In the aftermath of the taking out of Osama Bin Ladin, I would like to give a "thank you" to the often maligned former President George W. Bush. I believe policies during his presidency and a better spirit of cooperation between the intellegence departments including the Homeland Security Office deserve much of the credit for recent events. Make no mistake I applaud current President Obama for his couragious decesion to take Bin Ladin out, but I feel Bush put in place the structure.
I was recently riled when listening to Liberal (or "progressive"..excuse me) talk show host Alan Combs tell his guest (a former Bush official) that Bush's contributions were insignificant while the all of a sudden a "strong" President Obama was able to take Bin Laden out. The conversation then swung to the state of the economy. In nearly the same breath Combs said the problems began in the Bush administration (probably worth a seperate blog) and that Obama was showing ecomonic gains. I was pleased the Bush official said it was on the backs of our children though. (another blog) The hypocracy is great here. Blame Bush for everything that is wrong and credit Obama for everything that is right even when it isn't justified.
I recently found out that President Bush declined an invitation to be at a ceremony at Ground Zero from President Obama. I appreciated Obama for doing that, but I respect Bush even more for respectully declining so as not to interfere with Obama's moment. It is refreshing to see in today's world there are still former President's who act graciously. We have too many former Presidents who cannot stay out of the limelight when many times they should (Clinton, Carter).
I may not be in the majority here...but thank you President Bush...for what you have done for this country.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Showing or Telling...what's worse?
A few days ago, Osama Bin Ladin was killed at his compound in Pakistan. It was an historic event in history. For those who had loved ones killed when the World Trade Center came down in New York, justice was served. For many around the world, relief that a terrorist regimes' leader was gone. These events alone are well worth a blog posting, but I would like to focus on the media coverage of it.
In today's world of non-stop coverage, the focus now has shifted to whether or not the White House will release photos of the killing. CNN's non stop talking heads seem to go on and on with endless guests dissecting, detailing, describing and disseminating all the possibilities on whether or not the release of the photo's will ignite another terrorist attack. As of this writing, they have not released the photos. The news is pounding us with how awful these pictures apparently are ....I don't know what is worse.. seeing the pictures or hearing about them over and over at nausium.
I personally could care less about the photo's. Kudos to President Obama for making the decision to remain vigilant and taking out the leader of the terrorist regime. Let's focus on that instead of fear of another attack.
In today's world of non-stop coverage, the focus now has shifted to whether or not the White House will release photos of the killing. CNN's non stop talking heads seem to go on and on with endless guests dissecting, detailing, describing and disseminating all the possibilities on whether or not the release of the photo's will ignite another terrorist attack. As of this writing, they have not released the photos. The news is pounding us with how awful these pictures apparently are ....I don't know what is worse.. seeing the pictures or hearing about them over and over at nausium.
I personally could care less about the photo's. Kudos to President Obama for making the decision to remain vigilant and taking out the leader of the terrorist regime. Let's focus on that instead of fear of another attack.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Uggg! Is THIS what we are becoming?
While shopping on Mass Ave in downtown Indy recently with my very fashionable neice, she showed me some Ugg brand boots. The boots are nice with a very comfortable lining. She smiled as she said she would love to have a pair but the price of the boots took the smile away fast.
Now being knowledgable about such things, I noticed these boots on the feet of two young girls at the checkout line of Walmart while I was purchasing items for work. They both appeared very fashionable as they had the boots, very nice jackets, scarves, and jewelry. These two girls who were probably in their early 20's were in a deep conversation with each other as they were placing their items on the checkout conveyer belt. It looked as if they were buying for a party as they had two carts full of groceries. Most of the items were party foods (or "junk" foods as is the common expression). The check out clerk was working hard as the items overflowed the conveyer belt. Instead of assisting, the two young ladies were now very busy texting on their phones and continuing their conversation. A little annoyed, the clerk had to announce the total a couple times before the young girls noticed she was done. After taking the time to finish her text, one of the girls dug through her leather purse and found her Hoosier Credit Card (the "food stamp" card). These are the cards they now use to help those who are needy have a convenient and rather private way of paying for their items. The clerk announced she was $15 short so her friend finished her text and then produced her Hoosier Credit Card. They finished their checkout, continued their conversation as they walked toward the exit. I just had a couple things so I was done quickly and I walked toward the same exit. I couldn't help but notice those two pair of Ugg boots as they young ladies got into their Cadillac Escalade that was parked in the handicapped spot. They were contining their conversation as the young lady driving took down the apparent "embarrassing" handicap sign from their rear-view mirror. The girls didn't appear to be handicapped at all. They started their SUV and you could hear the heavy bass blasting from the apparent over-sized speakers. I trudged through the snow to the back of the parking lot where my car was.
