O'Reilly

I agree with FNCs superstar Bill O'Reilly often. Some times I strongly disagree.

Recently, Bill asserted that you must notify the FBI when taking flying lessons, but not if you buy a machine gun or a bazooka. That was such a foolish misstatement it has been thoroughly refuted by Doug Giles and others.

More recently, Bill said "Marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution." Well, Mr. O'Reilly, marriage is not an enumerated right in the Constitution. But, have you read the Ninth amendment? It states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

(Thank the Founders for the precious 9th amendment! Without it there surely would be books - no, libraries full of books - telling us all the things we could NOT do because those things were not enumerated in the Constitution!)

Then, Bill, take a look at the Tenth Amendment which says that powers "...not prohibited by it (The Constitution) to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."  Since marriage is not prohibited by the Constitution, it automatically becomes a protected right. Further, if any states wish to prohibit same-sex marriage, that right is reserved to that state and is protected by the Constitution.

Or, if I personally believe only in traditional marriage, I as a "people" enjoy Constitutional protection for that right.

The Founders did not write the Constitution to be a complex legal document. They wanted it to be a document that could be read and understood by every citizen of the United States. And with great genius, they succeeded!

Sadly, they did not provide a way to make us read it!

WHY...

doesn't anyone talk about this?

Qatar is a tiny spit of a nation, a little thumb of desert land protruding off the east coast of Saudi Arabia. One generation ago, citizens of Qatar lived in tents, rode around on camels and struggled to subside.

Today in Qatar, camels ride around on trucks. Qatar is the richest nation, per capita, on earth.

Qatar has a skyline of spectacular, modern buildings and more are going up every day. What happened in Qatar?

It was discovered that Qatar is sitting atop a huge deposit of natural gas. With no green concerns, Qatar busted their butts to retrieve their natural gas and develop a way to market this asset. The results are nearly unbelievable!

Meanwhile, in America, where natural gas deposits are immeasurably larger than those under Qatar, where oil is more plentiful than in Saudi Arabia, and coal reserves are by far the greatest in the world... our infrastructure is crumbling. Americans are out of work in unprecedented numbers, our national debt is staggering.

Pundits fuss that more drilling would not lower the price of gas at the pump. Who cares? Follow the Qatar plan... put people to work! Produce coal, oil, natural gas and sell it on the world market. It is the way to pay off the debt, reduce unemployment, bring our standard of living back up where it belongs!

And, just as important, making America energy independent once more will make America more secure.

Why isn't anyone shouting about this? Are they afraid of environmentalists? Are they afraid of the green lawyers? Do people actually want to see America decline? Where is the leader who will take this bull by the horns?

The Public's Right (to decide they do not want) To Know

This morning I observed an interesting bit of human behavior. Sitting in the waiting room of a medical facility, along with a dozen or so other persons, I watched a large screen TV tuned to "America's Newsroom" on Fox News Channel.

The news they covered was important - no fluff - with stories from Washington Politics to Tropical Storm Betsy. The group in the waiting room varied in age. No children but a mixture of young adults and seniors.

I quickly observed that while the TV anchors covered these news stories, the younger adults scanned magazines or newspapers but paid little attention to the TV. The seniors in the group seemed glued to the screen.

Several times, the TV producers took a commercial break. The instant the commercials opened with their explosive sounds, jingles or whatever, every young adult immediately turned their eyes to the TV.

When the news programming resumed, they returned to their magazines.

Are young Americans just not interested in what is going on in their world?

When we hear reports the "Seniors Vote", is it because they DO care?
  

(Dis)organized Labor

In the early part of the last century, work was hard. Really hard. I remember in the 1930s there was no such thing as a 40-hour week. My father worked many long, hard days, quitting each day when the work was done, not when someone blew a whistle. My father was grateful to have a steady job and worked without complaining. But others felt abused. They reasoned that if organized as a like-minded group, they could achieve bargaining power to obtain "rights" for workers.

Organize they did, with sympathy evoking claims of seeking fairness for workers. They called themselves "organized labor" and the nation fell in love with Labor Unions. Oh, how we championed these fighters for fairness. But in the blink of an eye some discovered that if every worker paid monthly dues it would pile up a heap of money... a big temptation for crooks and con men.

Because many union members were lightly educated, they became an easy target for the con artists who quickly took over powerful, high paying union leadership positions. To maintain those positions, they knew they had to keep getting more and more benefits for their members. They soon exceeded reasonable demands.

With their huge bargaining power and help from politicians who sought to mine union memberships for votes, they destroyed many American industries. But they always pressed for more, using increasingly ugly tactics.

Now, however, many Americans - including many union members - have come to understand the destructive nature of Organized Labor. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker decided to rein in his state's public employees unions and found that a majority of citizens backed him. More and more states are enacting right-to-work laws ending, statewide, compulsory union membership.

Labor unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. It has taken some time, but it now appears that Organized Labor as we have known it is dead. A vital step in restoring America's greatness.

 

Religious Freedom

I do not belong to any organized religious organization. I do not go to church. Right or wrong, my decision. But please do not assume that I am anti-religion. Personally, I believe that the closely held positions of some religious organizations are a bit over the top. Some religions have beliefs or customs with which I disagree.

The "Church Of Christ" has prohibitions on using musical instruments in church. Nearly all Christian religions believe in baptism, some sprinkle, some submerge. The "Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints" believes the same Bible most Christian denominations use, but believes God had a new book (The Book of Mormon) especially for them. The Catholic Church believes differently than Protestant religions. Jews disagree with Christians on many levels. I overlook these differences.

In my view, religion must be, in some way, a force for good. I respect others' views and beliefs, including their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs are based in some "force for good". No one can argue that members of the Church Of Christ do not do a world of good in their communities. My experience with Mormons has shown them to be exemplary citizens who actively care for their fellow man. Consider all the Roman Catholic Church has accomplished with their hospitals, universities and other institutions. Ditto for Judaism.

And, I believe in the U.S. Constitution: If Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I will stand for that free exercise.

However, holding millions of members in allegiance does not, in my opinion, make a religion. Since September 11, we have heard much about respecting Islam. I do not.

Muslims fall far short in the "force for good" department. They sentence to death people who disagree with their beliefs. They fight among themselves... Shi'ites, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Suffis, Bahaiis... Muslims all, but they have done battle among themselves for centuries.

But the accepted customs of many Muslims are the straws that break the criteria for a religion for me. In Islam, it is okay to lie for the good of Islam. Honor killings are okay. The universal acceptance of bad treatment of women. And, among the most despicable, one "long standing tradition" recently codified into law by the new Egyptian Parliament (since the Muslim Brotherhood gained the majority) permits a man to have sex with his deceased wife for up to six hours after her death.

Sorry, I cannot personally recognize Islam as a "religion" worthy of my support.    

Appreciating the doers!

This past weekend we took a road trip, covering a swath of New Mexico and a swath of Texas. My wife did most of the driving, giving me the opportunity to just look at the wonders that whizzed by.

Some were nature's wonders, like the occasional small herd of antelope (American pronghorns, actually) peacefully grazing in sparse grasslands. Strange geographic features like the miles of dunes of snow white gypsum which gathered on the east side of the San Andreas mountains.

Mostly, however, I marveled at the man made wonders, reflected on the work it took to create them and thought of all the people who benefit from those creations while bearing no knowledge of, or appreciation for, their benefactors.

I saw a lot of oil wells pumping away. I wondered about the men who sweated in summer heat or shivered in winter cold to erect the drilling rigs, then labored for weeks to drive the drill deep enough to reach oil.

I thought of the folks who provided capital for that drilling. Many have invested their savings to acquire a 1/64 interest in a drilling operation which failed to produce oil and they lost their investment. If oil is found, these investors will periodically receive small checks, hoping the oil will hold out long enough to get all their money back and, hopefully, enough additional to earn more than they could have received from a bank savings account.

From those windswept fields, the crude oil is transported to a distant refinery where gasoline is extracted, then shipped back to a filling station in a nearby village. There I am able to fill my tank and thus cruise in comfort down this highway... its hard surface another by-product of the stuff those pumps are extracting. I note the nicely formed plastic control panel of our car, also made from that crude oil, and I wonder why so many demonize this amazing gift from nature.

There are electrical wires everywhere you go. This was not the case in the 1930s when my family's farmhouse had no electricity and my sisters did their homework by the light of a kerosene lamp - also fueled by a product of the aforementioned crude oil.

