I've watched with some interest the goings on with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Texas, and I'd like to express my support for their plight.  You see, I believe that as long as you are not harming anyone, you should be able to practice whatever religion you choose, as guaranteed by the first amendment to our constitution.  We, as a people tolerate such varied religious practices as Satanism, complete atheism, Voodoo, along with more "main stream" religions such as Catholicism, Evangelist Christianity, Islam (which also practices polygamy), Buddism, Hinduism, and a whole raft of others not mentioned.  We tolerate, and even look with some fondness on the Amish and Mennonite communities.

I guess in the whole "why can't we all get along" theme, what harm are these people doing to others?  Why does the state of Texas feel that they are responsible for 'saving' these children from their religion?  Is polygamy equivalent to child abuse?  These people seem healthy, well dressed, and clean.  They appear to have more than the basics of the food, and shelter covered, so why mess with them?

I suppose it is our discomfort with their alleged practice of 'forced' marriage of young girls to older men.  We find it shocking and somewhat unbelievable how in today's society that this could be going on.  Thing is, the FLDS members aren't really a part of our society.  They have chosen to live apart and to have minimal interaction with our society as a whole.  Practices that cause us to swallow hard and raise our eyebrows may seem as normal as rain to them.

Now, I'll have to admit that I'm not really comfortable with the alleged practice of child marriage.  I can't imagine marrying off my teenage daughter to some old codger, even one I might be friends with.  I'm the law and order type, so on principle, I should be coming down hard on the side of the state of Texas, but I still have reservations about how the freedom of religion is being trampled here.  I guess that with a single modification to the FLDS practices, my squeamishness would vanish.  That change would be, marriages shall not be granted until both parties are over the age of 18, which is the minimum age for marriage in Texas, without a court order.  Now, having said that, I'm in no position to modify the doctrine or practices of the FLDS church.  Maybe the authorities in Texas are, but why stop there?  Why not force them to give up the practice of polygamy all together?  Ah, there in lies the rub.  The state is then infringing on the first amendment rights.  The state of Texas could be guilty of what is religious persecution.  I'm sure the members of the FLDS church see it that way.

So, what is my final word?  I guess I'm going to have to come down on the side of the first amendment.  Hands off the FLDS church.  Send the over 400 children back to their parents.  I would however warn the leaders of that community that child abuse will not be tolerated and suggest that their marriage practices be modified to raise the minimum age of marriage to be consistent with the laws in the state of Texas, then, leave them alone.

I heard this morning on one of the drive in talk radio shows that there is a contingent of people who are trying to get a commitment out of Senator McCain that he will not make preemptive strikes against Iran.  The philosophy is that the US should never be the aggressor and only fight from a defensive position.  That way the US won't be evil.  That we are only responding to aggression.

OK.  I get it.  I suppose I can live with that philosophy.  I just have one question that I want answered.

Which city in the US or world gets sacrificed in the christening ceremony of Iran's Nuclear Jihad before we respond?

Let's look at a likely set of candidates.

New York.  This is an easy one.  Lots of people closely populated for maximizing body count.  Much of the wealth is concentrated there, so the impact to world financial markets will be magnified.  I'd miss New York though, so if we knew New York was imminently targeted and the missile was 2 minutes from being launched, would that justify a preemptive strike?

How about say.... Chicago, Miami or Los Angeles.  Maybe Dallas, Denver or Seattle?  What about something a little more out of the way like, say.... Detroit, Portland, Wichita or Cleveland.  Let's for a moment expand our world view a bit.  How about London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Warsaw, Moscow, Mumbai, Tokyo, Beijing or even some place that Iran already has in their sights, Tel Aviv?  Which of these gets to have a mushroom cloud over it? 

I have the perfect solution.... San Francisco.  Let's all agree to sacrifice San Francisco.  Nobody will mind.  Here, I'll even help you a form letter so send to Ahmadinejad.

Dear Mr. Ahmadinejad,
Thank you for assuring us that your nuclear program only has peaceful applications.  However, we are worried that you aren't really telling us the whole truth and are building a nuclear arsenal along with your reactors.  We just have a request that when you decide to test your new and improved nuclear bombs, that you are very careful when you choose a target.  We wouldn't want too many people we know and love to get hurt.  So, since we know you need to make a statement, We the American People have decided to sacrifice the city of San Francisco to the cause of jihad.  We've warned all of our loved ones to move to Tulsa, Billings and Duluth in preparation for your demonstration.