Contrast this scenario with the the next stop I had. I had to go to a Big Lots for some items again for work. With the Walmart experience still in mind, I notice the elderly lady in front of me puchasing can foods. She was in a coat that looked rather old and torn. She walked very gingerly as she slowly put her items in front of the clerk. She was immediately ready for checkout and she placed her bank debit card for the clerk to swipe. She purchased her items and left (on foot) across the parking lot.
There is something wrong about these two scenarios. I do not know any of the people in these two circumstances personally...only what I observed. On the surface it appears we need to really re-evaluate how we evaluate government need. When we give food stamps to people in Ugg boots and driving Escalades something is wrong. The new America is apparently a"Get What You Can Get" society. I am missing something here? If you don't know how to "work the system" you are out of luck! UGGGG!
Now being knowledgable about such things, I noticed these boots on the feet of two young girls at the checkout line of Walmart while I was purchasing items for work. They both appeared very fashionable as they had the boots, very nice jackets, scarves, and jewelry. These two girls who were probably in their early 20's were in a deep conversation with each other as they were placing their items on the checkout conveyer belt. It looked as if they were buying for a party as they had two carts full of groceries. Most of the items were party foods (or "junk" foods as is the common expression). The check out clerk was working hard as the items overflowed the conveyer belt. Instead of assisting, the two young ladies were now very busy texting on their phones and continuing their conversation. A little annoyed, the clerk had to announce the total a couple times before the young girls noticed she was done. After taking the time to finish her text, one of the girls dug through her leather purse and found her Hoosier Credit Card (the "food stamp" card). These are the cards they now use to help those who are needy have a convenient and rather private way of paying for their items. The clerk announced she was $15 short so her friend finished her text and then produced her Hoosier Credit Card. They finished their checkout, continued their conversation as they walked toward the exit. I just had a couple things so I was done quickly and I walked toward the same exit. I couldn't help but notice those two pair of Ugg boots as they young ladies got into their Cadillac Escalade that was parked in the handicapped spot. They were contining their conversation as the young lady driving took down the apparent "embarrassing" handicap sign from their rear-view mirror. The girls didn't appear to be handicapped at all. They started their SUV and you could hear the heavy bass blasting from the apparent over-sized speakers. I trudged through the snow to the back of the parking lot where my car was.
Contrast this scenario with the the next stop I had. I had to go to a Big Lots for some items again for work. With the Walmart experience still in mind, I notice the elderly lady in front of me puchasing can foods. She was in a coat that looked rather old and torn. She walked very gingerly as she slowly put her items in front of the clerk. She was immediately ready for checkout and she placed her bank debit card for the clerk to swipe. She purchased her items and left (on foot) across the parking lot.
There is something wrong about these two scenarios. I do not know any of the people in these two circumstances personally...only what I observed. On the surface it appears we need to really re-evaluate how we evaluate government need. When we give food stamps to people in Ugg boots and driving Escalades something is wrong. The new America is apparently a"Get What You Can Get" society. I am missing something here? If you don't know how to "work the system" you are out of luck! UGGGG!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
"THE BIG BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT"
Corporate greed! Corrupt accounting! Lavish excesses! Upper management exotic vacations! It sounds like another attack on BIG business by congress in America...but is it? How ironic it seems the very same people in Washington who don't like BIG business really like BIG Government. Congressmen and Senator's always seem superior and very pious when questioning the practices of company executives...I would love to see the roles reversed. It is in fact the wage earners of these businesses that are paying the salaries of the Congressmen and Senators.
Business leaders go on "lavish" trips and purchase things based on the "profits" their companies make. Congressmen and Senators go on lavish trips and purchase things based on us through taxes. So to stimulate the economy, we want to tax big business more so we can increase government involvement? It makes no sense. What does the government produce that is of any value?
The only difference between the two is that business jobs actually CREATE something that profit can be made on to sustain itself. Government jobs just keeps people busy by REDISTRIBUTING (remember that word from the campaign?) the profits of wage earners from business jobs(taxes). Most government jobs have no lasting value and produce absolutely nothing. As soon as the tax money is gone, there is nothing to sustain it. What happens to the people who got their jobs by this stimulus redistribution when the project is over and the stimulus money runs out? Where will their money come from?...HIGHER TAXES ON US!
Why in these economic times do we want to create MORE government jobs? Business is not evil...it is what sustains us. We should celebrate it! If some are getting wealthy...I don't care as long as they are able to produce something and not get wealthy by taking it away from me. If someone is taking advantage of their position, the marketplace will weed them out! Government employees get wealthy by taking money away from me and you? Why in heavens name would we need to create bigger government? It makes no sense to me.
