Friday, August 31, 2007

Is Larry Craig gay?

Why do we care so much? Because he's a US Senator? Because he's a Republican? Or maybe because he's voted against such measures as legally recognized gay marriage?

Well, regardless of why we care so much, I think we can all agree that the American public, the media, and certainly the US Government itself is wrought with hypocrisy on this matter. We all know of countless "sex scandals" that have occurred privately and publicly across this nation. Seems like every month or so there's another scandal that makes the evening news. Certainly public offices, especially one as influential as the US Senate, deserve this level of extreme scrutiny. I'm not arguing the scrutiny. But why don't we apply the same standards of scrutiny and public admonishment equally across the board? My guess is that Larry Craig will soon resign, ending a distinguished career of public service. His voting record is indicative of a strong conservative. He's considered one of the more senior senators, and along with that seniority comes influence on the floor, and influence in the many committees of which he is a member. It's my opinion that the GOP should have considered what was at stake before joining in the witch hunt instigated by the Idaho Statesman and propagated by just about every news source in the country calling for his resignation. If he resigns, the GOP will lose an influential and powerful conservative force in the Senate. Unfortunately, he's already damaged goods in the wake of this scandal, and has probably already lost the political capital he's worked so hard to accrue over a lifetime of public service--never to be recovered again.

I'm not necessarily defending the man. Perhaps (truth be told) he deserves all this. But why are we as a nation so quick to crucify him? Why did his own Republican base turn away from him after only one errant report from MSNBC? I know it was errant because I personally watched Tucker Carlson report that Larry Craig pleaded guilty to lewd conduct. This is very much a significant point, because even though he was arrested for lewd conduct, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct--a far different charge. Even today, reporters continue to mislead us with this very significant error. But that same evening, MSNBC and others reported that members of his own party are rebuking his "misconduct".

Let's take a moment to examine what ACTUALLY happened that fateful day at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. According to the written report from the arresting police officer, Senator Craig propped his roller carry-on bag against the door of his bathroom stall, placed his right foot on the floor near the right edge of his stall on the floor near the open space that separates his stall from the adjacent one, and he proceeded to tap his foot. Upon seeing this, the plain-clothes cop placed his left foot against Craig's foot, and Craig (allegedly) played "footsie" with him. They (allegedly) attempted to exchange phone numbers/communication through the gap between stalls with their hands, and at that time the officer identified himself as a member of the Minneapolis Police Department. Craig identified himself as a US Senator, was detained, and escorted to the police station for questioning. He was charged with lewd conduct, but pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct as a part of a plea deal that was offered by the assistant district attorney's office which included a fine of $575 and a year of unsupervised probation. According to reports from Craig's representatives, part of the ADA's deal included not going public with the incident--a promise that cannot be kept due to the fact that every arrest is a part of public record.

So,, what does all this mean? Senator Larry Craig (by his own admission) was guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge that is typically handed down to citizens who play their music too loud, who get in bar fights, who loiter outside convenience stores, or who walk down the street drunk. Granted, not good things, but certainly not crimes as severe as solicitation for sex, lewd and lascivious conduct, indecent exposure, sodomy, statutory rape, or the like. Can we all agree on that point? But you wouldn't be able to discern the difference based on the reports from CNN, NBC, and dozens of others. As we all know, they reported the story as though Senator Craig pleaded guilty to solicitation for sex. Maybe that was his intent. But maybe it wasn't. And last time I checked, we live in a society of "innocent until proven guilty". If the ADA had thought that the lewd conduct charge could have held up in court, he wouldn't have offered the plea deal in the first place. We've all watched Law and Order, so we all know that if the DA has a solid case, they never offer a deal. Only when their evidence is shaky, do they resort to plea bargaining. So clearly, the DA in this case knew that they didn't have much of a case against Craig. Perhaps they knew that even the method by which Craig was observed, could be construed as entrapment. The facts are the facts. And in this case, a distinguished United States Senator is going to lose his job over an offense comperable to playing Snoop Dogg music too loud while rolling down Main St., according to our own written statutes. And who hasn't listened to Gin and Juice a little too loud,, right? Fo' shizzle, ma nizzle,, that's what I say.. ;)

Like I said, I'm really not defending Larry Craig as a person (I don't know much of anything about the man even though he is my Senator), or his alleged actions. But I am disappointed that public opinion has tarred, feathered, and convicted him of much, much more than what he pleaded guilty to. In my personal opinion, the Minneapolis Police Department and the Minnesota District Attorney's office should be criticized for their entrapment of Senator Craig at the airport, and their subsequent unprofessional and arguably unethical/illegal behavior in offering Craig terms of a plea deal that could not be met. Should Craig have known better, of course! He's a lawmaker for Pete's sake!! But you must admit, a small fine, and a promise of anonymity to sweep the whole incident under the rug is a tempting offer for anybody,, let alone a public figure like Larry Craig. And furthermore, I'm sure that he probably wasn't exactly thinking straight under the duress of being arrested for something that could potentially "out" him about his sexual orientation. Which brings me to my next point...

Based on the evidence, I am quite convinced that Larry Craig is a "closet" gay, if not at least bi-sexual or bi curious. Regardless, I wasn't aware that revealing one's sexual orientation is a requirement of public office. Is anything private anymore? Clearly not,,, and that further explains why Craig resorted to cagey techniques of "picking up" men like tapping a foot in a men's room--techniques that were more commonly used decades ago when homosexuality was much more stigmatized than it is today. Under current circumstances, it is much more socially acceptable to be gay, so the secretive methods of meeting other gays aren't as necessary as they once were. But for a potentially "closet" gay public figure like Craig, who very much would need to keep his orientation a secret, he is understandably forced to resort to methods such as tapping a foot on the floor of a men's room stall in order to meet other gay men, so as not to divulge his own orientation to the public. But once again, even if that is in fact what he was doing, where's the crime? Even if you happen to be a US Senator, it is still legal to be gay. In fact, it's legal to be gay, and not tell anybody about it. I'll take it a step further and say that it is legal to be gay, and still argue/vote against gay rights measures on the floor of the US Senate. People are calling Craig a hypocrite for this, but perhaps he sees it a different way. Perhaps he is gay, but still doesn't believe that gay couples should have the same rights as traditional heterosexual married couples. Or, maybe he believes they should, but knows that his constituents in Idaho are opposed to gay marriage and other measures intended to increase the rights of gays in America. Or, more likely, he knows that if he votes for gay rights, he won't get re-elected in Idaho. Regardless of the reason, are any of these scenarios illegal? Certainly not, but Larry Craig is definitely paying penance for any of these possibilities, even though legally, all he was convicted of was disorderly conduct, of which he paid the $575 fine as punishment.

I said it before, and I'll say it again,,, I'm not necessarily defending Larry Craig as a person or defending his actions. What I am doing is pointing out the facts, and how disappointing it is that an unfounded witch hunt has resulted from misconstruing those facts--a witch hunt that was absolutelly fueled by our shameless media. There's nothing more frustrating to me than hypocrisy. The public is indicting Craig for hypocrisy without even knowing for sure if he's gay!! But we (as a nation) aren't seeing the hypocrisy that we are in large part responsible for. Mr. Clinton had inappropriate sexual relations with an intern, lied to the public and to a grand jury about it, yet still remained in our nation's highest office. The late Gerry Studds, male Democrat from Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a male page (on his own staff) in 1973, the year he took office in the US Congress. He was re-elected over and over till his retirement in 1997. Openly gay Representative Barney Frank, Democrat from (guess where) Massachusetts of course, admitted to having consensual sex with a male prostitute in 1990 and was re-elected by 66% of the vote in his district that year, and has been re-elected by greater margins ever since!! Larry Craig, Republican Senator from Idaho, pleads guilty to disorderly conduct, claims he's not gay, and will probably be forced to resign by a bandwagon of hypocrites--Republicans, Democrats, politicos, reporters, columnists, and the American public as a whole. You tell me if this seems fair and just... ?? It almost seems un-American! Indeed, is justice being served with the resignation of a distinguished senator that is probably very confused, conflicted, and most likely struggling with his own sexuality/morality?

