+with+quote+sized+for+web.jpg)
Well, the most important election of our lifetime is over. How many times did you hear both sides use that phrase? "The most important election of our lifetime." Now the reality hits. We lost. Lots of experts, so-called experts, wannabe experts, everyday people, and conspiracy theorists are weighing in with their opinion of why we lost. We lost because religious voters stayed home. We lost because Latino voters didn't like the phrase "self-deportation." We lost because women want free birth control. We lost because unemployed welfare moms don't want to give up their Obama-phone. We lost because of election fraud. These are just a few of the reasons I have heard from experts of varying degrees of credibility. I think there is a bigger reason that we lost. I am afraid that, at least to a very large portion of our population, the truth doesn't matter.
Wednesday morning, the day after the election, a friend posted comments on Facebook about how hateful and mean so many of the comments were. She then mentioned a Tweet from Tim Tebow on Monday. Something to the effect of, "don't worry about the early election results tomorrow. The Democrats will have an early lead. Then the Republicans will get off work and vote." She gloated about Tebow being so wrong, and in fact the opposite actually happened. I'm not a huge Tebow fan, but I do respect him a lot, and that just didn't sound like something he would say. So I typed "Tim Tebow election tweet" into a Google search. The very first response was about the fake Tim Tebow tweet being re-tweeted more than 17,000 times already. It took me all of 5 seconds to find the truth and another minute to read the article to make sure it was a credible source. I didn't want to post on my friend's Facebook timeline, thinking it might be embarrassing to her, so I sent a private message just listing the link that I found. She responded in minutes, saying she thought it was probably a hoax, but she just likes to argue. She didn't care about the truth, only about "winning." She said she votes based on a couple of issues that are important to her and actually did not do ANY research into Romney's stand on these issues! I changed the subject at that point because she admitted to having absolutely zero interest in the truth, only in arguing.
There were so many WTH!? moments on election evening. Pennsylvania going to President Obama was one of the big ones. When he says he plans to bankrupt the state's largest industry, coal, did they not believe him? Or did they just not care to learn his position? It's not like it's a secret, if you have enough interest in the truth to look.
But at least he respects the people of Pennsylvania and their beliefs, right? Well, not exactly. He says they "bitterly cling to their guns and their religion," specifically speaking about residents of Pennsylvania.
Virginia not only depends on the coal industry, but the military as well. In the last presidential debate, the president says that the mandatory cuts to the military that would happen on the first of the year came from Congress' suggestion, not from him. And that if he has his way they will never happen anyway. Bob Woodward says that Obama was "mistaken." In interviews for his book, The Price of Politics, the White House Office of Management Director and the Legislative Affairs Director both told Woodward that the idea for sequestration came from the White House and was presented to Senate Majority Leader Reid before being suggested to Congress. So Woodward gives the president the benefit of the doubt, he was just mistaken about where the idea originated. The very next day, the president touts his idea of sequestration to produce a cut in the deficit in an off the record interview with the Des Moines Register. No talk of a deal to prevent the mandatory cuts to military or Medicare payments to doctors, as he claimed the prior evening. He lied period. In spite of his promise to cut their number one industry, coal; and boasting about cuts coming to their number two economic engine, the military, Virginia voted for Obama. Not only that, the Des Moines Register called the president on his lies and demanded that the off the record interview be made public. Based on his interview and on the fact that he lied either during the debate or in their interview, the Register endorsed the Republican candidate for the first time in 40 years. Iowa voted for Obama.
Ohio was crucial for a Romney win. Obama hit Romney hard about his stand on the bailout of GM and Chrysler. He said that Romney wanted the two automakers to go out of business. He said that Romney was in favor of letting the automakers go bankrupt and lose all their jobs in Michigan and Ohio. These claims led to a pretty heated exchange in the debates. Finally ending with the president saying "let the people read it for themselves." And Romney saying "yes, please do." The editorial is out there and easy to find. In it Romney does advocate a managed bankruptcy to allow the companies to restructure and provide government guarantees for loans by private lenders. Did it matter to voters or even to the president that the truth was on Romney's side? Apparently not. The day after the debate, fact checkers - even those normally firmly backing the president, said the president was wrong in his debate claims. But the president was in Dayton, OH repeating his false claims. And in spite of the Detroit Free Press' endorsement of Romney, both Michigan and Ohio voted for Obama.
The biggest and probably most important lie of all involves the death of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy Seals and CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Dept. Information Officer Sean Smith in Benghazi. This incident, our president's response to it and its aftermath defines who we are as a country. Do we still have the policy of "no man left behind?" Initial evidence says not any more. Hopefully Congress, the press, and the American public are still interested enough to push for the truth about this attack and our White House's response to it.
As Fox Mulder used to say on The X-Files, "the truth is out there." It's truly not hard to find either. It matters. The question is, do we care anymore? If not, we really have lost. And we are lost as well.
By the way, did you know Iran fired on a U.S. drone over international waters on the Friday before the election? Thought not. It's true. It's out there, if you are interested in looking.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Pro Choice
Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born? It is their body after all. I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us. Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post. I've been busy, ok? Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government. When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed. Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game. So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.
First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year. From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative. They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party. We would be given a true choice. The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama. The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president. Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican. All other candidates were radical, too far right. They would never win the independent vote.
So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012. Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary. The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid. In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne. What an idiot! John Wayne was not born in Davenport. His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth. How embarrassing! You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States. Or how to pronounce corpsman. She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer! How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth? Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance! After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?
Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs. Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry. Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas. He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens. But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition. This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives. In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it. He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law. But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses. Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law. Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point. Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country. Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies. Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry. And the whole stupid thing again. Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent. I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas. No. Better not do that! Just trust the media. Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose. So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.
Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain. Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform. Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media. Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist. Cain is black, just like Obama! How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president? All right, Cain has no government experience. He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success. WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!! That's not even possible in Obama's world. That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes. So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain. What to do? What to do? Conservatives stand on family values. Let's find something in Cain's past personal life. Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment. Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined). Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy. Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared. As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism. How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations? By white women! That's why. Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women! They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface. Better put your support behind Mitt Romney. He's white. If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama. Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.
Next in line for the conservatives? Well, they are desperate. True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone. Good lord, we don't want Romney! Who is left? Newt Gingrich!!! Newt's smart. He debates very well. Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate. And without a teleprompter. Another plus for Gingrich? He knows the media's game and will call them out on it. In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president. In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media. To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive. Newt's only problem? Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government." His favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency? Not George Washington. Not Abraham Lincoln. Not Dwight Eisenhower. Not Ronald Reagan. Not even either of the Bushes. Newt's choice? How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt! You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR. Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections. And his support of cap and trade legislation. He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi. And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt. He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking. Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots. Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller. But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right? Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller! Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich. If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.
That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice. The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul. Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy. Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy. Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable. Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate. Rick Santorum. The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate. Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records. Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable. He has too much support. The race is over, right? Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media. Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney. So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting. Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us. Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado. The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus. So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again. Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.
Don't listen to the media again. Don't let them take away our choice. Again.
First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year. From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative. They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party. We would be given a true choice. The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama. The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president. Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican. All other candidates were radical, too far right. They would never win the independent vote.
So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012. Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary. The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid. In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne. What an idiot! John Wayne was not born in Davenport. His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth. How embarrassing! You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States. Or how to pronounce corpsman. She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer! How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth? Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance! After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?
Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs. Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry. Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas. He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens. But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition. This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives. In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it. He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law. But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses. Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law. Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point. Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country. Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies. Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry. And the whole stupid thing again. Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent. I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas. No. Better not do that! Just trust the media. Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose. So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.
Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain. Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform. Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media. Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist. Cain is black, just like Obama! How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president? All right, Cain has no government experience. He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success. WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!! That's not even possible in Obama's world. That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes. So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain. What to do? What to do? Conservatives stand on family values. Let's find something in Cain's past personal life. Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment. Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined). Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy. Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared. As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism. How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations? By white women! That's why. Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women! They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface. Better put your support behind Mitt Romney. He's white. If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama. Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.
Next in line for the conservatives? Well, they are desperate. True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone. Good lord, we don't want Romney! Who is left? Newt Gingrich!!! Newt's smart. He debates very well. Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate. And without a teleprompter. Another plus for Gingrich? He knows the media's game and will call them out on it. In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president. In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media. To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive. Newt's only problem? Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government." His favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency? Not George Washington. Not Abraham Lincoln. Not Dwight Eisenhower. Not Ronald Reagan. Not even either of the Bushes. Newt's choice? How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt! You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR. Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections. And his support of cap and trade legislation. He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi. And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt. He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking. Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots. Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller. But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right? Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller! Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich. If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.
That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice. The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul. Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy. Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy. Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable. Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate. Rick Santorum. The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate. Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records. Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable. He has too much support. The race is over, right? Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media. Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney. So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting. Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us. Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado. The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus. So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again. Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.
Don't listen to the media again. Don't let them take away our choice. Again.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Where's the Logic?
It's college graduation time here in Gunnison. Seeing all the college students leaving campus last Friday, I was reminded of a story a former employee told me about a recent grad who received a degree in philosophy. The philosopher, Brad, ran into an old high school buddy, Scott, at the mall. Brad mentioned that he had just received a degree in philosophy. "What good is philosophy?" asked Scott. "Philosophy is the practice of thinking rationally and using questions to come to logical conclusions," said Brad. "For example, do you own a dog?" "Yes, I do" answered Scott. "So, you must live in a house, rather than an apartment," reasoned Brad. "Yes." "So, when did you get married?" asked Brad. Scott was startled. "How did you know I was married?" Brad said, "through logic. It is reasonable to assume that since you have a dog and a dog needs a yard, you must live in a house. Knowing that you only have a high school education, the only way you could afford a house is with two incomes, so you must be married. That's the kind of logical reasoning you learn in philosophy classes." "Well, I guess college isn't worthless after all," thought Scott.
A little later, Scott runs into another friend in the mall. "Hey Keith, I just talked to Brad, and you'll never believe what he went to college for -- philosophy!" Keith laughs, "sounds about right, a waste of four years and a lot of money." Scott says, "no, it's really kind of interesting. It taught him how to reason out stuff. For example, do you have a dog?" "No," says Keith. A stunned Scott shouts, "Dude, I didn't know you were gay!!!"
I think one of the biggest failings of our education system today is that students aren't taught to think critically. If they learn at all, it is usually a regurgitation of whatever the teacher tells the class. That carries over to adult life, where the public is easily led or misled by the media. Last week Americans received great news. Usama bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers in Pakistan. The news was greeted with celebration and unquestioning praise for President Obama's decision to take out the terrorist.
Only the most inept administration in American history could turn this accomplishment into the series of logical questions it has become in only a week. First, it was reported that the president personally changed the plan to take out bin Laden. The military suggested a bombing of the compound where bin Laden was living in Pakistan. The president insisted that the American people will want "proof that we killed bin Laden." So he, in turn, insisted on a raid by the military to capture or kill bin Laden in order to provide the proof America would require. When a firefight resulted from the raid, it was reported that bin Laden and other terrorists used women as shields to protect them from the Americans. Usama was killed in the resulting battle. His body was taken by the Americans to ship where, after a 40 minute Muslim ceremony, he was buried at sea, in compliance with Muslim traditions. Or so the administration said. Next, the president decided not to release pictures of bin Laden's because it would inflame Muslim sentiments around the world.