Oh, you won't need to make more than two bombs, so save your money.  Your point will be made.  The spineless, weak kneed, lily livered, yellow bellied politicians of this country will immediately be at your side begging you not to detonate the other bomb in exchange for whatever you want, so have your wish list ready. 

Sincerely,

Joe or Sally American

So, once again I ask, who will get sacrificed in order to soothe our conscience?

Recently I attended a band concert of one of my children.  The band was arrayed in the classical concentric semi-circle arrangement.  Prior to and during the concert, various students walked up to the microphone to explain some aspect of what the band was doing.  The only problem, I couldn't understand a word any one of the kids said.  It wasn't my middle aged ears, or problem with the public address system.  The problem was the source.  The children did not speak clearly.  I've heard professional athletes speak more clearly.  What's wrong with these kids?

In the United States, we allegedly share a common language, so why is it that the younger generation is unable to speak it?  I'm not speaking about the slang that each generation uses, I'm speaking about the fundamentals of the language.  The ability of a person to be understood generally has a direct influence on their ability to secure a good job, or advance to a position of responsibility.  Imagine for a moment, asking to speak with a manager and upon beginning the conversation, your confidence in having the issue resolved plummets to zero as you are unable to decipher the words eminating from some mush mouthed bozo who can't complete a sentance without resorting to barely recognizeable catch phrases like "You know", "Know what I'm sayin'" or worse.  While we all like to skewer the "Valley Girl Syndrome" of the 1980's, it is far worse today because the result is an unintelligible stream of noise with an occasional sylable of coherence.

I suppose my midwest upbringing, coupled with my parents insisting that I did not pick up the local drawl has allowed me to be understood by all english speaking peoples from the many different countries and local's that I have visited.  The thought of only being able to effectively communicate in only one section or subculture of our great nation is inconcievable.

I think of the presidential race going on right now.  People say of Barack Obama how well spoken and eloquent he is.  Why isn't this the norm?  Imagine for a moment how far Mr. Obama would have gone on the national stage if he spoke as do many rap or hip-hop 'artists'?  He would be laughed off the stage.  We would not trust him to represent our country to the rest of the world.  Thank heavens that Mr. Obama's parents and teachers taught him to speak clearly.  He is an impressive speaker that I disagree with, but that's another story.

Now, if you are a business owner, and you want to make a positive impression on your customers, just who are you going to hire?  Would you want your customers to wonder if they've called your company or the local low budget rap studio?  I think the answer is clear, unlike the speech patters of millions of tweens, teens and young adults who will be entering the work force soon, and can't understand why no one will hire them.

So, what's the solution?  It boils down to parents and teachers, church members and the public in general.  They should insist that children speaking should enunciate their words.  Catch phrases should be eliminated from their vocabulary, know what I'm sayin'.  I should not need an English to English translator if, heaven help me, I actually want to watch something on MTV, or a music awards show.  I should not need subtitles on the local news to help me understand what the eye witness to a shooting of a drug dealer, or victim of a natural disaster says.  Go look up "Boo got Shot" on YouTube for a perfect example.  America should raise the level of our speaking intelligence immediately.

I confess that I was actually watching MSNBC the other night.  They had a program on about the California penal system that caught my attention.  There were two things that have stuck with me.  The first is that there are over 500 people on death row, and the second is that how much it costs to house and feed a criminal.

Ron White, the Blue Collar Comedy Tour guy, was talking about Texas and the death row there having an express lane.  I think that is a GREAT idea.  There are some people in our society, who have no interest in being 'rehabilitated' and if released from prison, will simply rob, rape and kill again.  Once guilt has been established, appeals should take place within MONTHS, not years and then they should be escorted quickly to their eternal dirt nap.

One of the death row inmates on the MSNBC program was completely unapologetic about killing his first victim and actually described the plotting of and murder of another inmate.  His guilt is not in doubt, so why is this guy continuing to turn oxygen into carbon dioxide and food into waste on my dime? 

A recent case here in Georgia adds credence to this argument.  A drifter has been sent away for life for the recent murder of a young woman and is the prime suspect in several other murders.  This guy needs to die.  There is no doubt about his guilt and as a tax payer, I'm not interested in preserving his sorry life any further. 

Bring back the hangman, or the firing squad.  Fire up the needle, gas chamber or electric chair and lets rid our society of these people.  None of us would be comfortable if they moved in down the street from us, even if they found religion in prison.   It is an absolute crime against society that "Life without the possibility of parole" is ever offered to a criminal.  If we are willing to put them away for the rest of their natural lives, to the tune of somewhere between 25 and 100 thousand dollars per year, why don't we as a responsible society just cut our losses and execute these criminals.