Among the utility poles we passed, I saw an occasional one which carried a pod of large capacitors. I recalled a classroom, decades ago, and an instructor who explained that even a straight wire, if long enough, will introduce enough inductive reactance to shift the phase angle between the voltage and the flowing current. This requires the occasional introduction of enough capacitive reactance to straighten things back out. I know I am speaking Greek to most, but if it were not for someone studying that particular Greek and solving that particular problem, the family in the ranch house we passed could not watch their TV programs tonight. Or operate the myriad of other things powered by electricity.

We drove alongside miles of railroad tracks and I wondered at the fact that oak ties, laid directly on the ground with rails spiked to them, is still the best way to transport a train. Men once drove those spikes by hand, swinging sledgehammers endlessly to build the miles of track that carried trains across this vast nation.

I saw where rails and also highways cut through rolling, rocky terrain and up the sides of mountains. I remember reading how early roads were built with horse drawn excavating equipment and only black powder to blast a path through solid rock. How did they ever get it done?

We passed fields with deeply plowed furrows, stretching straight as a string to the horizon. I marveled that anyone can hold a huge tractor in a true, straight line. Later this spring those furrows will sprout cotton plants and when the summer is nearing its end, bolls of snow white cotton. Then, men on other machines will harvest the cotton and it will go to mills around the globe to be made into jeans and T-shirts for the world's youth.

Here in America we have much to be thankful for. Near the top of the list are the millions of men and women who work their entire lives to give us the many luxuries we enjoy. And we never even bother to say "Thanks!".

Work Station President

Back in the 1960s, a banker friend took me on a tour of his bank's computer. In the lobby, employees operated card readers and other wonderful devices that sorted checks, recorded withdrawals and deposits, computed balances, issued statements, etc.

We went to the bank's basement and entered a "clean" room. The walls were lined with large equipment cabinets, several of which had reels of recording tape on the front - these reels spinning forward and backward as bank employees operated the computer from their work stations. Upon returning to the bank lobby, I realized that all those work stations counted for little. It was the sprawling computer in the basement that was doing the work.

A couple of decades later, in the 1980s, my company installed our first computer system. Made by Wang, it consisted of a central unit (a micro version of that old bank's computer!) with work stations on each employee's desk. Each station consisted of a keyboard and a monochrome monitor, not unlike the CRT monitors used for PCs, but that was before PCs.

You could do all sorts of things at each work station... but the work station itself was nothing. Disconnect the cables connecting it to the central processing unit and the work station no longer functioned. Enter errors into the central unit, and every work station will repeat those errors

I think of those early computers every time I hear President Obama speak. Looking like a well-groomed intellectual, he stands in front of his teleprompter and sounds very wise indeed. Unplug the teleprompter and he is like a disconnected work station on our old Wang computer. He no longer functions intelligently.

When Barack Obama makes an unscripted statement about a current event, his comments are often ignorant and destructive: "The police acted stupidly"; "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon"; etc.

Our concern must be with whomever is programming Obama's "central unit". And we must realize that if we re-elect Barack Obama, we re-elect those programmers. 

Happy Birthday, Dad...

April 17, 1893.

From the gut...

Most often when we say "gut feeling", we simply mean something like "from deep within, a belief with no evidence of fact". So, it's a guess, but one with strong conviction.

For some time I have been wanting to say the unthinkable... that Barack Obama faces a landslide defeat in November. No one wants to say anything that will evoke a sympathy vote. No one wants Obama opponents to feel overconfident and stay home on election day. But, I speak to a small audience, so I will say it. Obama is toast.

I have watched a lot of presidential elections - 2012, in fact, will be my 21st. I was around for one other, but too young to have had an interest in politics - I was born the day Herbert Hoover was elected!

At times the outcome was evident long in advance. One time experts were fooled even on election day (1948).

In retrospect some election outcomes became apparent in increments along the way. Brick by brick a wall was built that totally blocked one candidate. That is happening in 2012.

Today we hear that Cecil Roberts, president of The United Mine Workers, hints that his Union may not support Barack Obama because of the Administration's "war on coal". The United Mine Workers president not supporting the Democrat candidate??? Does anyone remember John L. Lewis? Lay a brick.

Obama's chief political adviser, David Axelrod stumbled through an interview with a incoherent statement that seemed to confuse his talking point about voter choices, giving the Republican candidate material for an anti-Obama TV commercial. Lay a brick.

Another adviser spouts an equally incoherent statement that seemed to decry American moms. What is the saying about things quintessentially American: Apple Pie and MOTHERHOOD! Lay a brick.

Despite Democrat assertions to the contrary, former Vice-President Dick Chaney is a well-respected public servant. He has declared Obama's presidency to be an unmitigated disaster. A great many will help lay that brick. 

Scandals from GSA to Solyndra to Fast and Furious to signature legislation that may be declared unconstitutional to Secret Service agents exposing themselves to compromise to soaring gasoline prices and food prices... our imaginary mason must indeed be a fast and furious bricklayer.

Yes, last minute surprises happen. Does anyone recall Thomas Eagleton? A Senator from Missouri, Eagleton was chosen as Democrat George McGovern's running mate in 1972. Nearing the election, it was revealed that Eagleton had sought medical treatment for what, fairly or unfairly, was perceived to be a mental disorder. End of McGovern's candidacy.

And, yes, there could be an October surprise this year. But it will have to be an irresistible force to overcome the immoveable wall blocking Obama's reelection.

April 11. Another sad memory.

It was 61 years ago when President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur of Command of all U.S. Forces in Korea. One of those brushed-off presidential actions which, in my opinion, unleashed an immeasurable dose of death and suffering to a countless number of souls, along with an uncountable amount of treasure.

To recap, at an historic February, 1944 meeting at Yalta, the Soviet Union was awarded administrative control of all of the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel. The Soviets had done nothing to wrest control of Korea from the Japanese and had no business on the peninsula. But at the Yalta meeting, President Roosevelt, senile and ill, sat nodding and drooling as Joseph Stalin demanded control of half of Korea and was granted his wish. He subsequently did nothing but install a puppet Communist Korean dictator and walk away.

In June of 1950 American forces in Korea were purely administrative, there to help the Koreans establish an independent government. I had friends among them, and they could hardly have been considered a fighting force. Out of the blue, the North Koreans crossed that 38th parallel and began driving American forces southward toward the sea.

General MacArthur, perhaps the most brilliant military mind in American history, readied a force and swept across Korea's middle, trapping North Korean forces to their south.With the Korean Army now largely prisoners, American forces then turned north driving their way to the Chinese border. As they neared the Yalu River, which formed that border, Chinese aircraft began attacking American forces in Korea.

The Chinese were weak at that time, their armies poorly trained and poorly armed. Their air force consisted largely of donated Soviet planes. MacArthur wanted to attack the Chinese air bases from which the attacks were launched and end that mischief decisively. President Truman feared that action would provoke a restart of recently concluded World War II and fired MacArthur.

Soon, Chinese ground troops swept across the border by the tens of thousands. Some of my friends there at the time had thought the war was over. Then, one morning their arose a terrible racket as Chinese troops pushed southward. One of my friends, a Marine infantryman, said many among the swarms of Chinese were armed with primitive weaponry. Many thousands were killed, but if you have ever tried to fight off a swarm of thousands of angry hornets, you can understand how they eventually overran the Americans.

American forces were able to take a firm stand at the old 38th parallel border - where it had all begun - and halted the Chinese-Korean advance, but the Americans were ordered to hold at that line. In 1952, General Dwight Eisenhower was elected president. Even before inauguration, he traveled to Korea and brokered a cease-fire, which brings us forward to April 11, 2012, the 61st anniversary of Mr. Truman's change of command in Korea. The cease fire is holding - sort of - but the war never ended.

Imagine, if you will that MacArthur had been given a free hand. A decisive and brutal blow at Chinese air bases north of the Yalu River would have undoubtedly stemmed the Chinese desire to fight for the puppet government in North Korea. After all, the Americans had been fighting for the Chinese to drive Japanese occupiers from their land since the late 1930s. Would not many Chinese have held a favorable enough opinion of Americans to dilute their taste for war over a neighbor which had contributed nothing to the Chinese?

Now, North Korea is militarily much stronger, and today or tomorrow threatens to launch a missile which, presumably, could reach the American mainland. We may shoot it out of the sky... if our current president, like Harry Truman in 1951, doesn't tremble in fear of starting a larger conflict. But think how much more easily we could have attacked some small Chinese air fields six decades ago. Think, too, how North Korean citizens, like their countrymen south of the 38th parallel could have prospered for three generations, instead of having watched their children starve.

Only if they use a gun...

My home is four blocks off a parkway - four lane, divided, with a nice wide median. The terrain is rolling and a bit curved. While this is a residential area, not one residential driveway opens onto this parkway. Still, local traffic officials have determined that the maximum speed limit should be 35 MPH.

