Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well

Not only has the U.S. Congress passed bad war funding bills, buying souls and votes for pork in an effort to pass bills that every single person in both houses of congress knows will not be signed into law, but they couldn’t even agree on a unified, bad bill to send to the White House before Easter vacation – a vacation that they neither need nor deserve.

In a time of war, the U.S. Congress takes two weeks for an Easter break rather that complete work on a bill (even a bad one) that would go to the President to fund our troops so they can protect our country.

As long as I’m at it, how many of us get 2 weeks off for Easter? How many of us here at the bottom (You know, the people who pay these hardy vacationers their hefty salaries and fund their ample staffs.) get anything more than 1 day off, usually for Good Friday, and that is usually a floating holiday. The U.S. Congress, however, which continually disgraces itself by passing legislation designed to turn the middle-east over to terrorists, needs a 2-week vacation from its otherwise grueling 3-day work week – not the 5-day work-week we were promised pre-election. On the bright side, it’s 2 weeks during which the Congress is likely to do no further harm.

Not that I hold President Bush blameless. I don’t. Why is he not calling members back for an emergency session of Congress? I thought we were at war. I know we are at war. The soldiers in Iraq are not getting an Easter vacation; neither should the U.S. Government as long as their futures are being held up by partisan politics.

Remember that new direction we supposedly voted for back in November, 2006? It’s now almost 5 months later, and this wasn’t it! We did not vote for the American people to be forced to fight the war on terror on 3 fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Congress.

Wake up, people.

Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 4

The U.S. Senate joined the House of Representatives in disgrace today by selling out for the same dirty pork that the House members sold out for. Who gets the blame today in addition to the Democratic Party leadership, written off long ago as hopeless, America-hating, white-flag marketers and the Democrats who sold out for pork and/or rubber-stamped the House pork? It’s the Republican members joining them.

Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is seeking the presidency, and has turned on the administration in an apparent effort to court the anti-war vote that the Democrats have convinced him carried the 2006 election. I encourage Senator Hagel to switch parties as quickly as possible. His presidential ambitions are over. Conservative Republicans are not defeatists and will therefore never choose him to carry their banner. The Democrats cannot respect him because of the ease with which he flipped, so despite the fact that they are happy to use him as their pawn, he won’t carry their banner either. But at least if he switches parties, the good people of Nebraska can see who he really is and vote him out of office.

Gordon Smith of Oregon represents the state where our troops are being burned in effigy. Coincidence?

These two senators had the power to stop the Senate from joining the House in the disgrace that is the surrender movement. They declined to step up.

I am sorry to say this as well, but I must. I am sick to death of the people in government (and in the media for that matter) referring to each other as great Americans and patriots. Here at the bottom, people who pander, and surrender, and sell out their principles for pork are never, ever seen as great Americans or patriots. They are seen as third-rate politicians who fear for their own petty, cushy, careers (and little else) while squandering taxpayers’ money and being effective only at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Anyway, that’s how it looks today from here at the bottom. We wanted Victory – You gave us Surrender by a vote of 51-47.

Lies – The Price of Discrimination

On 3/14/07, I published an article titled “Why Did America lie to my generation.” I promised more and I am promising more yet. It’s important and is yet another issue our politicians should be paying attention to but are not because they are too busy trying keep themselves in office.

This article outlines some of the costs of discrimination of various kinds. Knowledge of the cost forces us to ask ourselves if maintaining prejudice is worth the cost. You may think this is a no-brainer in 2007 and if so, good for you. Unfortunately, that is not everyone’s reality as some discrimination is still widespread despite its lack of affordability and stress level increase.

The price of discrimination is that you lose the unique contribution of the class of people that you discriminate against. The price of lying about discrimination is that you lose the contribution of the class of people you are pretending not to discriminate against, plus you further alienate them, plus you will eventually have to eliminate discrimination for real, resulting in at least a double-billing of the investment required to accomplish real non-discrimination.

Sometimes the price can be counted in dollars. Sometimes the price is that we just feel like crap because we know we did the wrong thing. That is a valid cost because that’s what dollars do for us too. Dollars make us feel better because we can bask in the financial security they provide. Either way we, as humans, need to feel good regardless of the feel-good dimension or cause.

Race – we instinctively know it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of race (at least most of us do). In terms of dollars, we are deprived of the perspective and ideas as well as the maximized economic and tax contribution of about 13% of the U.S. population. We also deprive ourselves and our children of the fruits of our labor as we pour tax money into a welfare system doomed to failure from the beginning, hated by both those who fund it and its recipients.