So, let's look at this critically. First of all, ever since September 12, 2001, we have been told that Muslims were not responsible for the terrorist attacks. The attacks were carried out by radicals that practiced a perverted version of Islam. If that is the case, why is the Obama administration concerned first of all about providing a traditional burial for bin Laden? He perverts Islam to justify his terrorist attacks, right? So what true Muslim would be offended if his body was brought to the United States? Next, the president delays the attack on bin Laden's compound from August 2010 until April 2011 in order to plan and approve a ground attack rather than a bombing to provide "proof" of bin Laden's death. So, the soldiers follow orders and take photographs of bin Laden's body, record the ceremony and burial onboard the ship and dump the body (the only "proof" of his death) overboard in an undisclosed location. Then the marginal proof provided by the photograph will not be made public, once again to avoid enraging Muslims around the world. Yesterday the White House announced the photographs will only be shown to selected senators in the CIA building. Logic, anyone?
Next came reports about how bin Laden's hideout was finally located. It seems that, while being waterboarded, Khalid Shiek Mohammed gave up the nickname of one of bin Laden's most trusted couriers. Several years later, another terrorist - captured in Iraq, by the way, connected the courier's nickname to his real name. By tracking down this courier the CIA was able to find bin Laden. This information created a dilemma for the Obama administration. Since day one of Obama's presidency, he and his administration have claimed that the CIA never got useful information from "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding. One of the president's first acts was to discontinue the practice. Then came the inconvenient truth about Iraq's tie to terrorism, one of the "Bush lies" to justify invading Iraq. Now the great news about killing the most wanted terrorist in the world has turned into a nightmare of spin for the administration.
Finally the most illogical contradiction of all. Despite the original stories of the firefight, cowards using their wives as human shields, and Usama bin Laden going down in a twenty minute gunbattle, the story emerged that the most feared terrorist in the world died unarmed. In fact, the Pakistani government reported that no weapons were found at the compound. It seems that the assault team's orders were to kill, not capture, bin Laden. Personally, I think it was the right decision. But if waterboarding, simulating drowning to gain information to save American lives, goes against our core principles, where is the logic in ordering the killing of an unarmed man? How is shooting an unarmed, "confused, doddery old man" in the head in line with our core principles, as outlined by Eric Holder and Barack Obama?
I believe these questions will be hushed up, then ridiculed just like the birth certificate issue was. Just like the president's birth in Hawaii, there is no reasonable doubt that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. The problem is that the so-called "most transparent administration" in the nation's history refuses to be transparent again. I think that eventually the administration will produce the photographs of bin Laden's body as proof of his death. Just as was the case with the birth certificate, the proof will allow the president and his minions in the media to ridicule those calling for the proof as racist, uneducated, hillbilly, "deathers" who are "clinging to their guns and religion." Probably just in time for the 2012 elections. Now there's the logic!!!
A little later, Scott runs into another friend in the mall. "Hey Keith, I just talked to Brad, and you'll never believe what he went to college for -- philosophy!" Keith laughs, "sounds about right, a waste of four years and a lot of money." Scott says, "no, it's really kind of interesting. It taught him how to reason out stuff. For example, do you have a dog?" "No," says Keith. A stunned Scott shouts, "Dude, I didn't know you were gay!!!"
I think one of the biggest failings of our education system today is that students aren't taught to think critically. If they learn at all, it is usually a regurgitation of whatever the teacher tells the class. That carries over to adult life, where the public is easily led or misled by the media. Last week Americans received great news. Usama bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers in Pakistan. The news was greeted with celebration and unquestioning praise for President Obama's decision to take out the terrorist.
Only the most inept administration in American history could turn this accomplishment into the series of logical questions it has become in only a week. First, it was reported that the president personally changed the plan to take out bin Laden. The military suggested a bombing of the compound where bin Laden was living in Pakistan. The president insisted that the American people will want "proof that we killed bin Laden." So he, in turn, insisted on a raid by the military to capture or kill bin Laden in order to provide the proof America would require. When a firefight resulted from the raid, it was reported that bin Laden and other terrorists used women as shields to protect them from the Americans. Usama was killed in the resulting battle. His body was taken by the Americans to ship where, after a 40 minute Muslim ceremony, he was buried at sea, in compliance with Muslim traditions. Or so the administration said. Next, the president decided not to release pictures of bin Laden's because it would inflame Muslim sentiments around the world.
So, let's look at this critically. First of all, ever since September 12, 2001, we have been told that Muslims were not responsible for the terrorist attacks. The attacks were carried out by radicals that practiced a perverted version of Islam. If that is the case, why is the Obama administration concerned first of all about providing a traditional burial for bin Laden? He perverts Islam to justify his terrorist attacks, right? So what true Muslim would be offended if his body was brought to the United States? Next, the president delays the attack on bin Laden's compound from August 2010 until April 2011 in order to plan and approve a ground attack rather than a bombing to provide "proof" of bin Laden's death. So, the soldiers follow orders and take photographs of bin Laden's body, record the ceremony and burial onboard the ship and dump the body (the only "proof" of his death) overboard in an undisclosed location. Then the marginal proof provided by the photograph will not be made public, once again to avoid enraging Muslims around the world. Yesterday the White House announced the photographs will only be shown to selected senators in the CIA building. Logic, anyone?
Next came reports about how bin Laden's hideout was finally located. It seems that, while being waterboarded, Khalid Shiek Mohammed gave up the nickname of one of bin Laden's most trusted couriers. Several years later, another terrorist - captured in Iraq, by the way, connected the courier's nickname to his real name. By tracking down this courier the CIA was able to find bin Laden. This information created a dilemma for the Obama administration. Since day one of Obama's presidency, he and his administration have claimed that the CIA never got useful information from "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding. One of the president's first acts was to discontinue the practice. Then came the inconvenient truth about Iraq's tie to terrorism, one of the "Bush lies" to justify invading Iraq. Now the great news about killing the most wanted terrorist in the world has turned into a nightmare of spin for the administration.
Finally the most illogical contradiction of all. Despite the original stories of the firefight, cowards using their wives as human shields, and Usama bin Laden going down in a twenty minute gunbattle, the story emerged that the most feared terrorist in the world died unarmed. In fact, the Pakistani government reported that no weapons were found at the compound. It seems that the assault team's orders were to kill, not capture, bin Laden. Personally, I think it was the right decision. But if waterboarding, simulating drowning to gain information to save American lives, goes against our core principles, where is the logic in ordering the killing of an unarmed man? How is shooting an unarmed, "confused, doddery old man" in the head in line with our core principles, as outlined by Eric Holder and Barack Obama?
I believe these questions will be hushed up, then ridiculed just like the birth certificate issue was. Just like the president's birth in Hawaii, there is no reasonable doubt that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. The problem is that the so-called "most transparent administration" in the nation's history refuses to be transparent again. I think that eventually the administration will produce the photographs of bin Laden's body as proof of his death. Just as was the case with the birth certificate, the proof will allow the president and his minions in the media to ridicule those calling for the proof as racist, uneducated, hillbilly, "deathers" who are "clinging to their guns and religion." Probably just in time for the 2012 elections. Now there's the logic!!!
Monday, April 25, 2011
A Tale of Two Lunch Counters
With apologies to Charles Dickens, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Compare these two scenes at lunch counters.
February 1, 1960, four young black college students walked into a F.W. Woolworth store in Greensboro, North Carolina. They bought a few items and went to the lunch counter and asked to be served. They knew they probably would not be served because the Woolworth chain practiced segregation and refused to serve blacks. The four young men sat quietly at the counter until closing time, when they peacefully left. They returned the following day, dressed in suits, white shirts, and ties. They sat at the lunch counter, and respectfully asked to be served. When they were refused, the men sat at the counter, studying their textbooks, until the business closed and they left. These four young men inspired a movement that soon grew to include over 70,000 participants all over the south. The behavior of these young men changed the racist views of people all over the south. You should check this page to learn more about the sit-in movement.
April 21, 2011, a McDonald's restaurant in the Baltimore area. Two young black women, one 18, the other 14 attacked and beat a young woman in front of the restroom area of the restaurant. The restaurant was not crowded, but in the video recorded by a McDonald's employee, at least three other young black men were present and watching the beating. Early in the video, the manager (one of the males present) steps toward the beating victim and herds one of the attackers away while he picks up something off the floor. He turns his back as the attackers rush back in and begin kicking the victim in the head. The manager is not seen again in the video, although he is heard complaining that she is "bleeding on my ****ing floor." The one person who does try to help is an older, probably early 60's, white woman. The older woman may have prevented the assault from becoming a murder. The attackers try to drag the victim, by her hair, out the front door. The older woman is able to stop them by standing over the victim as she is being dragged. The attackers drop the victim, but continue to kick her in the head and stomach until she begins to have seizures. According to the police report, one of the attackers punched the older woman in the face before leaving. By the way, leaving at the urging of the employees because the police are coming, and "she's bleeding, yo!" If you have the stomach for it, you can see the video posted by the now former McDonald's employee.
What would those four young men at the Woolworth's counter in 1960 think of the inaction of the men at the McDonald's in 2011? Imagine the four young men from 1960 in the 2011 McDonald's. What do you think they would've done? Imagine the four young men from 2011 in the 1960 Woolworth's. What do you think they would've done?
February 1, 1960, four young black college students walked into a F.W. Woolworth store in Greensboro, North Carolina. They bought a few items and went to the lunch counter and asked to be served. They knew they probably would not be served because the Woolworth chain practiced segregation and refused to serve blacks. The four young men sat quietly at the counter until closing time, when they peacefully left. They returned the following day, dressed in suits, white shirts, and ties. They sat at the lunch counter, and respectfully asked to be served. When they were refused, the men sat at the counter, studying their textbooks, until the business closed and they left. These four young men inspired a movement that soon grew to include over 70,000 participants all over the south. The behavior of these young men changed the racist views of people all over the south. You should check this page to learn more about the sit-in movement.
April 21, 2011, a McDonald's restaurant in the Baltimore area. Two young black women, one 18, the other 14 attacked and beat a young woman in front of the restroom area of the restaurant. The restaurant was not crowded, but in the video recorded by a McDonald's employee, at least three other young black men were present and watching the beating. Early in the video, the manager (one of the males present) steps toward the beating victim and herds one of the attackers away while he picks up something off the floor. He turns his back as the attackers rush back in and begin kicking the victim in the head. The manager is not seen again in the video, although he is heard complaining that she is "bleeding on my ****ing floor." The one person who does try to help is an older, probably early 60's, white woman. The older woman may have prevented the assault from becoming a murder. The attackers try to drag the victim, by her hair, out the front door. The older woman is able to stop them by standing over the victim as she is being dragged. The attackers drop the victim, but continue to kick her in the head and stomach until she begins to have seizures. According to the police report, one of the attackers punched the older woman in the face before leaving. By the way, leaving at the urging of the employees because the police are coming, and "she's bleeding, yo!" If you have the stomach for it, you can see the video posted by the now former McDonald's employee.
What would those four young men at the Woolworth's counter in 1960 think of the inaction of the men at the McDonald's in 2011? Imagine the four young men from 1960 in the 2011 McDonald's. What do you think they would've done? Imagine the four young men from 2011 in the 1960 Woolworth's. What do you think they would've done?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Hamster Balls Next?