About a year ago there was an incident wherein a young man left his brain at home, crawled into his pickup truck and headed for some unrevealed destination requiring he drive north, the length of our neighborhood parkway. For some reason, he decided to ignore the legal speed limit and accelerated his truck to a very high speed, possibly over 75 mph.

An elderly neighborhood couple, southbound on the parkway, arrived at the intersection where they would turn left, across the northbound lanes, to reach their home. Just south of the intersection, the parkway reaches a rise in the ground. As our neighbors turned left into the northbound lanes, the young man in the pickup truck shot over that rise at a speed that made it impossible to stop. His truck hit the car broadside, killing both the man and his wife. Only local news media reported the "accident", and the driver of the truck was to be cited for speeding.

This was a clear case of reckless behavior causing the death of two law abiding citizens. But no nationally known rabble rousers showed up to lead a crowd of protesters. No one started a movement toward "pickup truck control". It was just an accident! Provided the driver's blood alcohol level is below 0.08%, death by reckless use of a motor vehicle is always just an accident.

However, death by a firearm is never just an accident or the act of a deranged person. Recent shootings in the workplace, on school campuses, or in a middle class gated community in Florida are always hate crimes or acts of blatant racism. They are widely covered by national news media, attract all sorts of people protesting for something or other and petitioning for more gun control.

What is it about guns that arouse such passions, while death by any other instrument does not?

Thoughts about music.

My son asked his mother something he described as an odd question: "What are your ten all-time favorite songs?" I don't know how my wife answered, but his question caused me to think. Fist, I did not find the question to be odd. This son is a college professor, a Cognitive Scientist, no less. Maybe he is thinking of some sort of study relating a person's choice of music to their personality traits - I have no idea. I did find his question - in my case - impossible to answer. During my 25 years in broadcasting, I played thousands of songs on the air. There is no way I could name my ten all-time favorites.

Songs evoke memories. Some songs which I did not actually like, evoke pleasant memories, so it is good to hear those songs. Some songs evoke both pleasant and unpleasant memories: pleasant because they recall some happy event. Unpleasant because of a later unhappy ending that followed event... such as, perhaps, the memory of a good friend who later died.

People seem to remember songs for other, different reasons. My wife, an excellent dancer, sometimes says of a song that she paid no attention to the lyric, she just loved the music. I happen to listen for lyrics. I have never been able to dance. Early in our 40+ year marriage she tried to teach me to dance. "Just listen to the beat", she suggested. "What's that?", I asked. She gave up. I was dead serious. I hear the music as a complete blend of all the instruments. I have asked her about a specific sound in a specific piece of music, and she immediately tells me the instrument that made the sound. How does she do that?

I love the skilled use of language and greatly appreciate skillfully written lyrics. Years ago, Reader's Digest magazine included a feature titled "Toward More Picturesque Speech". One quote I remember was, "The man sat heavily in the chair." What a beautifully simple way to perfectly describe something familiar to us all, yet otherwise hard to describe!

In some songs, the lyric is so skillfully written it carries a strong emotional impact. That's my kind of music, even if I don't particularly like the music! It is comforting to know others share that feeling. A fellow disk jockey friend and I once visited about the performance of other disk jockeys. He deplored an incident wherein a young deejay played a Righteous Brother's record on which the lyric pleaded, "...for once in my life let me hold onto the thing I've found...", and followed the song with some silly, flip comment. I agreed. The singer caused the listener to feel the pain of a man always disappointed in life. How could the deejay ignore that pain. Maybe he heard something in the music which we had not heard.

Higher Education Indoctrination

In recent years, we have been bombarded with admonitions that success in America is nearly impossible without a college education. The Federal Government has taken many steps to facilitate that education with student loan programs, tuition grants, monetary support of institutions, etc.

Now, however, we are learning that graduates from a four-year college are without jobs, (or working at multiple menial jobs which do not require a degree) while saddled, on the average, with a $20,000 student loan debt. All the while, North Dakota reports that scores of high-paying jobs, requiring training in mechanical skills - not a college degree - are going begging.

Some now say a college education, excluding a post graduate degree in the sciences, is a waste of time and money. I wish that were the end of the story.

The truth is, many graduates from a four year liberal arts college not only have no skills, they have acquired a mindset destructive to the American way of life.

In my local newspaper (the Las Cruces, New Mexico Sun-News, March 11, 2012), there appeared the following Letter To the Editor:

  "New Mexico State University's College of Education is aggressively teaching future secondary teachers a liberal agenda. I am a graduate student working toward a secondary teaching license through the Department of Curriculum and Education at NMSU, where it is mandatory to take a course called Exploration of Education. The course description states this class is an overview of secondary schooling, but instead, it is a platform to promote the Democratic Party and to nullify the white American male, American culture and Christianity.
  "The front cover of one of the required textbooks depicts President George W. Bush next to a picture of a monkey with a similar facial expression while President Barack Obama is pictured giving a speech in front of the American flag.
  "Through the class, I have been taught the white male is the opposition, and everyone who is not a white male needs to band together in order to succeed against them. One textbook further defines the opposition as white, male, Christian, heterosexuals. In some of the readings, the American citizenship of white American males is negated by calling them White Europeans rather than European Americans. All other male groups are called Americans, such as African Americans rather than Black Africans.
  The United states of America is never exalted; rather, I have been taught our American culture is deplorable because we are a capitalistic nation who loves football and owns guns.
  It was conveyed that in order to embrace freedom of religion, I must first put down Christianity. This is what future secondary teachers are being taught at NMSU, under the guise of critical pedagogy, and all secondary education teachers must pass this class in order to be eligible to be a secondary teacher. I contend that if these ideologies are not adopted, then failure is imminent.  -Brenda Bullard, Las Cruces

As a one-time news reporter, I understand this is thus far unverified. But surely Miss Bullard would not lie, since her assertions are easily proved or disproved with a trip to the NMSU bookstore to peruse the referenced textbooks.

Bear in mind, meanwhile, that this instruction is being offered at a high cost to each student, made higher by the interest they will surely pay on a student loan, and a high cost to taxpayers. Collectively, we are financing the destruction of our America by creating a generation of anti-American thinkers.

Defining bigotry
Many Americans, myself included, have decried the opposition to Mitt Romney based on his religion. We thought that position was forever laid to rest with the election of John F. Kennedy. Some had opposed JFK's election because he was a Catholic. Whatever you thought of Kennedy's presidency, his religion had no bearing on his performance.

So, we were appalled when people rose objections to Romney's Mormon faith.

We were likewise appalled when objections arose to Barack Obama's race. Never mind that he was more "white" than "black", by virtue of having a white mother and was raised by white grandparents while his black father deserted him before his birth, we objected to those who rejected him because he was "African American", which he indeed was.

Then, we learn that in 2012 Republican primary elections, 91% of Mormon voters in Nevada voted for Romney.

In 2010, Mormon Harry Reid - certainly one of the most unpopular politicians in America, was re-elected over Southern Baptist Sharon Angle, in heavily Mormon Nevada. Coincidence?

In 2008, black Americans went for "black" Barack Obama by 97% to 3% over white John McCain. Can anything but race explain that outcome?

So, if you oppose Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, or oppose Barack Obama because he is "black", you are a bigot. But Mormons who overwhelmingly choose Mormon candidates over non-Mormons, and blacks who overwhelmingly choose black candidates over white candidates, are not bigots?

Sorry.  I don't buy it.

A late business colleague of mine used to say "There is no part-time honesty". Be the subject minor or significant, your response is either honest or dishonest. You cannot be judged an honest person based on the importance of the subject.

Same with bigotry. A bigot is a bigot, no matter which side you're on.

Snail mail - idle minds

My wife picked up the mail and there among the ads and bills was a hand-written letter from our daughter in Omaha. We communicate with that daughter via email on almost a daily basis. Why would she send a hand-written note when she has a computer and knows how to use it? The answer was that she had undergone surgery on her foot, was confined to resting - not walking - and the computer was in another part of the house. But, there was a pen and note paper at hand so she wrote a chatty little note which our son-in-law mailed for her.

A slow U.S.P.S. note when a computer is available? Started my mind wandering. Why do people make a less reliable choice; jump to conclusions, resort to rumors, or guessing, or imagining, or .... whatever people often do as first response to anything, when access to the world's finest, fastest computer is available, right there between their ears? I am asking, why do people so often fail to think? Yes, think.

A year or two back, a friend in middle America wrote to tell me of an attempt by a group of investors to build a coal-fired power generating plant out on a Kansas prairie. Citizen protests against that "pollution belching monster" were so loud and sustained, the plan was vacated. My friend was happy.

