Sarah-Cuda?

I confess:  I was a little disappointed and confused when I heard that Sarah Palin had resigned from her job as the governor of Alaska.  Having lived in Alaska for a couple of years, I still feel a bit of a tie to the largest state in the Union, not to mention a little tie to Palin herself for the tremendous shot in the arm she gave the Republican side of the campaign last year.  I don’t think I will ever forget her deft slice-and-dice of Joe Biden on the campaign trail – and he is definitely a man who should have been sliced-and-diced throughout the campaign. 

That said, however, I had to give Sarah credit for 1) recognizing that there are times when you have to “pass the ball,” so to speak, to get the job done, and 2) recognizing what was happening in her career at that point was more because of the threat she represents than anything she has actually done.  I loved this blurb from Fox News on June 8, 2009:

Winning Streak:  Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is batting 1,000 against ethics charges. The Washington Times reports the former Republican vice presidential nominee has fought off all 14 complaints since being put on the ticket.  The latest came from an Anchorage resident who said Palin abused her position for financial gain by wearing a jacket in public that was manufactured by the snowmobile company that sponsors her husband. That complaint was dismissed last week.  Governor Palin had called the charge, “asinine political grandstanding.”

Yeah.  That’s what I’d call it, too. 

The only question I have is, let’s assume that this decision is so that she can take the next couple of years to prepare to seek the Republican party nomination for president or vice president in 2012 (assuming there is a Republican party to speak of – sorry.  I am a little cynical about that right now).   “Going to ground” is a time-honored tradition when you’re under fire, as any good “Godfather” fan knows.  (It still looks an awful lot like hiding.) 

Plus, at a time when the state of Alaska doesn’t have extra cash to throw around, continuing to spend money defending against complaint after baseless complaint seems to be a lose-lose situation.  If she stays and defends, it costs the state money – even if she wins every battle.  Plus, no matter how good you are, somebody someplace is going to find you doing something that will stick – whether it’s true or not.  Look at Daniel – the Old Testament prophet – who, even though he did nothing wrong, still ended up in a den of lions for political reasons.  She has personally spent over $500,000 fighting the ethics complaints – which has been reported as accumulated debt (unknown what percentage) - so, I can see the value of just stepping out to see if the storm passes. 

However, Sarah’s strategy is not without its own risks.  Should she pursue the nomination (let alone get it), the coverage is going to focus on how long she would serve if elected – “how long are you going to stay this time, Sarah?”  I can hear the heckling already.  She will have left the only executive political position she’s had that gives her (or gave her) any legitimacy as a potential leader of the free world. 

Granted, given Mr. O’s current trend, there might not be such a job by 2012, since he seems to be doing his best to turn the U.S. into the United Socialist States of America, but she’s still giving up the only gig she has that has any shot of preparing her to be President (or Vice President).  And, it’s going to be a tougher sell to prove to the American people that when the going gets tough, she will stick to her guns and not run. 

I truly wish the best for her and her family.  She has a young child at home, along with the other children (and grandchild) in her family, and family trumps work in my book.  There is no shame in stepping down from a great job to devote yourself fulltime to being a wife and mother, and if her reasons for making this decision have anything to do with sparing her children from more attacks from the likes of David Letterman, then great.  Go, Sarah!  [BTW - see this in the American Thinker - spot on.]

BTW, I’m not going as far as Biden and Huckabee in their smarmy little paternalistic comments – I think that anyone’s choice (male or female) to put their family ahead of their jobs is brave and deserves a little credit.  Biden said, ”It maybe had a lot to do with what the state of their life was, and the state of their family, et cetera. So I’m not going to second-guess her,” he said. “I take her at her word that it had a personal ingredient and you have to respect that.”  Sorry, Biden, but that smacks of paternalism:  poor little lady – should have stayed home with the kids in the first place and left the governing to the menfolk. 

[***And I'm not a feminist - really.  I like men - I think that God's plan of men being in charge is better for families and better for society, so long as men are obedient and submit themselves to God's authority and leading.  When men fail to do what they are supposed to do, God does allow women to hold positions of leadership (c.f., Deborah in the Old Testament book of Judges), but it is usually a condemnation of the men for their abdication of their leadership responsibilities, IMO.]