Obviously, my feelings on this matter would be much different if he was convicted of solicitation [or worse]. Solicitation is a significant crime that should probably result in resignation, censure, or worse for a US Senator. But the plain and simple fact is that he wasn't convicted of that crime. I personally believe that Senator Craig was soliciting sex in that bathroom stall, and if I sat on a jury, I would likely argue accordingly. And because of my personal opinion, I probably won't vote for him again if he does manage to seek re-election.. I have that right not to vote for him as a legal resident of Idaho, but I don't have the right to convict him of a felony because I'm not sitting on his jury. None of us are! He was never tried! He was never judged by a jury of his peers! He very well may have been soliciting sex, but the simple fact of the matter is that he wasn't convicted of that crime. A court of law did not determine his intentions beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe his intention was to pay that officer for sex, or maybe he was simply cruising for for a date, or maybe it was just a big misunderstanding like he claims. We'll probably never know because the jury of public opinion, stoked by bloodthirsty liberal-biased media sources, has already tried and convicted Senator Craig. In this great nation, I thought we believe in due process, but we as a nation denied that right of due process to Larry Craig, and nobody seems to care.

In the words of Larry Craig, "I am not gay, I've never been gay," but am I the only one in America that sees this whole ordeal as absolutely atrocious? Gay or not, Larry Craig deserves the same rights we afford every other citizen of the great "land of liberty" we call America...

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Dog people and cat people...

Though allergic to cat dander, and the proud owner of a German-bred Verein Deutsch Drahthaar (a pedigreed pointing versatile hunting dog),,, I will try to have this discussion without being influenced by my own personal bias.

This "discussion" is more or less a plea for understanding, not meant to be a judgement of people or the types of pets they own. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm begging for a little understanding due to an experience I had a couple weekends ago with my own aforementioned dog--a five year old German Wirehaired Pointer (the Germans call them "Drahthaars"). Her name is Ecco.

A couple weeks ago, I had the good fortune of spending the weekend with four friends from college--two couples, all four "cat people", i.e. cat owners/lovers of domesticated felines. All of whom (to my understanding) have never owned dogs,, let alone German-bred hunting dogs. Anyway, this is where my story begins...

I spent a good part of the first two years of Ecco's life training her to be the disciplined loyal hunting dog and well-mannered house pet that she is today. Three to five evenings a week were spent in the yard drilling "sit", "stay", "kennel", "lay", "down", etc. Then, most Saturdays were spent at the pond near my house getting her accustomed to swimming, retrieving, and the like. After she got a little older, I even paid for a lease in order to use some acreage of land away from the city where she could practice her natural hunting ability with wild game, and even some planted birds for specialized training. All in all, I'd say that we spent literally hundreds of days over thousands of hours together--training, playing, hunting, walking, swimming,, and generally learning each other. And we do to this day. She is who I come home to, she is a Godsend. I love her with all my heart. My dog and I have a relationship that is hard to put in words. She knows me as well as any person--she is loyal, respectful, and knows that I love her. I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am. I only describe all this because I need others to understand that I've spent literally thousands of hours with my dog--at home, in the field, and watching her swim in the water. I am intimately familiar with what she can do, what she can't, and what influences her in most situations. At last count, she knows 21 verbal commands, three hand signals in the field, and is working on three more hand signals in the water. And that's not counting her ability to read my tone of voice, subtle gestures, and even facial expressions--all of which I am convinced she is able.

Now that some background is laid, I can continue with the events of the weekend. After spending a day and a half in Boston, we decided to drive up to Portland, Maine, where one of my friends and his wife reside. It was just an overnight trip, so I'm sure Ecco would have been okay staying on my back porch, but the "cat people" insisted that we bring her up to Portland. No big deal, she's crate trained, and loves to travel. So, we packed up some food in a Ziploc, and headed north with Ecco occupying her crate in the bed of my pickup truck. Which by the way, I could tell was met with some resistance that Ecco didn't get to ride in the cab with me. A lot of folks don't realize that a crate trained dog is very comfortable, safe, and secure in their crate--they are den animals, and a crate is like a "den". And by the way, it's the safest way for them to travel. Anyway, she made it all the way to Maine (a two and a half hour drive) unscathed and happy.

While in Portland, Ecco stayed in her crate. If she had come into the house, there would have been two dead cats in a matter of seconds. In Germany, dogs are bred to instinctively attack and kill small furry animals because of the rodent problem in Germany. It's kinda hard for a dog that is genetically programmed to kill vermin on sight to discern the difference between a small furry feline,, and a small furry rodent. So, I've never tried. I don't want to defeat her instinct to be a hunter. So,, like I said, the dog stayed in her crate. She put up a little fuss because she wanted to be with us,, but she settled down after a few minutes and took a nap. I took her for tons of walks and bathroom breaks, made sure she had food and water, and always cleaned up after her--for your information. :-)

Now,, the thing with hunting dogs, especially German hunting dogs (weims, shorthairs, wirehairs, and the like) is that they are driven with a hunting instinct, a kind of fire that burns in their guts. That fire is what produces their drive to hunt out in the field, their desire to work for their handler in the field and in the water. It's that innate "desire" that motivates a dog like Ecco to voluntarily swim through an ice-chunked river in the middle of January after a downed mallard duck. It's that same "desire" that motivated Ecco to hunt for pheasants in North Dakota for four days--about 7 hours a day, with very little rest. During that hunt, she was pretty much at full sprint covering as much ground as possible looking for pheasants for many hours a day--without complaint, and without falter. She endured a full face of porcupine quills, and bloody paw pads after the second day,,,,, but still wanted to hunt,, and did so in elegant fashion. A meek, mild, sensitive dog, without all this "heart", may very well not perform to such an amazing degree in the field. But Ecco, along with virtually all dogs in her breed have this desire. It's not trained. It just comes naturally. But with this "desire" comes challenges when training. Ecco is pretty much impervious to punishment. Let me re-emphasize, she does NOT get her feelings hurt even after the most severe punishments are administered. She may react to the punishment while it is happening, but the second that the punishment is over, she is wagging her tail, bouncing around, and excited for what's next. Because she isn't all that much affected by punishment, coupled with this extreme hunting desire, training can be a constant challenge. I am convinced that she reasons through a decision--weighing the likelihood of getting caught, gauging the severity of punishment, and rationally deciding if the reward for being disobedient is worth it. For this reason, even though she is almost six years old, she still acts like an 8 month old pup. She knows obedience, but still pushes her limits like a toddler would with its parents. It's this constant discipline that was abhorred by the "cat people" and subsequently admonished. I don't blame them for caring about my dog's feelings, I just beg of them to gain a little understanding before jumping to the conclusion that I am an abusive dog owner.

In the town of Portland, Ecco was on cloud nine! So many people, so many sights, sounds, smells.. And the number of other dogs,,, whew! To say that walking through the streets of downtown Portland was distracting to a dog accustomed to lonely neighborhood sidewalks, unoccupied ponds, and the wide open spaces of the hunting field,,,, would be a tremendous understatement. But I viewed the experience as an opportunity for training. There very well might be distractions in the field as well, and Ecco needs to learn to keep her focus, and to refrain from abandoning the obedience that we both know she knows. Let me admit that I was surprised how distracted she appeared to be. She can "heel" off-lead in most situations like show dogs, but even on-lead (with all the distractions of Portland), I was constantly yanking her collar, twisting her ear, and verbally reprimanding her. If I allowed her to run wild--sniffing every person and pet, jerking me into the alleys, jumping on passers-by, she would think that it is okay to do that all the time. She knows better, and I had to make sure she was duly reminded. Again, this is not exactly understood by the "cat people". It's not that I expected them to understand, but I was hoping they could give me the benefit of the doubt as the owner and single trainer of Ecco over the last six years instead of judging me out of their own ignorance. By the end of the trip, Ecco was heeling a lot better, but I admit it was a struggle.

Then came the beach. Unfortunately, the beach was the last impression Ecco and I left with the cat people. As I stated before, Ecco spends about three to five hours a week in the water--even in the winter we go to the pond to swim as long as the pond isn't frozen over. She absolutely loves the water, and literally jumps at the chance to swim--even if the outside temperature is below freezing. So, with all that experience, I thought we would have a wonderful morning at the beach showing off her prowess in the water. It started out fine. Ecco ran up and down the shoreline, sniffing every rock, every plant, and generally being Ecco. But when it came time to show off her retrieving skills, I suppose I got a little overzealous. We started out with a couple sighted retrieves where I throw out a bumper dummy while she's looking at me. I send her out into the water, and she brings back the dummy to my side. I even threw a couple "blind retrieves" where she doesn't see where I throw it, but goes out into the water in the direction I send her anyway. She was doing great till I threw out two bumpers "blind". She retrieved the first, but by the time I sent her out for the second, the cross-wind had taken the second one farther out to sea, and farther downwind. When she went out for the second, she didn't see it, and she was upwind from the dummy so therefore couldn't smell it either. She acted like she didn't hear voice commands--perhaps because of the chop on the ocean, I'm not sure. But to make a long story short, Ecco decided to swim non-stop for the next twenty minutes searching the ocean for the lost bumper dummy. She checked buoy after buoy, some of which were probably 300 yards from the shore and a couple hundred yards apart. Finally, when she was headed on a line downwind from the bumper dummy, a kayaker paddled up alongside her (between Ecco and the dummy), and forced her to shore. When Ecco got out of the water she was energetic, tail wagging, and ready to jump back in the water to continue looking for the dummy. I called her off because I could tell the group I was with thought that I was abusing my dog by making her swim for such a long period of time. I confirmed that assumption when I told one of my friends that I know Ecco would have found the dummy if the kayaker hadn't interfered. His response was a smug and condescending "That kayaker saved your dog's life." I was taken aback, and a little irritated at his ignorance, but I didn't start an argument. I knew that he didn't know any better.