I thought differently. Some 60% of America's electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants. We are not building new plants, and some existing ones are getting pretty old. That means they employ old technology which surely is more pollutant-producing than would be a modern, new plant. Populations have grown around some of the old plants, meaning people are living in very close proximity. Trainloads of incoming coal and outgoing ashes surely do not enhance their neighborhoods. Had the modern, new plant been built as planned, some distance from any residential area, perhaps it could have afforded the closing of one of the old, outdated plants. Wouldn't that have been a good thing? Maybe. Maybe not.

The point here is that I witness very few people looking for the "big picture" for any event.

General Motors' Chevy Volt is an interesting subject. The government promoted an electric car (recall the source of 60% of our electricity) which General Motors built. Building a new automobile is a costly experiment made possible only through massive sales of the vehicle. Turns out, nobody wanted to buy the Volt. Too small, too expensive, inadequate for most people's needs. Chevrolet made a "initial" run of the small cars - which they cannot sell - so they have had to suspend production until they could, hopefully get rid of some of their inventory.

A costly, failed (to date) experiment. But then, I guess you don't need to think when you are spending someone other people's money!

It's so easy to stand out!

My son uttered that phrase during his first year in graduate school. "Dad", he said, "I am surprised at how easy it is to stand out." Well, easy or not, he did stand out and is, today, doing extremely well as a tenured professor at a major university.

Good for him. Sad for society. If it is easy to stand out, what does that say for the population?

Some 50-plus years ago, I stumbled across a book titled "How To Retire At 35." Since that time, there have been numerous writings on the subject, pro and con, and there is even a coming TV series by that name, scheduled to appear on TVLand cable channel.

The gist of that 1950s book was, indeed, the fact that it is easy to stand out. The author suggested that one decide the field of work in which he believes he will be happy. Then, get a job in that field. Start on the bottom rung of the ladder. That's okay. Then, be the very best employee the company ever hired. That's the "Stand out" part. If, within a reasonable period of time, your efforts are not recognized, look to another company in that field. Eventually, hard work, loyalty, honesty and devotion to your duties will be recognized and you will move up. The one constant then, must be, to be the best employee ever.

That is such a simple and effective plan. Yet, in some of the offerings since the 1950s, people have demonized the idea. A Google search of "How To Retire At 35" found some 72 million results. Some despaired over the idea of early retirement leading to a life of boredom with dire results. What a crock.

In recent years, liberal politicians have been wringing their hands over "the poor", as though large segments of the population are doomed to be stuck in a life of want. Yet, the renowned economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell has offered proof that many among "the poor" are only temporarily struggling economically. Large numbers of yesterday's poor are today's middle class and will be tomorrow's wealthy. It happens, because it is so easy to stand out.

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said "Never make poverty comfortable." Perhaps if today's policy makers would heed that advice, hunger pangs would make more "poor" wake up to the fact that it is easy to stand out and will stand out themselves, rather than sit at home and beg for government help.

How To Learn

There are, basically, two ways to learn about a person, an event or an era. One way is to read what someone else has to say. The problem here is that you cannot always trust what someone else says.

The other way is to have lived through the era or the event, or lived during the period of the person's influence. The problem there is that you may have not been able to see the 'big picture'. Maybe you just were not privy to the rest of the story.

I am reminded of the World War II story from the Pacific. The War Department supposedly said a certain tiny, remote island was not important in the war effort. An individual soldier said "What do you mean this island is not important... I'm on it!"

I was born in the waning days of the Coolidge Administration. I have no first hand knowledge of Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, but I did live through the administrations of F.D.R., Harry Truman, J.F.K. and Jimmy Carter.

Teddy Roosevelt was a man of small stature and was such a wimp that when he first appeared in the legislature in a purple velvet suit, the other lawmakers all snickered. So he manufactured an image of a tough warrior which has stuck with many to this day.
    
For decades I've heard tell of the greatness of F.D.R.! I remember only the grinding poverty of the 1930s. I recall his failed programs - some even overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent attempt to pack the Court with six additional, new, hand-picked and like-minded justices.

F.D.R. was a horrible president. He set America on a path to destruction with bad fiscal policy. It will be nearly impossible to ever erase all the wrong F.D.R. gave us. Still, many - including our current failed president, Barack Obama - insist F.D.R. was a great president.

Finally, someone, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has eloquently made my case in a three-part column which he titled "The Progressive Legacy". Read all three parts here. 

I wish every American would read Dr. Sowell's explanation of how Progressives could advance such destructive policies periodically throughout the 20th Century, while hoodwinking the American Public into believing they were the 'party of the people'.

One may find it amazing that the Progressives never seem to learn. Obama is, today, making the same mistakes as his predecessors. We know he wasn't around to witness Teddy, Wilson, F.D.R., Truman or J.F.K. It is obvious, then, that he never read the truth about their serial failures.

Who will do the dirty work?

As someone who has been a hunter since my pre-teen years when my father took me rabbit hunting with an old .22 caliber rifle, I have always taken issue with anti-hunter types who enjoy their well-marbled steaks so long as someone else bloodies their hands killing and butchering the steer. Their concern is not for the animal, at all. They just don't want to be accused of the killing.

The Obama Administration has now jumped on their bandwagon with their free contraceptive mandate compromise. While professing to oppose abortion, the Administration is happy to provide "Plan B", morning-after abortion pills while assuring America that neither they nor faith based institutions will be pulling the trigger.

Kinda like the guy who hires someone else to murder his wife.

Is Obama non-partisan???

It wasn't that long ago when President Obama was taped at a West Coast fundraiser, accusing we peasants of "clinging to our guns and God".

 Well, now... the Administration certainly was not "clinging to their guns" when Fast & Furious was going down. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to purchase high-quality weapons to give free to Mexican drug cartels. We know, of course, that grateful druggies made use of those guns in killing at least one Border Patrol agent, hundreds - maybe thousands - of Mexican citizens, and perhaps a few of the Americans murdered while south of the border on some sort of humanitarian mission.

But, the Administration is most certainly clinging to its guns in the case of Syrian civilians begging for arms to protect themselves from their own government. Obama says 'no' to smuggling arms into Syria.


Is that Fair and balanced, or what?


Now we see that the Administration is not "clinging to God" as they walk all over the religious beliefs of American citizens. Does your conscience oppose the use of contraceptives? Doesn't matter, you may be forced to pay for contraceptives to be given free to persons with different beliefs.

So... in the aforementioned spirit of being fair, should we not expect from this president a show of strong support for God's followers in some coming issue?

Sorry Mitt... you just don't get it!

Barack Obama and his constituency, the environmentalist, Labor Unions, and the 47% who pay no taxes and long for more handouts, are destroying our country. For that reason, if, next November, the choice is between Romney and Obama, I will support Mitt for president. But I hope, in my heart of hearts, that Mitt will not be the Republican nominee.

I don't know if any of the other candidates can beat Obama, but I am afraid that Mitt Romney would just give us more of the same.... big government, getting bigger: another nail in the coffin of this great nation.

This morning, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Mitt about other candidate's proposals to drastically cut spending by instantly eliminating several cabinet level government departments. Mitt answered that we would have to study the activities of each department to see what could and could not be wisely cut.

Having observed the policies of ten administrations, that position means just one thing: the formation of yet another cabinet-level department, The Department To Study Which Departments Can Be Cut and By How Much; another $30 to $50 billion load on the budget; and no conclusions.

A persistent belief that the government can solve the problem if we just go about it correctly, is exactly what gave us the useless departments that are now destroying America. Sadly, my friends, regulations that require opposite and mutually exclusive actions are the rule... not the exception!

We now know that while the Department of Justice is suing states because their police are inquiring about  citizenship; the Department of State is demanding that each state's police do inquire about citizenship (so aliens may be advised about help available from their home country's consul.)

In my state, the Executive VP of the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau reminds us (http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_19571153) that the average age of American farmers is advancing - meaning young people are rejecting a career in agriculture. Thus, his bureau is urgently trying to develop programs to encourage farm youth to stay on the farm. He believes that it is work on the family farm that trains kids to "grow into teenagers with a strong work ethic; a sense of responsibility and a heart full of compassion". After college, these kids often return home to follow a career on the farm. Toward that end, the USDA is now spending well over $50 million annually to train beginning farmers and ranchers.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor is striving to eliminate the coming generation of farmers and ranchers by proposing regulations to prevent farm "children from working with farm animals, storing or transporting raw agricultural products, climbing on or into anything higher than six feet tall including ladders and haylofts or even being on the premises of grain elevators, livestock auctions or feedlots."

As a kid who grew up on a farm, I find this so preposterous it is unbelievable.

