries are usually public sector employees, often servicemen or first responder types. No one has more respect for the military than I do, but these "deals" fly directly in the face of the values our fighting men and women are sworn to uphold. Would they be okay if haircuts cost less for, say, whites or for Baptists? Of course, not; and they should be just as outraged when the deal works to their advantage.
This probably dates back to the early-bird specials, which gave way to senior discounts, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever since older folks are the most affluent among us. Then, some communities that host military installations followed suit, which I found a bit insulting seeing as how I patronized many of those businesses all year long. Where was my "thank you" for helping owners during deployments? Where was their loyalty in recognition of mine? And really, where is a gutsy lawyer when you need one?
I have made a point of avoiding businesses that offer such discounts. They are wrong and probably illegal. But no one says anything. Just like no one says anything when someone's obnoxious kid makes a fuss while you are trying to have dinner and the parents do nothing. Because saying something automatically turns the focus on the person speaking up; he becomes the bad guy. I suspect anyone raising sand here would be painted as anti-military, because one bullet-proof summation of people is that they will attack the messenger long before engaging in a substantive debate about the message. So, I get to vent here. And, I get to patronize companies that do not discriminate against those of us who are not seniors. Or cops. Or in the military. Or in some other occupation that certain business owners deem to be more worthy than the rest of us.
This business of cutting special deals for folks, based on age or occupation, has a word. That word is discrimination. American law forbids businesses from treating customers differently. That means they CANNOT charge military members or cops or teachers or anyone else less for a product than they charge the general public. It is a ploy cloaked in self-righteousness, since the beneficiaries are usually public sector employees, often servicemen or first responder types. No one has more respect for the military than I do, but these "deals" fly directly in the face of the values our fighting men and women are sworn to uphold. Would they be okay if haircuts cost less for, say, whites or for Baptists? Of course, not; and they should be just as outraged when the deal works to their advantage.
This probably dates back to the early-bird specials, which gave way to senior discounts, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever since older folks are the most affluent among us. Then, some communities that host military installations followed suit, which I found a bit insulting seeing as how I patronized many of those businesses all year long. Where was my "thank you" for helping owners during deployments? Where was their loyalty in recognition of mine? And really, where is a gutsy lawyer when you need one?
I have made a point of avoiding businesses that offer such discounts. They are wrong and probably illegal. But no one says anything. Just like no one says anything when someone's obnoxious kid makes a fuss while you are trying to have dinner and the parents do nothing. Because saying something automatically turns the focus on the person speaking up; he becomes the bad guy. I suspect anyone raising sand here would be painted as anti-military, because one bullet-proof summation of people is that they will attack the messenger long before engaging in a substantive debate about the message. So, I get to vent here. And, I get to patronize companies that do not discriminate against those of us who are not seniors. Or cops. Or in the military. Or in some other occupation that certain business owners deem to be more worthy than the rest of us.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Credentialed Society
It was about this time last year that my bride and I approached the fork in the road. As the character is old Johnny Carson skits advised, we took it and embarked on a journey that saw us leave jobs, pack up a home, and move two states away to care for an aging parent while entering graduate school. One year later the journey continues, in a different town, new school, but with the same goal of earning a Master's which has evidently become the equivalent of what a Bachelor's degree used to be.
Few things spell out reality more clearly than sitting in a classroom with a dozen or so other students, all of whom are younger than your youngest child. Faced with stumbling economy, they opted to stay in school rather than apply for jobs that do not exist. Can't say I blame them. My rationale for returning to school was different - whereas applying for jobs once meant humans looking over resumes for qualified candidates, today's technology scans them for specific keywords. And, when a job posting says "Master's preferred", it may as well say required. My experience never mattered, because HR never had the chance to review it.
What happens if the economy continues to stagnate, a good likelihood of government persists in meddling with it? How many hyperqualified bartenders, waiters, retail clerks, and others working far below their ability and qualification levels does a society need? I left a job that I enjoyed, working with people I enjoyed for a company that, frankly, seemed to take its responsibility to employees seriously. At the same time, I had topped out; there was no upward mobility available that I could see and most of us expect to have at least the possibility of moving up. So, I have more than a passing curiosity in learning what my soon-to-be-earned degree will bring.
