In the computing business, a fix to the hardware is an Engineering Change, or "EC". Tomorrow I go in for an EC on my elbow. I wonder if it would have ever been attempted without a CAT scan, since it really just looked "suspicious" on the x-rays, but on the CAT scan it was obvious. The view that the Dr showed me was a series of "slices" looking straight on at the bones in the forearm. As the plate came into view, it was very visible at the bottom, the bones are crystal clear, and the marrow and hard outside of the bone are just like you were inside the arm looking at them.
As each screw came into view, I learned that all the screws go all the way through the bone because the bone is structurally hollow (the center is soft), they want to get all the anchor force and stability that they can, so they go all the way through. They intended to go all the way through, but the last screw is either too long, mispositioned, or both ... it goes all the way through and right into the radius bone (the ulna was the one I broke). Apparently, having a large titanium screw linking the two bones in your forearm really reduces their ability to move independently, and thus the palm will no longer rotate up.
So, I call Mayo tonight and will get the specifics on arrival time for the AM, but it sounds like 6:30 AM is likely. They intend to pull out all 7 screws and the plate, and put in a single screw to insure that it holds together. In theory it is supposed to be a "one day down", and other than some slight care of the incision, I ought to be "pretty much OK and able to work" on Friday they say.
Close followers of the blog will no doubt know how correct that is by how fast I am able to return to action on the web.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Generals
I've been watching the number of media stories on "retired generals that want Rumsfeld out" in the last week or so. Normally our media is pretty much anti-military and generally even more against any hints of the military questioning their civilian control. During the Clinton years it was more than an open secret that many in the military didn't think much of old Slick, but any mention of that was quickly quashed as "inappropriate". The respect for the "Swift Boat Veterans" seemed pretty minimal, even though there were a couple Admirals on that list. I wonder what could account for the difference in thought? We know there is no bias, so it can't be that.
The Generals and the media seem to be in agreement these days that "more troops" would have been, and in some cases even currently would be a better idea. Of course, they really thought and think now that "no troops" is a better answer, but these days press pretty much salivates to get anything that is anti-Bush or anti-Bush administration as far up in the headlines as possible. Tommy Franks, the guy that actually presided over the planning for both Afghanistan and Iraq has been a strong supporter of both Bush and Rumsfeld, and wrote a book on the subject. That is the kind of thing that gets no play in the MSM.
One of the odd parts of this is that Rumsfeld IS in fact disliked by a lot of folks at the Pentagon, but it has very little to do with the war in Iraq. The Pentagon pretty much focuses on fighting the NEXT war, and the war they would like to fight is with China. They see China as the USSR replacement that allows all the same armed services to keep all the troops and get all the nice hardware that they have in their plans. The hardware that the guys in the General seats have spent their whole careers planning and budgeting and procuring. The closest thing to "the military-industrial complex" that most of the left always rail against. Basically, "organizational intertia", a common feature of all large organizations.
Rumsfeld came in and started restructuring the military right away, even before 2001 to be more focused on special forces, smaller groups with higher technology and more autonomy, focused at dealing with situations like Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree Iraq. Like most large organizations, the Pentagon doesn't like change very much, and so they didn't, and still don't like Rumsfeld. Yet many of the observers of the military that look at the threats we face in the future believe that he was and is exactly correct in the changes that need to be made.
Much like with John McCain, the MSM finds him to be a "great guy" as long as he is on their side of the story. The moment he "strays" and acts like an actual Republican, he "loses his way". So with military generals. As long as a few are willing to say what the MSM wants them to say, then they "should be taken seriously" from their POV. Deciding to only report the side of the story that agrees with your POV is just propaganda. Deciding that the military should talk back to civilian leadership shows that they believe in strict control of the military only so long as the civilian leadership agrees with the MSM. I suppose a military coup is just fine if it takes down Bush and Rumsfeld as well, but maybe there should be just a little bit more thought on that before we follow this path too far.
The Generals and the media seem to be in agreement these days that "more troops" would have been, and in some cases even currently would be a better idea. Of course, they really thought and think now that "no troops" is a better answer, but these days press pretty much salivates to get anything that is anti-Bush or anti-Bush administration as far up in the headlines as possible. Tommy Franks, the guy that actually presided over the planning for both Afghanistan and Iraq has been a strong supporter of both Bush and Rumsfeld, and wrote a book on the subject. That is the kind of thing that gets no play in the MSM.
One of the odd parts of this is that Rumsfeld IS in fact disliked by a lot of folks at the Pentagon, but it has very little to do with the war in Iraq. The Pentagon pretty much focuses on fighting the NEXT war, and the war they would like to fight is with China. They see China as the USSR replacement that allows all the same armed services to keep all the troops and get all the nice hardware that they have in their plans. The hardware that the guys in the General seats have spent their whole careers planning and budgeting and procuring. The closest thing to "the military-industrial complex" that most of the left always rail against. Basically, "organizational intertia", a common feature of all large organizations.
Rumsfeld came in and started restructuring the military right away, even before 2001 to be more focused on special forces, smaller groups with higher technology and more autonomy, focused at dealing with situations like Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree Iraq. Like most large organizations, the Pentagon doesn't like change very much, and so they didn't, and still don't like Rumsfeld. Yet many of the observers of the military that look at the threats we face in the future believe that he was and is exactly correct in the changes that need to be made.