No, Mitt... you are wrong. Ronald Reagan understood: government cannot fix the problem - government IS the problem. No more study... no more investigations - it is past time to nibble. We now must cut, cut, cut! 

Why I will Never Again Vote For A Democrat

The Democrat Party in the United States has become the party of fools - or liars. They have justly earned either or both descriptions on several fronts. One is enough to convince me.

That one is the determination to look facts in the eye and declare them untrue. Barack Obama repeatedly asserts that Republican policies have been tried and did not work. It is politically incorrect to call the POTUS a liar, but it is incredulous to believe he does not have access to the facts about the Reagan policies.

For example, Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. In 1979, before Reagan, the top 1% of income earners paid 18.3% of the total tax bill. In 2006, the last year for which we have numbers, the top 1% paid 39.1% of the total tax bill. Likewise, in 1979, the bottom 40% of earners paid 4.1% of all taxes. By 2006, they were receiving 3.3% in direct payments from the U.S. Treasury. Today, Democrats insist that increasing taxes on "the rich" will benefit the middle class. In light of historical facts, are they fools or liars?

Under Reagan's policies, economic growth grew. Per capita GDP grew. Per capita income grew. Can you believe Obama does not have access to these and many other figures proving the success of  Republican policies? Or, like me, can you believe he is denying those fact to create class warfare and garner votes?

But... will this class warfare work? In 2000, Al Gore ran on a platform of  "People vs. The Powerful". He lost the election. In 2008, John Edwards touted his theory of "Two Americas"... the 99% against the 1%. He lost in the primaries.

Today, the Democrats see more and more Americans distracted from following and understanding the news. More and more Americans misled by a dishonest news media. They now believe they can try the class warfare tactic one more time... this time, perhaps, with success. 

That's a Direct (mis)Quote...

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is accused of advocating we abolish child labor laws. Well, that is true, in a sense. Newt suggested a program in our schools where poor kids may take some sort of menial job, such as a janitor's assistant, to learn about responsibility on the job and be rewarded with cash. In other words, a program to teach kids how to work and earn. To make that endeavor legal, may require some easing of child labor laws.

Almost immediately, Newt's excellent proposition was morphed into an effort to subject children to long, hard hours in sweatshops.

Some fifty years ago, in Kansas, I was privileged to become friends with an elderly back minister who was president of the local N.A.A.C.P. chapter. The good pastor spoke of employing kids from poor families. These kids, he said, have no concept of dependability in the work place, because they have had no family role model to teach dependability. He urged employers to understand this fact and mentor poor kids on dependability.

For a small company, that may be a tall order. Existing employees, who need extra help on the job, would now  have to teach newcomers how to show up for the job!

Now comes Newt Gingrich with a solution! Teach them in school, the proper place for teaching!

No, can't do that! It serves others to accuse Gingrich with wanting to see kids suffer in sweatshops.

So long, candidate Cain!

My lifetime experience has taught me that liberal Democrats will cheat, lie, say anything to destroy their opponents and advance their cause.

If those tactics do not work for them, they will resort to violence. As a union representative once told me, "two broken legs" would change the mind of our employer. 

The events leading to Herman Cain's having suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, reinforces that belief.

I would guess that Mr Cain, while an intelligent, accomplished and experienced man, simply could not believe that the Democrats would go so low. And, perhaps, he did believe that our news media would, in the end, stand for truth and honesty.

Best wishes, Herman Cain. I hope we hear from you again in the future.

Camp Victory

One of the big news stories today was the closing of Camp Victory, by the U.S. Army in Iraq. That event provoked some old memories for me. When Japan surrendered in World War II, millions of U.S. men and women were in uniform, scattered around the world. They wanted to come home. America wanted to bring them home. But America had vast war resources in every corner of the world. These resources had to be disposed of in some proper fashion.

Among those resources was a large Army presence on the Island of Leyte, in the Philippines. Headquarters and command was at Base "K" at Tacloban, where I was stationed. Elsewhere on the island was a large Ordinance unit; an Engineers unit; the Port Authority; There was a vehicle park, where tanks, trucks, Jeeps, even motorcycles originally intended for the invasion of Japan, had been unloaded when Japan surrendered. At Base "K", there was a Fire Department; A Military Police Department. There were warehouses; PX facilities; even the Prisoner Of War Camp where 10,000 Japanese prisoners had been held.

Throughout 1946, individual units were closed and their facilities turned over to the Philippine Army. All U.S. combat veterans were home; all Japanese POWs were repatriated. By the spring of 1947, it was time for Base "K" to be closed. All the work was done. It was time - it was proper - for the Philippine Army to take possession of the Port Authority, the barracks, the motor pool... everything we had so meticulously maintained. We sent the last message: "From C.O. Base K to CG AFWESPAC" from my message center.

We also were going home, but... it was bittersweet. We were losing our "home" of so many months... even though it never really belonged to we individual soldiers. We watched the usual cloud of smoke from evening cooking fires rise over Tacloban  as we boarded a motor launch for the ride to Manila There we would catch a troopship (the Gen. A.W. Greeley) bound for Okinawa, Yokohama and San Francisco.

Au revoir, Base "K", you served us well. As had Camp Victory.

Yard Signs

The state of Missouri is known as "The Show Me State". Amazingly, few Missourians know why. The nickname came about in the Civil War. Some states permitted slavery. Other states did not. Missouri was divided. When Missourians met a stranger, they never knew if the stranger was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Before expressing an opinion, they sought a signal from their new acquaintance.

In today's election periods, we put yard signs in front of our homes to show which candidate we support. A yard sign shows your political choice and indicates you are not ashamed of  that choice.

Knowing yard signs receive only a fleeting glance from passersby, these signs rarely show more than the name of the candidate. I would like to display a different message for next November's presidential election. Perhaps I should make a sign that said "Due to the policies of President Obama, this home is worth 40% less than four years ago." or, maybe, "President Obama's policies wiped out my equity in this home".

Maybe I will.

Bonus Schmonus

The current outcry against bonuses for executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac proves that Barack Obama's efforts to create class warfare are succeeding. It is further evidence that our educational system still has not taught that labor is a commodity. Its price determined by market forces.

Commodity prices are governed by the rarity of the commodity and the demand for it. Gold and corn are both yellow. Ounce for ounce, gold is "worth" the most... unless one is starving on a desert island, in which case the demand for the corn would greatly exceed the demand for the gold.

I started two small businesses, both highly successful in terms of the product we provided. But I lacked the necessary management skills and both businesses failed. A lot of people lost their jobs. What would it have been worth to each of those companies to have found someone to do the job, and had the money to hire them away from their former position?

I have no idea whether the Fannie - Freddie officers now receiving the bonuses are capable of pulling those entities from the jaws of greater disaster. I have no idea how many dollars it will take to keep them on the job if they do. But, to simply say they should not be paid the required amount because taxpayers have money involved, is foolishness of the first order. (Or, perhaps, of the second order! Hope and Change supporters who elected Obama in the first place could hardly do anything more foolish!)

Occupy - the Liberal mindset

This weekend, the media has overflowed with stories of  filth, lawbreaking, illegal drugs, even murder amongst those in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Mayors and police in various cities are saying "enough" and evicting the rowdy, destructive crowds.

On Sunday morning, the Managing Editor of our local newspaper, a Liberal Democrat, wrote a lengthy column about the OWS movement. I did not read the entire column. When I reached this sentence, I quit reading:

"I support it completely and wish them well in the cold winter months ahead"

Sunday evening, 60 Minutes, the CBS TV news magazine carried a story about Congressman Brian Baird, from Washington, a Democrat, and his efforts to thwart unlawful inside stock trading by Congressmen. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Liberal Democrat, apparently the biggest offender.

And, I recall a recent statement by an old friend, a lifelong Democrat and once a close family friend of Harry Truman, saying the former president must be spinning in his grave over the conduct of the current Democrat Administration.

I have felt ill about Democrats for 75 years. As a small boy, I heard my father and his friends complain that Franklin Roosevelt was destroying their country.

Today I am easing a bit on the old-fashioned, labor favoring Democrats and placing the blame purely on the Progressive Liberal movement. Yes, I still believe that some Democrats will support any Democrat - think Bob Beckel! But it is only when Democrats fully adopt the Liberal ideology that they go completely whacko.

Unlike our local newspaper editor, I hope the scum "occupying" Wall Street, and other cities, freeze in the cold winter months ahead.

American Culture

What's that? I guess it depends on whom you ask. You've probably heard the story of the California school boys who got in a bit of trouble for wearing patriotic American T-shirts to school on Cinco de Mayo (Fifth of May). To some Americans, that was outrageous.