At the same time, will my competition for work be ex-classmates, whose experience is virtually non-existent compared to mine, but whose salary expectations will be substantially less? Will I wind up working for someone a bit younger, perhaps someone wondering if I am angling for his/her job? Will the experience of 20+ years actually carry some influence, particularly when combined with a graduate degree? Or, will I just be another in the growing legion of folks whose jobs are at odds with their experiences and qualifications? A lot of letters after one's name do not guarantee finding the right job, or even a suitable one. They don't answer how an individual will react to stress, how that person will work with others, how he/she would solve problems, or what someone genuinely brings to the table.
Not long ago, a four-year degree was sufficient for launching a successful career. Now, it seems like a start, particularly as some question the value of their educations. What did they really learn that prepared them for professional environments? Can they think independently, can they handle perspectives other than their own, and how can the classroom translate to the office? And, does adding two more years of school really change anything? Seems that, like me, society has come to a similar fork in the road, decided to take it without knowing to where it leads, and is headed toward an unknown destination.
Few things spell out reality more clearly than sitting in a classroom with a dozen or so other students, all of whom are younger than your youngest child. Faced with stumbling economy, they opted to stay in school rather than apply for jobs that do not exist. Can't say I blame them. My rationale for returning to school was different - whereas applying for jobs once meant humans looking over resumes for qualified candidates, today's technology scans them for specific keywords. And, when a job posting says "Master's preferred", it may as well say required. My experience never mattered, because HR never had the chance to review it.
What happens if the economy continues to stagnate, a good likelihood of government persists in meddling with it? How many hyperqualified bartenders, waiters, retail clerks, and others working far below their ability and qualification levels does a society need? I left a job that I enjoyed, working with people I enjoyed for a company that, frankly, seemed to take its responsibility to employees seriously. At the same time, I had topped out; there was no upward mobility available that I could see and most of us expect to have at least the possibility of moving up. So, I have more than a passing curiosity in learning what my soon-to-be-earned degree will bring.
At the same time, will my competition for work be ex-classmates, whose experience is virtually non-existent compared to mine, but whose salary expectations will be substantially less? Will I wind up working for someone a bit younger, perhaps someone wondering if I am angling for his/her job? Will the experience of 20+ years actually carry some influence, particularly when combined with a graduate degree? Or, will I just be another in the growing legion of folks whose jobs are at odds with their experiences and qualifications? A lot of letters after one's name do not guarantee finding the right job, or even a suitable one. They don't answer how an individual will react to stress, how that person will work with others, how he/she would solve problems, or what someone genuinely brings to the table.
Not long ago, a four-year degree was sufficient for launching a successful career. Now, it seems like a start, particularly as some question the value of their educations. What did they really learn that prepared them for professional environments? Can they think independently, can they handle perspectives other than their own, and how can the classroom translate to the office? And, does adding two more years of school really change anything? Seems that, like me, society has come to a similar fork in the road, decided to take it without knowing to where it leads, and is headed toward an unknown destination.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Tell me again why I should share?
The next time I hear a politician talk about "shared sacrifice", the likely sacrifice will be my flatscreen when the remote flies through it. The elected class loves to talk about everyone pitching to clean up the mess made, in total, by the elected class. Medicare and Social Security are not on the verge of implosion because of me. I did not offer up hundreds of billions of dollars to bankers who made bad decisions, nor did I take your money and use it to thank campaign contributors. Further, I did not enact a prescription drug benefit during dual wars and I have not used your money to subsidize any number of businesses. No, folks; the sacrifice needs to come from Washington. It's called leadership. Look into it.