Much like with John McCain, the MSM finds him to be a "great guy" as long as he is on their side of the story. The moment he "strays" and acts like an actual Republican, he "loses his way". So with military generals. As long as a few are willing to say what the MSM wants them to say, then they "should be taken seriously" from their POV. Deciding to only report the side of the story that agrees with your POV is just propaganda. Deciding that the military should talk back to civilian leadership shows that they believe in strict control of the military only so long as the civilian leadership agrees with the MSM. I suppose a military coup is just fine if it takes down Bush and Rumsfeld as well, but maybe there should be just a little bit more thought on that before we follow this path too far.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Riding Rockets
For a bookworm, there are few joys to exceed finding a book that is so interesting that it keeps you up late at night and you want to get into it at the first opportunity the next day. "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane was such a find for me. Mullane is a 3-time shuttle mission specialist, and the fact that he is "unknown" lets us know that he space program has changed a lot since the days of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.
He was one of the first round of shuttle astronauts selected in '78. A West Point graduate that switched to the Air Force trying to get to space, but whose eyesight wasn't good enough to be a pilot, so he settled for flying over 100 missions in Vietnam as a "back-seater" on a Phantom. He picked up a masters in flight engineering after the war, and although he gave it at least his all, he was surprised to actually be picked to be an astronaut.
The book is loaded with a lot of ribald humor and practical jokes, as well as a lot of detail of how it "feels", sometimes in the physical sense of discomfort and pain even, to be an astronaut. He probably captures the end of one type of military culture, the "pre-women in everything" era, and of course takes part in a major part of the transition himself as one of the first astronauts to deal with women in that role and part of the missions to space.
It is hard to imagine someone being as open about his personal life and the lives of his loved ones, even telling about his wife's experience as an unwed mother as a young woman. There are plenty of parts of this book that some will say "that is more detail than I wanted to hear", and there are many things that it would seem could have been left out without detracting. However, this is clearly his book, and has the feel of "authenticity", it doesn't seem like any of the "sex and violence" is really gratuitous, this is just how he is, how he sees the world, and apparently part of how a fairly significant number of the astronauts of that period saw it.
Other than the "ethos", and 10's of great little stories about flights in T-38's, his 3 flights, training, the astronaut beach house, and many other details, the information about the Challenger was the most disturbing to me. It sounds like it is pretty clear that at least most of them were alive all the way down. A number of switches that would be related to trying to restore power and oxygen to the cockpit had been toggled in ways that made it clear that human hands had done it, and a set of auxiliary air source packs had been turned to the "on position". One of those packs was intact enough that it still contained air, but a little over 2 and 1/2 minutes of air was gone, the amount of time that it would take to fall from the point of the explosion to the water.
The point that he makes over and over is that these are a group of people that are so dedicated to spaceflight that the risks are really meaningless to them. Something like the explorers that sailed out on the unknown in small wooden boats, they are willing to take those risks to open the next frontier. At least many of them do know fear, although not all, his first shuttle commander was sleeping in the cockpit for a good nap during a pre-launch hold, so some are indeed cut from different cloth.
If you have a significant interest in the space program, this is an excellent book.
He was one of the first round of shuttle astronauts selected in '78. A West Point graduate that switched to the Air Force trying to get to space, but whose eyesight wasn't good enough to be a pilot, so he settled for flying over 100 missions in Vietnam as a "back-seater" on a Phantom. He picked up a masters in flight engineering after the war, and although he gave it at least his all, he was surprised to actually be picked to be an astronaut.
The book is loaded with a lot of ribald humor and practical jokes, as well as a lot of detail of how it "feels", sometimes in the physical sense of discomfort and pain even, to be an astronaut. He probably captures the end of one type of military culture, the "pre-women in everything" era, and of course takes part in a major part of the transition himself as one of the first astronauts to deal with women in that role and part of the missions to space.
It is hard to imagine someone being as open about his personal life and the lives of his loved ones, even telling about his wife's experience as an unwed mother as a young woman. There are plenty of parts of this book that some will say "that is more detail than I wanted to hear", and there are many things that it would seem could have been left out without detracting. However, this is clearly his book, and has the feel of "authenticity", it doesn't seem like any of the "sex and violence" is really gratuitous, this is just how he is, how he sees the world, and apparently part of how a fairly significant number of the astronauts of that period saw it.
Other than the "ethos", and 10's of great little stories about flights in T-38's, his 3 flights, training, the astronaut beach house, and many other details, the information about the Challenger was the most disturbing to me. It sounds like it is pretty clear that at least most of them were alive all the way down. A number of switches that would be related to trying to restore power and oxygen to the cockpit had been toggled in ways that made it clear that human hands had done it, and a set of auxiliary air source packs had been turned to the "on position". One of those packs was intact enough that it still contained air, but a little over 2 and 1/2 minutes of air was gone, the amount of time that it would take to fall from the point of the explosion to the water.
The point that he makes over and over is that these are a group of people that are so dedicated to spaceflight that the risks are really meaningless to them. Something like the explorers that sailed out on the unknown in small wooden boats, they are willing to take those risks to open the next frontier. At least many of them do know fear, although not all, his first shuttle commander was sleeping in the cockpit for a good nap during a pre-launch hold, so some are indeed cut from different cloth.
If you have a significant interest in the space program, this is an excellent book.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Charts of Perspective
Ran into the above out at CBO 125 Year Picture
The web is so full of information like this is too bad that MSM reporters don't care much about facts. The chart shows spending as related to GDP, a rational approach. We commonly hear about "the largest deficit", "largest budget" or some other version of runaway spending in raw, non-inflation or percentage related numbers. Simply hearing that should be a red-flag that the source is trying to mislead you.
Most everything in the number department really only makes sense in context and relationship. If someone lost 10lbs during a workout, it would certainly be life threatening for a 100lb woman, but a fairly normal thing for an NFL lineman. Looking at numbers as a % of GDP is nice in that the inflation effect and the relationship to the size of the overall country are pretty much factored out, and one is comparing apples to apples over history.