As I said, Ecco was spry as always after her extended time in the water--sniffing around, sprinting up and down the shoreline, wagging her tail incessantly. In fact, she really didn't even act tired at all,, even though I wish she would have been more calm. I knew in my heart that Ecco was fine, would have been fine swimming for another twenty minutes, but I wasn't about ready to argue my case to the four of them--one of which had already left the beach because she couldn't bear witnessing such animal abuse. It was an uncomfortable setting back at the house, so I decided to pack up our stuff and head home. Ecco had a blast! I took a great opportunity to train her, but I'm fairly certain my friends think I should be reported to PETA and that my dog should be remanded to puppy social services... I'll say this, I was a little appalled when one of my friends tossed his cat from shoulder height to the hardwood floor, but I didn't question, comment, or judge. Maybe cats like five foot leaps onto hard surfaces. I don't know, because I've never owned a cat. I just wish he would afford me the same benefit of the doubt, and take the time to learn about my dog before judging me on the ways I care for her...

My jumbled head...

A friend casually asks: What's on your mind lately? Well,, not exactly an easy question to answer. I'm at a juncture in my life where I feel a driving desire to make sense of it all. As a Christian, I can look to God for such enlightenment (and I do), but as a living, breathing, thinking mortal man, I feel compelled to twist, turn, and rotate the proverbial Rubik's cube that resides in my head until every side contains the same color squares. Will this self-actualizing resolution ever actually happen for me? I doubt it. But that doesn't mean I can't continue to try. Beyond identification of specific aspects of life that create fulfillment, peace, joy,,, etc., this is my attempt at defining what life is.

Life: A futile attempt to avoid regret.

As we age, we grow to learn about all the reasons why we shouldn't have made the decisions we made earlier in life--certainly not to say that we won't make more bad decisions in the future, but hopefully not the same bad decisions that were previously made. That is all that one can realistically hope to do over the course of a lifetime.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Guess the protagonist...

I'm not sure how this is going to work out,,, but I remember this drill I had to do as a part of a high-school creative writing class... It's kinda like literary charades. I'll write a couple paragraphs in third-person, and you guess who (or what) the protagonist is from context clues.. Okay,, here goes:

He lazily opens his eyes to the brightness of the afternoon sun. The overhanging rock above and to the side provides relief from the heat and glare of the sun. A big yawn exposes the full length of his teeth, but only for an instant does this noble animal look as ferocious as it's typically portrayed. Back to a lazy and completely docile state, he peers through half-closed eyes at the sprawling landscape below. This is a good spot. The rock ledge provides protection from the elements, shade during some parts of the day, warming sun during other parts of the day--but most importantly, it's high above the popular hiking trails down in the valleys below. Over the years it's become increasingly difficult to avoid contact with humans. A source of comfort and continual security abounds in his den--almost as though it was chiseled out the of the rocky mountainside just for him.

From his favorite sleeping rock, he can feel the heat of the morning sun helping to shake the chill of a mountain night. Then, without even moving, he is engulfed by the shadow of the mountainside on or about mid-afternoon. Sleeping is typically the order of the day. There's simply too many people and not enough reason to be out and about while the sun is up.

Evening comes to the mountainside, and he makes his way off the sleeping rock and over to the rock ledge facing the East. Still shaking the sleep from a long day of napping, he yawns one last time and follows it up with a big stretch. First, he stretches the tight sinewy muscles of his front legs by rocking back on his rear haunches and keeps his front legs extended in front. His claws extend slightly to grip the soft earth in front of him. Then, upon completion of the stretch, they simultaneously retract as he returns to a comfortable sitting position.

Feeling the typical aches and pains associated with years of strenuous activity, he decides to walk the trail that switches back down the mountainside. In the first few steps he sort of drags a rear paw--first the right, then the left. This helps to alleviate the tightness in his hind quarters.

Feeling stretched and refreshed from an uneventful day of sleep, he slinks down the trail toward the meadow. The sun is setting, and at many times past this would be the perfect time to catch an unsuspecting deer munching the tall grass of the meadow. Poor game management and habitat loss have contributed to the decline of deer populations. Nonetheless, an adult deer would provide a week or more worth of food, so he decides to creep (as he does most every day) up to the edge of the meadow.

With his belly only inches from the ground, he perks his ears up and continues the slow but deliberate crawl into the meadow....

Can you guess the protagonist?

Random Writings and Ramblings...

Feelings:

  • a 300-yard drive straight down the fairway (golf)
  • a 3-point swish (basketball)
  • a line drive off a wooden bat (baseball)
  • an inside-out forehand winner (tennis)
  • the touch of someone that loves you
  • touching someone you love
  • throwing your hat in the air after being commissioned an officer in the US Air Force
  • shaking the dean's hand at graduation
  • boarding a plane home
  • seeing your bird dog hold to present on a quail retrieve
  • screeching the tires of a fast car around a corner (and not losing control)
  • first bite into a bacon double cheeseburger after backpacking for a week
  • seeing the rise, and feeling the tug of a trout on the end of a fly line
  • hearing a tom turkey gobble back at your call
  • the jump of a pistol's muzzle
  • the kick of a shotgun
  • the report of a rifle
  • a smile from a proud parent
  • forty-three 800-horsepower stock cars rumbling past you in a tight group
  • Love

Random Writings and Ramblings...

Images:
  • tall prairie grasses bending in the breeze
  • the shadows of pine trees contrasted against sunlight reflecting off a curvy mountain road right before sunset
  • the shimmer on the surface of a crystal clear brook (on a sunny day)
  • a beautiful woman's face illuminated by candlelight
  • a beautiful woman's body illuminated by candlelight
  • moonlight in the forest
  • mist rising off a high mountain lake--early in the morning
  • the nose of a native rainbow trout barely breaking the water's surface
  • first snow of the season
  • the eyes of an adoring pet looking up at you
  • freshly waxed paint on a classic American hot rod
  • Old Glory flying high above a neighborhood ball park
  • light pouring through stained glass onto the altar of a church
  • the purples, grays, blacks, and blues of nimbus clouds just before a big thunderstorm
  • manicured infield at Fenway Park
  • a big wave crashing into a volcanic rock on the shore of Kauai

Random Writings and Ramblings...

Novel starts:

The warmth of the porcelain coffee cup felt good against his bare palms. It acted as a single source of comfort against the penetrating cold of the late autumn morning. Though biting cold, the peacefulness and dead calm of the meadow seemed to be suspended in time for those few moments before the sun splashed color onto the gray canvas of land spread before him.

Carelessly splashing what remained of his coffee to the hard earth below, the young man paced across the length of the cabin's porch. His thoughts turned to the night before. It was a grand party--a gala event marked by the best imported wine, the finest jazz trio in Montana, and beautiful women dressed in the latest fashions. A fine gathering indeed, but Micheal's brow furrowed as his thoughts returned to his missing father...

Changing Gears..

Lately I've been struggling with what to write about--so much going on right now in the political scene. And quite frankly, too much. Every day there is some topic that either bothers or intrigues me enough to write about, but after I research the topic, draw up an outline about my own thoughts,, and log into the blog to begin,,,, I seem to lose my drive to follow through with the post. My apologies. Guess that's what writing is all about....

So, in order to combat this form of "writers' block", I've decided to take a bit of a respite from the political realm, and just write creatively for a day or two. In addition to my aspirations of public office, political columnist, or even radio talk show host, I've also always wanted to write a novel. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be very good at it, but it's a lot of fun to write fiction, so I thought sometime over the course of my life, I should give it a go.

I'm going to go ahead and post this in hopes that it will motivate me to write a little creative stuff. No promises, but I did want to explain why the next couple posts (may) be different from my normal political wanderings. Again, this blog is nothing more than a journal for me,, so I'm approaching it as such, and writing about what strikes my fancy for the moment. We'll see....

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Northern hemisphere-centric....

Okay,, so quick post tonight.. Sorry.