I've heard it said that the death penalty is no longer a deterrent to crime.  My take on the reason is, that it is not used often enough and quick enough.  Imagine from the time that a criminal in death penalty case is convicted until their death, only 6 months to 1 year have elapsed, instead of the more typical 10-20 years.  Imagine the savings.  Imagine that some wannabe criminal actually remembers this when considering their next crime.  Unlikely I grant you, but possible.

Now, to those who will try to convince me otherwise, don't waste your time bringing up statistics about how inmate X served N number of years on death row before being freed by DNA evidence.  I get it.  I'm not talking about those guys.  I'm talking about the really hardened criminals where there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT about their guilt.  Send them along.  Maybe they can find redemption in the next life.  They knew the rules here and chose to break them.  Sorry, you're out.  ZAP!  NEXT!

Somewhere down deep in my heart I have a glimmer of hope for the non-violent "three strikes and your out crew", but it's just that, a glimmer.   I'm kind of divided on the whole issue.  Seems a shame though that we have to feed and house these bozo's too.  Doesn't Darwin have a theory about survival of the fittest?  If you are too stupid to not have gotten the message after two tries and continue in your criminal ways, maybe you should be executed for just being too stupid.   If you can't get out of prison after three strikes, why bother keeping you there?  Why should I as a taxpayer continue to pay for your stupid mistakes by housing, feeding and giving you prison health care?  Sorry, you're out.  ZAP!  NEXT!

There are lots of reasons I can think of to eliminate this human debris from our law abiding society and a scant few to actually keep them around.  I have yet to hear a compelling, non emotional argument to the contrary.  Even in our enlightened Judaeo-Christian society, mercy (Life w/o parole) cannot rob justice (execution) for the truly hardened.  Executing criminals ... It's the right thing to do.

Every time I hear the term "Maverick" when describing John McCain, it always conjures up a picture of a dude with a cowboy hat, a pair of six guns, wad of chewing tobacco, bandanna around his neck and generally in desperate need of a bath.  In other words, some kind of cowboy.

Early in the current Bush presidency, the main stream media commonly referred to and compared GWB as a cowboy, particularly when relating his actions to the war in Iraq.  He was accused of 'going it alone' in the invasion, but let's not forget how there were many in the legislative branch of government who made up the posse of deputies.

In my profession, when one of the programmers decides to 'do things his own way', he is referred to as 'going cowboy'.  This generally results in the rest of the programmers working on the project to stop what we are doing, figure out what he has done and why, install new software on our system to make it possible to compile the project again and then after this generally painful and lengthy diversion, we can get back to the tasks we have been assigned, which are now late because of the actions of one 'cowboy' programmer.

I have to wonder just what kind of Maverick we have in John McCain.  Is he going to be like the "cowboy" programmer that screws things up for everyone else?  Or, will he be the "Maverick" that comes in an takes on the establishment, shakes things up and cut through the obstacles that everyone else is encumbered with.

Somehow, after 25 or so years in Congress, I think McCain is much less a maverick than what he or his supporters would like us to believe.  I'll grant that he's got some chops with the pro-life, pro-military and some fiscal restraint, but I have such a hard time with his positions on immigration, campaign finance vs. the first amendment, and global warming that I just can't bring myself to support him.  I see him as the 'establishment' candidate who will deliver 4 more years of the same mind numbing, freedom restricting, tax extracting, wasteful spending, entitlement expanding policies, initiatives, earmarks, laws, and other assorted mechanisms that have characterized the last several administrations.

Come Tuesday, I'll be casting my vote for Romney.  Call me crazy, but having a CEO in chief has a certain appeal to me.  I'm so sick of pork barrel spending, waste, duplication, expanding entitlements and other financial idiocy engaged in by almost every member of Congress that having someone with an eye on the bottom line of the balance sheet makes me hopeful for a better future for me and my kids.  Serving in the military or having a military background to be the Commander in Chief is over rated.  Thats why the Joint Chiefs of Staff exist.  They advise every president on military issues.  Dealing with international diplomacy... well, most of those negotiations come down to money anyway.  "We want you to do X, and were willing to give you Y in "foreign aid" to get what we want."  That kind of negotiation is no different than going to any supplier in the business world.  Our government is really just a big business anyway.  The price we pay for it's services are our taxes.  So, having a CEO who can negotiate contracts should have the vast majority of the skills necessary to deal with foreign policy.