Huckabee notes that “her reason for resigning will be a liability for her if she seeks the White House.  ‘If that had been the case for me, I would’ve quit in my first month,’ said Huckabee.  ‘If she’s looking to be a national political figure, it’s not going to get easier, he said.’”  I’m sorry – I don’t give him a lot of credit for being a political “fan” of Sarah Palin’s.  I think that if she does run for 2012, he is going to use this to further his own ambitions – no question. 

According to her personal spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton:  ”This is a move that says, ‘Enough, I’m not going to keep hitting my head against this wall. I’m not playing politics as usual. You go play that game. I’ll go play it another way and at another court,’ so she can get something done and make a difference with the issues and values that are important to her.” 

I just hope that whatever the plan is, she knows what she’s doing.

GREAT Quotes from American Thinker Today

This was absolutely beautiful – so beautiful, in fact, that I had to come back and post it so you could see it, too! 

Last night I saw upon the stair

A little president who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

Oh, how I wish he’d go away

The White House is now occupied by a little president who just isn’t there when he is called upon to take a clear, moral stand. For such sheer gutless flabbiness and evasion, you have to look back to the dismal Jimmy Carter years.

If Tehran seems quieter today, it’s because the civilian demonstrators have been identified and are being beaten and tortured and maybe killed in Evin Prison. Don’t believe for a moment that the sadistic regime has changed, just because you don’t see people bleeding on the streets. They are bleeding all right. It’s just out of public view.

The Europeans are being Reaganesque. Angela Merkel is morally serious. She stated officially that

“Germany stands on the side of the people in Iran who want to exercise their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.”

There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? Ronald Reagan would have said it. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair would have said it. Barack Obama couldn’t.

Nicolas Sarkozy upheld our real values. He called the pictures of women and teenagers being beaten by Basij thugs on motorcycles “brutal” and “totally disproportionate.”

“The ruling power claims to have won the elections … if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence.”  [End quote].

The rest of the article is worth reading, too. 

This was another great article – this time, on national stupidity:

“The Federal EPA is about to officially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. That’s not just false and unscientific; it’s not just an excuse for taxing everything in sight, including breathing. It’s not merely wrong. It’s idiotic. It marks a low point in our national conversation. Scientists or engineers with a grain of sense shouldn’t be taking the EPA seriously for a second. Forget the “climate experts,” with their grossly inadequate computer models. Normally intelligent people should boggle at the EPA. They are bizarre. Only the truly ignorant could fall for this level of ignorance. Or those who just can’t think.”

And then there was this historical reminiscence: 

“An act of August 27, 1936 raised the general business tax rate from 20% to 25% and to 30% for each year thereafter; then on July 25, 1938 corporate profits of more than 100,000 Reichmarks per year were subjected to an additional tax of 35% with that rising to 40% for each year thereafter; and on March 20, 1939, the Nazis imposed an excess profits tax.[iii] 

It is not just that the Nazi state raised taxes (Leftists like to argue that this was just to fund the Nazi War Machine), although in four years, Nazis had raised taxes to approximately one fourth of the national income. [iv] No wonder Fritz Thyssen, one of the industrialists who did help bring the Nazis to power, said in 1940:  “Soon Germany will not be any different from Bolshevik Russia; the heads of enterprises who do not fulfill the conditions which the ‘Plan’ prescribes will be accused of treason against the German people, and shot.” [v]

The Nazis specifically placed higher tax rates on the rich and not the poor.  Why did the Nazis, like all totalitarians, embrace draconian socialism?  Totalitarianism has everything to do with crushing all sources of opposition and nothing to do with any notional “ideology” (power is the only ideology of any totalitarians.)

The Night of the Long Knives is a reminder that totalitarianism is all the same, everywhere, all the time.  It is a reminder that every totalitarian leader is a jealous god.  Hitler murdered not to prevent socialism but to make sure he had power.  He murdered religious leaders, like he enslaved businessmen, to make sure he, alone, had power.”

The rest of the article is well worth reading.