But I'm sitting in church today and the pastor was talking about John the Baptist's birthday,, and the fact that it coincides with the "Summer" solstice...... Now,, is it just me,, or does it only coincide with the Summer solstice if we are in the northern hemisphere,,,, otherwise it would be the Winter solstice,,, right? I mean,, I know there are Christians in Australia... Right? Why is it that we only "count" those actions that take place in the northern hemisphere? I mean really, what has happened in the southern hemisphere,,,,, beyond the toilet swirling clockwise? Anything? I'm sure that sub-Saharan African nations would argue that a great deal has taken place within their borders.. How about South America? Australia? Antarctica? I mean,, are there even penguins down there? Who knows? All the nature stations seem to concentrate on the North Pole... What about the South Pole? Isn't it equally as intriguing? Perhaps no??

Anyway,,, I'm simply pointing out that certainly the southern hemisphere has as much to offer in the coffers of world history as the northern hemisphere,,,,,,, yet all we hear about is the latter. My question to you is, this,,, why? Why do we (as Americans) only seem to take note of what takes place in the northern hemisphere,, and basically discount anything that happens in the South? It amazes me that 99% of each and every American history book consists solely of events taking place in the northern hemisphere. Everything having to do with Europe,,, Russia,,,, WWI,,, WWII,,, Korea,,, pretty much everything having to do with America as a whole is addressed in American history books as though the world only consists of the northern hemisphere. Is it because of horrendous characters such as Hugo Chavez,,, and the atrocities taking place in the Sudan and elsewhere? Perhaps,, but let us not discount half of our world,,, for they are important too..........

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Generation gap?

First of all,, I wanted to take the opportunity to apologize to the apparent few of you that frequent my blog for not posting over the course of the last couple weeks.. The base on which I work recently hosted the Inspector General (IG) for an "Operational Readiness Inspection" (ORI) which pretty much consumed all my time for the last few weeks. We were inspected on just about everything we do,, to include a deployment exercise that entailed 14-hour days for those lucky few of us who were afforded the opportunity to participate. On the bright side,, we had the opportunity to don our chem. gear, shoot blanks out of our issued weapons,, and defended a mock forward base against hostile insurgents--something that us Air Force guys rarely get the opportunity to experience. After all the booms, bangs, and interrogations from a tough IG team, Hanscom AFB earned an "excellent" rating which means no more IG inspections for another 2 years. Yea!!


But beyond that, I have had the opportunity to reflect on a particularly bothersome social issue. I recently read an article that described a particular corporation who routinely hires teams of consultants for no other purpose than to boost the morale of its workforce. On the surface, this seems like a noble pursuit. As we all know, good morale among the troops usually results in increased loyalty to the job, a heightened sense of belonging, and overall increased productivity. Upon further review, the article described such activities as rotating daily celebrations for each individual employee, complete with confetti, cake, and even free lunch. Unfortunately, these celebrations were not the result of an office competition, nor were the celebrations earned by merit of any kind. These "celebrations" honored individuals for simply being alive.. Apparently, we live in a society today that dictates a need for the daily affirmation of self-worth regardless of whether it is deserved or not. The "new batch" of American employees come out of college expecting kudos for such minor accomplishments as coming to work on time, taking only 60 minutes for their lunch hour, and not parking in the handicapped spaces. I'm not kidding!

Personally, I would feel uncomfortable and ashamed if the only reason teams of people throw confetti in my cubicle in my honor was to celebrate the fact that I was able to make it to work on time 3 out of the last 5 days. That same sentiment is not [apparently] shared by new members of today's American workforce. According to the article, it's becoming an increasingly serious problem that young employees become "distant", "downtrodden", and even "depressed" if their bosses/co-workers don't afford them daily affirmations of their worth. Am I to believe that my troops will become depressed if I don't congratulate them everyday for coming to work on time? Or if I don't throw a party in their honor for no other reason than the fact that they managed to avoid getting arrested the weekend prior? I'm not overstating the ridiculousness of this phenomenon.

You may ask why has there been such a shift in the needs of employees.. Do you think that factory workers during WWII required their employers to celebrate them in order to keep their morale high? No,, obviously not. Workers during that time in history derived their motivation from other sources. They were taught from an early age that hard work, self-motivation, and personal accomplishment were the only paths to gratification in the workplace. Perhaps they appreciated the fact that their efforts contributed to the war effort. Or more likely, they were taught by their parents that a strong work ethic isn't the responsibility of the employer, but rather the responsibility of the employee. Nowadays,, I'm sure that very few American workers understand,, let alone appreciate and acknowledge that their productivity directly contributes to the success of our nation as a whole--both economically and militarily. They are working for their own paycheck, and their own selfish interests alone.

Furthermore, it seems as though this new generation of workers feel as though they are "entitled" to employment, wealth, promotion, and individual accolades--regardless of whether they actually perform at a level deserved of such rewards. How did this happen? Why the shift in approach when it comes to working? Again, I attribute this shift to a general change in the approach to parenting. It isn't an accident that this new generation is so very self-centric, self-absorbed, and generally inclined to believe they are entitled to success regardless of their level of effort.

For some unidentified reason, it is customary for today's parents to coddle their children more so than in years past. Parents are so driven to ensure a healthy self-esteem in their children, that they don't teach them the life's lessons necessary to prepare them for the "real world". For instance, I heard that some school districts no longer allow local newspapers to publish the honor roll when it comes out every year. Why, you might ask? The parents don't feel it is in the best interests of the kids that don't make the honor roll. They argue that those kids might be damaged emotionally for not making the grade,, and not seeing their names in the newspaper. So, instead of recognizing the achievements of the high-achievers, nobody gets honored. I also read about school districts that don't allow an "A" team, "B" team, and "C" team when it comes to basketball, volleyball, and other popular sports. The parents within those districts argue that if their child isn't good enough to make the "A" team, that their poor defenseless children's' egos might be irreparably damaged from the emotional scars of not making the "A" team. Some high schools don't even have a "varsity" team anymore. Everybody makes the team, regardless of their skill level. If there isn't enough money in the budget to fund as many teams as it takes to accomodate ALL the kids that come out for the team, the sport is cancelled altogether. The kids that excel in sports are grouped with the kids that don't in an attempt to completely socialize high school sports. Effectually, those skilled athletes (of course) suffer because the level of play is drastically lower than it would have been if stratification in sports had been allowed. But that (according to parents and school officials) is a small price to pay for saving the self-esteems of the lesser athletes.

Furthermore, some school districts want to do away with standardized testing, or even the concept of "grading" students' work altogether. Does anybody see a problem with this?

The result is a workforce of adults that have never been exposed to competition, never learned what it means to be a humble loser,, and never felt the exhilaration of achieving success from actual merit. As much as some would like to socialize this country, the fact of the matter is that we live in a merit-based capitalistic country where the high-achievers are rewarded with good jobs, authority, and promotions. This is a cold reality for those kids that have been sheltered against all forms of competition since birth.

When we award everybody for doing nothing, we do a disservice to those that achieve greatness, and actually deserve the accolade. In the workplace, it is becoming increasingly hard to criticize an employee for anything. I once told a particular subordinate in a feedback session that he needs to do a better job of spell checking his official office correspondence--e-mails, office memoranda, etc. He started crying. No joke. A 25 year old grown adult man, tears streaming down his face, crushed that I pointed out he needs to do a better job of proof-reading his documents. The next day, I found myself talking to my supervisor about the proper (more sensitive) ways to offer feedback to subordinates. I was actually instructed not to grade my subordinates lower than a 4 on a 5 point scale for fear that their feelings would be hurt. Also, I was instructed to begin rotating the quarterly awards that are awarded to employees supposedly on merit. Everybody in the office now has a nice plaque to hang on their wall inscribed with the dates of the quarter when it was their "turn". What started out being a special recognition, turned into a worthless trinket because everybody had one. The "slackers" were awarded the plaque,, and the high-speed over-achievers were awarded the very same plaque. What a disservice to those high achievers! In effect, the awards program became a joke, and it no longer motivated employees to be more productive, because everybody knew that it really didn't matter what they actually accomplished at work, they wouldn't win the award unless it was their turn. The entire intent of the awards program was defeated. My office isn't unique. This same story probably exists across the country. Unless parents go back to previous generation's methods of upbringing, I fear that America's workforce will continue to feel as though they are entitled to success,, instead of knowing that they have to earn their own success...

Friday, June 8, 2007

Who is the Moral Police?