The purpose of the web page is to show that there is no way that the the country can continue to spend on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid at the rates that we are now as the baby boom retires. It is a pretty sad commentary that very few Americans understand the chart at the end of this blog. Believing in the Easter Bunny is more rational than believing that we are going to continue on as we currently are with the named programs.
The chart at the start of the blog though shows pretty clearly that GIVEN SOLID ECONOMIC GROWTH, we can do a ton of things with very little effect on the overall economy ... war in Vietnam, War on Poverty, screw up 4 years with truly the worst President in at last a century, Jimmuh, end the USSR, and a host of other things all with something between 17 and 23% of GDP. The chart shows the "lie of defense" that the left likes to blame for everything ... going from 9% to 3% over the period. It shows the seeds of the disaster that awaits us with SS and the Medical entitlements going from 2.5 to 7.9% of an ever larger GDP. Starting in '75 and not beginning to drop off until '85 we see the mini-disaster of the slow growth of the '70s to early 80's. Had that not been turned around, our situation would actually be grim today, rather than just looking grim in the future.
Why the CBO seems to think that crisis isn't going to ensue post 2010, I have no idea. It seems very unlikely to me that all other spending is going to drop from 13-15% to a static 7.1%, and I doubt that interest will become a net revenue GAIN for a significant period. What it DOES show pretty clearly is that the entitlements eat the budget at a rate that is TRULY "unprecedented in history". The Democrats and MSM are very proud that they were able to stop Bush from doing anything about this problem, more proof that nothing makes them happier than what they know will damage the "unfair country" ... America.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Sarcasm the most Truthful
The following off Powerline is pretty hard to beat for truth. They did miss it a bit though. For most Americans the "leak" of the jobs and the recruitment numbers will be just as secret as what was in the "leaked" NIE ... Can't have the public confused by getting more than the MSM approved side of the story!
BTW, on the deck, over 70 degrees and beautiful in MN. People that live in decent climates don't really understand the joy of weather that they would just find "passable". I really ought to bang my head on the wall for a few minutes and stop a bit more often to feel super!
BTW, on the deck, over 70 degrees and beautiful in MN. People that live in decent climates don't really understand the joy of weather that they would just find "passable". I really ought to bang my head on the wall for a few minutes and stop a bit more often to feel super!
Warning: Sarcasm Ahead
Last Friday, the Bush administration released a Labor Department report that showed that employers added 211,000 jobs in March, and the nation's unemployment rate has fallen still further, to 4.7%. Harry Reid responded by demanding an investigation:
The administration's leak of the Labor Department report was clearly intended to make the Democrats' complaints about the economy look stupid. We're consulting with our lawyers to determine whether the leak of this report is an impeachable offense.
[Fake quote; humor intended.] This morning, it was reported that the Army has exceeded its reenlistment goal for the first six months of the 2006 fiscal year by 15%. Nancy Pelosi was outraged:
How dare the administration leak this highly sensitive report? Once again, the administration has leaked information that can only be designed to show that the Democrats' effort to demoralize our troops has failed. We are calling for an investigation to get to the bottom of President Bush's role in authorizing this leak.
[Fake quote; humor intended.] I don't know why the Democrats keep going back to 2003. There's a new leak "scandal" nearly every day!
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Screw Length
I went to Mayo Friday, and it seems that their screw selection for my elbow may have been off. They have me scheduled for a CT scan tomorrow to decide if I need two screws replaced because they are interfering with motion. In general it is pretty usable, but the biggest problem is that I can't roll the palm up close to flat.
While I'm certainly not glad, it is interesting the different sentiments that I encounter as I talk to people. In general, the less training, education or responsibility the person has, the more the attitude is "you should sue", or some level of anger at Mayo, or Doctors in general. My personal view is that I don't do elbow surgery at all, so I have very little understanding of what is involved. The set of things that I manage to do "mistake free" is exceedingly small, no matter how much I might desire perfection. I have a strong suspicion that Mayo starts with basic humans to make into doctors, and I have very little understanding of the degree of difficulty in deciding just what screw goes where in adding hardware to a person's body.
The Masters is on the 50" HDTV in front of me, a beautiful sight to behold, about the only golf of the year I watch, but what a super use of HD and a larger screen. The best in the world seem to make mistakes there as well ... At least it didn't look like Freddy Couples wanted to put the ball on the edge of Ray's creek. His recovery was great though, should they need to replace the screws, I trust that Mayo's will be as well. If their recovery isn't great? Well, I suppose if I had to pick who was going to win the Masters last Wednesday, I would have picked Tiger. Even a couple of times today I might have picked him. I would have been wrong, Phil was the best. How would I pick my surgeon? Certainly not wisely.
As we enter Holy Week, that might be a core difference between Christians and the world. Christians believe there was but a single perfect human, and his sacrifice is our only hope. The world still believes that humans are perfectible, and "someone else" really ought to be perfect in just about every situation.
While I'm certainly not glad, it is interesting the different sentiments that I encounter as I talk to people. In general, the less training, education or responsibility the person has, the more the attitude is "you should sue", or some level of anger at Mayo, or Doctors in general. My personal view is that I don't do elbow surgery at all, so I have very little understanding of what is involved. The set of things that I manage to do "mistake free" is exceedingly small, no matter how much I might desire perfection. I have a strong suspicion that Mayo starts with basic humans to make into doctors, and I have very little understanding of the degree of difficulty in deciding just what screw goes where in adding hardware to a person's body.