Yesterday I wrote about how my sarcastic comment, "socialism starts in kindergarten" seemed to be part of a real plan, when an education organization wrote that it is "important to teach Marxism in elementary school." Well, that was only the beginning. I also wrote almost a year ago about the government being so determined to "protect" us that we would soon be rolling around in people-sized hamster balls. Well, once again, I underestimated the absolute insanity of the ruling class. On Monday, New York's Department of Health released new regulation proposals for supervised summer activities in their state. The department stated that "risky" activities like wiffle ball, kick ball, dodge ball, and red rover "presented a significant risk of injury" and needed to be regulated more closely. The enforcement of the new regulations would of course be funded by a $200 license fee for all day camps, summer camps, and activity centers. After a few hours of national ridicule, the New York Department of Health pulled the proposed regulations. "The practical effect is that we are not going to get that detailed and into micromanagement." When you think about that statement by department spokeswoman Claudia Hutton, she's not saying they won't regulate children's activities, or drop the proposal to impose the $200 fee. They are going to be more broad and vague in the language of their regulations.
And if you think my hamster ball suggestion was funny, take a look at this site. I have always said that the reason Bobby and I made such a dangerous pair as children was that I would come up with ridiculous, fun, and dangerous ideas and Bobby would actually do them. Maybe if I had a friend like Bobby today we would be "people ball" tycoons! Where are you, Bobby?
And if you think my hamster ball suggestion was funny, take a look at this site. I have always said that the reason Bobby and I made such a dangerous pair as children was that I would come up with ridiculous, fun, and dangerous ideas and Bobby would actually do them. Maybe if I had a friend like Bobby today we would be "people ball" tycoons! Where are you, Bobby?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
What About Education?
I try really hard to give teachers the benefit of the doubt. I had some excellent teachers when I was in school. I originally went to college to become a teacher and some of my classmates were dedicated to educating children. My aunt has been an elementary school teacher for longer than she would want me to write. I know she is an excellent teacher. My high school freshman daughter has had a couple of good teachers in the public school system. Unfortunately she has had only a couple of good teachers. Interestingly, especially to those who claim that we will only attract quality teachers by paying them more, she had great teachers in her first four grades of private school. She did not attend an exclusive, prestigious, expensive prep school either. She attended a small private school in a church in Texas. Those teachers teach because they have a calling. They are paid a fraction of the salary of the average first year public school teacher, with no health insurance or pension plan. They teach because they know it's important.
Because of my background, I was a bit concerned about my daughter's education in a church sponsored school staffed by teachers who were not all certified by the state. She started kindergarten at the age of four, because she had mastered the pre-school curriculum. Her kindergarten class finished the kindergarten curriculum at the Christmas break, so her teacher was free to pursue advanced work for the students in the second half of the year. Her education continued at that pace through the fourth grade, when we moved to Arizona and enrolled her in the public school.
The first change we noticed was the lack of classroom management. Barely controlled chaos would be the best description for both fourth grade classes in her school. For a child that's easily distracted, and what pre-teen or teen isn't easily distracted, a chaotic classroom is not the environment most conducive to learning. And my daughter did not learn anything in her short time in Arizona's public school system. We moved to Colorado. One of the first things we did before accepting the relocation was check on the schools in the area. The school in town did not have a good reputation, or good standardized test scores. But there was a small school district only fifteen miles away. The school had an excellent reputation and more importantly great standardized test scores. In Colorado, parents can enroll their child in any Colorado public school with room to accept them. The school we chose was very selective. They gave my daughter a test to assess her skill level in reading, writing, and math. She scored very well in reading - four grade levels above her actual grade. She scored one grade ahead in writing and on level in math. We quickly learned that the school was very good at teaching the test. After moving again, we learned that teaching the test is at least teaching something.
Her education seemed to slow while learning the Colorado standardized tests at the previous school. After moving, her education has consisted of whatever we can get her interested in at home, or whatever her flighty teenage mind takes an interest in today. With only a couple (literally two that I can think of in her almost three years at this school) of exceptions, her teachers have absolutely no interest in the education of their students. They are concerned about test scores, and sadly enough are such poor teachers that they are actually happy when 33% of their students test proficient in math! They are ecstatic with reading scores in the 60% proficient range. They actually brag about these scores! Even sadder, they can brag about these scores because they are higher than the state average. When my wife worked as a substitute teacher's aid, one of the grade school teachers told her that it didn't matter if a student was a good or poor reader in first grade. By third grade they are all relatively equal. We now realize that it's not because the poor readers catch up, it's because the good readers slip back to the poor reading level. Oh, by the way, next time you are appalled at the horrible spelling in the comment section of your favorite blogs or news sites, listen in to your first grader's reading class. My wife learned that, at least in our school system, vowels are not important. They teach phonics without vowels! "How do you spell star, Johnny?" "S-T-R." "Tht's rt, Jnny, gd jb." No wonder our kids' reading scores are falling like a rock, excuse me, lk a rk. President Bush's No Child Left Behind has been executed as No Child Gets Ahead.
I wrote last year about my daughter's 8th grade Social Studies class making a mobile to learn about the Constitution and current events, while the health care takeover was in the news. I wrote a couple of months ago about how history is no longer being taught. Now, let me tell you about her English class. Think back to your freshman year of high school. I know I read The Scarlet Letter, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Romeo and Juliet. So far, with the exception of a couple of short stories, she has read nothing by an author I have heard of. And I formerly owned a book store and still read constantly, so it's not like I haven't heard of a couple of respected authors.
While doing some office work the other day, I heard my daughter tell my wife that they watched a biography of Shakespeare because they are going to study Romeo and Juliet in the last few weeks of school. My heart jumped! They are actually going to challenge the students! And they are going to learn a little history about Shakespeare first! My heart almost stopped after hearing her next sentence. "Did you know that Shakespeare was bi?" Sure enough, the A&E biography the students watched suggested that Shakespeare's letters to his patron indicated that the two had a homosexual affair. Reviews of the biography on Amazon, suggest the video would be a good starting point for a discussion on the subject. Well, since the video was chosen because it fit perfectly into the 50 minute time slot for the class, there was no further discussion. Would a discussion about the role of the patron of the arts in Shakespeare's time be relevant? Like maybe that Shakespeare's over the top flattery of the man was an attempt to gain his financial support. You know, he was "kissing up" to a rich man for money. How will future biographers interpret "kissing up?" Then you can link that conversation to the change in hand gestures. Biting the thumb led to a sword fighting death in Romeo and Juliet. Pretty dumb, huh? Kind of like the display of a specific finger in traffic can lead to a fatal episode of road rage today. Why wouldn't a professional teacher make the minimal effort necessary to create just a little interest in the subject?
A post I read last week about Wisconsin's teacher's union stated that too many teachers today are nothing more than degree-carrying babysitters with high paying jobs with excellent benefits and lots of time off. Why else would the Wisconsin teachers fake sick days in order to protest Gov. Walker's new policy? They were more concerned about their union's right to collectively bargain for benefits and automatically collect their dues than they were concerned about doing their job. Doing the job that used to be a high calling - educating the children. Why would a teacher's union in California draft a statement in support of a convicted cop killer in New Jersey? The statement actually calls the killer an "imprisoned journalist." A story I just read says one organization states the importance of teaching Marxism in elementary school. That's another topic I wrote about last year, albeit kind of tongue in cheek. I didn't realize that it was actually part of the plan! Do teachers actually believe in these policies?
One comment on the Wisconsin story compared teachers to Muslims. The more rational thinkers among us have argued that the United States is not at war with Muslims. A small percentage of Muslims are radicals that are trying to kill as many infidels as they can. The great majority of them are peaceful and do not agree with the practices of the radicals. Well, the argument has become, "why aren't the non-radicals speaking out against their deadly brothers?" Like I said at the beginning of this post, I try very hard to give teachers the benefit of the doubt. If not the majority, at least a very large number, of teachers do view education as a calling, not just a good babysitting job. Those teachers had better start standing up to their deadly, radical brethren with an anti-American agenda.
Because of my background, I was a bit concerned about my daughter's education in a church sponsored school staffed by teachers who were not all certified by the state. She started kindergarten at the age of four, because she had mastered the pre-school curriculum. Her kindergarten class finished the kindergarten curriculum at the Christmas break, so her teacher was free to pursue advanced work for the students in the second half of the year. Her education continued at that pace through the fourth grade, when we moved to Arizona and enrolled her in the public school.
The first change we noticed was the lack of classroom management. Barely controlled chaos would be the best description for both fourth grade classes in her school. For a child that's easily distracted, and what pre-teen or teen isn't easily distracted, a chaotic classroom is not the environment most conducive to learning. And my daughter did not learn anything in her short time in Arizona's public school system. We moved to Colorado. One of the first things we did before accepting the relocation was check on the schools in the area. The school in town did not have a good reputation, or good standardized test scores. But there was a small school district only fifteen miles away. The school had an excellent reputation and more importantly great standardized test scores. In Colorado, parents can enroll their child in any Colorado public school with room to accept them. The school we chose was very selective. They gave my daughter a test to assess her skill level in reading, writing, and math. She scored very well in reading - four grade levels above her actual grade. She scored one grade ahead in writing and on level in math. We quickly learned that the school was very good at teaching the test. After moving again, we learned that teaching the test is at least teaching something.
Her education seemed to slow while learning the Colorado standardized tests at the previous school. After moving, her education has consisted of whatever we can get her interested in at home, or whatever her flighty teenage mind takes an interest in today. With only a couple (literally two that I can think of in her almost three years at this school) of exceptions, her teachers have absolutely no interest in the education of their students. They are concerned about test scores, and sadly enough are such poor teachers that they are actually happy when 33% of their students test proficient in math! They are ecstatic with reading scores in the 60% proficient range. They actually brag about these scores! Even sadder, they can brag about these scores because they are higher than the state average. When my wife worked as a substitute teacher's aid, one of the grade school teachers told her that it didn't matter if a student was a good or poor reader in first grade. By third grade they are all relatively equal. We now realize that it's not because the poor readers catch up, it's because the good readers slip back to the poor reading level. Oh, by the way, next time you are appalled at the horrible spelling in the comment section of your favorite blogs or news sites, listen in to your first grader's reading class. My wife learned that, at least in our school system, vowels are not important. They teach phonics without vowels! "How do you spell star, Johnny?" "S-T-R." "Tht's rt, Jnny, gd jb." No wonder our kids' reading scores are falling like a rock, excuse me, lk a rk. President Bush's No Child Left Behind has been executed as No Child Gets Ahead.
I wrote last year about my daughter's 8th grade Social Studies class making a mobile to learn about the Constitution and current events, while the health care takeover was in the news. I wrote a couple of months ago about how history is no longer being taught. Now, let me tell you about her English class. Think back to your freshman year of high school. I know I read The Scarlet Letter, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Romeo and Juliet. So far, with the exception of a couple of short stories, she has read nothing by an author I have heard of. And I formerly owned a book store and still read constantly, so it's not like I haven't heard of a couple of respected authors.