Hmmm,, when my own modesty, and subsequent perceived vanity was recently put in question, I was prompted to explore a particular quandary of mine that I have struggled with since middle school. A little history: I was really goofy-looking as a kid,, big buck teeth, straight hair that still managed to look messed up, freckles, etc. But I didn’t care, I was a kid,, and all I cared about was building forts out in the back yard, blowing up GI Joe’s with firecrackers, and shooting my pellet gun. But then middle school came around, and I went through a classic “awkward” stage where I got braces for my teeth, I tried to do my hair with a bunch of gel and hairspray, my face had some acne,,,,, I even used some of my own money to buy clothes since I didn't think the nice clothes my mom bought for me were "hip" enough,,, etc. etc.. I was very shy, self-conscious, had a low self-image, socially timid,,,, you get the picture. In fact, I labeled myself one of the geeky kids--not too popular (even though I had one really good friend),,, not too smooth with the girls,,, etc. It was really a tough time in my life. For good reason? Of course not,, but at the time it seemed horrible to be me.

Then high school came around and I kinda made a “transition”. Braces came off, acne went away, met an incredible group of friends, had some success dating. Anyway,, I slowly gained the positive self-esteem/self-image that I lacked for so many years. And by the time college rolled around, I really felt as though I had “arrived”!! I suppose it came from feedback (especially from the opposite sex),, but regardless of how it came about,,, it did. And I began liking who I was. Is that “shallow”? Not sure, but it’s the truth. It’s funny how as we mature, we realize that all those criteria for self-worth when we were younger aren’t as important anymore.. But back to my history,,,, that’s where my quandary began….

Looking back, it’s my estimation that through the “stages” of life that I described to you,, I was every bit as personable throughout, every bit as beautiful in my own right (so to speak),,, every bit as supported by friends and family--basically I know that I was the same person. So why did I feel so differently about myself across the stages? Well, it all comes down to self-confidence. But I’ve realized, after countless instances of feedback, that there’s a fine line between self-confidence and arrogance,,,,,,,, positive self-image and vanity,,,,,,, positive self-esteem and being self-absorbed,,, even the difference between liking the way you look (a good thing),, and being narcissistic (a bad thing) is a really fine line. The “formers” are all generally accepted as healthy and positive, while the “latters” are all generally accepted as character flaws.

The bottom line for me, is that I know that I’ve been the same person for the last 30 years, but I like the way that I am when I am confident about myself. And quite frankly, I think that I’m far more fun to be around for others too, when I bring that confidence to social situations. I really don’t view it as a bad thing. However, the question arises that when I bring that confidence to those social situations, and when I openly show it in various ways,,, am I “flaunting” myself—physically or otherwise. I sincerely hope not. It’s just who I am. I’m proud of what I’ve become—proud of my beliefs, proud of my accomplishments, and comfortable with myself around others. Does that make me conceited? I really hope not. I also consider myself warm, caring, compassionate, thoughtful,,,, and generous. And believe me,,, I take much more joy and satisfaction out of others’ accolades/successes than I do my own. If asked whether I would prefer to see one of my Airmen be awarded a medal for an effort that we both accomplished,, or if I would prefer to receive the medal myself,,, I know for a fact I would say the Airman--in a heartbeat. The significance of this sentiment on this discussion is that I believe that motivation for a particular action is critical in determining righteousness. If one volunteers his time for purely charitable purposes, this is a commendable activity; but if the individual is volunteering his time to look good in the eyes of others, then the nobility of the activity itself is severely diminished.

I’ve always struggled with what it means to be humble. And for that matter, what it means to be modest. Was it immodest “flaunting” to put up a picture of myself out fishing on my blog—just because I wasn’t wearing a shirt? Millions of people a day don’t wear shirts—public pools, beaches, construction sites, jogging paths, etc… To illustrate where I’m coming from,,,, it didn’t even cross my mind that the photo would be interpreted as “immodest or posted for ulterior motives” until it was questioned by a friend. I just thought it was a cool photo with the water,, and the boat,, and the lighthouse in the background. But that’s the thing,, sometimes such interpretations are in the eye of the beholder—perception becomes reality,, so I appreciated the feedback. Is it frustrating to me? Yeah,, a little. When my intent with a photo, or a comment,, or a joke,, or even a move on the dance floor is completely different than the way it is interpreted,, then it’s a little disappointing. What’s “appropriate” to some,,, may not be “appropriate” to others,,,, and therein lies the aforementioned quandary. Should I be true to myself, and be the person that I am comfortable being—knowing in my heart that my confidence is not rooted in conceit, vanity, arrogance, narcissism, self indulgence, and the like?? Or do I conform to the societal norms of others who simply reside in a different zone on the social spectrum? To illustrate, Queen Victoria had her subjects killed if their tablecloths didn’t reach the floor… Why you ask? Because she felt as though they were being immodest by exposing the legs of their dinner tables…. Even today,, traditional Muslims require their women to wear full coverage burkas and abayas so that not a single square inch of flesh is exposed. It is considered inappropriate for them to speak unless asked a direct question, and they are required to walk 10 paces behind their husbands. Do I blame them for their traditions? Well, let me just say that I think they are entitled to exercise their own culture in their own way. I fear that in that case the high degree of perceived “modesty” is actually oppressive to women,, but that’s because I look at it from a Western societal point of view. Perhaps their women don’t view it as oppressive at all. Most Muslims would be absolutely abhorred to see any public swimming pool here in the US on any given summer day. Does that mean we’re wrong? Immoral? On the opposite end of the spectrum, African tribal nations wear next to nothing as normal everyday attire,, and it isn’t even questioned within their culture, there’s no taboo associated with it—it’s normalcy for them. We know that European culture embraces going “topless” as acceptable and appropriate—even in public places such as beaches, swimming pools, spas, even public parks. Should we as American’s judge them as disgustingly immodest,,, stick our noses up in the air, and say how much of a higher moral standard we hold ourselves to than they? I honestly don’t know. Who is the “authority” on such matters? Even religious leaders within the same church have struggled to clearly define this and other moral ambiguities.

All I know with absolute certainty is what’s in my own heart. I know for sure that I wasn’t “flaunting” myself by posting a cool fishing photo to my blog in which I happened to have removed my shirt—because it was a hot sunny day. Furthermore,, I don’t negatively judge those African people that I see on the Discovery channel as licentious and immoral simply because their culture dictates a different clothing standard than ours. Conversely, nor do I judge the Amish or Mennonite folks that insist on wearing leggings, long dresses, high collars, long sleeves, and bonnets everywhere they go in order to maintain their Puritan morality standard. Without knowing what’s in another’s heart, it is difficult to pass judgment in this matter. It’s all about intent. If Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are attempting to objectify themselves by selling their exposed skin to the camera, then I do interpret that as immodest. But if an attractive female goes to the beach with her family and wears a bikini to look good for her herself and her husband,, maybe add a little spice to their marriage,,, boost her husband’s ego by never leaving his side,,, boosting her own ego by getting compliments from her friends,,, to basically feel good about herself,, and to be comfortable in her own self-actualized state,,, then I really don’t see that as immodest,, and certainly not immoral. If that same woman is wearing a string bikini in hopes of attracting some random young guy at the beach for a one night stand to cheat on her husband,,, then yeah,, that’s bad,,, and certainly immoral. Same woman,, same attire,,, different intent,, and subsequently different judgment passed… Folks that would judge that faithful woman who is merely showing off the 15 pounds that she worked off over the winter as immoral,,, perhaps should take a look at themselves and determine the origins of their malice towards her.. Jealousy? Moral snobbery? Their own personal insecurities? And maybe because our society seems to award the taller, more attractive, more out-going, better dressed, and better presented individuals with promotions, social invitations, professional and social opportunities of all kinds,,,,,, those of us that don’t feel as though we fit into the above categories feel threatened by those folks that do. So,, should we blame those individuals for our own issues? I think not.

But all that ideological philosophizing aside,,, we live in a mixed society where certain actions are “acceptable and appropriate” to some, but “unacceptable and inappropriate” to others—for the very same action! In order for us as individuals to navigate through these moral straits of uncertainty, we must realize that there are differences among us. Much like it may be okay to spit and belch around “the boys” at the bar or out fishin’,,,, those same actions are definitely not appropriate around ladies at a nice dinner out,,,,,, we must recognize those differences within society too. Just because it’s okay to go topless on the French Riviera, doesn’t mean it’s okay to go topless at the public pool near the community center in Topeka, Kansas. In the end, it’s all about respect. Even though I don’t think that I should be judged for a particular action simply because my upbringing and moral standard is different than that of somebody else, I DO think that I should be respectful of that person’s upbringing and moral standard in their presence. Is this an easy thing to do? Certainly not,,, especially considering there truly isn’t an all-encompassing moral police to set the standard for all to follow. But as long as all of us within our own society recognize each others’ differences and consciously attempt to respect one another, we can attempt to live a more harmonious (and less offensive) existence…

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Small request from Caddis fly:

If you like my blog,, even a little bit, I ask that you put a link to my site, www.elkhaircaddis.blogspot.com on your personal webpages, blogs, etc. Apparently, that's the only way that I'll ever show up on a Google search.. Maybe I'd get more traffic if I wrote about Paris Hilton,,, but I think I'll refrain.. Thank You!!!