The Masters is on the 50" HDTV in front of me, a beautiful sight to behold, about the only golf of the year I watch, but what a super use of HD and a larger screen. The best in the world seem to make mistakes there as well ... At least it didn't look like Freddy Couples wanted to put the ball on the edge of Ray's creek. His recovery was great though, should they need to replace the screws, I trust that Mayo's will be as well. If their recovery isn't great? Well, I suppose if I had to pick who was going to win the Masters last Wednesday, I would have picked Tiger. Even a couple of times today I might have picked him. I would have been wrong, Phil was the best. How would I pick my surgeon? Certainly not wisely.
As we enter Holy Week, that might be a core difference between Christians and the world. Christians believe there was but a single perfect human, and his sacrifice is our only hope. The world still believes that humans are perfectible, and "someone else" really ought to be perfect in just about every situation.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Fiction as Fact
As I watched the MSM feeding frenzy at the end of the week on the idea that the President was "the leaker in chief", the thought occurred to me that there apparently is no limit to the MSM creation of their own world, and then dealing with that world as if it were real. At one time Reagan was considered to have trouble with the difference between movies and reality, but I suppose since we have gone through "what IS is", "fake but true", and many of the fictionalizations of Katrina, there is simply no mooring left.
First of all, if the President authorizes the release of information, it isn't a "leak", it is an authorized release of information. The President and likely the VP are completely able to de-classify information, and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that included the justification made by all the existing US security services for WMD and the War in Iraq was declassified in July of '03. Somehow the MSM seems to think that they are able to fabricate any information they see fit, but it is somehow "wrong" for the President to release the information under which actions were actually taken. The content of that now declassified assessment is public knowledge, but is completely uninteresting to the press, even though it was the basis that every Senator except those from the outer planets (Finegold, Harken, Boxer, etc) decided that Saddam had WMD, along with the leaders of every country including France and Germany, and the UN as well. Obviously the MSM feels that information should in no way be "leaked", because it might put the administration in a good light, something that they would like to defend against more than the risk of a major US city being blown up by a nuke.
For people that read below the headlines and paragraph one or two, the above would probably be somewhat obvious, but what is amazing is the apparently conscious attempt to juxtapose "Plame Investigation", "leak", and "President Bush" in an attempt to allow people to come to the conclusion that Bush leaked the name for which the special prosecutor investigation was launched. While it has never been shown that linking her name with the CIA was any sort of a "leak" at all, and in fact the prosecutor gave up on that. Fitzgerald is only attempting to get Libby for "perjury", and we all know that were Libby a Democrat like Clinton, that isn't even a crime. In fact in "defense of your office", perjury ought to get one hero status. The media is well aware that most of the sheep can't keep up with the details very well, and it seems like what they are going for here is a "basic slime" ... Give the appearance of impropriety, and the Republican base will be less excited about voting.
I have to give them credit for technique. At one level it is certainly a "weakness" of the right to actually have principles, morals, and the desire to apply them consistently. Once it was obvious that Nixon lied in the cover up, his own base abandoned him with as much fervor as those on the left. As we saw with Clinton, the left has no such inclination. They are willing to defend anything in order to keep their hands on the tiller of power.
The small problem with this situation is that people on the right are left to deal with a media and political opposition that hold nothing sacred in any form. Not God, not Country, not truth, not family, not even any sense of what would normally be called "self interest". They are willing to do anything, and to countenance anything being done for the sole purpose of raw political power, even in wartime, with in many cases the knowledge that what they are doing may increase the chances of a terrorist attack that would kill Americans. If it is bad for Bush, it is OK with them.
One is left with the immortal question of Luke to Yoda; "Is the dark side stronger"? As we embark upon Holy Week, that is a pretty good question to ponder. My answer would be that yes, the dark side is definitely stronger in the physical earthly terms, but something seems to prevent it from the victory that one would assume it would achieve. This would be a great week to reflect on what that might be.
First of all, if the President authorizes the release of information, it isn't a "leak", it is an authorized release of information. The President and likely the VP are completely able to de-classify information, and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that included the justification made by all the existing US security services for WMD and the War in Iraq was declassified in July of '03. Somehow the MSM seems to think that they are able to fabricate any information they see fit, but it is somehow "wrong" for the President to release the information under which actions were actually taken. The content of that now declassified assessment is public knowledge, but is completely uninteresting to the press, even though it was the basis that every Senator except those from the outer planets (Finegold, Harken, Boxer, etc) decided that Saddam had WMD, along with the leaders of every country including France and Germany, and the UN as well. Obviously the MSM feels that information should in no way be "leaked", because it might put the administration in a good light, something that they would like to defend against more than the risk of a major US city being blown up by a nuke.
For people that read below the headlines and paragraph one or two, the above would probably be somewhat obvious, but what is amazing is the apparently conscious attempt to juxtapose "Plame Investigation", "leak", and "President Bush" in an attempt to allow people to come to the conclusion that Bush leaked the name for which the special prosecutor investigation was launched. While it has never been shown that linking her name with the CIA was any sort of a "leak" at all, and in fact the prosecutor gave up on that. Fitzgerald is only attempting to get Libby for "perjury", and we all know that were Libby a Democrat like Clinton, that isn't even a crime. In fact in "defense of your office", perjury ought to get one hero status. The media is well aware that most of the sheep can't keep up with the details very well, and it seems like what they are going for here is a "basic slime" ... Give the appearance of impropriety, and the Republican base will be less excited about voting.
I have to give them credit for technique. At one level it is certainly a "weakness" of the right to actually have principles, morals, and the desire to apply them consistently. Once it was obvious that Nixon lied in the cover up, his own base abandoned him with as much fervor as those on the left. As we saw with Clinton, the left has no such inclination. They are willing to defend anything in order to keep their hands on the tiller of power.