Establishment DC has collaborated on making such a colossal cluster of the nation's finances that it hopes you are so dizzied by the numbers that you will not notice neither side has a claim to the high ground. For six years, Republicans had both chambers in Congress AND the White House, and spending went up. Then Democrats had both chambers plus the White House for two years, and spendint went up even further. We have the party of big government and the party of bigger government; the only difference is the things that each likes to spend your money on, whether you actually have the money or not.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan dared to, out loud, notice the elephant in the living room when he put forth a budget proposal that would overhaul Medicare. The Democrat response? Cheesy, not to mention dishonest, ads about grandma being tossed over a cliff. The donkey party could have put forth its own plan, so could the President. Neither did. How come? If you have no plan, then just say you have no plan. Otherwise, stop bitching about the other guy's proposal.
The folks in Washington believe you are their personal ATMs and they believe you can be tapped on a whim. Which, actually, you can, which should also make you mad. When the government talks about investing, subsidizing, or anything else, it is talking about your money. When it whines about the "cost" of tax cuts, it is also talking about your money while simultaneously saying that it can spend those dollars more responsibly than you can. How's that working for you?
The problem is not one of revenue, it is one of spending. Too much spending on too many things that have little, if anything, to do with the role of the federal government. Oil does not need your money any more than Planned Parenthood does or ethanol producers do or NPR does. I am perfectly willing to be bipartisan is saying no to all these leeches who see the federal treasury as their personal playground. If they want your money, they should have the good grace to ask for it through fundraising campaigns, delivering quality service that you want to support, and other traditional means, not through donating money to members of Congress who them become industry and non-profit bagmen. It is a disgusting scenario, one created solely by the elected class and one that can only be fixed by the elected class sacrificing.
Establishment DC has collaborated on making such a colossal cluster of the nation's finances that it hopes you are so dizzied by the numbers that you will not notice neither side has a claim to the high ground. For six years, Republicans had both chambers in Congress AND the White House, and spending went up. Then Democrats had both chambers plus the White House for two years, and spendint went up even further. We have the party of big government and the party of bigger government; the only difference is the things that each likes to spend your money on, whether you actually have the money or not.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan dared to, out loud, notice the elephant in the living room when he put forth a budget proposal that would overhaul Medicare. The Democrat response? Cheesy, not to mention dishonest, ads about grandma being tossed over a cliff. The donkey party could have put forth its own plan, so could the President. Neither did. How come? If you have no plan, then just say you have no plan. Otherwise, stop bitching about the other guy's proposal.
The folks in Washington believe you are their personal ATMs and they believe you can be tapped on a whim. Which, actually, you can, which should also make you mad. When the government talks about investing, subsidizing, or anything else, it is talking about your money. When it whines about the "cost" of tax cuts, it is also talking about your money while simultaneously saying that it can spend those dollars more responsibly than you can. How's that working for you?
The problem is not one of revenue, it is one of spending. Too much spending on too many things that have little, if anything, to do with the role of the federal government. Oil does not need your money any more than Planned Parenthood does or ethanol producers do or NPR does. I am perfectly willing to be bipartisan is saying no to all these leeches who see the federal treasury as their personal playground. If they want your money, they should have the good grace to ask for it through fundraising campaigns, delivering quality service that you want to support, and other traditional means, not through donating money to members of Congress who them become industry and non-profit bagmen. It is a disgusting scenario, one created solely by the elected class and one that can only be fixed by the elected class sacrificing.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Howling at reality
Thomas Wolfe was right - going home simply does not work. I tried it with the best of intentions, both personal and professional. The need for a Master's Degree was coupled with two dying parents who could not live independently. So, we moved. And learned the hard way what happens when good intentions meet incomplete information and reality. I'm not griping; if the option were to come up again, I would do the same thing. But, it is doubtful the outcome would be any different.
Sixteen months later, two dying parents became two parents who have passed on, a lifetime of things and memories collected in their house has either been stored (for the important keepsakes) or swept out (for the calendars from 1985), the Master's has been half-earned in an effort that was one-third fun and two-thirds frustrating, and a lot of people I used to consider friends are no longer people with whom any communication is necessary. Again, not griping, just saying.