Gender – Again, we know this type of discrimination is wrong. Discrimination against 50%+ of the population is no longer discrimination; it’s civil war. We also know it’s futile because women will have their revenge no matter what. They always have; they always will. They also see things differently than men, which makes them invaluable in businesses where reaching out to women is essential, which includes every business worth mentioning.

Disabled persons – We are inspired by seeing the disabled being productive in much the same way that we are inspired by putting a human on the moon. There are, obviously potential downsides, hence the word “disabled.” However, these are the people who point out the mistakes we make in taking people and things for granted – the things we never thought about before we allowed them to contribute – ramp access on sidewalks replacing curbs, for example.

Sexual orientation – About the only way to understand anyone who discriminates on this basis any more is that we all know that it’s annoying to have homosexuality thrown in your face, just as it is to have anything thrown it your face. I am not suggesting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” scenario. I am suggesting an “I don’t care, don’t bother me with it” scenario. This is almost totally within the control of the affected class. Having said that, we welcome the creativity and other contributions brought to the table by these community members and miss them when they are absent.

Veteran Status – It doesn’t seem right to be discriminated against because you defended your country. It is currently popular to give war veterans a break. Well, I’m one of them and I don’t remember any breaks, mainly because my war was very unpopular. In fact, I remember some pretty crappy treatment courtesy of Jane Fonda and Jane Fonda wannabes. They are currently at it again, so beware active veterans. The tide can turn on you quickly. For what it’s worth, you’ll always have me. From a dollar perspective, there is the potential for a substantial loss of experience – and not just any experience. We throw away the dogged determination, thorough-training, and crisis-seasoned experience that we need in the business world of 2007 and beyond.

Religion & National Origin – Let’s face it. The problems we face in today’s world – the important problems, the issues of survival – are foisted upon us through the vehicle of religion, and implemented through the tools of state (nationalism). It is time we resurrected a basic truth. Your freedom ends where my space begins. That having been said, no serious person in America believes in this type of discrimination. Profiling is a different matter. That being said, it is the members of these classes who, by attempting to protect the few bad seeds or by rubbing our noses in a known dimension of danger (like the Minnesota Imams did), make the rest of us wary of them all. The vast majority of us want to give you opportunity and benefit from your unique culture. Help us.

Age – We don’t want to go quietly into our golden years. We weren’t raised in quiet times; we didn’t grow up in quiet times; we didn’t foster quiet times; we don’t see quiet times ahead; we aren’t ready for quiet times. We also don’t relish the idea of draining the Social Security system and depriving our children of this valuable resource. This is the dollar cost of age discrimination. If the Social Security is depleted, it will be through the discriminatory actions of those who put us out to pasture.

The common thread through all these elements of discrimination is expressed in a very old, very good book – the best-selling book of all time, in fact.

“…for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

Dead Heroes=9/11 Victims - The Ignored Upside

Not too long ago we reached a grizzly milestone in Iraq – to the apparent glee of the blathering anti-war crowd so deeply invested in American defeat. Almost as depressing is the fact that the conservative commentators that I have heard have blown this off as irrelevant. If they don’t believe that they haven’t blown it off, they certainly haven’t emphasized or embraced the silver lining in this dark cloud enthusiastically enough to suit me. They are wrong. It is extremely relevant and extremely silver.

What is most relevant is that the grizzly milestone was reached more that 5 years after 9/11/2001 and after 4 years of combat in Iraq. To see what is most silver, let’s do a little math, keeping in mind that the purpose of the military is, ultimately, to protect the citizenry who supports them at home while they implement and support diplomatic policy and initiatives at home and around the world.

I’ll use round nice numbers in an attempt to keep this simple enough for even the most logic-challenged anti-war activist to follow. On 9/11, 3,000 people were killed by terrorists in an unprovoked attack here on United States soil. REMEMBER? In the months after 9/11, the military disrupted ongoing terror operations that would have killed more Americans – by most estimates, many more Americans. How many? Although I firmly believe that there could have been the equivalent of a 9/11 about every 3 months, I am willing to concede a minimum of 1 per year.

Doing the math based on the minimum yearly 9/11-equivalent, the military and related intelligence has saved about 15,000 (3,000/year for 5 years) American lives at a minimum. The more realistic scenario of a 9/11-equivalent every 3 month would yield a total of 60,000 (3,000/quarter for 5 years) American lives. And this doesn’t even take into account all the dead terrorists who will never harm anyone again, American or other – BONUS! Keep in mind that a single dirty bomb would likely triple this number and a single nuclear strike could send the number soaring into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Overstated you say? Not with maniacs out there who already have nuclear capability or are trying desperately (happily risking the well-being of their citizens) to develop nuclear capacity and are unrestrained by instructions from their God that using it would be wrong.