The small problem with this situation is that people on the right are left to deal with a media and political opposition that hold nothing sacred in any form. Not God, not Country, not truth, not family, not even any sense of what would normally be called "self interest". They are willing to do anything, and to countenance anything being done for the sole purpose of raw political power, even in wartime, with in many cases the knowledge that what they are doing may increase the chances of a terrorist attack that would kill Americans. If it is bad for Bush, it is OK with them.
One is left with the immortal question of Luke to Yoda; "Is the dark side stronger"? As we embark upon Holy Week, that is a pretty good question to ponder. My answer would be that yes, the dark side is definitely stronger in the physical earthly terms, but something seems to prevent it from the victory that one would assume it would achieve. This would be a great week to reflect on what that might be.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
1776 and Mixed
One of the books that I'm currently reading is "1776" by David McCullough. If one depended on "the odds" for America to happen, it wouldn't have. In those days, they believed in "providence" and "the hand of God", and for some reason, both seemed to often come to the rescue of the US. The US declared Independence in 1776, the Constitution was ratified in 1789, and we fought a REAL civil war in 1860. Can Iraq get everything done in 3-4 years? It seems that with the modern media and a good half the population, it is never too early to declare failure. "Cut and run", the motto of much of current America.
Speaking of running, the French continue to show the wages of socialist give-away governments. Maturity, taking responsibility, delaying gratification, entering the arena to compete and being willing to try, fail, and try again, and valuing striving for personal independence no matter the outcome. Those are characteristics that have to be worked at every day. never come easy, and can always slip away. Learning to believe that one is entitled ... to a job, a home, a lifestyle, that others are responsible, that we are victims, that things are "unfair". Those lessons are easily learned and take no effort, and are VERY hard to unlearn. The French appear to have learned them well.
I heard a bit of old Kevin Phillips blathering about the evils of the current Republican party on NPR at noon today. He is an old "country club Republican" ... the sort that can't believe that the party is now full of a bunch of middle and lower-middle class "evangelicals". The way he says "evangelical" reminds one of how you might say "child molester". The problems of the world are pretty much all caused by people that say they believe in God according to Kevin. Of course, none really do believe, some are just playing at it to lead others, and many are just too foolish to realize that they are being taken. In the old country club days, rich Republicans were willing to sit down and be the lapdogs of the Democrats, and only occasionally complain about a deficit or something. It was so much more civilized, and nobody got crazy about religion. Oh, for the good old days.
What is wrong with the world today? Pretty much all the same things that have always been wrong ... and right. Technology lets us see a little farther and have a lot more, but life is still pretty short, and most of it is spent doing "less than the best". Like a lot of things, "wrong" depends on expectations. A view that life is a gift, grace is a gift, and we have the freedom to make our own success, that is one outlook. That everything is going to pot, today is worse than yesterday, and tomorrow is worse yet, and especially, that somebody, somewhere is taking advantage in an unfair way, that is another perspective.
Which kind of people created America in 1776? What kind are in Iraq? What kind are in France? and in the US, is it still 50/50, or are the polls right and we are headed toward acting like the French? BTW, I don't know about the Iraqis ... they may not succeed, but I don't really expect them to be WAY better than our founding fathers.
A lot of the future is very hard to predict, but there are a lot of signs that it will be a competitive future, and that competition will be impossible to hide from and maintain anything like the level of lifestyle that Americans have become accustomed to. "Entitlement" isn't a word that the global economy seems to care about much.
Speaking of running, the French continue to show the wages of socialist give-away governments. Maturity, taking responsibility, delaying gratification, entering the arena to compete and being willing to try, fail, and try again, and valuing striving for personal independence no matter the outcome. Those are characteristics that have to be worked at every day. never come easy, and can always slip away. Learning to believe that one is entitled ... to a job, a home, a lifestyle, that others are responsible, that we are victims, that things are "unfair". Those lessons are easily learned and take no effort, and are VERY hard to unlearn. The French appear to have learned them well.
I heard a bit of old Kevin Phillips blathering about the evils of the current Republican party on NPR at noon today. He is an old "country club Republican" ... the sort that can't believe that the party is now full of a bunch of middle and lower-middle class "evangelicals". The way he says "evangelical" reminds one of how you might say "child molester". The problems of the world are pretty much all caused by people that say they believe in God according to Kevin. Of course, none really do believe, some are just playing at it to lead others, and many are just too foolish to realize that they are being taken. In the old country club days, rich Republicans were willing to sit down and be the lapdogs of the Democrats, and only occasionally complain about a deficit or something. It was so much more civilized, and nobody got crazy about religion. Oh, for the good old days.
What is wrong with the world today? Pretty much all the same things that have always been wrong ... and right. Technology lets us see a little farther and have a lot more, but life is still pretty short, and most of it is spent doing "less than the best". Like a lot of things, "wrong" depends on expectations. A view that life is a gift, grace is a gift, and we have the freedom to make our own success, that is one outlook. That everything is going to pot, today is worse than yesterday, and tomorrow is worse yet, and especially, that somebody, somewhere is taking advantage in an unfair way, that is another perspective.
Which kind of people created America in 1776? What kind are in Iraq? What kind are in France? and in the US, is it still 50/50, or are the polls right and we are headed toward acting like the French? BTW, I don't know about the Iraqis ... they may not succeed, but I don't really expect them to be WAY better than our founding fathers.