Impressed with Ben Affleck.

I just finished watching Ben Affleck on "Hardball" with Chris Mathews. Am I fan of actors pontificating about politics? Absolutely not. 99 times out of 100, I wish they would shut up and act. I'll watch their movies and television shows if I like their acting,, or I won't if I don't like their acting. Beyond that, I don't feel as though they have any right to use their celebrity status as a vehicle to push their own personal political agenda. For the most part, I'm usually frustrated with the media for giving them the opportunity in the first place. That said, I was pleasantly surprised to learn of Mr. Affleck's astute political analysis on tonight's "Hardball". His insights were thought-provoking and were articulated in a manner that wasn't intended to press an agenda. He was opinionated (appropriate for that forum), but not denigrating in his approach. It's still frustrating that his qualifications to be a guest on the show stem completely from his status as an actor. Nonetheless, I really appreciated the breath of fresh air from Hollywood--we all know that rarely happens, figuratively or literally.

Even though I disagreed [politically] with almost everything he said, I recognized his shocking ability to present a thoughtful premise, and his subsequent defense of that premise. One example of this phenomenon occurred when asked about the Iraq war. Specifically, he was asked why he feels as though the democrat candidate will win in '08. He offered the premise that much like the congressional elections of '06, the '08 Presidential election will likely be decided in large part by one issue--the war in Iraq. Affleck offered the premise that because of a lack of metrics associated with "success" in Iraq, the Republicans will likely lose the confidence of the nation. In fact, all Republican candidates are in favor of US military involvement in Iraq till "victory" is achieved, but none have described what constitutes "victory". I too, am intensely curious as to what measurable objectives must be reached before we can start bringing our troops home. I know that a stable, democratic, secure, free nation that can protect itself against it's enemies and terror from within is the goal. That sounds wonderful, but considering the volatility of the region, how will we ever know that these objectives have ever been achieved. Ben Affleck illustrated this point by posing the question, "If we are able to decrease the number of roadside bomb explosions to four a month, does that constitute security?" "Maybe two roadside bombs a month?" "Or does security consist of zero terrorist attacks for a month, two months, three months?" Who knows? That's exactly his point. All those noble goals listed out in Republican talking points sound good to some, but are they achievable? Without quantifiable, or at least observable metrics to indicate exactly what constitutes achievement of the aforementioned goals, what's the point in even talking about them in the first place? The Bush administration, or at least the Republican presidential candidates, must do a better job of defining success if they hope to gain the favor of the American public .

Monday, June 4, 2007

Crimin-aliens? Or an opportunity for the US?

Estimates indicate that roughly 14 million illegal immigrants reside here in the United States. What is that,, a little less than the population of the entire state of Florida? Actually, we don't really know. It could be less,, but is probably more like 20 million, roughly the population of New York state! Has anybody done any kind of scientific study showing the economic impact of these illegals? I mean, it seems to depend on which special interest group you talk to--some say they are good for the economy, but most estimate that each person living illegally in this country drains a net $30,000 from this country annually. Personally, I don't know how they can make this claim, but under present circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with such a statistic. But I will say this, we, the legal citizenship and subsequent Government of this great nation are to blame--not the hundreds of illegals that pour across our borders every day.

You may be reaching the conclusion that I am an advocate of shutting down our borders. I really don't think that I am. You may assume that I want to deport all illegals using whatever means possible. I don't necessarily think so. Perhaps you are reaching the conclusion that I think we should enforce the immigration laws we already have established. I'm not even sure about that!

No,, what I really think we should do is leave it up to the undocumented aliens whether or not they stay here, and if they stay, whether or not they apply for citizenship legally. Or for that matter, let people from other countries decide for themselves whether or not to immigrate to our country in the first place. Yep, the more I think about it, I'm pretty sure that the United States should open up our borders all together! Bienvenido!

Before you discount me altogether, and indict me for utter lunacy, please allow me to explain. As I mentioned before, if in fact these illegals are a net loss to the economy, it's our own fault. It's our own fault because we, as a nation, have decided to provide those costly social services to these people. Let's stop those entitlements. To clarify, it's the right to services we give the illegals that ultimately "costs" us as a nation. This isn't rocket science, or even college-level economics. If we paid the illegals less than the value of their labor, and refused all services and every possible costly right allowed them under present circumstances, how could they be anything but a net gain?? They wouldn't..

A farmer employs a strapping young laborer from Mazatlan to pick 4 acres of strawberries a day at a wage of $3 dollars an hour. The legal but undocumented laborer works 14 hours a day, makes more money than he would in Mexico, and substantially increases the farmers profitability by harvesting his strawberries at a cheaper rate than any other method he could otherwise employ. In fact, the American farmer is now actually able to compete in the world strawberry market because his overhead is now comparable to that of foreign producers since they aren't subject to the same minimum wage laws that we are here in America! That farmer turns a greater profit, spends the money he makes in the marketplace, pays taxes on the increased income, re-invests in his own farm, etc., etc... The net gain is felt by many, and the positive effect on the GDP is exponential considering the multiplier effect. That's just one farmer, employing one laborer. This same effect would occur throughout all sectors of the economy as long as we don't pay these people minimum wage. Pay them whatever they are willing to work for--$4 an hour, $3,,, maybe even $2--whatever the market for "undocumented" labor pays.. It's still probably more than they would make in Mexico. In fact, they are probably unemployed in Mexico. And by the way, please don't make the argument that they will be taking Americans' jobs. What self-respecting American would want to work fourteen hours a day picking strawberries in the hot sun for $3 an hour? Even high school kids can do better than that at McDonald's. I don't really want to go into it, but that high school student working at McDonald's will be paid more than the current minimum wage because McDonald's will be able to pay them more due to decreased costs for their raw materials (burgers, fries, buns, mustard, etc.). I don't really want to go into the economics of it,, but it would happen. All capable, ambitious, English-speaking American citizens would be gainfully employed making more than minimum wage--I guarantee! Speaking English isn't necessary for working sweat shop textile mills in Indiana, weeding alfalfa fields in Oregon, or even automobile assembly lines in Michigan, but it is for every service related job in America. And believe me, GM, Ford, and even Chrysler might be able to produce a quality automobile at an affordable price if they aren't paying through the nose for unionized labor. All those "displaced laborers" in Detroit could quit paying big dues to line the pockets of union bosses, and get higher paying jobs elsewhere, more suited to their skill-set. Believe me, the automakers could afford to hire more white collar labor if cheap undocumented aliens were performing the menial repetitive factory-type labor. The likelihood is that we wouldn't even need a minimum wage, because companies could actually afford to pay their employees the value of their employees' marginal product (VMP) which is MORE than the current minimum wage. They will no longer be artificially paying more than the VMP of a non-English speaking laborer to produce their raw materials, or work in their factories. Americans that take advantage of their right to a high school education, or Americans that learn a specialized skill will certainly be paid more than the current minimum wage, because they have a skill set that other less qualified individuals don't have. So instead of paying everybody with up to and including a high school diploma the same across the board because of an artificially imposed minimum wage, employers could afford to pay their workforce based on their value. A high school graduate working in a T-Mobile call center should get paid more than the T-Mobile grounds maintenance worker that quit school at age 10, immigrated to America at age 11, and hasn't bothered learning English since. But under the present system, T-Mobile is forced to pay both workers exactly the same rate because of the minimum wage. Obviously, if employers could pay certain unskilled positions less, they could afford to pay their skilled laborers more. Plumbers, welders, mechanics, blue collar workers of all kinds would actually make more money than they do now, all with a LOWER rate of unemployment, because their employers could afford to do so! Believe it or not, the white collar professionals would make more money too! If you don't believe me, pick up any Econ 101 textbook and see what effect cheaper labor has on any given company...