Business leaders go on "lavish" trips and purchase things based on the "profits" their companies make. Congressmen and Senators go on lavish trips and purchase things based on us through taxes. So to stimulate the economy, we want to tax big business more so we can increase government involvement? It makes no sense. What does the government produce that is of any value?
The only difference between the two is that business jobs actually CREATE something that profit can be made on to sustain itself. Government jobs just keeps people busy by REDISTRIBUTING (remember that word from the campaign?) the profits of wage earners from business jobs(taxes). Most government jobs have no lasting value and produce absolutely nothing. As soon as the tax money is gone, there is nothing to sustain it. What happens to the people who got their jobs by this stimulus redistribution when the project is over and the stimulus money runs out? Where will their money come from?...HIGHER TAXES ON US!
Why in these economic times do we want to create MORE government jobs? Business is not evil...it is what sustains us. We should celebrate it! If some are getting wealthy...I don't care as long as they are able to produce something and not get wealthy by taking it away from me. If someone is taking advantage of their position, the marketplace will weed them out! Government employees get wealthy by taking money away from me and you? Why in heavens name would we need to create bigger government? It makes no sense to me.
Friday, January 29, 2010
"LET ME IN THE GAME, PLEASE!
Another State of the Union address...another President wanting to end partisanship and blame the other side for everything....nothing will get accomplished! Albeit quite eloquent, Obama's speech was just like many State of the Union speeches before. Justify my side and blame the other side (or other administration) for everything wrong.
While watching the standing ovations...mostly from the left during this administration and mostly from the right during the previous administration I was left with the feeling that nothing will change. The superior look on Nancy Pelosi's face contrasted with the smug look on VP Biden's reminded me of the feelings I had during President Clinton's State of the Union when then- Speaker of the House Newt Gingerich looked like the schoolyard prankster egging on his friends on the right to mock the President. The feeling of utter disgust. Even as President Obama spoke of bi-partisanship the "get one up on you" mentality will forever prevail in Washington. I was quite amused at how both Pelosi and Biden both popped up and down with such regularity a jack in the box game would be envious.
The truth be told politics is just a game. It reminds me of a board game where the current players NEVER stop to let the others play. Once one person does get in, they have to play by the older player's rules or they will get someone else. I think every few years the game board should be cleared and new players put in place. TERM LIMITS!! If in fact we want the change that politicians keep espousing, perhaps they need to change themselves first.
While watching the standing ovations...mostly from the left during this administration and mostly from the right during the previous administration I was left with the feeling that nothing will change. The superior look on Nancy Pelosi's face contrasted with the smug look on VP Biden's reminded me of the feelings I had during President Clinton's State of the Union when then- Speaker of the House Newt Gingerich looked like the schoolyard prankster egging on his friends on the right to mock the President. The feeling of utter disgust. Even as President Obama spoke of bi-partisanship the "get one up on you" mentality will forever prevail in Washington. I was quite amused at how both Pelosi and Biden both popped up and down with such regularity a jack in the box game would be envious.
The truth be told politics is just a game. It reminds me of a board game where the current players NEVER stop to let the others play. Once one person does get in, they have to play by the older player's rules or they will get someone else. I think every few years the game board should be cleared and new players put in place. TERM LIMITS!! If in fact we want the change that politicians keep espousing, perhaps they need to change themselves first.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
HAPPINESS...IT'S A DECISION.
I recently saw a billboard with actor Micheal J. Fox on with the caption "Happiness...it is a decision" and I must agree with it. In our brains there seems to be a switch that we can turn on and off. Happiness does at times take work and I feel it is much easier to be grumpy or angry with the world. Happy people seem to be more successful and affluent whereas angry seem to struggle. Just as it takes time to be successful, people who struggle seem to always take the easy way.
Life throws us curve balls all the time. Recently at work, we had a guest (I work at a hotel) who called to the desk and angrily told me he had no hot water, he said he had to make a court appearance in a half an hour and he needed the issue resolved right away. He slammed the phone down before I could tell him we would check it and get him another room. Moments later he stormed down with the intent of letting me have it. He was a man in his 40's who looked like he had rough life, he smelled like a old carton of cigarettes and looked like he had been beaten down by factory work. His profanity-laced blast escalated in volume so that our full lobby could hear. He made it clear that we somehow purposely put him in a room without hot water. He snorted that he was not about to pay for this. I obliged and refunded his stay. He appeared to get what he wanted but you could tell he was not satisfied. He wanted to argue and let the whole world know how awful his time was. His face was red, and veins were sticking out on his neck and I found myself amazed at how mad he was. It was as if he was angry with things way beyond the cold water. I couldn't help but feel sympathy for the guest and his view on life.