A lot of the future is very hard to predict, but there are a lot of signs that it will be a competitive future, and that competition will be impossible to hide from and maintain anything like the level of lifestyle that Americans have become accustomed to. "Entitlement" isn't a word that the global economy seems to care about much.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
5 Months of Lower Casualties
If the MSM is reporting this at all, it is very hard to find. I wonder why that is? Does anyone suppose that if US casualties had been INCREASING for the past five months they would have reported that? Only as the top story everywhere every month! Most anyone understands that lowered casualites for US troops in Iraq is good news for the prospects that the Iraqi's can take over the battle and form their own stable government. Why are Iraqi casualites up? Because they are taking over more of the work.
Good news for the US, good news for Iraq, but bad news for the MSM and Democrats.
Last Helicopter
The WSJ last Wednesday had an article called The Last Helicopter that puts the Mideast view of the US in a bit more context. Essentially they see Bush as an abberition that is willing to work hard for progress in the Mideast, and they are going to wait him out. The authors have an opinion of the country that is shared by Hugh Hewitt that post 9-11, the people of the US aren't going to throw in the towel on Iraq. I hope the authors and Hugh are right, but in any case, the track record presented by US behaviour in the Mideast from Carter forward are interesting.
Painting the Map Red
Picked up Hugh Hewitt's new book up in the twin cities Thursday and finished it up in pretty short order. It was a must read for anyone that considers themselves anything less than a far lefty. It would bee good for them to read it as well, but folks on the far left can't possibly read anything that disagrees with them, or there is no way they would stay there.
He kicks off with; "It's break the glass and pull the alarm time" for the republican party. Bush isn't ever going to be more than a 50/50 President no matter how good he does, and it is time for Republicans to realize that they need overarching goals. A 60 seat majority in the Senate is the big goal what Hugh says needs to be focused on. He believes that Republicans can easily stay the majority party and potentially even do in the Democrat party so they needed to form a new party. Indeed, he would say that Republicans BETTER figure out how to do this for the future of western civilization.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) isn't going to go away anytime soon, and if it isn't well fought (and maybe even if it is), there is going to be a 9-11 with WMD at some point that is going to radically change life going forward. The best way to keep that from happening is to keep Republicans in control, but that isn't going to be easy ... Because of the standard reasons; MSM, the rich guys like Soros and the Hollywood types, but maybe mostly because the nature of Republicans. Pretty easily disenchanted and perfectionistic ideologues that love nothing better than leaving the tent on "principal" even if the tent collapses because of it. I was there with Bush Sr and his breaking of "No New Taxes" ... so I did my part to usher in Bill Clinton, Monica, Internet bubbles, and the security conditions that created 9-11.
For Republicans to be a majority party, they have to be a very big tent, but it has to be tent ... he argues that Olympia Snow, John McCain, and Arlen Specter all make it in that tent ... Lincoln Chafee does not and needs to be defeated, even at the cost of Republicans voting for a Democrat. The seasoned political logic of the hows and whys of that alone are worth the price of admission. Hugh is a solid pragmatist, something that can never have to much exposure to Republicans.
He is convinced that the Democrat Presidential ticket in '08 is going to be Hillary/ Obama, and it is going to be VERY hard to beat. He doesn't think the Democrats have a great chance of taking either house this year, but it could come very close unless Republicans have a solid national goal, which he argues ought to be a 60 seat Senate. His main messages are all on the "going negative on the Democrats", arguing they are certainly doing, have and will be doing that with the help of the MSM, and they have given the Republicans better negatives to go after them with:
1). The Democrat left and the MSM have declared ware on the military
2). The Democrat left has declared war on religion
3). The Democrats have declared war on the Judiciary
4). The Democrats want to radically re-define marriage on the way to radically redefining the culture.
5). The Democrats are addicted to venom, and that venom is destroying the political process ... and people would like to see it stopped, which mostly means stopping Democrats.
He makes and interesting argument that the technology of the internet has made it impossible for the MSM to continue to put lipstick on the pig of the hard lefts screaming, bile, and "chip on the shoulder" attitude, where it has allowed thousands of generally reasonable, Christian, family oriented right-center blogs to spring up and be read. While the left blogs are loaded with "Hitler", the F word, and rambling rants against everything from Christians to the military to America itself, the right-center blogs that predominate tend to be just the opposite. Just like "guns don't kill people, people do", the internet is just a tool, it allows more direct contact with fewer filters. In general, for the center-right that has provided a picture that is much more flattering than the one usually painted by the MSM, where the left has exposed itself in all it's screeching, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-family and generally "anti" picture, and that picture has been far from flattering.
He kicks off with; "It's break the glass and pull the alarm time" for the republican party. Bush isn't ever going to be more than a 50/50 President no matter how good he does, and it is time for Republicans to realize that they need overarching goals. A 60 seat majority in the Senate is the big goal what Hugh says needs to be focused on. He believes that Republicans can easily stay the majority party and potentially even do in the Democrat party so they needed to form a new party. Indeed, he would say that Republicans BETTER figure out how to do this for the future of western civilization.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) isn't going to go away anytime soon, and if it isn't well fought (and maybe even if it is), there is going to be a 9-11 with WMD at some point that is going to radically change life going forward. The best way to keep that from happening is to keep Republicans in control, but that isn't going to be easy ... Because of the standard reasons; MSM, the rich guys like Soros and the Hollywood types, but maybe mostly because the nature of Republicans. Pretty easily disenchanted and perfectionistic ideologues that love nothing better than leaving the tent on "principal" even if the tent collapses because of it. I was there with Bush Sr and his breaking of "No New Taxes" ... so I did my part to usher in Bill Clinton, Monica, Internet bubbles, and the security conditions that created 9-11.
For Republicans to be a majority party, they have to be a very big tent, but it has to be tent ... he argues that Olympia Snow, John McCain, and Arlen Specter all make it in that tent ... Lincoln Chafee does not and needs to be defeated, even at the cost of Republicans voting for a Democrat. The seasoned political logic of the hows and whys of that alone are worth the price of admission. Hugh is a solid pragmatist, something that can never have to much exposure to Republicans.