The town of my youth is no longer; it has been replaced by something bigger, something less inviting, something more impersonal, populated by people who are of other places and/or heading to other places, with little use for natives. I tried to stay, applying for numerous jobs that would not only keep me in school, but further tie me to the community that was such a formative part of my upbringing. At least two dozen applications; not a single interview. Not one. Not even a phone call.
It is not about qualifications; I am old enough to apply only for jobs that call for my skills set, in this case 20 years of communications and marketing experience. Near the end of my time in town, I found out I was hardly the only one. The attorney who helped with the closing on the folks' house, a native who graduated a year ahead of me, had the same issue and the man has a law degree. He recounted tales of other locals similarly rebuffed. I'm not sure if this made me feel better or worse. Of course, I was glad to hear it was not just me; a lot of rejection and you start to take it personally. On the other hand, that an institution would ignore people who grew up in its shadow and wanted to return was depressing. It does not say much about an organization when it refuses to consider its own graduates for employment.
The upside was the football season and the chance to see, in person, a once in a generation athlete and a magical season. Saturdays will be different this fall; I won't be attending games this time. I just can't write checks for tickets to an institution that wrote me off, so while I retain an allegiance born of a lifetime of cheering for one set of colors, there will be a new team to pull for, one emblematic of a new set of colors, the one that will adorn the Master's to be completed. And, it will be completed. The folks would have insisted and, in some way, they still do. It will just be a little different. The remaining ties are gradually being cut - a storage unit to be emptied out in the next few days, a bank account to be closed down, license plates to be changed, and old hopes to be retired. It's not the way I had wanted it to be but, apparently, it's the only way it could have been.
Sixteen months later, two dying parents became two parents who have passed on, a lifetime of things and memories collected in their house has either been stored (for the important keepsakes) or swept out (for the calendars from 1985), the Master's has been half-earned in an effort that was one-third fun and two-thirds frustrating, and a lot of people I used to consider friends are no longer people with whom any communication is necessary. Again, not griping, just saying.
The town of my youth is no longer; it has been replaced by something bigger, something less inviting, something more impersonal, populated by people who are of other places and/or heading to other places, with little use for natives. I tried to stay, applying for numerous jobs that would not only keep me in school, but further tie me to the community that was such a formative part of my upbringing. At least two dozen applications; not a single interview. Not one. Not even a phone call.
It is not about qualifications; I am old enough to apply only for jobs that call for my skills set, in this case 20 years of communications and marketing experience. Near the end of my time in town, I found out I was hardly the only one. The attorney who helped with the closing on the folks' house, a native who graduated a year ahead of me, had the same issue and the man has a law degree. He recounted tales of other locals similarly rebuffed. I'm not sure if this made me feel better or worse. Of course, I was glad to hear it was not just me; a lot of rejection and you start to take it personally. On the other hand, that an institution would ignore people who grew up in its shadow and wanted to return was depressing. It does not say much about an organization when it refuses to consider its own graduates for employment.
The upside was the football season and the chance to see, in person, a once in a generation athlete and a magical season. Saturdays will be different this fall; I won't be attending games this time. I just can't write checks for tickets to an institution that wrote me off, so while I retain an allegiance born of a lifetime of cheering for one set of colors, there will be a new team to pull for, one emblematic of a new set of colors, the one that will adorn the Master's to be completed. And, it will be completed. The folks would have insisted and, in some way, they still do. It will just be a little different. The remaining ties are gradually being cut - a storage unit to be emptied out in the next few days, a bank account to be closed down, license plates to be changed, and old hopes to be retired. It's not the way I had wanted it to be but, apparently, it's the only way it could have been.
Do they want to win?
The economy is a shambles, we remain mired in two wars with POTUS getting us into a third, health care costs continue spiraling, and the education system is a disgrace. And Republicans? They are racing to see who can claim the high ground on an issue that, for most Americans, ranks 316th on the kitchen table priority list. The country is divided about abortion and no one sees it as the pressing priority of the day, week, month, or year. Perhaps someone can remind Republicans that the idea is to nominate a candidate who can defeat Obama, not to see which candidate can out-demagogue the others by signing a meaningless pledge disguised as litmus test.