While doing some office work the other day, I heard my daughter tell my wife that they watched a biography of Shakespeare because they are going to study Romeo and Juliet in the last few weeks of school. My heart jumped! They are actually going to challenge the students! And they are going to learn a little history about Shakespeare first! My heart almost stopped after hearing her next sentence. "Did you know that Shakespeare was bi?" Sure enough, the A&E biography the students watched suggested that Shakespeare's letters to his patron indicated that the two had a homosexual affair. Reviews of the biography on Amazon, suggest the video would be a good starting point for a discussion on the subject. Well, since the video was chosen because it fit perfectly into the 50 minute time slot for the class, there was no further discussion. Would a discussion about the role of the patron of the arts in Shakespeare's time be relevant? Like maybe that Shakespeare's over the top flattery of the man was an attempt to gain his financial support. You know, he was "kissing up" to a rich man for money. How will future biographers interpret "kissing up?" Then you can link that conversation to the change in hand gestures. Biting the thumb led to a sword fighting death in Romeo and Juliet. Pretty dumb, huh? Kind of like the display of a specific finger in traffic can lead to a fatal episode of road rage today. Why wouldn't a professional teacher make the minimal effort necessary to create just a little interest in the subject?
A post I read last week about Wisconsin's teacher's union stated that too many teachers today are nothing more than degree-carrying babysitters with high paying jobs with excellent benefits and lots of time off. Why else would the Wisconsin teachers fake sick days in order to protest Gov. Walker's new policy? They were more concerned about their union's right to collectively bargain for benefits and automatically collect their dues than they were concerned about doing their job. Doing the job that used to be a high calling - educating the children. Why would a teacher's union in California draft a statement in support of a convicted cop killer in New Jersey? The statement actually calls the killer an "imprisoned journalist." A story I just read says one organization states the importance of teaching Marxism in elementary school. That's another topic I wrote about last year, albeit kind of tongue in cheek. I didn't realize that it was actually part of the plan! Do teachers actually believe in these policies?
One comment on the Wisconsin story compared teachers to Muslims. The more rational thinkers among us have argued that the United States is not at war with Muslims. A small percentage of Muslims are radicals that are trying to kill as many infidels as they can. The great majority of them are peaceful and do not agree with the practices of the radicals. Well, the argument has become, "why aren't the non-radicals speaking out against their deadly brothers?" Like I said at the beginning of this post, I try very hard to give teachers the benefit of the doubt. If not the majority, at least a very large number, of teachers do view education as a calling, not just a good babysitting job. Those teachers had better start standing up to their deadly, radical brethren with an anti-American agenda.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why Won't We Drill?
I've already written too much about President Obama's policies that are trying to push us toward windmills, solar panels, and plug-in cars. He is trying to do this in spite of the fact that those sources of energy and those cars are not reliable or efficient. That is why under his policy, electricity costs "will necessarily skyrocket." He is using federal tax incentives and regulations to discourage drilling in the U.S. As I've mentioned previously, tighter regulations (by the state in this case ) in western Colorado severely limited exploration for natural gas. The low price of natural gas combined with the regulations led Halliburton to close operations in the Grand Junction area, an area that went from unemployment rates under 4% in 2008 to today's rate of over 11%. Another example of Change You Can Believe In. Where did those jobs go? Take a look at the state that Yahoo named the Best State to live in - North Dakota. High paying drilling jobs have taken the state's unemployment rate to 3.8%! 5% below the national average. Why are companies drilling there? The state is not regulating "fracking" like Colorado began a couple of years ago.
Fracking is not a cleaned up version of an obscenity. It is a slang word for fracturing. In order to release oil and natural gas from the rock formations, companies fracture the formation. Even though the procedure has been used for decades in Texas, Oklahoma, and other oil-producing states, the state of Colorado decided the process needed more study to determine its impact on the environment, especially water supplies. As is usually the case, the media jumped in immediately with sensational stories to influence the debate. A family went to a Denver television station with a story about their flammable tap water. Sure enough, video shows their tap water being lit with a cigarette lighter as it comes from their kitchen faucet. The connection to drilling? A new well was recently drilled 7 miles away. The drilling company did frack the well. The state's energy department said that flammable water from wells is actually pretty common, and was reported in several areas of the state whether gas production was present or not. Drilling for water sometimes passes through layers of the earth with pockets of natural gas. As a rule, the release of gas is limited to a very short time. But of course none of that made into the news reports. So, Colorado's Department of Natural Resources used the worry about fracking as an excuse to tighten regulations on the practice. And effectively drive Halliburton along with its jobs out of the state.
Now, with gas prices inching towards $4 a gallon, Obama is starting to feel some heat on his energy policies, starting with the offshore drilling moratorium put into effect, in spite of a federal court ruling against it, immediately following the BP disaster a year ago. This is an issue that he should worry about. Unemployment in the 8% to 10% range has become the "new normal." So that probably won't get as much attention as it should in the 2012 election campaign, especially with the media spinning the "improvement" that has the rate just below 9% now. I think the average voter will have a very difficult time accepting $4 a gallon gasoline as normal, especially when they receive a $100 reminder each time they fill up their Government Motors Tahoe!
Reading the newspaper will tell you that oil and gas production is expected to be a big issue in the next election. As one site I read said, you can tell what worries the Demoncrats by what they attack. And they are attacking oil and gas exploration now. Last week's Denver Post had a front section story, page 2 if my memory serves, about the environmental impact of fracking. On Monday, the city of Grand Junction announced the opening of the western slope's first station selling natural gas for cars and city vehicles, touting natural gas's affordability and the fact that it clean burning. So the Demoncrats, through the Denver Post launched their attacks. The page 2 story reported that the environmental friendliness of natural gas was overstated, when the impact of fracking was considered. They described giant trucks lumbering over the fragile western slope, pounding the earth to release the natural gas, just like black smoke spewing dinosaurs. When you consider the impact of the equipment's emissions, the lack of emission of natural gas burning cars is more than offset, according to the Post. Now this is my question, not the question of the so-called journalist writing the article - why should the environmental cost (assuming there is actually one) of fracking should be considered when choosing a natural gas powered car, but not the source of electricity for the Volt ( too bad Fiero was already taken, because this story shows Fiero would be a more appropriate name). Clean burning coal is the source of over half the electricity needed to power the Volt. Luckily no one is buying - either the car or the fear of environmental catastrophe.
Next came a front page of the business section article. This article seemed to be in response to the reports of the high paying jobs that left Colorado for more friendly states like Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and New Mexico. The Post reported that the production from the exploration of western Colorado was greatly overstated. The Post reported that of 16 wells they studied for the report, almost "half produced 800 barrels a day, or less." Now, I was no math major, but just assume that those 16 wells averaged 800 barrels a day. Probably a low estimate, considering the spin the author seemed to be giving the article. Oil is $105 a barrel as I am writing this. Again, I was not a math major, so lets round down to $100 to make the math easier. Mr. Haight, my 4th grade math in Gruver, TX would be proud to know that I remember that to multiply by 100, just add two zeroes to the number you are multiplying. So using these low estimates, these wells would make $80,000 a day! Oh yeah, times 16 wells. That's only $1,280,000 a day. Again, let's make the math easier by assuming that these wells belong to a good union and only work 300 days a year. What local economy wouldn't appreciate the production of $384,000,000 in a year? Now, my bank statement rarely shows a comma, and never has two! But if my memory of Mr. Haight's class is correct, those six zeroes and two commas denote millions. $384 million, by conservative estimates, in a year. Using data from only 16 wells studied for the article. Imagine what the real numbers for the area would be! That might put a couple of folks in the "rich" bracket that the Demoncrats are so fond of exploiting through tax increases.
This week's Post featured a front of the Perspective section article on the "real" west. The article disputed the Republican's claim of representing the west in the battle to ease land use regulation by the Department of the Interior. The article quoted a poll of western voters that supported the government's "protection" of our public lands. The problem with the poll is the same as most westerners have come election time. The polling is skewed by the heavily populated cities of Denver, Boulder, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The constituents that wouldn't know a wilderness area not featured on a granola box, decide the policy for millions of acres of federally controlled/regulated land and the media spins it as the opinion of average westerners. Whether that land should be federally controlled is another issue that I wrote about last year.
Finally, today's news reported the final shot at the oil and gas exploration-friendly area of western Colorado. Unfortunately in Colorado, the Demoncrats still control the state government. Even worse, it's a re-distric
ting year. So, the legislature has announced its recommendations for a new district that would include the traditionally Republican area of Grand Junction. The area will be merged with the San Francisco/Los Angeles of the state, Boulder and Fort Collins. This move will assure the conservative western slope will have virtually no representation in the state government. So the folks that made the once proud state of Colorado the first to legalize abortion in the 70's and led the state's march to legalized marijuana will now decide representation for the conservative west.
I have had a very difficult time writing this post. It's hard to keep my thoughts on track with all the B.S. being thrown right now. My blood pressure is probably spiking now. Sarah Palin may not be able to see the Kremlin from her front porch, but she is right on the correct energy policy for our country - "drill, baby, drill." Or maybe her other creed is more appropriate - "don't retreat, reload."
Fracking is not a cleaned up version of an obscenity. It is a slang word for fracturing. In order to release oil and natural gas from the rock formations, companies fracture the formation. Even though the procedure has been used for decades in Texas, Oklahoma, and other oil-producing states, the state of Colorado decided the process needed more study to determine its impact on the environment, especially water supplies. As is usually the case, the media jumped in immediately with sensational stories to influence the debate. A family went to a Denver television station with a story about their flammable tap water. Sure enough, video shows their tap water being lit with a cigarette lighter as it comes from their kitchen faucet. The connection to drilling? A new well was recently drilled 7 miles away. The drilling company did frack the well. The state's energy department said that flammable water from wells is actually pretty common, and was reported in several areas of the state whether gas production was present or not. Drilling for water sometimes passes through layers of the earth with pockets of natural gas. As a rule, the release of gas is limited to a very short time. But of course none of that made into the news reports. So, Colorado's Department of Natural Resources used the worry about fracking as an excuse to tighten regulations on the practice. And effectively drive Halliburton along with its jobs out of the state.
Now, with gas prices inching towards $4 a gallon, Obama is starting to feel some heat on his energy policies, starting with the offshore drilling moratorium put into effect, in spite of a federal court ruling against it, immediately following the BP disaster a year ago. This is an issue that he should worry about. Unemployment in the 8% to 10% range has become the "new normal." So that probably won't get as much attention as it should in the 2012 election campaign, especially with the media spinning the "improvement" that has the rate just below 9% now. I think the average voter will have a very difficult time accepting $4 a gallon gasoline as normal, especially when they receive a $100 reminder each time they fill up their Government Motors Tahoe!
Reading the newspaper will tell you that oil and gas production is expected to be a big issue in the next election. As one site I read said, you can tell what worries the Demoncrats by what they attack. And they are attacking oil and gas exploration now. Last week's Denver Post had a front section story, page 2 if my memory serves, about the environmental impact of fracking. On Monday, the city of Grand Junction announced the opening of the western slope's first station selling natural gas for cars and city vehicles, touting natural gas's affordability and the fact that it clean burning. So the Demoncrats, through the Denver Post launched their attacks. The page 2 story reported that the environmental friendliness of natural gas was overstated, when the impact of fracking was considered. They described giant trucks lumbering over the fragile western slope, pounding the earth to release the natural gas, just like black smoke spewing dinosaurs. When you consider the impact of the equipment's emissions, the lack of emission of natural gas burning cars is more than offset, according to the Post. Now this is my question, not the question of the so-called journalist writing the article - why should the environmental cost (assuming there is actually one) of fracking should be considered when choosing a natural gas powered car, but not the source of electricity for the Volt ( too bad Fiero was already taken, because this story shows Fiero would be a more appropriate name). Clean burning coal is the source of over half the electricity needed to power the Volt. Luckily no one is buying - either the car or the fear of environmental catastrophe.