I think I found me some new friends……

Movie: The Stoning of Soraya M.

I’m not a big “art film” fan, although back when I was working and studying in downtown Detroit, I made it to my fair share of Detroit Institute of Arts movies.  Biggest surprise:  “The Crying Game,” which I admit that I saw, although I later wished I hadn’t in some ways. 

Anyway, I read a review of this movie, and I have to say that I’m intrigued.  It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a truly great movie, and the reviewer’s note at the end of the review caught my imagination:  “the impact of a Greek tragedy ….. masterful grasp of suspense and group psychology, and some superb acting, especially on the parts of Marnò in the title role of a courageous martyr and the commanding Aghdashloo, Oscar nominated for her performance in ‘The House of Sand and Fog.’”

I’ll let you know if I see it.  I’ve been looking for a movie with some substance to it, and this just might be it.

Frivolity

You’re going to have to go see this for yourself….  I may have figured out some things regarding programming, but not embedding video from Youtube.com.

Supreme Court Opinion: Ricci v DeStefano

OK, the opinion is out.  The firefighters whose test results were thrown out win.  The City of New Haven was wrong.  No discussion yet on what happens now, but I attached a link to the opinion so that you can read it for yourself if you want. 

I did so for two reasons.  One, the headlines on this case have been along the lines of “Supreme Court Rules For White Firefighters,” and while that is technically the outcome, the Court didn’t base its ruling on being “for” the “white” firefighters.  I think that such a characterization of the outcome is just race-baiting. 

Two, which is more important, Ginsberg’s dissent is … how can I put this?  Ginsberg comes this close to saying, essentially, that African-Americans can’t succeed by hard work and studying.  The implication is that African-Americans alone are too stupid to get promoted if they have to take tests.  I know – that is very harsh.  Read the opinion, and you’ll see what I mean. 

The evidence presented relative to the preparation of the successful applicants (which included Hispanics) notes that they made financial and personal sacrifices to study and prepare for the exam.  One applicant was dyslexic – he paid money to have someone who wasn’t dyslexic read the preparation materials into a tape recorder so that he could prepare by listening to the tapes.  Another applicant gave up his second part-time job to study harder and prepare for the exam, and his wife gave up time at her job to take care of the kids so that he could study. 

There was no recitation of any of the African-American applicants doing this.  Instead, Ginsberg notes that the African-American applicants had difficulty getting the study materials – based principally on the fact that some of the applicants had the materials before the syllabus was issued, which she attributes to the ability of some of the white firefighters having materials from relatives who had taken the exam before, along with the “substantial cost” to order materials and having to wait for delivery (which doesn’t seem to have been limited by race – it just seems that the African-American candidates were the only ones who complained about it). 

She also spent a great deal of paper explaining how the city’s test was not really indicative of success in the leadership positions the city was trying to fill.  She goes on to say that the practice of requiring such threshold criteria as high school diplomas unfairly handicaps African-American applicants and prevents them from achieving parity in employment as firefighters.

Wha-HUH? 

So, it’s OK for white firefighters and Hispanic firefighters to spend a lot of money to study hard for an exam and pass, but if African-Americans have to wait or can’t get the materials from somebody else, the test is flawed? 

I’m sorry – someone is going to have to explain the dissenting argument to me, because it really sounds like Ginsberg is saying that African-Americans as a whole are too stupid or too lazy to pass a qualifying exam without help.   She makes a big deal about the duties of the supervisors being primarily to provide leadership and “command presence,” without any discussion of the other aspects or duties of the higher positions.  Yes, they get paid more, but there is more administrative responsibility, in addition to “command presence” that has to be done in accordance with the department’s rules and procedures. 

Then, she pooh-poohs the majority’s acknowledgement that, after the results came out but before they were certified, there was pressure exerted behind the scenes by a prominent member of the African-American community, such that had the city board certified the results, the Mayor was prepared to overrule the board’s decision, claiming that the City had already taken the step of refusing to certify the exam results on its own – despite the factual record below that the Mayor had already planned to override the board’s decision if it did not vote to scuttle the certification. 