After the Mexicans gained independence from Spain, Napoleon III of France and a group of Mexican monarchists backed that clown Maximilian to become Emperor of Mexico. The Mexicans pretty well ended the adventure when their Army defeated a French force at Puebla, Mexico on May 5, 1862. In Puebla, the date is celebrated as the anniversary of The Battle of Puebla. Elsewhere in Mexico, the date is generally ignored.

In the U.S., it is fun to say "Cinco de Mayo" and the date has become an excuse to drink a lot of Tequila. Some Hispanic American kids - especially in California and other border states - celebrate the day out of some sort of ethnic pride. Okay? Then, why is it not also okay for non-Hispanic American kids to wear red, white and blue T-shirts?

On November 11, a number of TV personalities observed Veteran's Day by wearing little "Buddy Poppies" on their lapels. Buddy Poppies came on the scene some time after World War One. During that war, Army surgeon John McCrae wrote a poem titled "In Flander's Fields", in which he spoke of poppies growing in the military cemetery in France. In 1918 US professor Moina Michael, inspired by the poem,  vowed to always wear a red poppy as a symbol of remembrance for those who served in the war. Throughout my life, I remember the Disabled American Veterans organization selling little artificial poppies (on Armistice Day, which later became Veteran's Day) they called Buddy Poppies, to help fund their activities.

Yesterday, I was shocked when TV commentator Juan Williams, seemed to not know why people were wearing Buddy Poppies.

How is it that today, in America, more people seem to know about Cinco de Mayo, an almost insignificant event in Mexican history, than about Buddy Poppies which commemorate an event in which over 116,000 U.S. military personnel were killed?

Do events in our history need a more catchy name to survive in our culture?

I wish...

We all say that, throughout our lives. I often say it to myself when I think of my father. More than anyone I have ever known, he appreciated the good that has come from industry, technology. Born and raised in the era of the horse, I often heard him marvel at the convenience and comfort of travel by modern automobile, on modern "hard-surface roads", as he called them.

He once told me of driving an early automobile from Tulsa, OK to Oklahoma City. The existing dirt road had three deep ruts, two caused by teams of two horses and the wheels of the wagons they pulled. A center rut caused by a single horse pulling a buggy. Driving the car on the road often meant the ruts were deep enough that the car would "high center" and the wheels just spin. So, they drove alongside the road through pastures, cutting and mending fences as they went. The trip takes about two hours today. His trip took a couple of days.

He told another story of attending some sort of fair in which a telephone company had set up a display where people could stand on one side of the room and talk, by phone, to someone on the other side. One attendee remarked that "Some day they'll do it without the wires".

My father died years before cell phones or personal computers. Imagine the fun of demonstrating smart phones to him... or explaining the internet and all it offers. He may have a little trouble grasping the techniques of operating these new devices, but he would be impressed and appreciative. 

I wish... I could.

But, they paid a Settlement!

So, he must be guilty, right?

Republican presidential nominee hopeful Herman Cain, it is revealed, was accused of sexual harassment 12 years ago. His employer at the time, the National Restaurant Association, paid a settlement to the women who made the charges.

I hold that that fact tells us nothing.

If the public knew the truth about "settlements", I believe there would be a huge outcry against the kind of lawsuits clogging our courts.

In my career in advertising, I have witnessed events where a business is sued for some wrong-doing and said, "Bring it on", so certain were they of their innocence. Offered a chance of making a cash settlement in lieu of the lawsuit, they said "No Way!"

Then their lawyers tallied up the time it would take to successfully defend their case, and advised them to take the settlement.

Understand, please, that it costs money to practice law. Even the most rudimentary practice requires an office, utility bills, employees to answer phones, prepare complex legal documents, do research, etc. A lawyer cannot work for free and still pay his staff, his bills, etc., even if he wanted to donate his time.

So, if a lawyer computes that it will cost $10,000 to defend a case and the matter can be closed with a $5,000 settlement, the honest lawyer will so advise his client. That happens over and over and over in America. Doesn't matter if the charges are valid or just made up. Sad, but true.

But, let me speak to the fact of sexual harassment. There was a time when sexual harassment was rampant in the business world. A superior of some rank catches a secretary in the supply closet, closes the door and forces her against the wall, attempting to undress her. That was bad, really bad, and the perpetrators should be severely punished.

Some were. Some companies have paid big bucks when that sort of behavior was proven. And, quite naturally, some persons have seen charges of sexual harassment as an easy route to a big payday. Bring the charge, challenge the accused to a costly lawsuit - or in the alternative - a handsome cash settlement.

Happily for the women of the business world, the reality of harsh punishment for acts of sexual harassment has helped to minimize the practice.

No charge of sexual harassment should escape investigation. But, no charge of sexual harassment should be plastered across national news media unless and until substantiated. Especially not 12 years after the event, when the accusation can cause irreparable harm to the accused, even if never proven valid.

Victory in Iraq - Afghanistan

I like the Japanese and I like the Germans. There is much to be admired about the people of both these great nations. Yet, I spent much of my youth nurturing an inflexible hatred for both the Japs and the Krauts. Why the change?

Because of my age, I, thankfully, entered the military too late to experience combat in World War Two, but I spent much time with combat veterans. From them I learned that war is a brutal business. From them I learned that marble monuments and marching bands are not an accurate depiction of war. One writer of the time suggested that to build a war memorial we should dig a huge pit into which every veteran could defecate and vomit until it rotted and stunk and offended everyone for miles around.

But, I also learned from the combat veterans that war is sometimes the only way to bring justice to oppressed peoples... in those instances where injustice is supported by huge and powerful armies. And, I learned the concept that, once in a war, the only acceptable conclusion is complete victory. That is what was achieved in World War Two.

Now, people are debating what we should consider to be success (it is politically incorrect to use the word victory) in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Ken Blackwell, in a column titled "Arab Spring and Islamist Fall" (available at http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2011/10/30/arab_spring_islamist_fall), explains it well:

We should be proud of what we accomplished in Japan and Germany, both of which nations are mainstays today of the world economy and, with some salient exceptions (e.g. Germany’s persecution of homeschoolers) models of democratic legitimacy. We de-militarized and de-Nazified these vanquished regimes. We forced changes in their constitutions and in their educational systems. We shaped their economies.

We attempted no such changes in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in any of the other countries in the forever turbulent Mideast. That is why, tragically, any claims of hope and change in this region—especially when based on American dollars—are fatally flawed. We are building our houses upon sand.

I see it as like police caught a man robbing a bank, took back the loot, and let the robber go. The paradigm of World War Two would be to mete out justice in a way that would both prevent further mischief on the part of this robber and scare the pants off anyone else thinking of robbing a bank.  

Accidentally effective commercials

For years, I've made a living producing broadcast (radio and TV) commercials.Sometimes you work very hard and come up with a failure. Sometimes you produce a great one by accident.

Years ago I was making TV commercials for a large, retail furniture dealer. Most of our advertising budget targeted the big sellers: living room, dining room and bedroom furniture.

My client also sold grandfather clocks. But, so few grandfather clocks were sold, we never wanted to spend money on a commercial to feature them. Then, in one commercial promoting living room furniture, we showed a picture of a living room which, coincidentally, included a grandfather clock. Most of the response was for the living room furniture. But to our surprise, we also received a number of inquiries about grandfather clocks.

In future commercials, we often included a picture of the featured furniture item, but with a grandfather clock in the background. We never mentioned grandfather clocks, never gave a price, but my client continued to do a small but steady business in grandfather clocks.

Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain has made an internet commercial which shows one of his staffers smoking a cigarette. Nothing is said for or against smoking, but the guy looks right into the camera and takes a drag. Guess what? Many cigarette smokers are now Cain supporters!

Smokers pay exorbitant taxes on their tobacco products. This tax revenue is used for many beneficial programs, including health care for children. Yet, smokers are almost universally vilified. Smoking is banned in more and more places. Some companies will not employ a smoker. Smokers feel they are treated unfairly.

Now comes an ad for Herman Cain. It says nothing directly, but seems to say that the Cain campaign does not agree with the barrage of anti-smoking propaganda. Many smokers now feel there is someone on their side.

Accidentally, or on purpose, that commercial is brilliant, because it is effective!

Will the real crook please stand up?

The First Amendment spells out our right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances". But, if, for example, you run a small business that operates in several Midwestern states, how do you do that?

If you have enough spare cash, you may employ one of the many professionals who know exactly how to do that. That would be a lobbyist. These professional petitioners use many tools to advance the petitions of their clients - including money. One of the uses of that money is making campaign contributions to politicians whose voting record generally favors their client's cause.