He is convinced that the Democrat Presidential ticket in '08 is going to be Hillary/ Obama, and it is going to be VERY hard to beat. He doesn't think the Democrats have a great chance of taking either house this year, but it could come very close unless Republicans have a solid national goal, which he argues ought to be a 60 seat Senate. His main messages are all on the "going negative on the Democrats", arguing they are certainly doing, have and will be doing that with the help of the MSM, and they have given the Republicans better negatives to go after them with:
1). The Democrat left and the MSM have declared ware on the military
2). The Democrat left has declared war on religion
3). The Democrats have declared war on the Judiciary
4). The Democrats want to radically re-define marriage on the way to radically redefining the culture.
5). The Democrats are addicted to venom, and that venom is destroying the political process ... and people would like to see it stopped, which mostly means stopping Democrats.
He makes and interesting argument that the technology of the internet has made it impossible for the MSM to continue to put lipstick on the pig of the hard lefts screaming, bile, and "chip on the shoulder" attitude, where it has allowed thousands of generally reasonable, Christian, family oriented right-center blogs to spring up and be read. While the left blogs are loaded with "Hitler", the F word, and rambling rants against everything from Christians to the military to America itself, the right-center blogs that predominate tend to be just the opposite. Just like "guns don't kill people, people do", the internet is just a tool, it allows more direct contact with fewer filters. In general, for the center-right that has provided a picture that is much more flattering than the one usually painted by the MSM, where the left has exposed itself in all it's screeching, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-family and generally "anti" picture, and that picture has been far from flattering.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Representation and Polling
Powerline has a great discussion on polls and why Democrats are often surprised at the election results when they thought they were ahead in the polls. The media really enjoys polls that show bad things for Republicans. The actual representation of Democrats and Republicans in the population has become very close to even over the past 20 years, but the media polls tend to oversample Democrats by 10 points or more. Worse yet for the "surprise factor" (from a Democrat POV) is the Republicans tend to turn out better in elections.
The Democrats found a lot of the "evil" of the "Republican machine" on this. They claim that the "polls looked fine", but then they lost the election. The answer must mean that "Republican dirty tricks", or "election day shenanigans" somehow "stole" an election that they were all set to win.
The Democrats found a lot of the "evil" of the "Republican machine" on this. They claim that the "polls looked fine", but then they lost the election. The answer must mean that "Republican dirty tricks", or "election day shenanigans" somehow "stole" an election that they were all set to win.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Strategery
I finished up the Bill Sammon book "Srategery" a week ago or so. It has been awhile since I've read anything pro-Bush, and it is pretty amazing to hear the viewpoint these days. The biggest thing that hit me as reading it (although Sammon never mentioned this) is the contrast of the Clinton apologists with the treatment of the Bush people like Karl Rove.
Remember James Carville, Paul Begala and George Stephanopoulas? I suppose many don't, but they were the big paid Clinton hit men of the '90s, and they are all still around. George now has his own "news" show on ABC, "This Week with lefty Clinton Apologists". Well, maybe not exactly that title, but name one Reagan or Bush 1 guy that has his own mainline media show, or even "other" show where they are called anything other than "conservative commentator". Why is that different when they are the left? Carville and Begala have a book out that I saw being fawned over on a show recently. "Take It Back", or something like that.
There seems to be a bit of a difference between the MSM view of Republican operatives and Democrats that do the same thing. Chris Matthews, "Hardball" worked for 4 Democrats, Tip O'Neil being the one he talks of most. Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" worked for Mario Cuomo and then Daniel Moynihan. These are the guys that the MSM puts out front and center to give us "straight news" ... Oh, but Fox is biased, because Al Franken tells us that Bill O'Reily may have registered as a Republican at one time in the distant past. I suppose we ought to expect the standard for FOX to be different. BTW, Britt Hume, no such political background as the MSM guys previously mentioned. Huh, FOX is the most biased, apparently "biased" means "employs others besides certified Democrat operatives".
The Sammon book talks of the Bush people as actually decent, talented people trying to do what they see as the right thing for the country. Interestingly, Clinton people that talked of "Dragging a $50 bill through a trailer park ...", attacked any Clinton opponent by any means possible, including dredging up marital affairs that were 30 years old are STILL talked about as not only "decent", they are GREAT, and even given jobs by the MSM. The contrast between the treatment of those people and say "Karl Rove" is not very subtle.
Sammon is unabashedly pro-Bush and has inside access to the WH. The book chronicles 2004 and 2005 ... The election, Abu Grab, the convention strategies, the Swift Boat guys, Rathergate, the exit polls, social security, Katrina, Meyers, and up to Alito from the inside. Most stories have far more than two sides, reading a book like this makes one question how the MSM could be quite as incurious as they are. Maybe they have an agenda rather than an interest in reporting what is happening?
One thing is pretty certain, Billy C was WAY short of being the "comeback Kid" that George Bush has been, don't expect the MSM to be saying that a President that has beaten the odds over and over is in any way deserving. What was a point to be celebrated for Clinton is a terrible accident with dark overtones in the case of Bush.
Remember James Carville, Paul Begala and George Stephanopoulas? I suppose many don't, but they were the big paid Clinton hit men of the '90s, and they are all still around. George now has his own "news" show on ABC, "This Week with lefty Clinton Apologists". Well, maybe not exactly that title, but name one Reagan or Bush 1 guy that has his own mainline media show, or even "other" show where they are called anything other than "conservative commentator". Why is that different when they are the left? Carville and Begala have a book out that I saw being fawned over on a show recently. "Take It Back", or something like that.