Trust me, as a resident of the greater Metro Detroit area, there is no question in my mind that the board’s decision to not certify those test results was based on influence from Kimber and posse.  As a side note, Thomas Ude, the City’s attorney, appears from the record to have been the source for the whole “disparate impact” fiasco that followed, which no one appears to have investigated.  Given Kimber’s ties to the Mayor and to other political figures in that area, it could be that Ude’s “observations” about the potential “disparate impact” of the test results could have come either from a whisper into his ear from Kimber, et al., or possibly from just the past experience of knowing that, like Sheila Cockrel and Monica Conyers in Detroit, if African-Americans don’t get jobs they want, someone will cry foul. 

Either way, it seems that the Supreme Court made the right decision.  Now we can sit back and watch how this decision impacts the Sotomayor confirmation hearings……

More on Health Care “Reform” – and Taxes

OK, it’s Monday.  The Monday before our national celebration of Independence Day. 

By the way, the reason we celebrate “Independence” Day at all is because it is the day marked for us to remember our independence from Britain’s heavy rule – a reign which, incidently, included taxation without representation. 

So, as the day approaches, it seems fitting to discuss two items on our national agenda that deal with the same subject:  taxes and health care.

George Will has an excellent article today on the subject of health care reform.  He notes: 

“The Hudson Institute’s Betsy McCaughey, writing in the American Spectator, says that in 1960 the average American household spent 53 percent of its disposable income on food, housing, energy and health care. Today the portion of income consumed by those four has barely changed — 55 percent. But the health-care component has increased while the other three combined have decreased. This is partly because as societies become richer, they spend more on health care — and symphonies, universities, museums, etc.

It is also because health care is increasingly competent. When the first baby boomers, whose aging is driving health-care spending, were born in 1946, many American hospitals’ principal expense was clean linen. This was long before MRIs, CAT scans and the rest of the diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal that modern medicine deploys. ….

Now the health-care debate is coming to a boil just as public anxiety about the deficit is, too. As cost estimates pass the $1 trillion mark, the administration is reduced to talking about financing its reforms with mini-measures such as a 3-cent tax on sugary sodas. The public, its attention riveted by the fiscal train wreck of trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, may be coming to the conclusion that we should leave bad enough alone.”

Good points all, and well worth attention.  I’m frankly discouraged by the prospect of having any influence on the outcome, however, given my own state’s elected representatives’ deliberate disregard of my opinions, but maybe I’m just outnumbered. 

More importantly, however, is a real-life example of exactly what I’ve been saying for the last 9 months works:  GE.  Yep.  GE. 

GE is coming to Michigan to build a research center.  Guess why they’re coming:  they got a really sweet tax break from the Governor. 

According to the Detroit Free Press article on June 27, 2009, the new facility will get “$74 million in potential tax credits for GE over 12 years. The estimated return to the state during that period from increased tax collections would be $146 million.”

Read that again:  tax cuts totally $74 million over 12 years, but generating income taxes and other revenue totaling about $146 million over the same period.  Almost twice the amount of revenue as the tax cut. 

This is exactly what Reagan said 20-some years ago, and what conservatives are saying now:  if you cut taxes, you will grow the economy to generate more than the revenue you give up in the tax cuts.  Even Granholm and Stabenow know this – they’re implementing it as to one company they are trying to woo into Michigan – but they won’t implement the same strategy on a grander scale. 

Why?  Because giving that kind of power away means less for them.  That’s the only reason I can think of.  Sounds like we are dangerously close to taxation without representation, and if I’m right, we need another declaration of independence.

The Mouse That Roared

Not that I’m being picky, but please.  Even U.S. News & World Report is complaining. 

“After running a campaign in which he repeatedly promised to meet with and engage America’s enemies, President Obama spent the first six months of his administration doing nothing of the sort with Iran. … Each day spent engaging, or talking about engaging, represents one more day for the regime to master the technology required to build the bomb.”

But now, NOW, he’s “outraged.”  Really?  I can just hear Ahmadinejad saying, “Excuse me for a moment while I cower….. ”

On Governor Sanford

No joy here, but no hang-dog shame either.  I read Mark Davis’s column today and thought that it properly summed up how I felt when I heard about the South Carolina governor’s mea culpa. 