Of course, all this "utopic" almost unbelievable hypothetical thinking is pending one critical aspect. We, as a nation, don't pay a dime out of our pockets for these undocumented aliens--not as individuals, and certainly not as a nation. We simply don't afford them access to medical care of any kind unless they pay full price for it. We don't give them a single red cent in our welfare program. We don't give citizenship to their babies born here. We don't pay for the education of their children in our public schools. We don't pay them minimum wage. We don't give them any rights at all. We don't spend money on trials. We don't spend money on jail cells for them. We don't even afford them the right to due process at all. If they are suspected of a crime, they are automatically sentenced with monetary punishment to pay for their transgressions after a trial in front of a judge not to exceed five minutes in duration,, i.e. their wages are garnished until they pay for their crime in full. And, unfortunately, if it's a capital crime, they are shot to death. I don't even like the cost of the execution, or the court costs associated with the 5 minute trial, but I guess there has to be some means of finding justice. Furthermore, they are given NO money for educational grants, NO seats in our public schools, NO preference for employment, NO driver's licenses, NO social security cards, NO allowances for low-income housing, NO food stamps, and NO protections under OSHA, worker's comp., labor unions, employers' group insurance, etc.,,,, absolutely NONE of the rights, services, or protections we afford legal citizens.

Does this scenario seem harsh? Cold? Calloused? Inhumane? Am I a monster? Perhaps,,, but let me say this: It is imperative that we make it perfectly clear to everybody what they are to expect when they come across our borders illegally. If they choose to subject themselves to the aforementioned circumstances, then it's of their own accord. They CHOOSE to live and work here--however harsh and inhumane the circumstances may be. I presume that even under those conditions, it will still be better than the third-world environment they are fleeing from! If not, they won't come. Or, if they CHOOSE to follow our immigration laws and achieve citizenship legally, then of course, afford them that option as well. Either way, we benefit as a nation!

So, all that is left is the presumed increased security risk. Well, this is how I would address that concern. Kill them. If we think about all the resources that we presently put into border patrol, customs, TSA, and the like, think of the billions of dollars we could dedicate to tracking down terrorists by doing away with those non-value added agencies and dedicating our resources to the investigation of suspected perpetrators of terror. Like before, make it perfectly clear to the world that if a foreigner performs an act of terror against the United States, we will react with military force times 10. If a suicide bomber comes across a seaport in New York and blows up a cafe in Soho, we track down the group (or country) that is responsible and take out a small town that houses or supports that terrorist group with a tactical nuclear warhead. And let's face it, how many suicide bombers are coming from Mexico or Guatemala? I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but I am saying that all terrorists in the last 50 years have been Muslim. If we have any doubt about who is responsible for the attack, carpet bomb a town in Iran or Syria. They publicly sympathize for jihadist terrorist groups. Punish them for it. Until "the village" purges terrorism from within, the terrorist "problem" will never be remedied. Ultimately, that is the only way we will defeat radical Muslim terrorists that act in the name of Jihad,,, but that topic can be addressed in another post.

So, to recap.: Open our borders wide. Reap the benefits of cheap labor. Net gain for us as citizens and net gain for the US Gross National Product. Pay absolutely nothing to illegal immigrants. Afford them none of the rights ensured to legal citizens of this country. Scare them into following our laws by threatening (and executing if necessary) medieval punishments without due process. Due process is a luxury we can't afford to ensure for illegals. Remedy the increased security risk by adopting the Israeli way of dealing with terror--they bomb one synagogue, we bomb 10 mosques. Before long, the upside of a terrorist attack just won't exist. Oh,, and for all of you that are thinking that I'm some kind of sociopath, keep in mind that we make the world absolutely aware of what we plan to do... That's the difference to keep in mind. I'm not proposing a renewal of the slave trade, or even the legalization of indentured servitude. ALL undocumented aliens will CHOOSE for themselves to come here knowing full well the circumstances under which they will be subjected.

Am I naive enough to believe this plan would actually ever be instituted here in the United States? No, I'm not. I know that we are much more "civilized" and humane than that. Perhaps I myself am more civilized than the solution that I proposed, but it is still food for thought. This "immigration problem" is something we brought on ourselves, and it is something that we as a nation can remedy. If not exactly the way I proposed, then perhaps some of the same thinking may be applied in the next "immigration bill". It certainly can't be worse than the present iteration.

Guess that's about it. Maybe then I could get my pickup truck washed, waxed, and detailed for 20 bucks up here in Boston like I used to down in San Antonio!!! That would be nice..

"Social" Conservative???

Can someone please answer me one thing about the on-going Presidential campaigns: Why do we (the American public) care so much about our candidates' social views? I'm certainly not saying that I don't. I do. Very much in fact. For instance, I'd really like to vote for Mitt Romney for numerous reasons: he's articulate, becoming fiscally conservative, apparent strong family values, bi-partisan cooperation, in many ways electable when compared to other potential Republican candidates, socially conservative, demonstrably ambitious, of high moral fiber, etc. etc.,,, the list goes on. All that said, he's a Mormon, and I know Mormons. I grew up around them. I was ostracized by them as early as age 5. I was even discriminated against because I wasn't one of them as a child, and even as an adult, until I moved away from the I-84 "Mormon corridor" between Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT. I don't intend to use this forum as a conduit for denigration, so I don't want to go on about the Mormons. I point out my "issues" with the so-called religion because I am laboring over whether or not I can put my differences with the institution aside when it comes to voting for a Presidential candidate--knowing of his affiliation with the aforementioned institution. I simply don't know if I can.

But why? Why should his religious beliefs/affiliations play into my voting decision? I know full well that the President doesn't have the power to instill his religious beliefs into the nation as a whole. I do, however know that his background will guide his decisions as President, and I fear (knowing first hand the workings of the church), that church leaders may feel it is their right to influence a sitting Mormon president. Mitt Romney, because of the extreme power that an upbringing carries, may feel compelled to be swayed in an important Presidential decision by the ideals of the church, if not the leaders' influence directly. He may be threatened with a lower kingdom of heaven if he doesn't influence the passing of a federal statute enabling polygamy. Or he may not be awarded Godship of his own universe after death if he doesn't levy a tax on all non-Mormons. Or he may cause an international uproar if the Emir of Kuwait finds out about his magic underwear! Likely?? Probably not. I know. However, I do know about the political clout that Mormons have within the state of Utah, and I don't want to see it occur on a national scale.

But back to my original question. Should we really be that concerned about a candidates stand on abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, prayer in public schools, and the like? The economist in me says no. A resounding "NO". Just about everything in this world can in some way be governed with the purse string. Simply put, a candidate's fiscal policy should be the true measuring stick of how he will govern. If you want a President that is for big Government, big spending, and big taxes, then vote for the most liberal candidate. If you want a President that is for small Government, tight spending, and lower taxes, then vote for the most conservative candidate. That is truly what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean....

All that said, the social aspects of American politics seem to dominate our airwaves. The pundits like to ask the tough questions in hopes of inciting controversy. I too, am guilty of being sucked into finding out which candidate most aligns with my social views. I guess it's the nature of our political system to have such discussions, I just wish they would spend as much time on those issues that will truly have the most effect on the nation as a whole--how much money they will be taking out of our pockets,, and what programs they will be funding with our money.

The only thing I have from my last blog.

I tried to maintain a "blog" a couple years ago,, but failed miserably. I only posted a few political "op-ed" pieces, and then I kinda forgot how to access my own blog. Ha! Fortunately for all of you, I was able to recover one of my favorites. It's a response to a letter written by a bunch of Ivy League professors to President George W. Bush... I'll post the letter, and then follow it up with my response. Keep in mind that these were originally written back in 2004. I'll let you decide whose magic 8-ball has proven more accurate...

From the Profs.:
Open Letter to President George W. Bush

October 4, 2004

Dear Mr. President:

As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.

The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base.

These sorts of deficits crowd out private investment and are politically addictive. They also place a heavy burden on monetary policy – and create additional pressure for higher interest rates – by stoking inflationary expectations. If your economic advisers are telling you that these deficits can be defeated through further reductions in tax rates, then you need new advisers. More robust economic growth could certainly help, but nearly every one of your administration’s economic forecasts – both before and after 9-11 – has proved overly optimistic. Expenditure cuts could be part of the answer, but your record so far has been one of increasing expenditures, not reducing them.

What is called for, we believe, is a dramatic reorientation of fiscal policy, including substantial reversals of your tax policy. Running a budget deficit in response to a short bout of recession is one thing. But running large structural deficits over a long period is something else entirely. We therefore urge you to consider the fiscal realities we now face and the substantial burden they are placing on our economy.

We also urge you to consider the distributional consequences of your policies. Under your administration, the income gap between the most affluent Americans and everyone else has widened. Although the latest data reveal that real household incomes have dropped across the board since you took office, low and middle income households have experienced steeper declines than upper income households. To be sure, the general phenomenon of mounting inequality preceded your administration, but it has continued (and, by some accounts, intensified) over the past three and a half years.