Next came a front page of the business section article. This article seemed to be in response to the reports of the high paying jobs that left Colorado for more friendly states like Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and New Mexico. The Post reported that the production from the exploration of western Colorado was greatly overstated. The Post reported that of 16 wells they studied for the report, almost "half produced 800 barrels a day, or less." Now, I was no math major, but just assume that those 16 wells averaged 800 barrels a day. Probably a low estimate, considering the spin the author seemed to be giving the article. Oil is $105 a barrel as I am writing this. Again, I was not a math major, so lets round down to $100 to make the math easier. Mr. Haight, my 4th grade math in Gruver, TX would be proud to know that I remember that to multiply by 100, just add two zeroes to the number you are multiplying. So using these low estimates, these wells would make $80,000 a day! Oh yeah, times 16 wells. That's only $1,280,000 a day. Again, let's make the math easier by assuming that these wells belong to a good union and only work 300 days a year. What local economy wouldn't appreciate the production of $384,000,000 in a year? Now, my bank statement rarely shows a comma, and never has two! But if my memory of Mr. Haight's class is correct, those six zeroes and two commas denote millions. $384 million, by conservative estimates, in a year. Using data from only 16 wells studied for the article. Imagine what the real numbers for the area would be! That might put a couple of folks in the "rich" bracket that the Demoncrats are so fond of exploiting through tax increases.
This week's Post featured a front of the Perspective section article on the "real" west. The article disputed the Republican's claim of representing the west in the battle to ease land use regulation by the Department of the Interior. The article quoted a poll of western voters that supported the government's "protection" of our public lands. The problem with the poll is the same as most westerners have come election time. The polling is skewed by the heavily populated cities of Denver, Boulder, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The constituents that wouldn't know a wilderness area not featured on a granola box, decide the policy for millions of acres of federally controlled/regulated land and the media spins it as the opinion of average westerners. Whether that land should be federally controlled is another issue that I wrote about last year.
Finally, today's news reported the final shot at the oil and gas exploration-friendly area of western Colorado. Unfortunately in Colorado, the Demoncrats still control the state government. Even worse, it's a re-distric
ting year. So, the legislature has announced its recommendations for a new district that would include the traditionally Republican area of Grand Junction. The area will be merged with the San Francisco/Los Angeles of the state, Boulder and Fort Collins. This move will assure the conservative western slope will have virtually no representation in the state government. So the folks that made the once proud state of Colorado the first to legalize abortion in the 70's and led the state's march to legalized marijuana will now decide representation for the conservative west.
I have had a very difficult time writing this post. It's hard to keep my thoughts on track with all the B.S. being thrown right now. My blood pressure is probably spiking now. Sarah Palin may not be able to see the Kremlin from her front porch, but she is right on the correct energy policy for our country - "drill, baby, drill." Or maybe her other creed is more appropriate - "don't retreat, reload."
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Homer for President
I know this one was supposed to be about oil, but once again, I have been redirected by President Obama.Yesterday, the president announced the details of his groundbreaking plan to reduce the $14 trillion deficit substantially in only 12 years! How substantially? (Use your Dr. Evil voice here) By 4 triiillion dollars. Wow. $4 triiiiillion is a lot of money. Coincidentally approximately the same amount that has been added to the deficit in only two and a half years under Obama. So, he can add $4 trillion to the deficit in two and a half years. But cutting the same amount in any less than ten years is irresponsible and cruel. Anyway, the president that everyone in the mainstream media agrees is the most intelligent president in our history (Thomas Jefferson, what community did he ever organize?) announced his plan yesterday. He never bothered to introduce a budget for fiscal year 2011, so the extra time he took on this budget really paid off, huh? It was a riveting speech. Well, riveting for everyone, except Vice President Joe Biden. Or the lady behind him. Or pretty much anyone with a brain.
Which brings us to our brilliant president. As presidential adviser and Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein said, "there's a little Homer Simpson in all of us." So President Obama studies and listens to his advisers, and formulates his brilliant plan. He goes to George Washington University to announce his plan, and all America waits breathlessly to be amazed. Sort of an economic version of Shock and Awe. This is going to be brilliantly amazing, if not amazingly brilliant. So what does the presidential teleprompter announce? Tax the rich. The wealthy should pay more. Tax the rich. No wonder the VP is snoozing. We've heard it all before. Over and over and over and over.
Brilliant. Maybe President Obama should've been firing a shotgun into the air while chanting his mantra.
Monday, April 11, 2011
An Electric, or at least Hybrid Mess
The Obama administration has never been confused for the Bush administration when it comes to energy policy. Even as a presidential candidate, Senator Obama told reporters that under his policy, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." Now this is not like the Sarah Palin "quote" that she could see Russia from her front porch. That was actually Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live spoofing Palin, although you couldn't convince thousands of Palin-haters of that fact. Senator/candidate Obama actually said his plan would cause the cost of energy for every American, no matter what their income, to "necessarily skyrocket." And no news organization or "journalist" asked him about this plan, before or after the the election. In fact, outside of a few conservative radio talk show hosts, you will never hear anything at all about this plan.
All right, the president plans to make our electricity rates skyrocket. Surely he won't mess with our other energy costs too, right? What is the president's plan to reduce the emissions from our cars? Well, first of all he had to takeover a car maker - GM. Then he had to force GM to manufacture a car that the American buyer didn't want or need and that GM was not ready to manufacture, the all-electric Volt. Now the Volt may be the "car of the future," as the president of GM - Barack Obama claimed. But as one reviewer said, "only if your future is 40 miles away. Actually 20 if you want to get back home again." That's right, the Volt has a range of 40 miles in its all-electric version. After these horrible reviews, Chevrolet announced that the Volt now has a greatly improved range. They basically turned it into a hybrid. You know the kind of car that Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have been producing for years. Only it's smaller and not as reliable as the Honda, Toyota, or Nissan. Oh yeah, it's more expensive too. Only $40,000 for a subcompact car. Who doesn't want to pay $40,000 for a Cavalier or Focus? American car buyers, apparently. In January and February combined Chevrolet sold 602 Volts, up from its double digit sales from each of the previous four months. This incredible increase proved that Americans were starting to warm up to the idea of an overpriced, unreliable clown car, right? Well not exactly. They also announced sales of over 5,000 Tahoes. If you are not familiar with the Tahoe; and judging from the lack of sales by the company, most Americans are not, the Tahoe has enough space to haul everyone in my hometown of Graham, TX and their luggage on a two week vacation. With enough room leftover to pick up a few souvenirs on the trip. While that be a slight exaggeration, it would take the vacation budget of Graham to buy the fuel needed for a long trip. The new fuel-efficient hybrid version of the Tahoe gets 20 miles per gallon! So obviously gas mileage is not a major concern for the American car buyer.
So what is the president of GM, Barack Obama, to do to encourage Americans to pay too much for a car they don't really want? Go back to the engineering drawing board and design an electric car big enough, reliable enough, and efficient enough that the buyer will be happy to pay for it? Don't know what country you're from, but that's not Barack Obama's America! His plan is to take taxpayer money and give it to anyone who buys an all-electric car, in the form of a $7,500 tax credit to the buyer. That would make the Volt a $32,500 embarrassment, rather than a $40,000 embarrassment. Well, apparently, not enough people that pay enough taxes (49% pay nothing at all, but that's for another post) to make a $7500 credit worthwhile fell for the scam. Those folks generally travel more than 40 miles per trip and carry cargo larger than a bag of M&M's, so the Volt isn't too practical. Another slight glitch in the plan - to get anyone to buy the Volt at any price, with any incentive, Chevrolet had to go back to the 1990's hybrid technology. So now the credit has been re-written to include hybrids. And rather than a tax credit, the Obama administration is planning take the $7,500 straight out of the dealer's overflowing bank account and give it to anyone who buys a Volt. The dealer is then responsible for filing for reimbursement from the similiarly overflowing vaults of the United States Treasury. Most auto dealers who dealt with the government in the "cash for clunkers" scam will tell you how excited they are to participate in this plan.
What's the next step in getting the public to buy government-produced electric cars? How about $4+ per gallon for gasoline. I'll get to that in my next post.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
How's It Going Now?
I've had a difficult time writing anything lately. Why? Well, take a look at some of my posts from last spring. A couple of times I wrote about how we, the average American, are being overwhelmed. So much is being thrown at us, that we can't respond. It is impossible to see everything being thrown our way, much less stop much of it. And that is part of the plan - overwhelm and collapse the system. To try to get back into the habit of writing, I decided to read my old posts and write about what has happened since they were written.
First of all, Obamacare. Of course, you know it passed. One result of its passage was the backlash by the voters. As I wrote, more than 60% of Americans did not want the legislation. After it was signed into law by the president, more than 65% want it repealed. This became a huge issue in the November 2010 election. As a result, the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, narrowed the Democrat's majority in the Senate, and basically received a mandate from the voters to rein in the out of control progressive takeover of our lives. Last night, Congress passed a budget plan that defunds the plan. It will be brought up on the floor of the Senate next week, requiring Senators to go on the record supporting or opposing the legislation.
After the unexpected backlash against the healthcare takeover, the Democratic controlled House and Senate basically shut down. They passed no more significant legislation for the rest of the year including no budget for 2011, which should have been passed before October 1, 2010. Doing so would have put them on record for more spending, more taxes, and more loss of individual freedom for average Americans. So the Democrats wisely gave up on governing and went into damage control mode. They still lost a historic number of seats in the House and Senate in November. The good news is that they had no stomach for forcing through their Cap and Tax legislation to save the planet fromGlobal Warming Climate Change Human Caused Global Climate Variation. The idea is not completely dead. The president has said that he will pursue the matter through regulations by the EPA, bypassing the legislative branch altogether. One of the most intricate spiderwebs of corruption to come out of research of the Cap and Tax legislation was the involvement in and potential profit to, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) by backers and investors like Goldman Sachs, Bill Ayers and Barack Obama (through the Joyce Foundation) and Al Gore. Shortly after the story was broken by the Canadian Free Press, controlling interest in the CCX was sold to International Climate Exchange (ICE) in Atlanta. Major investors in ICE include Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil, and British Petroleum. While news on the issue has been quiet lately, a quick internet search (not using Google anymore, but that's for another post), CCX is still working towards its agenda, but mainly in Europe. In November of 2010, ICE announced that it was suspending its trading of emissions credits in the United States through the CCX. While Americans won the Cap and Tax battle, the Progressives have been able to bring the President's promise of "energy costs will necessarily skyrocket" to fruition through regulation of the domestic oil industry by the Department of the Interior. I'll save the details on that for tomorrow's post.
And on the climate change front, it was announced yesterday, that the world just experienced its coolest March since 1994. Cool not just because the NCAA's Final Four included both Butler and Virginia Commonwealth University, but because the temperature was cooler.