There seems to be a bit of a difference between the MSM view of Republican operatives and Democrats that do the same thing. Chris Matthews, "Hardball" worked for 4 Democrats, Tip O'Neil being the one he talks of most. Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" worked for Mario Cuomo and then Daniel Moynihan. These are the guys that the MSM puts out front and center to give us "straight news" ... Oh, but Fox is biased, because Al Franken tells us that Bill O'Reily may have registered as a Republican at one time in the distant past. I suppose we ought to expect the standard for FOX to be different. BTW, Britt Hume, no such political background as the MSM guys previously mentioned. Huh, FOX is the most biased, apparently "biased" means "employs others besides certified Democrat operatives".
The Sammon book talks of the Bush people as actually decent, talented people trying to do what they see as the right thing for the country. Interestingly, Clinton people that talked of "Dragging a $50 bill through a trailer park ...", attacked any Clinton opponent by any means possible, including dredging up marital affairs that were 30 years old are STILL talked about as not only "decent", they are GREAT, and even given jobs by the MSM. The contrast between the treatment of those people and say "Karl Rove" is not very subtle.
Sammon is unabashedly pro-Bush and has inside access to the WH. The book chronicles 2004 and 2005 ... The election, Abu Grab, the convention strategies, the Swift Boat guys, Rathergate, the exit polls, social security, Katrina, Meyers, and up to Alito from the inside. Most stories have far more than two sides, reading a book like this makes one question how the MSM could be quite as incurious as they are. Maybe they have an agenda rather than an interest in reporting what is happening?
One thing is pretty certain, Billy C was WAY short of being the "comeback Kid" that George Bush has been, don't expect the MSM to be saying that a President that has beaten the odds over and over is in any way deserving. What was a point to be celebrated for Clinton is a terrible accident with dark overtones in the case of Bush.
Personal Notes
I was thinking that I was getting close to a full year of blogging, like most other things, I was late. The first entry was the 15th of March last year. For a busy person, blogging is one more thing to be late at. Is it worth it? Maybe mostly for friends and family that don't really care what I think politically, they can ignore the blog, and don't have to ignore quite as many conversations or e-mail notes as otherwise.
Mostly people care very little of what others think of most anything, they have their views, they like their views, and they are going to keep them. If something is "wrong", the problem pretty much has to be with someone else. The set of people that look at positions from both sides of the spectrum is tiny, and the set of people that actually enjoy a political discussion with someone that knows enough to make some challenging points is even smaller. As the media becomes more and more polarized, people are more and more able to hear only what they want, and in general, it seems that is the course that the vast majority on both sides are following. They are gravitating to the news sources that provide only the views that they feel comfortable listening to, and their blood pressure just goes up too high if they get exposed to the other side.
Thinking of a year ago also reminded me of heading out on the 7 day cruise over spring break. No spring break cruise this year, will be a couple of days up in the Twin Cities of family fun at the end of the week, but otherwise work as normal. Having a senior in HS that is doing part time college credit and part time HS credit means that he gets no real spring break, so we are staying around home. There will be a summer cruise to Alaska, so the deprivation isn't too severe.
It looks like we may break 60 on Thursday this week, so that should really get us into spring fever mode in MN.
Mostly people care very little of what others think of most anything, they have their views, they like their views, and they are going to keep them. If something is "wrong", the problem pretty much has to be with someone else. The set of people that look at positions from both sides of the spectrum is tiny, and the set of people that actually enjoy a political discussion with someone that knows enough to make some challenging points is even smaller. As the media becomes more and more polarized, people are more and more able to hear only what they want, and in general, it seems that is the course that the vast majority on both sides are following. They are gravitating to the news sources that provide only the views that they feel comfortable listening to, and their blood pressure just goes up too high if they get exposed to the other side.
Thinking of a year ago also reminded me of heading out on the 7 day cruise over spring break. No spring break cruise this year, will be a couple of days up in the Twin Cities of family fun at the end of the week, but otherwise work as normal. Having a senior in HS that is doing part time college credit and part time HS credit means that he gets no real spring break, so we are staying around home. There will be a summer cruise to Alaska, so the deprivation isn't too severe.
It looks like we may break 60 on Thursday this week, so that should really get us into spring fever mode in MN.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
City Hall Evicts Easter Bunny
Nice little article in the Pioneer Press about how tolerant our great state of MN is of "spring decorations". I hesitate to even consider an easter bunny and plastic eggs "religious" in any form, but they are too far out for the city of St Paul. Here are some quotes from that article:
Why does the nation become more polarized? Christians are expected to tolerate anything from crosses in urine, constant swearing in the workplace, gay marriage and all other manner of direct attack on their faith in the public square, while a secular easter display is too large a burden to even contemplate a non-christian having to view. "Tolerance"? Don't expect to see any of that from the left.
A toy rabbit decorating the entrance of the St. Paul City Council offices went hop-hop-hoppin' on down the bunny trail Wednesday after the city's human rights director said non-Christians might be offended by it.
The decorations — including the stuffed rabbit, Easter eggs and a handcrafted sign saying "Happy Easter," but nothing depicting the biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection — were put up this week in the office of the City Council by a council secretary.
"I sent an e-mail that Easter is viewed as a Christian holiday and advised that it be taken down," said Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director. "It wasn't a big deal."
Why does the nation become more polarized? Christians are expected to tolerate anything from crosses in urine, constant swearing in the workplace, gay marriage and all other manner of direct attack on their faith in the public square, while a secular easter display is too large a burden to even contemplate a non-christian having to view. "Tolerance"? Don't expect to see any of that from the left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)