I do believe you can have spirited debates and disagreements, but I see no reason for anger. If Micheal J. Fox motivates you to be happy great, but I would also include putting Jesus in the mix. There are points in life when you get hit in the face with cold water (sometimes literally). How you handle it ensures a happy or miserable existence... I prefer happy.
Life throws us curve balls all the time. Recently at work, we had a guest (I work at a hotel) who called to the desk and angrily told me he had no hot water, he said he had to make a court appearance in a half an hour and he needed the issue resolved right away. He slammed the phone down before I could tell him we would check it and get him another room. Moments later he stormed down with the intent of letting me have it. He was a man in his 40's who looked like he had rough life, he smelled like a old carton of cigarettes and looked like he had been beaten down by factory work. His profanity-laced blast escalated in volume so that our full lobby could hear. He made it clear that we somehow purposely put him in a room without hot water. He snorted that he was not about to pay for this. I obliged and refunded his stay. He appeared to get what he wanted but you could tell he was not satisfied. He wanted to argue and let the whole world know how awful his time was. His face was red, and veins were sticking out on his neck and I found myself amazed at how mad he was. It was as if he was angry with things way beyond the cold water. I couldn't help but feel sympathy for the guest and his view on life.
I do believe you can have spirited debates and disagreements, but I see no reason for anger. If Micheal J. Fox motivates you to be happy great, but I would also include putting Jesus in the mix. There are points in life when you get hit in the face with cold water (sometimes literally). How you handle it ensures a happy or miserable existence... I prefer happy.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
PROFILING...TO DIE FOR!
With the recent apprehension of suspected terrorist (or rather "conflict starter" using Obama's non-use of the word terrorist) Abdulmatallab, racial profiling is again making news. Should we inspect those fitting the "conflict starter" profile a little closer than others? Is it demeaning to be "profiled"? Are we discriminating against those who fit the "profile"? Are we setting the country back 20 - 50 - or even 100 years by doing this?
I am a white male married to a hispanic lady. Prior to our meeting, I was somewhat ignorant to the issue as I could not remember a time of being discriminiated against. Since knowing my wife, she had brought to my attention how store clerks and others would watch her (and for being with her my) every move while shopping or using their services. While I cannot pretend to know what discrimination is like on all levels, but with that experience I have a better understanding of it after these experiences. There certainly is a level of anger that is uncomprehensable to someone who has never felt or perceived discrimination.
That being said....If it is of national security, I have no problem with racial profiling. Until we get a better system, I am for anything that will protect our way of life. Racial profiling is sometimes a necessary evil. If we know the area where the radical enemy is, the background of the radical enemy, and the mannerism of the radical enemy, it is only prudent to ask additional questionsof those fitting that "profile."
I was fortunate to live a few months in Sweden back in the late 1980's. I went with a tour group to Russia. The tour group (mostly of a mix of Swedes and Norwegians) was held up while the boarder guards went though my luggage and asked me many questions. This was just after the cold war. I understood why and complied. The guards were being protective of their country. I was not offended (actually quite amused by it). Now this is obviously not the same as the current issue, but the same principle I believe. We want to protect our country.
Simply put, poltical correctness is not something I, nor anyone else should have to die for.
I am a white male married to a hispanic lady. Prior to our meeting, I was somewhat ignorant to the issue as I could not remember a time of being discriminiated against. Since knowing my wife, she had brought to my attention how store clerks and others would watch her (and for being with her my) every move while shopping or using their services. While I cannot pretend to know what discrimination is like on all levels, but with that experience I have a better understanding of it after these experiences. There certainly is a level of anger that is uncomprehensable to someone who has never felt or perceived discrimination.
That being said....If it is of national security, I have no problem with racial profiling. Until we get a better system, I am for anything that will protect our way of life. Racial profiling is sometimes a necessary evil. If we know the area where the radical enemy is, the background of the radical enemy, and the mannerism of the radical enemy, it is only prudent to ask additional questionsof those fitting that "profile."
I was fortunate to live a few months in Sweden back in the late 1980's. I went with a tour group to Russia. The tour group (mostly of a mix of Swedes and Norwegians) was held up while the boarder guards went though my luggage and asked me many questions. This was just after the cold war. I understood why and complied. The guards were being protective of their country. I was not offended (actually quite amused by it). Now this is obviously not the same as the current issue, but the same principle I believe. We want to protect our country.
Simply put, poltical correctness is not something I, nor anyone else should have to die for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