As I listened to people in the mainstream press castigate the governor for his behavior and lament about what a blow this must be for the Republican Party – how can they overcome this loss of a “rising star” in time for the 2012 election? – I thought 3 things.

First, exactly what Mark Davis said:  “[Sanford's] prime obligation now is to the family he has severely injured. Healing does not happen best when the offender is a busy elected official, and it surely doesn’t happen best under the glare of TV lights.”  I hope that people who feel for this family will pray for their healing.

Second, if the sacrifice of a man’s family is worth anything, it ought to be worth a call to repentance for the whole country.  Who says this isn’t a Christian nation when the entire country is outraged by one man’s moral failure?  Sure, maybe it is more akin to open schadenfreude than moral outrage – maybe the outcry is more joyous at seeing a once-moral man fall than sorrow at the pain to this family - but there is still something fundamentally abhorrent to society as a whole when a married man (or woman) betrays the sanctity of the marriage vows. 

Third, on a more cynical/practical note, better an early blow-out than a slow leak.  Better for this man to stumble, if stumble he would, now, rather than July 2012.  And I would say the same about any other “rising star” of the conservative movement.  If they’re going to break down, do it now, so that the nation as a whole won’t suffer at the hands of a last-minute crisis that might keep us from a future of freedom.  Better yet, let’s take the opportunity presented by this oh-so-public failure to examine our own lives and see whether the inside of our lives matches what we tell people on the outside. 

If we can do that, there may be some redemption out of this sorrow.

***UPDATE*** 6/26/09:  Cal Thomas had some really great insights.  Worth checking out.

Baseball

This is totally different from my usual topics, but it struck me this morning as I was listening to the radio on my way to work.  The announcer mentioned someone’s being inducted into the Hall of Fame, and he referenced the 2009 class – like it’s a given that every year, someone will be inducted into the Hall of Fame. 

I thought that the Hall of Fame was supposed to represent exceptional careers and significant achievements?  How do they define “exceptional” or “significant?”  Is exceptionality or significance graded on a curve? 

I’m confused … I realize that baseball writers have been doing this since 1936, but it just seems to diminish the value of an award like the “Hall of Fame” to have someone inducted every year. 

Speaking of baseball, though, I have to hand it to Jim Leyland of the Detroit Tigers for benching Magglio Ordoñez, even if it was only for a game or two.  He took some heat from Ordoñez’s agent (and from Ordoñez himself), but he did it because he wanted Mags to play better – which meant giving him some rest. 

Without spiritualizing this too much, letting God give us rest – a break from all of the hectic running around we do – in whatever form that takes is not a bad thing.  It doesn’t mean we are less capable.  It means that we are human and we need to stop every so often and let go of things.  I made that connection over the last couple of days because it has been hectic in my house (and office) for a long time.  I hate that things aren’t done the way they should be, but I’m finally starting to catch up on my rest, and I like it. 

‘Course, I did wake up this morning after a dream in which I felt like I was being strangled.  I went to the hospital and everything because I was having trouble breathing (in my dream – not in real life!), and they did all kinds of tests, but they left me all covered up in all of my clothes.  As I lay in the hospital trying to breathe, I started peeling off layers of clothes – shirts, turtlenecks, and finally a scarf that just would not let go, and it was only then that I could breathe.  The hospital people were clueless – their tests had all shown that my lungs were working fine, even though I still couldn’t breathe. 

From the finite wisdom of the Internet, I learned that dreams of being strangled can signal sleep apnea (which probably is not to blame) or feeling overwhelmed by things in your life.  I think that last one was more appropriate, and I’m starting to sense that maybe it’s time for a ride on the bench in terms of other obligations – time to just relax and let go of things.  To peel off the layers of obligation, as it were, and just rest. 

Anyway, how I got from the Hall of Fame to here, I’m not really sure…..  The wrap-up, though, seems to be that instead of chasing achievement and recognition, it might be wise to ride the bench once in a while in order to be better prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.

What if…..