So is the military doing its job? You betcha! Has the cowboy from Texas done his number one job? Yep! Do Americans recognize and appreciate it? Based on the polls, I must conclude that they apparently do not.

Are the anti-war, cool-aid drinkers really that anxious to have us all incinerated or do they require some remedial math? I have done my best to provide the remedial math, but, truthfully, I have no clue. Maybe you do.

But I do know two things:

• Right now, this much maligned cowboy-President from Texas, his Vice-President (hated in America for once running a successful American corporation successfully, of all things), and his team are all that stands between you and the next holocaust.
• We have less than 2 years to find someone as tough and principled as President Bush to take his place and be willing to stand between us and the next holocaust despite the politically-correct pressure to surrender and the lack of appreciation demonstrated by the American public.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the armed services and intelligence services as well as to your chains of command.

Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 3

I told you I wouldn’t run out of numbers for the many parts of this topic that the House of Representatives seems hell-bent on testing me on. I can count to 3 and a lot higher, and it appears I will need to. They don’t think I can because I’m here at the bottom, but as usual, they’re wrong. However, based on the utterly stupid, self-serving, soul-selling, tax-squandering vote in the House today, it would not unreasonable to ask if the Democratic Party leadership can. But that is not my purpose today.

The Democrat leadership today squandered more of my money to pass a piece of legislation that attempts to turn over the middle-east to terrorists, has no chance of becoming law, persuaded previously sensible members of their party to sell their souls for pork, and will fail to appease the most radical wing of the party – which had to be the real goal, since no other goal is realistically achievable, even on the bizarro planet of Pelosi.

As Nancy Pelosi and her “leadership team” bought the souls of those previously sensible congress-people who once voted their conscience, I wonder if she remembered her pre-election pledge to run the most ethical congress ever. Yeah, right! My guess (and I realize it doesn’t count because I am down here at the bottom) is that since the secular-progressive crowd doesn’t deal in souls except to deny their nourishment wherever possible, they are not really capable of recognizing the sale of one. So apparently, buying and selling souls (or if you please consciences) is perfectly ethical in the 110th Congress.

For those of you up there at the top who sold out today, this was soul-selling. Recognize it. You sold them cheap – ultimately for no gain. You don’t even get the pork you sold them for. Ironically most of the people in the middle-east (you remember, the people you are selling out to their radical, militant, totalitarian neighbors) wouldn’t touch pork, lest they lose their souls.

Maybe there is a lesson there that we can take from Islam and Judaism. I meant the rest of us, of course, not House Democrats and others who ultimately cast votes that favor terrorists.

That’s the very sad view of the U.S.Congress again today here at the bottom.

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Is Real – Sort of

Hillary has recently resurrected the concept of the vast right-wing conspiracy. She has been widely criticized for it, having been called paranoid, desperate, and unoriginal, since this is at least a decade-plus old concept of hers.

But let’s put aside the utter stupidity of putting this out there again, looking desperate and forcing her husband’s impeachment back into the minds of voters accompanied by images of her looking like not the assertive, aggressive woman she needs to look like to be the first woman to make a serious run for the presidency, but the meek, abused, pitiable figure of a mentally-abused woman who ultimately stood by her man – right or wrong – insulting Tammy Wynette in the process.

As I say, let’s put that aside. There is, indeed, a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, you have to define right-wing (not to be too Clintonian about it). Defining it as right of the Clintons and referencing the election results of 1992 and 1996, we get a clear clue as to what the right-wing conspiracy really is. It’s called a majority of the American electorate. It is the majority that did NOT VOTE FOR Bill Clinton (and especially Hillary) in either election.

The conspiracy grew smaller in 1996, the year in which Hillary was less visible and the Newt Gingrich Congress pulled Bill back toward the center, than 1992, when they ran on a 2-for-1 blue light special platform. History tells us that the vast right-wing conspiracy is likely to grow back to its 1992 level and beyond, as Hillary is decidedly left of Bill.

1992 Election results:
Clinton – 43.0%
Bush – 37.4%
Perrot – 18.9%
Other – 0.6%

1996 Election results:
Clinton – 49.2%
Dole – 40.7%
Perrot – 8.4%
Other – 1.6%

That’s right, Hillary. It’s called a majority.

Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 2

It appears that the 110th Congress is hell-bent on making me reuse this title until I run out of numbers to place behind it. So be it and good luck with that. The Democrat leadership (and I use the word leadership in its loosest possible sense) have now defined themselves as a group with no agenda other than to get elected and obstruct progress, no new ideas, and no inclination or competence to do its own job (as opposed to the presidents job).

Who gives a damn what Valerie Plame has to say? The answer, apparently, is Henry Waxman. Take it offline and don’t spend my money to replay this. But since she has already testified and her testimony is in conflict with the CIA and State Department officials, will she be investigated and potentially prosecuted for perjury, or is she anti-Republican enough to get a pass?

The Democrats own guy, Patrick Fitzgerald, has already determined, early on in his investigation I might add, that there was no underlying crime to prosecute. The investigation should have stopped there, but it didn’t. The best he could do was to scapegoat Scooter Libby. Not good enough for the Democrat-controlled Congress.

So, having told us in the campaign leading up to the November elections that the Republicans have made a mess out of the United States, what do they do once they are in power. Let’s see:

• Try – and fail – to micromanage the war effort in Iraq,
• Try – and fail – to send a message to the president that would persuade him pull out of Iraq.
• Try – and succeed – to send a message to terrorists that all they have to do is wait us out and Iraq is theirs.
• Try – and succeed – to turn a routine realignment of U.S. Attorneys into an expensive investigation that will squander even more of my money for their own personal gain and scare some of the weak-kneed Republicans into abandoning their party and principles (Thanks for exposing them, incidentally.).
• Try – and will probably succeed – to resurrect the recently closed case on the CIA non-leak non-story wasting, yet again, even more of my money, but helping to promote a new book from a person who conspired to undermine the president, thus turning the House of Representatives into a daytime talk show with me footing the bill.

And all this after only less than 3 months in office. Pathetic! Why is Congress willing to surrender to terrorists, yet not give our legally elected President a chance to do his job? Why can’t Congress do its own job? I want my money back.

Speaking of surrendering, President Bush, why are you playing this stupid game with Congress? Why can you stand up to terrorists like the patriot that you are, but not stand up to Democrats’ babbling, irrelevant idiocy? Are they scarier than the terrorists? Why did you permit Alberto Gonzales to testify on a non-issue? What could their possibly have been to lie about? You are quickly becoming an enabler, dare I say a beltway insider. Sorry, but please stop it and keep your eye on the ball. Somebody has to, since those in the Legislative branch couldn’t even decide what the ball looks like even if they could find the right glasses to allow them to see it, much less find it to keep an eye on it - even if they cared, which they don't.

That’s the very sad view today here at the bottom.

Why Did America Lie to My Generation?

America lied to my generation. America lied about a lot of things. America lied about discrimination. America lied about diversity and still does. America lied about how it valued experience and still does. America lied about economic security and it still tries to, though the lies are becoming more transparent every day. America lied about competition and still does. America lied about what it valued and still does. These lies are embodied and promoted by political correctness and enforced by the Politically Correctness Police.

This is not a condemnation of any presidential administration or party. It is not a condemnation of America; the United States is still the greatest country this planet has ever seen. It is, however, a comment on how we, as a people, lie to ourselves and, more to the point, how segments of the American society lie to each other. It is a prediction of the penalties we will pay for those lies. It is something that I cannot possibly address in one article, so there will be more to follow.

When I first began my career, we were told we could count on cradle-to-grave employment. There were good things and bad things about that. The good thing was that we were more secure, were able to avoid the stresses that we deal with today, and planning for the future was relatively easy. The bad thing was that people sometimes got too secure, and tended to get arrogant and lazy. That drove employer costs and product prices up while driving productivity down. So we all understood when things began to change, that life by definition is not static. The cradle-to-grave concept faded away, and that was OK.

We were told we could count on the social security system, and now we are told that that may not be the case after paying increased amounts of money into it for all these years. That’s less OK, but in and of itself, bearable.

We were told that we would all be living longer, and, in general, we do because of the excellent health care system we have here in the U.S.A. Then the prices went up, and we were told that we would need to pay part of it. Some of us couldn’t really afford the higher cost of that excellent health care. When we retire (or are retired prematurely) many of us can’t afford the cost of that excellent health care, which remains excellent only as long as we can afford it. The consequence is the current national health care crisis that will play a role in determining at least the next two or three presidents of the United States. This is not OK on many levels.