Some degree of inequality is inherent in any free market economy, creating positive incentives for economic and technological advancement. But when inequality becomes extreme, it can be socially corrosive and economically dysfunctional. Problems of this sort are visible throughout much of the developing world. At the moment, the most commonly accepted measure of inequality – the so-called Gini coefficient – is far higher in the United States than in any other developed country and is continuing to move upward. We don’t know where the breakpoint is for the U.S., but we would rather not find out. With all due respect, we believe your tax policy has exacerbated the problem of inequality in the United States, which has worrisome implications for the economy as a whole. We very much hope you will take this threat to our nation into account as you consider new fiscal approaches to address the nation’s most pressing economic problems.

Sensible and farsighted economic management requires true discipline, compassion, and courage – not just slogans. Given the tenuous state of the American economy, we believe that the time for an honest assessment of the problem and for genuine corrective action is now. Ignoring the fiscal crisis that has taken hold during your presidency may seem politically appealing in the short run, but we fear it could ultimately prove disastrous. From a policy standpoint, the clear message is that more of the same won’t work. The warning signs are already visible, and it is incumbent upon all of us to pay attention.

Respectfully submitted,


Francis AguilarProfessor of Business Administration, EmeritusHarvard Business School
Ramon J. AldagGlen A. Skillrud Family Chair in BusinessSchool of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Teresa M. AmabileEdsel Bryant Ford Professor of Business AdministrationHarvard Business School
Kenneth R. AndrewsRoss Graham Walker Professor Management Controls, EmeritusHarvard Business School
James E. AustinEliot I. Snider and Family Professor of Business AdministrationHarvard Business School
And about 50 other professors from across the coutry...

My response:
My rebuttal to the “Open Letter to the President” -- by MDE
05 October 2004

I’m very much surprised to see such prominent economic thinkers simply report trends and historical data without offering their own recommendations for a solution to our country’s economic woes. It’s easy to sit back, pick out selected statistics, and blame all of them on the President. It’s a lot harder to examine significant events that are affecting our economy, plan strategies to combat these effects, and implement policies that are hoped to ultimately have a positive overall economic impact. The fact of the matter is, that historically speaking, every time a nation suffers a significant event such as 9-11, the economy is shaken by decreased consumer confidence, decreased capital investment, and protectionist economic policies on a personal and national scale,,, and it takes time to recover.

After WWI, the nation experienced unprecedented economic growth during the “roaring 20’s”; The Great Depression really only recovered after WWII was over; the horrible inflation and unemployment rates of the 70’s didn’t recover until Reagan successfully out-spent the Russians during the cold war—which by the way, is the overriding reason this country is in a multi-trillion dollar national debt (small price to pay for avoiding war with the Soviet Union which easily could have meant nuclear holocaust). But look at the economic prosperity that America enjoyed during the mid to late 80s. That is the era that gave birth to the yuppie, and was marked by unprecedented personal spending on entertainment and personal luxury (recreational drug use, clothes, cars, new technology, etc.) Even in recent times, the Bush 41 wasn’t re-elected because his economic policies hadn’t taken hold as of election time. In fact, Bill Clinton enjoyed the post-war economic prosperity that occurred after the effects of Bush Senior’s economics were realized. He was able to ride out those effects through the end of his second term. I didn’t agree with Clinton’s politics, but economically speaking, Clinton was one of the more conservative Democrats on record. You’ll recall that critics of Clinton say that he didn’t do anything of significance during his presidency—rightly so. Way to go Bill!! I commend him for having the foresight and awareness to know that the economic policies put in place by George Sr. were going to work,,, just not quite in time to get him re-elected.

The thing is, that economic policy changes don’t have overnight results. Unfortunately, the pundits, the critics, and even the voting public don’t fully understand that very important fact. We as a nation are impatient. As a general rule, politicians are elected because they appeal to an ignorant public with short-term fixes for long-term problems. The politicians don’t care that their policies will wreak havoc on their constituents ten years from election day—they’ll be long gone. They know that the average American voter doesn’t have the capacity to think through a policy decision in terms of eventual effects. Unfortunately, that’s why Democrats get elected every election year—uninformed, short-sighted, gullible voters. Anytime fiscal or monetary policies are altered, it takes time for the market to adjust and re-stabilize. For instance, George W.’s tax cuts initially resulted in an increased deficit—true. However, once consumers (Joe Q. Public) begin to spend that new found money in their pocket, and once that money is turned over again and again in the open market, we’ll see a marked increase in GDP. Even accomplished economists don’t always look down the road quite as far as they should.

I was listening to a talk radio program the other day, and a caller was animated and very much upset because she was certain that the deficit and our subsequent national debt will cause the fall of America. She asserted that though she hates taxes, she knows that the only way we’ll ever get out of debt is to increase taxes—considering tax revenues constitute the lion’s share of fundraising for the government. She couldn’t believe that Pres. Bush was lowering taxes, and effectually widening the deficit. She said for this reason alone, she’ll vote for John Kerry. The talk show host calmly explained to her that the President’s economic advisors continually recommend tax cuts to the President because [historically speaking] more money in the pockets of American citizens, and less money in the coffers of the US government has resulted in increased economic growth. He continued to explain that in a period of economic prosperity, the government will raise more money in taxes without raising tax rates by a single percent. Think about it,,,, if an individual is making more money this year than last, that individual will be sending more money to the government this year than last—not because the tax rate was raised, like what the Democrats want to do, but simply because that individual is making more money and therefore the same rate is applied to a greater total income, resulting in more tax revenue to the government. Just think if this phenomenon occurs on a national scale!!! Corporations making more money, and therefore sending more money to the government, individuals making more money and therefore sending more money to the government, and small businesses making more money and therefore sending more money to the government—all without raising taxes a single percentage point.

The theory stands that by cutting taxes, Bush is giving middle class Americans money that they wouldn’t have otherwise had. With that money, they can grow their small businesses, re-invest in their respective corporations, and inject money into the marketplace in the form of consumer spending—all three of which have an exponential multiplier effect on the GDP. It’s my humble opinion, that no President should be “blamed” for the economic data collected in his first term—especially when his first term is ravaged by terrorist attacks and two wars. Four years simply aren’t enough to see the ultimate economic effects of major fiscal policy changes—and I’d be happy to point that out in any history book to every single one of those high-brow, think-tank bound, pompous, business professors from Harvard that will forever be shielded by academia. There’s a reason why these economic “masterminds” aren’t in business for themselves or actually sitting on Presidential advisory boards. Simply put, they enjoy the protection that their tenured status and their plush corner offices on-campus offer them—their theories are never actually tested because they don’t have the testicular fortitude it would take to put their own money and pride on the line by going into business for themselves, or by running for public office. It’s easy to find a model or a statistic that will support just about any position or assertion that they feel compelled to spew forth,,, it’s a lot harder to make those tough decisions that affect your own pocketbook, the pocketbooks of your employees and stockholders, or in the President’s case, the very way of life of the American people. Come back to me in four years,,,,, after George W. has well and faithfully served a second term, and then we’ll talk about his responsibility for the health of our economy. Mark my words, barring another 9-11 type event, the economy will be as strong as ever following four more years of Bushonomics.

Respectfully submitted,

MDE, Boise State University Business School, Class of 1999

Elk Hair Caddis: Explained

The "Elk Hair Caddis" is THE standard caddis imitation in the West. It has caught countless trout, salmon, and other western freshwater gamefish. They are long-lived (compared to mayflies), and often fall or are blown into the river. The fly floats well in rough water, but will work reasonably well in slower water too.

Okay,, so kinda like me, the elk hair caddis is pretty much THE standard when it comes to attracting the world's sexiest North American gamefish. I have been known to attract a beautiful rainbow trout or two to the end of my pole,, if you know what I mean.. But all jokes aside, I (like the caddis fly) hope to live a long life of keeping my head above water even though the winds and strong currents of life can (and will) do their damnedest to blow me off course. And, even when life slows, and I find some semblance of peace in the world, I hope to maintain a sense of purpose, self-worth, thought provacation, and spirituality. By the way, a useful variation is the "Hot Butt Caddis", which has a poly-yarn butt-end in a bright color not found in nature... It's relavance to me is self-explanatory. ;-)

Alright,, you caught me, I'm really not that deep,,,, pertentious, conceited, or even existential. I just like fishing, and elk hair caddis flies catch a ton of fish. They pretty much rock!

Enjoy my blog....

P.S.--My use of unnecessary and apparently extraneous punctuation is actually intentional. I like it, and it's actually a feeble attempt at writing like I talk. I hope you can endure it...