Like most Americans who understand that the sun rises in the East, I get that Republicans are typically pro-life while Democrats are typically pro-choice. Therefore, what is the point of the Susan B. Anthony's List pledge beyond yet another opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate why Libertarians and a good many other independents -- whose votes will be crucial in 2012 - are made uneasy, if not queasy, by the self-righteous wing of the GOP, the section that preaches about limited government unless that same government can limit things it dislikes.
Whatever your position on abortion, there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to change it and that is irrespective of which camp you are in. That is why even the US Supreme Court cringes when yet another abortion case comes before it. It is why the Roe decision has gone virtually unchanged it became law. And, this national ambivalence is also why anytime a pregnant woman is murdered, the state only files a single charge of homicide.
We waste time debating a phantom "right" to abortion while scores of children who are already here languish in the foster care system, while Americans go abroad to adopt because doing so domestically is a bureaucratic nightmare, and while government rewards serial pregnancy through a system that only perpetuates poverty. The real shame is that poll after poll already shows the United States to be a center-right country (hint: this means the majority is already receptive to conservatism, at least the fiscal kind), but instead of speaking to Americans about the issues that impact their lives, many in this class of candidates are more interested in being Moralist-in-Chief than Commander-in-Chief.
The incumbent president is a committed left-wing ideologue who is only unbeatable in the minds of his steno pool, or as some call them, the media. Whatever "inherited" problems existed have only grown worse under Obama's watch, yet the Republican field wants to see which candidate can more closely align him/herself with the Almighty than with the average American voter. I hate to break it to the field, but there are a lot conservatives who don't see the so-called social issues as the government's business, whose dinner conversations have far more to do with dollars and opportunity than pregnancy and gay marriage; and whose votes are more likely to be lost than won by piety. To paraphrase Newt Gingrich, social engineering is no prettier when it comes from the right than from the left, and the field might do well to recall that James Carville's 1992 mantra is applicable in EVERY presidential election - it is always the economy.
Like most Americans who understand that the sun rises in the East, I get that Republicans are typically pro-life while Democrats are typically pro-choice. Therefore, what is the point of the Susan B. Anthony's List pledge beyond yet another opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate why Libertarians and a good many other independents -- whose votes will be crucial in 2012 - are made uneasy, if not queasy, by the self-righteous wing of the GOP, the section that preaches about limited government unless that same government can limit things it dislikes.
Whatever your position on abortion, there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to change it and that is irrespective of which camp you are in. That is why even the US Supreme Court cringes when yet another abortion case comes before it. It is why the Roe decision has gone virtually unchanged it became law. And, this national ambivalence is also why anytime a pregnant woman is murdered, the state only files a single charge of homicide.
We waste time debating a phantom "right" to abortion while scores of children who are already here languish in the foster care system, while Americans go abroad to adopt because doing so domestically is a bureaucratic nightmare, and while government rewards serial pregnancy through a system that only perpetuates poverty. The real shame is that poll after poll already shows the United States to be a center-right country (hint: this means the majority is already receptive to conservatism, at least the fiscal kind), but instead of speaking to Americans about the issues that impact their lives, many in this class of candidates are more interested in being Moralist-in-Chief than Commander-in-Chief.
The incumbent president is a committed left-wing ideologue who is only unbeatable in the minds of his steno pool, or as some call them, the media. Whatever "inherited" problems existed have only grown worse under Obama's watch, yet the Republican field wants to see which candidate can more closely align him/herself with the Almighty than with the average American voter. I hate to break it to the field, but there are a lot conservatives who don't see the so-called social issues as the government's business, whose dinner conversations have far more to do with dollars and opportunity than pregnancy and gay marriage; and whose votes are more likely to be lost than won by piety. To paraphrase Newt Gingrich, social engineering is no prettier when it comes from the right than from the left, and the field might do well to recall that James Carville's 1992 mantra is applicable in EVERY presidential election - it is always the economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)