Government has 3 missions: to protect its citizens from wrongdoing from outsiders, to protect its citizens from wrongdoing from one another, and to provide a stable and viable currency to facilitate economic transactions. Health care fits it where? It depends on how you define wrongdoing, but by my definition – nowhere.

We were given 401K plans to take the place of the traditional pension and social security. How is that working out? Not that well.

The result is a huge number of boomers that have lost most or all of the traditional pension they were promised, may lose much of the social security they were promised, and have had inadequate time to make their 401Ks and IRAs robust enough to make up the gaps. Despite these lies, we have tried to help out by resigning ourselves to working longer. We are not anxious to begin draining the social security system and bankrupt it for our children, and since as we have been promised that we will be living longer, why not work longer? I’ll tell you why not. You won’t let us.

There is now age discrimination in the U.S. toward the generation that worked so hard to eliminate all types of discrimination. I’m not saying that we solved it all, but we did a lot to make the situation a whole lot better. We did much more than enough on that score that we don’t deserve this treatment.

The result of this is that our children, not us, are causing the draining of the social security system prematurely, and will bankrupt it for themselves. The laws of mathematics demand retribution for the lies of any discrimination. We learned the lesson early in our lives. The current generation in power seems not to have learned it yet. The options in dealing with age discrimination are to let us contribute and help you save the future or bankrupt your own future – your choice. More to come.

Bi-partisan = Bull-partisan?

Would all of you arrogant politicians please stop telling us about bi-partisan solutions that you are pursuing? We, here at the bottom, know better, whether you do or not. We wish you did, but if you do, there is no evidence of it. If either case, it is obvious that you think so little of us that you just spout it out whenever you run out of something useful to say, which happens way too often, incidentally. We are not fooled, and we are not amused. Sometimes, in the most extreme cases, we are marginally entertained for a few moments, but try as you may, you are no substitute for Moe, Larry, and Curly.

When you accuse someone of not being bi-partisan, we know that what you mean is that they don’t agree with your all righteous, all-knowing, self-designated omnipotent view of the world and refuse to give in despite your obviously superior position. When you shower praise on a member of another party for being bi-partisan, we know that what you mean is that the lily-livered moron caved.

We also know that there is nothing wrong with partisanship as long as it is not taken to the extreme of gang mentality, as the Democratic Party did during the Clinton impeachment and trial or when it becomes militant and fanatic like radical Islam. Political parties exist for a reason. Some people believe in one fundamental view of how life should work. Others believe in a different fundamental view of how life should work.

To become bi-partisan is to either find common ground or to utterly surrender one’s principles to the oppositions whining. And since there has been, essentially, no common ground between Democrats and Republicans since November of 2000 (as evidenced by the experience of Democrats automatically putting down Republican ideas publicly and filibustering no matter what President Bush or other Republicans want to do), it has been surrendering principles.

Give the Democrats credit. It has not been them surrendering their principles (This is not to in any way imply that their principles are worth fighting for, but they do.). It has been the Republicans, allowing their principles (the ones we elected them to stand up for) to be compromised for the sake of bi-partisanship. That is why they were voted out of power in the legislature – not because of Iraq.

Whose approval rating was lower? Was it President Bush or Congress? It was Congress. Still, we have Republican Congressmen idiotically trying to distance themselves from the man who has higher approval ratings than they do. It’s a little like following a buy-high, sell low investment strategy.

No wonder they don’t know what bi-partisan actually means. But we do, so stop insulting us. We, here at the bottom, negotiate and reach reasonable conclusions and compromises with our friends, family members, neighbors, and business associates who have different political and religious views every single day of our lives. Our world works. Yours doesn’t. Take a lesson (a real one – not a pretend one) for a change.

Jesus WOULD BE appalled?

This past weekend, John Edwards said: "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," then added "I think he would be appalled, actually."

What does John Edwards mean WOULD BE? Christians believe in a living Christ. Either he IS disappointed and appalled or he ISN’T. If you are speaking in a religious context, then the term “Would be” implies that Jesus is either dead or otherwise unaware of world events.

It is one thing to speculate on what Jesus would SAY or DO, since he doesn’t usually speak out or assault anyone publicly. It is quite another to speculate on what Jesus WOULD THINK, and another yet to speculate on what we believe he DOES THINK. Each implies a different view of the spiritual world

John Edwards is a trial lawyer by trade. He chooses his words carefully in order to get those big decisions from juries – decisions that have made him wealthy enough to run for president. We must assume that his words reveal his insincerity and opportunistic character.