This thought crossed my mind this afternoon on my way back to work – let me know what you think. 

What if, instead of a government-sponsored, government-run, government-organized health care system, we had individual “flex-spending” accounts that didn’t evaporate at the end of the year but could be rolled over from year to year?  The money still could only be used for medical costs/expenses, but it would give people a place to put pre-tax money to be used for medical care and expenses; it would allow people to budget for those expenses; and, it would be protected from either spendthrifts or debt collectors, so that it was available for medical care as needed?

Here’s why I think this would work.  I was listening to Mark Steyn on the radio, and he was explaining how he had been giving a lecture in Palm Springs, and this wealthy Albertan came down after the lecture and told him about how he’d gotten his hip replacement surgery in the U.S. because he couldn’t wait any longer to get it done in Canada.  After his surgery (which was successful), he went to the hospital’s billing desk, told them he had no insurance and that he would pay for the surgery himself, and he got the “non-insurance” amount (which was less than it would have been if he’d had insurance to pay for it).  He pulls out his checkbook and as  he is preparing to write the check, asks if they can do better than the price they’ve already given him – and they take another $4,000 off the bill. 

My reaction to that was, that’s great – if you have that kind of money – but most people can’t afford to whip out their checkbooks to pay cash for something like a hip replacement surgery.  That’s when I started thinking about those flex-spending accounts. 

BECAUSE, last week, I caught a few minutes of a PBS documentary on world health care systems which featured some discussion with people (doctors and patients) in Singapore.  They have a similar system:  they deposit money into an account to pay for their health care treatment.  If you don’t have enough, you can get money from one of your family member’s accounts (if the family member lets you), but that’s how they pay for medical care. 

The way the flex-spending account system is set up here is already in place, sort of.  One of the problems I’ve noticed is that it is pretty paper-intensive and a lot of places don’t like to offer it.  However, they don’t seem to mind the paperwork in place for things like 401Ks and IRAs. 

Given the newer technology of a debit card system that works like a credit card, it should be easier to do this.  The only issues would seem to be a) setting up the accounts, b) getting regular deposits (particularly in some communities that are resistant to having bank accounts) from people who may be accustomed to being paid in cash, c) record-keeping, and d) having the money continue from year to year. 

You’d have the money – the actual money – to pay your health care expenses up front, instead of having to make payments on a bill or whatever, so you could negotiate the costs just as if you were buying a washing machine or a lawn mower.   Health care providers would have to be reasonable about costs and expenses (none of the $60 tablet of aspirin or the $100 slippers that nobody wears), or they would not be able to keep enough patients to stay in business. 

The last couple of years, our firm has used a similar system for prescriptions and deductibles.  Part of the reason we no longer use it (I think, anyway – no one has explained why we stopped it) was because the firm had to deposit the money into the account up front.  If they didn’t use it, they lost it.  I think that is one of the biggest draw-backs to a flex-spending account system in the first place:   you don’t get to keep that money if you don’t spend it over the course of the year. 

But look at the tax code already – if we can change that provision of the tax code so that people would be able to roll over their health care spending accounts from year to year, that would encourage saving a portion of your income to offset medical expenses (planned and unplanned).  You would have incentive to stay healthy because the more of your money you didn’t spend for health care expenses, the more you would have for an emergency or for long-term care as you aged. 

If, for any reason, someone got all the way to the end of his or her life and had money left over in that account, or if you decide to close it and take the money out (under circumstances similar to those for taking money out of a 401K or IRA), you tax it at whatever the tax rate is for that person at the time of withdrawal.  The accounts could be maintained at individual banks, either through employers or through a local system (let’s say, through a credit union or bank that would – possibly – charge a fee to set up the account for people who are self-employed).  

Think about it and let me know what you think.  I think that is a good idea that would keep people involved in the process – more in control of their own health and their own financial security – while at the same time, providing for the medical treatment they need.  In the process, I think that the Medicare and Medicaid system could be overhauled so that people got the same type of system to pay for health care, medicines, etc.  That might make it easier to cut down on abuses – like going to the emergency room for the sniffles – while still providing medical care for people who actually need it.