I'll finish up this one with a little more good news. A 9.1 magnitude earthquake in Japan which caused a massive tsunami was followed by several major aftershocks in the following weeks, including a 7.4 magnitude shock last week. In spite of these shocks and an increase in the population of military personnel on the island, Guam has yet to capsize, as Georgia congressman Hank Johnson worried.
Last I heard the island was still above water. Whew, another catastrophe averted! And the obviously public school educated (again the topic of a future post) voters of Georgia's 3rd district once again elected the honorable Congressman Johnson to another term. Sigh, still lots of work to be done in the next election and not just in Georgia. In my own state of Colorado, Senator Bennett was also re-elected. I'm sure voter fraud had nothing to do with his slim victory. The newly elected Republican Colorado Secretary of State has learned that at least 5,000 voters in the 2010 election were not eligible voters, and 10,000 registered voters in the state were not eligible. No information was available for the 2008 election, when the governor, both state legislative houses, and the president all went to the Democratic party in a traditionally Republican state.
Wow, and that's just a couple of issues. More to come.
First of all, Obamacare. Of course, you know it passed. One result of its passage was the backlash by the voters. As I wrote, more than 60% of Americans did not want the legislation. After it was signed into law by the president, more than 65% want it repealed. This became a huge issue in the November 2010 election. As a result, the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, narrowed the Democrat's majority in the Senate, and basically received a mandate from the voters to rein in the out of control progressive takeover of our lives. Last night, Congress passed a budget plan that defunds the plan. It will be brought up on the floor of the Senate next week, requiring Senators to go on the record supporting or opposing the legislation.
After the unexpected backlash against the healthcare takeover, the Democratic controlled House and Senate basically shut down. They passed no more significant legislation for the rest of the year including no budget for 2011, which should have been passed before October 1, 2010. Doing so would have put them on record for more spending, more taxes, and more loss of individual freedom for average Americans. So the Democrats wisely gave up on governing and went into damage control mode. They still lost a historic number of seats in the House and Senate in November. The good news is that they had no stomach for forcing through their Cap and Tax legislation to save the planet from
And on the climate change front, it was announced yesterday, that the world just experienced its coolest March since 1994. Cool not just because the NCAA's Final Four included both Butler and Virginia Commonwealth University, but because the temperature was cooler.
I'll finish up this one with a little more good news. A 9.1 magnitude earthquake in Japan which caused a massive tsunami was followed by several major aftershocks in the following weeks, including a 7.4 magnitude shock last week. In spite of these shocks and an increase in the population of military personnel on the island, Guam has yet to capsize, as Georgia congressman Hank Johnson worried.
Last I heard the island was still above water. Whew, another catastrophe averted! And the obviously public school educated (again the topic of a future post) voters of Georgia's 3rd district once again elected the honorable Congressman Johnson to another term. Sigh, still lots of work to be done in the next election and not just in Georgia. In my own state of Colorado, Senator Bennett was also re-elected. I'm sure voter fraud had nothing to do with his slim victory. The newly elected Republican Colorado Secretary of State has learned that at least 5,000 voters in the 2010 election were not eligible voters, and 10,000 registered voters in the state were not eligible. No information was available for the 2008 election, when the governor, both state legislative houses, and the president all went to the Democratic party in a traditionally Republican state.
Wow, and that's just a couple of issues. More to come.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Dying of Thirst
As you could probably guess from the photograph at the top of my blog page, one of my favorite places is the Grand Canyon. From the rim, the Colorado River is a small tranquil green thread.
When you get down to the riverside, especially at the river's entrance to the canyon, you see a much different river. And this is below the dam that contains the mighty river at Lake Powell.
Imagine what the river was like before the dam. The photo above was taken during one of the Park Service's releases of water at the dam, in order to mimic the river's pre-dam flow and rebuild the beaches in the canyon. Early explorers described the river as "too thick to drink, too thin to farm." The stretch through the canyon had some of the most dangerous rapids in America.
When you get down to the riverside, especially at the river's entrance to the canyon, you see a much different river. And this is below the dam that contains the mighty river at Lake Powell.
Today, rafting into the Grand Canyon from Lee's Ferry is a daily adventure taken by amateurs, from pre-teens to octogenarians, with a professional guide of course. They raft the river in large inflatable rafts, holding 6 to 10 passengers. These rafts are next to impossible to overturn, making the journey an adventure that seems dangerous, but is actually only minimally so.
Now, imagine taking the voyage through the canyon in a wooden boat! And the river is at pre-dam levels, with class IV rapids. The year is 1867. There are no towns along the river, so all your food and supplies must be carried on the boats. There is no bridge at Lee's Ferry, so the entrance to this epic adventure is actually in Green River, Utah. You will float for a little more than six weeks before even reaching Lee's Ferry and the entrance to the Grand Canyon. The land around the river is inhospitable high desert, sparsely inhabited. Where there is any human settlement, it is generally Paiute or Ute tribes that really don't welcome white travelers. Unless you are the lucky sort and you come across a Mormon settlement. But then again, after their years of persecution in the East, they don't exactly welcome visitors with open arms. So, once you are on the river, you stay on the river, come Hell or high water. Chances are, you will experience both on this trip.
The leader of the expedition is a Civil War veteran named John Wesley Powell. He has no experience on this stretch of the Colorado, but then again, no one does. He did explore the Mississippi and Ohio rivers as a young man, but that didn't prepare him for the rapids, extreme heat, dangerous Indians, and isolation he experienced on this trip. His crew had little or no experience on this or any other river. They were, a journalist, two hunters, an editor, the editor's son, a cook, a Civil War captain, a Scotsman, and an English adventurer. Oh, and Powell had lost most of his left arm to a minie ball in the battle of Shiloh in the Civil War (the photo below is Powell with a native American on one of his later trips in the area. Old photographs are reversed when printed, so Powell is actually gesturing with his right arm).
The inexperience of the men and their leader was evident almost immediately. They loaded all their food and supplies into two boats, one of which broke apart in their first encounter with rapids only days into the trip. A second boat was heavily damaged, but the men were able to repair it well enough to be used until they reached the real rapids weeks later. They salvaged what food and supplies they could and spread them out amongst their remaining boats for the remainder of their expedition. The men learned and adapted quickly and avoided any further disasters on the water.
They were not prepared for the desolate landscape surrounding them on the high desert though. After the loss of half their food, they were more dependent on game they could hunt along the way. Unfortunately, for most of the journey, there was no game. Powell's diary describe scraping mold off their bacon before eating it; a scene I think of each time I check an expiration on the sliced turkey that has sat in my refrigerator for a week. Three of the men lost confidence in their leader's ability to get them through the canyon in Utah. They left the expedition and climbed out of the canyon to walk to one of the settlements they were sure was only days away on foot. They were never heard from again. Speculation is that they were killed by Paiute Indians who had earlier been attacked by settlers crossing their territory; or possibly massacred by a rogue band of Mormon settlers.
Powell and his remaining men successfully completed their journey through the canyon, mapping areas previously unknown by European settlers. They also had numerous peaceful encounters with native Paiutes, many of whom shared corn and antelope with the travelers. Powell, in this and later extensive travels in the area, completed an important anthropological study of tribes of the American southwest. But his most important and lasting work concerned the land itself and its possible use.
As he learned through firsthand experience, water is the key to surviving and thriving in the American west. He presented numerous recommendations to Washington D.C. on how farming techniques must be modified to be practical in the arid west. He warned that farming techniques used successfully in Ohio and Mississippi would lead to massive erosion during the droughts that were common in the west. Of course his recommendations were largely ignored until after the Dust Bowl days of the early 20th century. He also advised that population growth be discouraged in the area. The entire southwest from western Wyoming, through western Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and southern California all depended on one river - the Colorado. Use of its water would necessarily be rationed for life in the area to survive. Once again, he was, and is still ignored. Las Vegas, with its dancing fountains and population of near a million; Phoenix with its green desert golf courses and population of well over a million; and Los Angeles with all its excesses and population of close to two million all depend on the now tame Colorado for their water.
How long will that last?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Why Did Davy Crockett Surrender 140 Years After the Alamo Fell?
It was a Sunday afternoon at my Grandma Lucille's house. I was sitting in the recliner, reading the Wichita Falls newspaper when I found a story about one of my favorite historical figures - Davy Crockett. Like most boys, especially Texans, I was fascinated by Crockett. I remember driving Mrs. Armstrong crazy at the Gruver Public Library finding books about Crockett when I was in second grade. Oddly enough, I don't remember ever seeing the Disney movies starring Fess Parker. They were released before my time. I did see the movie starring John Wayne as Crockett several times. If only he had made it to the armory with the torch!
Most of my knowledge about the siege of the Alamo came from books. I read everything I could find from the time I was able to read through now. I even read Crockett's autobiography when I was in Jr. High. So I knew about Davy Crockett. He lived in a log cabin, first in Kentucky, and later in Tennessee. He became famous as a hunter, explorer, and especially as a storyteller. Even though he wasn't born Texan, he definitely mastered the art of the tall tale. My favorite was his claim that he could stare at a raccoon until it would just give up and come out of a tree. Once he mistook a knothole for a raccoon's eyes. He stared at it for hours before realizing his mistake. In fact, he stared at it for so long that the edges of the knothole were worn smooth.
I knew that he had been elected to Congress by Tennessee voters and was a follower of fellow Tennessean, President Andrew Jackson. Only recently did learn about his falling out with Jackson over Jackson's Indian Removal Act. He left Tennessee for Texas after losing his bid for reelection. He led a group of Tennessee volunteers to the Alamo, where they joined Texas revolutionaries in the defense of the old mission. Of course, I knew that there were no Texan survivors of the siege at the Alamo. And that they died fighting. The story of the battle and the defender's fall came from history texts that referred to newspaper stories from the time of the battle and diaries of Mexican soldiers and the few civilian survivors of the Alamo. All told the same story. The defenders knew that Santa Anna had ordered that all the Texans be killed - "no quarter" would be given. Numerous accounts told of seeing Crockett's body in the plaza surrounded by dead Mexican soldiers.
So, you can imagine how surprised and outraged I was to read the newspaper article saying that Crockett and a few other Texan soldiers surrendered and were executed by Santa Anna's officers. Where did the newspaper get this information that contradicted all the other accounts of the battle? Now, I was only about 12 years old and inclined not to believe the new account anyway. But even a 12 year old was suspicious of a newly discovered diary of a Mexican officer who was not only at the Alamo, but almost every other major event of the Texas revolution. Then I read that the "diary" had never been authenticated. It was written on at least five different types of paper, some dating years after Texas' war for independence, all cut to the same size to fit into the bound diary. Later I read that the officer, Jose Enrique de la Pena, was not mentioned in any other account of the battle of the Alamo or any other battle mentioned in his "diary."
Now 35 years after the translation of the diary and its publication under the title, With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution, this is the accepted version of the events at the Alamo. Why would respected historians change the story based on a very questionable document that contradicts accounts written at the time of the battle?
I think there are a couple of possibilities. The first is to further demonize Santa Anna. He was incompetent, both as a military leader and as president of Mexico. His cruelty was demonstrated in his orders to take no prisoners, not only at the Alamo, but at other battles such as Goliad. Taking no prisoners in battle is cruel enough, but to execute survivors of a 13 day siege goes beyond cruel. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by adding more evidence supporting Santa Anna's already wretched reputation.