So far, so good. Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits that. Today, however, President Obama triumphantly declared that his re-election campaign would accept not a dime in contributions from lobbyists! Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment?

Obama and like-minded politicians want us to believe  they are above corruption. But it isn't the petitioner who is potentially corrupt... the corruption comes when the politician  makes policy decisions in direct repayment for the petitioner's constitutionally permitted political contribution.

In Defense of Herman Cain

Candidate Cain declared himself to be Pro Life, anti-abortion, no exceptions. Then he permitted some exceptions. Some are screaming.

Like most pro-lifers, I believe all abortions should be illegal. We suspect that most abortions are for someone's convenience! We say a woman has the (legally protected) right to refuse sex. The right to follow the so-called "rhythm method" to avoid pregnancy. The right to use a medical or a physical contraceptive. The right to demand her partner use a contraceptive. But we believe that if she bypasses all those "rights" and becomes pregnant, she does not have the right to kill the unborn child.

Even if she is denied all those rights and is impregnated by force, we civilized types tend to imagine every fetus (regardless of the context of the act that produced it) to be a viable infant who could possibly grow to become another Steve Jobs.. or, at minimum, a healthy, productive Mom or Dad. 

Realistic? Of course not.

Most allow for exceptions "for the mother's health", but often we envision that position as some abortion provider stretching facts. I am reminded of a story from Africa, wherein a very young girl was impregnated. When the fetus developed it was too large for her tiny body. Her internal organs were literally torn apart The unborn infant died but she could not deliver because of its size. Miraculously she made it to a clinic where her life was saved. She became an advocate for women's rights and worked in prenatal care for poor African women.

Okay, that is truly a case where abortion could have been declared "for the mother's health". But, what if all abortions were illegal? If that female child had aborted her fetus, should we have then thrown the little girl in jail?

There are always exceptions... not in principle... but in reality; except of course in politics, where, if statements are not artfully made they will be used to vilify you.

Illegal Immigration. My Take.

Growing up on farms in Missouri and Kansas, I loved the outdoors and wildlife. I especially liked doves. There, we had only mourning doves, named I suppose, for their mournful call. As a boy, I learned to imitate their call.

When I moved to the Southwest, I discovered three species of doves. The mourning dove; the white-winged dove which looks like a mourning dove but has snow white primary feathers on the edge of each wing (a stylish touch) and a call that sounds somewhat like a rooster crowing; also we have the Inca dove - about half the size of a mourning dove. Incas display a more reddish-brown color. We see at least one dove in our yard every day.

To our delight, an occasional covey of Gambel's quail also visited our yard. They are a wonderful bird, but like all quail, Gambels are easily spooked. In hope of attracting more quail and of making them less fearful, I bought some bird seed and spread it on the bare ground.

To my surprise, after spreading seed, the ground was soon covered with a mass of doves. All three species at times. Yes, quail would show up, but if they were a little late the seed would all have been devoured by the many doves.

I still like doves... but these doves were getting all the birdseed. Is that the dove's fault? And what should I do? Kill all the doves? (Against the law, for starters.) Put up a fence? (That would also keep the quail out.)

Then I discovered bird seed blocks... bird seed mixed with some kind of adhesive material (looks like a molasses mix) that enables the vendor to form seed into a solid cube, about ten inches on a side.

Interestingly, the quail seem to have a stronger beak and readily pick individual seeds from the bock. Doves find it more difficult to feed from the blocks. Problem solved. A bird seed block lasts for several weeks. Quail now feed several times a day. We still have doves, but only one or two at a time.

Yeah, an occasional feral cat also shows up and I grant them no quarter.

Living close to the Mexican border and a frequent visitor to Mexico, I find the Mexicans to be delightful people. But when they come to our country in numbers that overwhelm our hospitals and other social services, it is not so delightful. Who is at fault?

Just as my spreading an abundance of free birdseed to attract quail created an invasion of doves, the U.S. government's abundance of free services for the "needy" has attracted large numbers of illegal immigrants... mostly good people looking for some relief from grinding poverty.

Like feral cats, the criminal element must be dealt with. But for the vast majority of immigrants, it seems that cutting back on the free stuff would seem better than fences, and other punitive actions.

Just my opinion.

Home Grown

The press calls him "The American Cleric". While I have doubts about the veracity of the cleric part, there is no doubt that Anwar Al-Alawki was American... born here in my adopted home town of Las Cruces, NM - probably in the same hospital where my granddaughter was born.

No one in Las Cruces today was proud of Al-Awlaki... but there is more to the story that does make us a little proud

The Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico State University, in cooperation with the U.S. Military at White Sands Missile Range here, develops and tests Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Their UAV Test Site is near our airport.

White Sands is the birthplace of America's missile program and is where the Hellfire Missile first delivered hell and fire to a target.

Down the road in El Paso, TX, my friends Jeff and Ruthie are proud parents of a drone pilot, who has been on assignment in Afghanistan flying drones to deliver Hellfires to Taliban bigwigs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As you can see, his "Control room" is mobile. His current assignment is a secret, but a good guess would be somewhere within striking distance of Yemen.

So, perhaps the world will forgive us for birthing a terrorist-to-be, when they learn that we also birthed at least part of the technology that has put the drones in the air; and we first tested the Hellfires that arm the drones.

Now, how cool is it that one of our locals may have been flying the drone over Yemen that delivered the Hellfire (and damnation) to Anwar Al-Alawki?

What a country!

The Great Depression

Every day or so I hear another statistic which someone says is the highest or the lowest or the worst since the Great Depression. Each time I hear some such "truth", I am reminded of the famous, if not accurately attributed quotation, "Lies, damned lies and statistics."

Then I remember President Ronald Reagan's quote about the definition of recession, depression and recovery. "The Gipper" said, "If your brother-in-law loses his job it is a recession; if you lose your job it is a depression; if Jimmy Carter loses his job it is a recovery." In other words, President Reagan understood that statistics never describe reality.

I once had a friend who invented statistics, just for fun. Usually ridiculous numbers. I was always amazed at how many people accepted his numbers as truth. Today I am amazed at how people react to statistics from The Great Depression. Also, I am amazed that so many people who were not born until decades after the depression ended, are now telling us these "facts" about the 1930s depression.

Respectfully (always) I submit that if you are younger than 75 years of age, you cannot possibly understand the Depression. Those statistics the youngsters quote may as well be labeled damned lies. They are meaningless.

Consider unemployment numbers. Today, "unemployment" means you do not have a "good" job, paying a high salary, while providing health insurance, unemployment insurance, guaranteed vacations, sick leave, etc., etc., etc.

Flipping hamburgers? That is not a "real" job.

In the 1930s, "unemployment" meant you had nothing to feed your family this day. It meant you could not find even an hour's work, of any description. A job flipping burgers? What a blessing... you might fill your stomach with a few scraps and earn a couple of dollars to purchase a sack of beans to feed your family..

Imagine living in a house with no electricity, no running water, no kitchen sink, no indoor bathroom. Imagine eating only beans, or greens, or some other persons leftover food, and being thankful that you are not hungry. Now, in that scenario, imagine someone trying to describe your life with  statistics. What a waste of breath.

Elect Me President.

I'll solve the nation's problems. Fast. Guaranteed!

Ever since humans first developed a written language and invented the tools for writing: clay tablets, papyrus, paper; chisels, quill pens, word processors, people have observed and recorded events of their lives. So much so that there are tens of thousands of libraries with millions of books. Books that sit on shelves, collecting dust, unread, while governments make the same mistakes over and over.

Forget partisan politics. I wouldn't care who carried water for the elephant, hay for the donkey. My administration would be packed with people who didn't give a damn about politics, but were passionate about history.

In the relatively short two and one-third centuries of our government's existence, we've seen it all. Boom and bust, recession, depression, inflation, war and peace. Civil unrest and periods of tranquility. Natural disasters. Katrina, yes, but how about the Chicago fire, the San Francisco earthquake, the Johnstown flood, the dust bowl. The administrations of our 44 presidents have faced these events in different ways. Sometimes with spectacular success. Often with painful failure.

My administration would study, learn from and follow those successes while avoiding repeat of the failures.

We already have an example of such a form of administration, It is the United states military. At West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs, the military academies don't dwell on social welfare BS or on PC fantasies, they teach the facts - the facts of history.

What happened at the battle of Waterloo? How did Washington's rag tag army of volunteers defeat the highly trained, well organized British? Why did Rommel lose in North Africa? Lee at Gettysburg?

The result? The most successful, most powerful military in the history of the world.

All the events have occurred. All the solutions have been tried. It is all written... the big picture "The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire", "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich"...the minute details of every Parliament, every Congress, every dictator. All we have to do is read it.