Being pragmatic about the whole situation, come fall, I may need to swallow a bitter pill and pull, the lever for McCain, but I'd rather not.  I'm really so tired of American politics being the choice of the lesser of two evils instead of a good vs. evil or even a good vs. better.  Unfortunately for conservative Americans, the choice will again be a choice of the lesser of two evils. 

The subject of illegal immigration is an issue during this election cycle I cannot ignore.  I've listened to all of the candidates position on all of it.  I guess in my heart I'm a Law and Order type.  I was brought up with those common mid-western values.  Follow the rules.  Keep your nose clean.  Be respectful to police officers, religious leaders (regardless of the denomination).  When disagreeing, be firm but concede that there are more than one viewpoint and approach to the problem.

However, it seems that as a people, we Americans seem to be in favor of having a fence between us and Mexico.  It seems that the old adage about "Good fences make good neighbors" is true.  They ensure that my stuff and your stuff don't mix, my garden isn't disturbed by your wandering cows, your apple trees are picked by my kids and so forth. So, why is it that when so many people are in favor of the fence that it isn't yet built.  I've been hearing for over a year that it's on then off again due to some bleeding heart messing with it's funding or other such Washington based nonsense.

That brings me to my point.  Now that it seems the race for the republican nomination has narrowed to either John McCain or Mitt Romney, it becomes trivial to compare and contrast their positions on something so fundamentally desired by we Americans.  Which of these two is going to get the fence built?

McCain says he will build it, but he usually says so while looking like he just got a large dose of Syrup of Ipecak and is ready to vomit.  I see the same face when I tell my teenage daughter to clean her room.

Romney says he will build it, but unlike McCain, it seems that he actually WANTS to build it. 

With the presidency on the line, do I want the candidate with the attitude of "Fine, I'll build the (expletives deleted) fence, now can I be President?" or the one that appears to be saying "Can I be President so that I can build the fence you all want?"

Good fences make good neighbors.  Good people get good fences built, for the right reason and with the right attitude.  Maybe a good President doing the right things for the right reasons might even inspire my teenage daughter to clean her room.

I've watched with amazement as our elected officials do a collective "Chicken Little" regarding the economy.  Everyone is touting this stimulus package or that one.  The conventional wisdom right now is that if you happen to be among the souls in this country that the government has extracted taxes out of, you might be getting a small portion of that money back.  To this I say:  NO THANKS.

As I contemplate the application of what I might use that $600 - $1200 for, thoughts of a new High Def TV comes to mind, or a new computer or maybe the new laminate floors for the kitchen that my wife has been wanting for some time or some other type of home improvement.  However, as these pleasant thoughts drift through my mind, other thoughts creep in about the debt I carry on credit cards, car loans and my mortgage and the adult portion of my psyche says that I should apply that unexpected bounty toward that balance.  Paying my Visa bill isn't going to stimulate the economy at all.

Now, another part of my adult psyche kicks in to wonder "If the government is going to spend an approximate $150 Billion dollars, where is that money coming from?"  Well from you and me, or from our children assuming some poor schmuck at the Treasury department has to go and sell $150 Billion worth of bonds to cover our elected officials generosity.  Somehow that strikes me in the same nerve that my wife waltzing through the front door with numerous bags dangling from her arms and announcing how much she "saved" me by buying all the stuff I now need to find a place to put.

Furthermore, I heard the other day on a radio program, that even if a so called stimulus package were to be passed by our esteemed lawmakers, it would be MONTHS before anyone were to receive their government handout.  If the problem is NOW, the solution being proposed isn't going to help the economy six to nine months from now.

So, let me repeat: NO THANKS, President Bush.  NO THANKS, Speaker Pelosi.  NO THANKS, Senator Reid.  Keep the so called stimulus package.  I'd say apply it to the national debt, but unfortunately the source of the $150 Billion would be added to the debt, so JUST DON'T SPEND IT.  The economy will slowdown a bit, but the fundamentals are still good.  Instead of having 4% growth, we'll only have 2%.  Then when all of the hysteria about the "sub prime mortgage crisis" dissipates, the people who over extended themselves and the banks who loaned them money work things out, and our elected officials come to their fiscal common senses, the economy will right itself.

Repeat after me:  NO THANKS.  NO THANKS.  NO THANKS.