So, how does the revised history change the view of Crockett? Even while still alive, he was bigger than life. He was the epitome of the American ideal of self-reliance and integrity. He was elected to Congress because his story (both the real story and the tall tales) was already known by almost everyone in America. As a congressman, he showed his true character. His first speech mentioned in records of Congress concern an appeal for aid to farmers in Georgia that suffered through a long drought. His response, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." He then donated his own money to help the farmers. What would happen today if members of Congress followed Crockett's lead?
As I mentioned before, one of Crockett's biggest supporters was President Andrew Jackson, a fellow Tennessean. As president, Jackson advocated some very questionable policies, especially those affecting American Indians. One of the most controversial was the Indian Removal Act that would move the so-called civilized tribes from their land in Florida and Georgia to reservations further west. Jackson expected Crockett's support, but Crockett refused to support his president in an action that he believed was wrong. "I was also a supporter of this administration after it came into power, and until the Chief Magistrate changed the principles which he professed before his election. When he quitted those principles, I quit him. I am yet a Jackson man in principles, but not in name... I shall insist upon it that I am still a Jackson man, but General Jackson is not; he has become a Van Buren man." His refusal to go against his principles cost him Jackson's support in his reelection campaign in Tennessee and he lost his bid. His most famous quote came after his defeat, directed to Jackson and Jackson's followers in Congress, "You all may go to hell. I am going to Texas."
According to several accounts, Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers had numerous opportunities to escape during the siege of the Alamo. He and a couple of the volunteers actually did leave one night and led a group of volunteers back into the compound. So Crockett and the others had the chance to save their own lives, but committed their lives to their cause and actually followed through on their commitment. I really liked Billy Bob Thornton's interpretation of Crockett. He portrayed Crockett as being trapped by his reputation. He says to Bowie, "I would like to drop over that wall and just disappear. But those boys are watching me. What would they do if I left?" He led by example and felt responsible for his volunteers. The last entry in his diary says it all. "Pop, pop, pop! Bom, bom, bom! throughout the day. No time for memorandums now. Go ahead! Liberty and Independence forever." 5 March 1836.
I think it's obvious from his quotes and his actions why current politicians and leaders would try to diminish Crockett's image. In fact one of the sites I looked at in my research was from Texas A&M university. They said that Crockett was one of the country's first celebrities. "Sort of an 1800's Paris Hilton." Would any of our current leaders compare favorably to Crockett? As I said in yesterday's post, only by knowing what others have done, will we know what we are capable of doing.
Most of my knowledge about the siege of the Alamo came from books. I read everything I could find from the time I was able to read through now. I even read Crockett's autobiography when I was in Jr. High. So I knew about Davy Crockett. He lived in a log cabin, first in Kentucky, and later in Tennessee. He became famous as a hunter, explorer, and especially as a storyteller. Even though he wasn't born Texan, he definitely mastered the art of the tall tale. My favorite was his claim that he could stare at a raccoon until it would just give up and come out of a tree. Once he mistook a knothole for a raccoon's eyes. He stared at it for hours before realizing his mistake. In fact, he stared at it for so long that the edges of the knothole were worn smooth.
I knew that he had been elected to Congress by Tennessee voters and was a follower of fellow Tennessean, President Andrew Jackson. Only recently did learn about his falling out with Jackson over Jackson's Indian Removal Act. He left Tennessee for Texas after losing his bid for reelection. He led a group of Tennessee volunteers to the Alamo, where they joined Texas revolutionaries in the defense of the old mission. Of course, I knew that there were no Texan survivors of the siege at the Alamo. And that they died fighting. The story of the battle and the defender's fall came from history texts that referred to newspaper stories from the time of the battle and diaries of Mexican soldiers and the few civilian survivors of the Alamo. All told the same story. The defenders knew that Santa Anna had ordered that all the Texans be killed - "no quarter" would be given. Numerous accounts told of seeing Crockett's body in the plaza surrounded by dead Mexican soldiers.
So, you can imagine how surprised and outraged I was to read the newspaper article saying that Crockett and a few other Texan soldiers surrendered and were executed by Santa Anna's officers. Where did the newspaper get this information that contradicted all the other accounts of the battle? Now, I was only about 12 years old and inclined not to believe the new account anyway. But even a 12 year old was suspicious of a newly discovered diary of a Mexican officer who was not only at the Alamo, but almost every other major event of the Texas revolution. Then I read that the "diary" had never been authenticated. It was written on at least five different types of paper, some dating years after Texas' war for independence, all cut to the same size to fit into the bound diary. Later I read that the officer, Jose Enrique de la Pena, was not mentioned in any other account of the battle of the Alamo or any other battle mentioned in his "diary."
Now 35 years after the translation of the diary and its publication under the title, With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution, this is the accepted version of the events at the Alamo. Why would respected historians change the story based on a very questionable document that contradicts accounts written at the time of the battle?
I think there are a couple of possibilities. The first is to further demonize Santa Anna. He was incompetent, both as a military leader and as president of Mexico. His cruelty was demonstrated in his orders to take no prisoners, not only at the Alamo, but at other battles such as Goliad. Taking no prisoners in battle is cruel enough, but to execute survivors of a 13 day siege goes beyond cruel. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by adding more evidence supporting Santa Anna's already wretched reputation.
So, how does the revised history change the view of Crockett? Even while still alive, he was bigger than life. He was the epitome of the American ideal of self-reliance and integrity. He was elected to Congress because his story (both the real story and the tall tales) was already known by almost everyone in America. As a congressman, he showed his true character. His first speech mentioned in records of Congress concern an appeal for aid to farmers in Georgia that suffered through a long drought. His response, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." He then donated his own money to help the farmers. What would happen today if members of Congress followed Crockett's lead?
As I mentioned before, one of Crockett's biggest supporters was President Andrew Jackson, a fellow Tennessean. As president, Jackson advocated some very questionable policies, especially those affecting American Indians. One of the most controversial was the Indian Removal Act that would move the so-called civilized tribes from their land in Florida and Georgia to reservations further west. Jackson expected Crockett's support, but Crockett refused to support his president in an action that he believed was wrong. "I was also a supporter of this administration after it came into power, and until the Chief Magistrate changed the principles which he professed before his election. When he quitted those principles, I quit him. I am yet a Jackson man in principles, but not in name... I shall insist upon it that I am still a Jackson man, but General Jackson is not; he has become a Van Buren man." His refusal to go against his principles cost him Jackson's support in his reelection campaign in Tennessee and he lost his bid. His most famous quote came after his defeat, directed to Jackson and Jackson's followers in Congress, "You all may go to hell. I am going to Texas."
According to several accounts, Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers had numerous opportunities to escape during the siege of the Alamo. He and a couple of the volunteers actually did leave one night and led a group of volunteers back into the compound. So Crockett and the others had the chance to save their own lives, but committed their lives to their cause and actually followed through on their commitment. I really liked Billy Bob Thornton's interpretation of Crockett. He portrayed Crockett as being trapped by his reputation. He says to Bowie, "I would like to drop over that wall and just disappear. But those boys are watching me. What would they do if I left?" He led by example and felt responsible for his volunteers. The last entry in his diary says it all. "Pop, pop, pop! Bom, bom, bom! throughout the day. No time for memorandums now. Go ahead! Liberty and Independence forever." 5 March 1836.
I think it's obvious from his quotes and his actions why current politicians and leaders would try to diminish Crockett's image. In fact one of the sites I looked at in my research was from Texas A&M university. They said that Crockett was one of the country's first celebrities. "Sort of an 1800's Paris Hilton." Would any of our current leaders compare favorably to Crockett? As I said in yesterday's post, only by knowing what others have done, will we know what we are capable of doing.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
It's History Now
About a month ago I watched a television show on the network Animal Planet with my teenage daughter. She is generally an above average student, at least when she is interested. She loves anything related to animals, especially dogs and cats. The show we watched was a survival type show. The subject of the episode was a young man who was exploring the Amazon with his dog. His dog's name was Livingstone. I made the comment to my wife that most kids today wouldn't know why an explorer would name his dog "Livingstone," as in, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume." I asked my daughter if she knew the story of Dr. Livingstone and Sir Stanley in Africa. She had never heard of either. That made me start to wonder about her knowledge of explorers in general.
I asked if she knew who Daniel Boone was. No. John Fremont? No. Lewis and Clarke? Heard the names, but not sure, although I think she really does know their story if really pressed. Sir Edmund Hillary? Nope. Admiral Peary? Blank look. I decided to explore her knowledge a little closer to present-day. Know what John Glenn did? Not a clue. How about Neill Armstrong? Finally the light came on! "Yeah, I know him! He sells those yellow bracelets! He did something with bikes too, didn't he?" Close. That's Lance Armstrong. He beat cancer and won the Tour de France bike race four straight times. And started a foundation to raise money for cancer research with yellow (color of Tour d' France winner's jersey) bracelets. Admirable, and one of the best athletes of my lifetime, but I don't think his accomplishments quite reach the level of those of the first man to walk on the moon.
In school, I always enjoyed history, but didn't necessarily think it was one of the more important subjects taught. What does a kid get out of history? Nothing but a bunch of dates and names to memorize, right? Now, I realize it is one of the more important subjects in school. Not only do we need to know where we've been and where we came from, but we also need to know what we are capable of. Both good and bad. I've written before about how our view of history shapes our view of ourselves, and how changing history changes our present view. Now, at least here in Colorado, history is not taught at all. The upside to this discovery has been that it has renewed my interest in history. The majority of the books on my Kindle are biographies, or historical novels. My next posts will be history related, maybe with some views on why the subject is important, or why it is being changed. Of course, as my wife will tell you, all, or at least the majority of the subjects will be from Texas or the American west.
By the way, in the Animal Planet show we watched, the explorer killed and ate his dog, Livingstone. Made him sick. Served him right.
I asked if she knew who Daniel Boone was. No. John Fremont? No. Lewis and Clarke? Heard the names, but not sure, although I think she really does know their story if really pressed. Sir Edmund Hillary? Nope. Admiral Peary? Blank look. I decided to explore her knowledge a little closer to present-day. Know what John Glenn did? Not a clue. How about Neill Armstrong? Finally the light came on! "Yeah, I know him! He sells those yellow bracelets! He did something with bikes too, didn't he?" Close. That's Lance Armstrong. He beat cancer and won the Tour de France bike race four straight times. And started a foundation to raise money for cancer research with yellow (color of Tour d' France winner's jersey) bracelets. Admirable, and one of the best athletes of my lifetime, but I don't think his accomplishments quite reach the level of those of the first man to walk on the moon.
In school, I always enjoyed history, but didn't necessarily think it was one of the more important subjects taught. What does a kid get out of history? Nothing but a bunch of dates and names to memorize, right? Now, I realize it is one of the more important subjects in school. Not only do we need to know where we've been and where we came from, but we also need to know what we are capable of. Both good and bad. I've written before about how our view of history shapes our view of ourselves, and how changing history changes our present view. Now, at least here in Colorado, history is not taught at all. The upside to this discovery has been that it has renewed my interest in history. The majority of the books on my Kindle are biographies, or historical novels. My next posts will be history related, maybe with some views on why the subject is important, or why it is being changed. Of course, as my wife will tell you, all, or at least the majority of the subjects will be from Texas or the American west.