Sadly, we are governed by politicians, theorists who imagine that their idea is the big one.

I would change that. You like Marxism? How has it worked in the past? You are a fan on Keynesian economics? How has it played out? Big on environmentalism? How many humans have suffered for the welfare of the brown pelican or the spotted owl. How many die annually for an imaginary theory that DDT was wiping out all birds?

I don't need a donation. Just your vote!

Ronald Reagan Said It:

Government IS the problem!

Hasn't that always been true? True of any people, of any era?

Think about the Russian people. Have you ever heard of any reason to fear or to hate a Russian? But the governments there - from the Czars to Stalin to Putin, are another story.

The German people. A highly advanced people in every way. World leaders and innovators. Then there came
Bismarck, Kaiser, Hitler. Bad memories.

Japanese. Remarkable people with much to be admired. Except when Tojo held influence.

Venezuela. Cuba. What's not to love about these beautiful, tropical nations on the Caribbean? Can you say  Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro?

The vast majority of the world's people want the same thing, a happy, peaceful life. Perhaps because they are concentrated on this goal, evil people muscle there way into power.

The United States has one advantage over other nations. Constitutionally mandated elections. Every two years we have the choice to throw out a Congressman. Every four years, the president. Every six years, a senator.

Happily, in the case of the president, the choice is made for us at the end of eight years. Now, if we can just add term limits to members of Congress, we will have created Utopia!

Worst President

Lately many are saying Jimmy Carter was our worst president, but that Barack Obama is about to steal that title. I disagree.

Forty four men have been President of the United States. Twenty eight served before I was born. I can't honestly speak about those 28. All I know of them is what the history books say, and I do not totally trust the history books. So let's just talk about some presidents who have served in my lifetime.

Jimmy Carter was a bumbling fool. He gave us The Department of Energy, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That department has been an abject failure, yet we continue to spend some $27 billion annually to sustain it.

Jimmy also gave us the Department of Education which now costs between $64 and $77 billion annually, but by every accepted yardstick, our schools have just gotten worse.

Pretty bad performance! But nothing compared to F.D.R. Here is the product of his first term:


Agricultural Adjustment Act    AAA  
Civil Works Administration    CWA  
Civilian Conservation Corps    CCC  
Federal Emergency Relief Act    FERA  
Glass-Steagall Act        FDIC  
National Industrial Recovery Act    NIRA  
National Youth Administration    NYA  
Public Works Administration    PWA  
Rural Electrification Administration    REA  
Securities and Exchange Commission    SEC  
Social Security Act        FICA
Tennessee Valley Authority    TVA  
Wagner Act            NLRB  
Works Progress Administration    WPA
  
Granted, some of these programs were discontinued, but some have lived on to bleed America for over 75 years.

Franklin Roosevelt was the worst president. But he ground on until he died in his fourth term. Obama cannot overtake Roosevelt, but he will surely occupy second place. Jimmy Carter should rank number three.

Good Language

Essentially all birds and all mammals communicate with some sort of sound. A shrill cry of alarm to warn of imminent danger; a signal to scare off a competitor; a signal to declare a territory; a call to attract a mate. Each of these events, in numerous species, has been documented by researchers.

Humans, with their ability to utter a wide variety of sounds, developed language. These languages often consist of thousands of words. Steven Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct, suggests that speaking a language is done instinctively. He counts up the number of words understood and used by the average college age student and feels it would be impossible to learn and remember that many words in their short lifetime... so people must have an instinct to speak a language.While some academics disagree with Pinker's conclusions, his arguments are persuasive.

Early European explorers, who first visited remote regions of the earth, were surprised to find that inhabitants there spoke well-developed languages. Pinker even found that in many languages, common items, such as milk, were often referenced by similar sounding words.

The ancient Romans developed a marvelous language we call Latin. Over distance and time, that language nuanced into what we today know as Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Some native speakers, notably the French, try to maintain the "purity" of the language by discouraging the "bastardization" of traditional French words. The Spanish language, spoken by native speakers in America, is rife with such variations. While the Spanish word for truck may more properly be camion, many American Latinos prefer to use trucka.

English speakers, on the other hand, show no such tendencies toward purity. If another language has a word that fits well, English speakers will happily adopt it.

A French journalist was quoted as having said he wished he wrote for an English language publication because he could then express himself more precisely. But, could he? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the world's best speakers of the English language, once had a problem explaining her anger at some government for acting unilaterally. She simply dropped the use of unilateral and started saying their behavior was "one-sided". Everyone understood.

If you are writing for a scientific journal about a discipline that employs very specific language, you may require complex, even foreign words to make your point. But if you are making a speech to a general audience, remember that they cannot turn back the page and re-read your last comments. In that setting, it is wise to avoid using words or terms that require even a moment of careful thought to absorb your meaning.

Again paraphrasing Steven Pinker, If I orally express a thought and a listener fully understands my thought, that is good language!

Insults Reversed

Years ago, in southern New Mexico, there was a State Senator named Burton Roach. Sen. Roach was a robust man with a huge paunch. In one campaign, an opponent said the last thing needed in the State Senate was another "pot-bellied politician". Everyone, including Roach, recognized this as an insult to Roach. But, Roach was the smarter politician. He turned the insult around had a large button made with the letters PBP emblazoned, and as if to brag about his big belly, wore the button everywhere he went.

I have no recollection of Roach's ideology, but his general good humor and refusal to engage in name calling appealed to voters, and he was re-elected.

Andrew Jackson so infuriated his opposition that one speaker openly called him a jackass. Jackson apparently liked the comparison to a hard headed donkey and adopted the nickname. The donkey - jackass, if you will - remains the symbol of the Democratic Party to this day.

Margaret Thatcher angered Communists worldwide. Even before she became Great Britains Prime Minister, one called her an "iron lady"... meaning a stubborn, uncompromising person. But Maggie Thatcher liked the label and today, if anyone mentions The Iron Lady, everyone knows they mean former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher!

Politicians and political consultants should think before they write campaign commercials insulting their opponents... you may just be creating a buzz word certain to get him, not you, elected!

What do they mean?

When I was an announcer I was taught the importance of correct pronunciation in the interest of clear communications. We were cautioned against the perils of placing the em-FOSS-us on the wrong syl-LOBB-uhl.

Today, when I hear a spokesman read copy on a well crafted TV commercial while seemingly placing emphasis on the wrong syllable - or word - I wonder if it is on purpose or just a mistake.

On a commercial for Legal Zoom, an outfit that provides self-help for preparing legal documents, the spokesman promises "We put the law on your side", without emphasis on any word, or syllable. Okay, no one wants the law on their back... but, why on your side? Shouldn't he be saying "We put the law on YOUR side"?

Maybe there is a reason. Amazingly, there are all sorts of legal requirements placed on advertising. You have heard an announcer identified as  "a non-attorney spokesman". Really? Who cares if the spokesman is a non-attorney? Or, you have seen commercials for some medical product labeled as a "dramatization". Is that so we won't think someone with a hidden camera is filming in a doctor's office? Only a lawyer would dream up a need for those disclaimers.

I once wrote a commercial in which I said something could be completed in "a few short weeks". I was forced to re-write it by a regulator who demanded "What is a short week?".

Is there a reason why Legal Zoom cannot say "We put the law on YOUR side"? Or is that spokesman, who is a well-known attorney and NOT a well-trained-non-attorney-announcer, just doing a poor job of reading his copy?

Don't face the IRS Alone!

If, that is,  you are a tax cheat!

An outfit called Tax Masters is running a TV commercial in which spokesman Patrick Cox warns, "The IRS will pursue you relentlessly...", to which I say, "They damned well better!" Pursuing tax cheats is what they are paid to do and I find it refreshing that someone in the Federal Government is doing their job... relentlessly, no less!

As politicians are wont to say... let me be perfectly clear:  I deplore the 16th amendment to the Constitution, I hate income tax. But as long as it is the law and millions of us law-abiding citizens are forced to obey, I want everyone to pay up just as we do.

As for the IRS being in relentless pursuit, I will share my personal experience. Having been self-employed most of my adult life, I have paid estimated taxes. There have been a couple of instances when we underestimated and suddenly found we owed more income tax than we could immediately pay. We asked the IRS for help. They worked with us to develop a payment plan we could handle. We followed the plan, paid our taxes and that was that.

And again, I have seen a couple of instances where an individual IRS agent appeared to be a bit unreasonable but, by and large, my IRS experience has been okay.

Repeal the 16th amendment. But until you do, enforce the law evenly and pursue tax cheats, law breakers, relentlessly.

My opinion is that you can save money and time by working directly with the IRS. Let Mr. Cox make his money off someone else.