By the way, in the Animal Planet show we watched, the explorer killed and ate his dog, Livingstone. Made him sick. Served him right.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
You'll Put Your Eye Out!!!
My favorite Christmas movie is Christmas Story. Like the kid in the movie, I always wanted a bb gun. I think mine was a Daisy though. Like the kid in the movie, mom was afraid I'd put my eye out. Like the kid in the movie, I was persistent. Like the kid in the movie, I finally got my gun. I shot everything in sight. My favorite target was our trash barrel. I shot it laying on my belly commando style. I shot it kneeling on one knee. I tried to shoot it Rifleman style, you know, twirling it to cock it and shoot in one motion. How did he do that? And I shot it standing too close. And like the kid in the movie, the bb just didn't have the penetrating power I expected and bounced off the barrel right back into my glasses. Fortunately, unlike the kid in the movie, my glasses didn't break. But the incident sure got my attention. After that I shot mostly cardboard boxes, which took more imagination to turn into German tanks.
My mom and sisters think I even looked like the kid in the movie. They are getting a little old, because I know I was much cooler looking. Must suck to get old.
My mom and sisters think I even looked like the kid in the movie. They are getting a little old, because I know I was much cooler looking. Must suck to get old.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Our President is THE BLACK KNIGHT
This post has absolutely nothing to do with race. But watching the president today reacting to the shellacking he and his fellow progressives took yesterday, I was reminded of one of my all time favorite movie scenes.
President Obama is now willing to call it a draw. Now we can compromise. "It's only a flesh wound!"
President Obama is now willing to call it a draw. Now we can compromise. "It's only a flesh wound!"
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tex Cobb vs. Whoopi Goldberg
In a desperate attempt to gain at least a little credibility with mainstream America, and a few ratings points in the process, The View featured a segment with Bill O'Reilly today. In a discussion about the wisdom of building a mosque on the site of a building damaged during the attacks by Muslim extremists on 9/11/01, O'Reilly was insensitive enough to mention that the attacks were carried out by Muslims. Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg predictably went ballistic. These two deep thinkers are famous for such wonderful tolerant progressive rants such as Behar's claim that Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is "anti-children." Bachmann and her husband have two children and have raised 23 foster children. While the "pro-children" Ms. Behar has raised only 25 fewer children, but who is counting? One of Ms. Goldberg's finer moments came when she defended child molester, Roman Polanski by saying that essentially since he drugged the underage girl first, the act wasn't "Rape rape."
In today's episode with Bill O'Reilly, the two progressive spokespersons immediately went into a rabid attack, comparing Timothy McVeigh to the 9/11 terrorists, saying O'Reilly doesn't refer to McVeigh as the Christian bomber. As Bill O'Reilly points out, Timothy McVeigh never claimed to be Christian, and absolutely never claimed his attack was in the name of Christianity. The 9/11 murderers, on the other hand, did carry out their attacks in the name of Islam, albeit their own perverted extremist version of the religion. Behar and Goldberg stood and walked off the set of the show before allowing O'Reilly to make his point. It was ratings gold. If Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg would only continue their protest, the show might actually become relevant.
When seeing the highlights of today's walkout, I was immediately reminded of boxer turned actor, Randall "Tex" Cobb. Cobb fought several heavyweight championship matches in the early 1980's. He once stated that his strategy was to let his opponent hit him in the face until he was completely exhausted, then Cobb would try to knock him out. The match for which Cobb is most famous, was in 1982 against heavyweight champion, Larry Holmes. True to Cobb's strategy, Holmes pounded on Cobb's face for 15 rounds. Problem for Cobb was that Holmes never tired. And Cobb never fell.
Tex Cobb was never mistaken for Tom Cruise before the fight, but after the fight, he may have been mistaken for 200 pounds of ground meat. Boxing was a major sport at the time, and the most famous boxing announcer was Howard Cosell. Cosell was voted the most loved, and most hated sportscaster in America for ten straight years. He was a regular on Friday night boxing and on Monday Night Football. At the end of the Cobb vs. Holmes match, Cosell was so disgusted by the beating that Cobb received that he announced his retirement from announcing boxing matches. When the beaten and bloody Cobb was told of Cosell's retirement, he responded, "I'll go another 15 rounds with Larry right now if Cosell will get off Monday Night Football too."
I think Bill O'Reilly more than held his own with Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg today. He should volunteer to be a daily guest on The View, if Behar and Goldberg will stay retired!
In today's episode with Bill O'Reilly, the two progressive spokespersons immediately went into a rabid attack, comparing Timothy McVeigh to the 9/11 terrorists, saying O'Reilly doesn't refer to McVeigh as the Christian bomber. As Bill O'Reilly points out, Timothy McVeigh never claimed to be Christian, and absolutely never claimed his attack was in the name of Christianity. The 9/11 murderers, on the other hand, did carry out their attacks in the name of Islam, albeit their own perverted extremist version of the religion. Behar and Goldberg stood and walked off the set of the show before allowing O'Reilly to make his point. It was ratings gold. If Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg would only continue their protest, the show might actually become relevant.
When seeing the highlights of today's walkout, I was immediately reminded of boxer turned actor, Randall "Tex" Cobb. Cobb fought several heavyweight championship matches in the early 1980's. He once stated that his strategy was to let his opponent hit him in the face until he was completely exhausted, then Cobb would try to knock him out. The match for which Cobb is most famous, was in 1982 against heavyweight champion, Larry Holmes. True to Cobb's strategy, Holmes pounded on Cobb's face for 15 rounds. Problem for Cobb was that Holmes never tired. And Cobb never fell.
Tex Cobb was never mistaken for Tom Cruise before the fight, but after the fight, he may have been mistaken for 200 pounds of ground meat. Boxing was a major sport at the time, and the most famous boxing announcer was Howard Cosell. Cosell was voted the most loved, and most hated sportscaster in America for ten straight years. He was a regular on Friday night boxing and on Monday Night Football. At the end of the Cobb vs. Holmes match, Cosell was so disgusted by the beating that Cobb received that he announced his retirement from announcing boxing matches. When the beaten and bloody Cobb was told of Cosell's retirement, he responded, "I'll go another 15 rounds with Larry right now if Cosell will get off Monday Night Football too."
I think Bill O'Reilly more than held his own with Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg today. He should volunteer to be a daily guest on The View, if Behar and Goldberg will stay retired!
Thursday, October 7, 2010
America, we've got a problem. Really, we do this time.
In arson investigations, at least on TV, one of the first suspects is the person who reported the fire. And then the people who help put out the fire, or who rescue the victims. A few years ago, a huge wildfire burned thousands of acres in Arizona. The fire, or actually a series of fires, was started by a firefighter. He wanted the opportunity to be the hero who put out the fire. About the same time, there was a similiar case in Colorado. It's even more common in housing arson. A firefighter, or more likely a firefighter wannabe, creates a crisis in the hopes of coming to the rescue and becoming the hero. And in the process gaining a job, a promotion, money, or at least publicity.
Next time we have a crisis in Washington D.C., we need to take a close look to see if it is a real crisis, and if it is, how was it created? The perfect example is the housing crisis that brought about the current economic mess. First of all, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were part of a Democratic congressional majority that forced banks to make high risk loans to people who could not qualify for housing loans, as part of the Fair Housing Act. (As an aside, take a REALLLLLLLLY close look any bill that includes the word Fair and doesn't involve ferris wheels and corn dogs). The promise to the banks was that the loans would be backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While CSpan will generally result in a full-on slobbering nap, maybe we should all be making that network the top rated cable channel. Here's an enlightening video from 2004.
So, they created the crisis, ignored the warnings about crisis, and then took billions, soon to be trillions, to fix the crisis. And oh, yeah, blame the people who were sounding the warnings for the crisis!
Another example, how about the $854 billion dollars to create jobs to keep unemployment from going over 8% at the beginning of Obama's presidency. Using their own numbers, which are very questionable if not outright lies, they created or saved 3.5 million jobs. That means the federal government spent $244,400 for every job saved or created. And unemployment still went to almost 10%, or 14.4% if you include those who became discouraged and just stopped looking or were unemployed for so long that they were no longer eligible to be counted.
And don't even get started onGlobal Warming, Climate Change, Man Caused Global Climate Disruption. I've written about that DC Caused crisis several times, so I won't get into it again. Here are three links.
Obama and Gore to profit from Cap and Trade Why no media outrage about cap and trade? Rednecks and global warming
How about financial reform? Was that even on your radar? Now, with the solution that passed in a 2000+ page law this summer, every one of your financial transactions is subject to scrutiny by the the government. Student loan crisis? Fixed, as part of the 2000+ healthcare law. Yes, part of the HEALTHCARE law! The healthcare law that 60% of Americans want repealed. The healthcare law that 68% of Americans did not want passed. Now, for a Golden Oldie, victims of rape and incest do not have access to abortion. Was that really such a pervasive problem that the government needed to get involved? I'd like to see some stats, but now, less than 30 years later, abortion is an accepted form of birth control. Or in the words of this British pundit, "getting rid of a couple of cells."
With the election this November, we had better take steps to handle our own problems before the "firefighters" in DC burn down our whole country.
Next time we have a crisis in Washington D.C., we need to take a close look to see if it is a real crisis, and if it is, how was it created? The perfect example is the housing crisis that brought about the current economic mess. First of all, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were part of a Democratic congressional majority that forced banks to make high risk loans to people who could not qualify for housing loans, as part of the Fair Housing Act. (As an aside, take a REALLLLLLLLY close look any bill that includes the word Fair and doesn't involve ferris wheels and corn dogs). The promise to the banks was that the loans would be backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While CSpan will generally result in a full-on slobbering nap, maybe we should all be making that network the top rated cable channel. Here's an enlightening video from 2004.
So, they created the crisis, ignored the warnings about crisis, and then took billions, soon to be trillions, to fix the crisis. And oh, yeah, blame the people who were sounding the warnings for the crisis!
Another example, how about the $854 billion dollars to create jobs to keep unemployment from going over 8% at the beginning of Obama's presidency. Using their own numbers, which are very questionable if not outright lies, they created or saved 3.5 million jobs. That means the federal government spent $244,400 for every job saved or created. And unemployment still went to almost 10%, or 14.4% if you include those who became discouraged and just stopped looking or were unemployed for so long that they were no longer eligible to be counted.
And don't even get started on
Obama and Gore to profit from Cap and Trade Why no media outrage about cap and trade? Rednecks and global warming
How about financial reform? Was that even on your radar? Now, with the solution that passed in a 2000+ page law this summer, every one of your financial transactions is subject to scrutiny by the the government. Student loan crisis? Fixed, as part of the 2000+ healthcare law. Yes, part of the HEALTHCARE law! The healthcare law that 60% of Americans want repealed. The healthcare law that 68% of Americans did not want passed. Now, for a Golden Oldie, victims of rape and incest do not have access to abortion. Was that really such a pervasive problem that the government needed to get involved? I'd like to see some stats, but now, less than 30 years later, abortion is an accepted form of birth control. Or in the words of this British pundit, "getting rid of a couple of cells."
With the election this November, we had better take steps to handle our own problems before the "firefighters" in DC burn down our whole country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
