Bhutto

The big news of the past 24 hours is that some fanatic shot or blew up ex-leader and current candidate Bhutto in Pakistan. This should be big news here in America because the nuclear bomb holding Pakistan is one of our few allies.

I saw that there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets rioting. Apparently they are upset that she is dead. Perhaps they could use that pent up energy to do something about the radical jackasses that caused the mayhem.

Quit screaming, crying, and flailing your arms in the air and pick up a weapon and defend your country from the nut jobs. While difficult and ridiculously dangerous, that would be the reasonable thing to do.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

I just like saying that phrase. I learned this morning that you can even say Merry Xmas since the X has some language significance as Chi thus it was used in place of Christ more than 500 years ago. Good to know.

As to Happy New Year - this is what I think would be reasonable and make for a happy new year.

• The promise of a new presidency that will come with the elections in November 2008.
• Leave Iraq, stay away from Iran and North Korea. Bring home our troops before too many more die in a needless and aimless "conflict."
• Agreement that taking care of the environment, for whatever reason, has to be better than creating a pig sty. It's as simple as that.
• An economy that somehow survives the ridiculous home mortgage fiasco.
• I hope the creepy lenders that caused this, along with the homeowners who weren't smart enough to think through these ridiculous loans have to share the burden THEY jointly created.
• I hope the government doesn't completely break the bank trying to buy the electorate back over the mortgage fiasco. Some bailout seems inevitable. I hope they don't buy the houses for the people. I am paying for mine - they should pay for theirs.
• Some sort of immigration reform before I cannot understand the majority of people in my own English speaking country.
• Along these lines, I hope the judicial system in Arizona will uphold the right of voters who said in 2007, "enough already - if the feds can't fix immigration, we will."
• I hope employers stop hiring illegal immigrants because they get them cheap. Only the employer benefits. Legitimate employers foot the bill in terms of higher taxes and ridiculously high insurance benefits. Oh, and legal immigrants and citizens pay the price as well.
• I hope we keep gun ownership rights, rights for a woman to choose what is correct for her body, freedom to say, "Merry Christmas" and to otherwise celebrate whatever religion (or not) that we want.
• And finally, the Green Bay Packers should win the Superbowl.

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years! (try saying it - it feels nice)

Religion in the Political Process

Separation of church and state always seems to get stretched too thin. Liberals want religion completely out of our daily political - government lives. Conservatives want religion to be thrust upon the masses in order to insure morality, etc. Neither position is reasonable.

This debate has manifested itself in the 2008 election in the discussion of Mitt Romney and his Mormon beliefs. Apparently half of the Christians in the U.S. consider Mormonism to be a cult or are not sure if it is a Christian based religion. Clearly Mormons have some beliefs that are out of step with main stream Christianity. But all religions have some oddities I suppose. It is the nature of "beliefs" rather than provable, scientific fact.

Back to Romney - he felt compelled to give a speech about his beliefs because political pressures dictated the move. Kennedy did the same in 1960. If the candidate for president was a Muslim, would their be a need for a speech? Not a chance - affiliation would eliminate the candidate before he ever got a chance. Romney needed to explain his Mormon belief system because of the confusion over "Christian religion versus cult" status of the Mormon faith.

It is unreasonable to vote for or against a candidate solely based on his or her religious beliefs. However, it is certainly reasonable to consider religious beliefs as part of the equation of "who is the candidate?" In other words, we are all made up of a woven fabric, all parts intertwined. To think a Mormon or Lutheran or Catholic or Buddhist or Muslim or Jew or an atheist can "turn off" their belief system while making decisions that effect all of us is ridiculous.

One's belief system is reasonable fodder for consideration.

Happy Holidays Redux

Two interesting things have happened this year in terms of the Happy Holiday versus Merry Christmas debate that has been building over the years. And, yes I know this is my second stab at this topic.

One, all of the Jewish people I know say, "Merry Christmas" to me instead of Happy Holidays. I also say, "Happy Hanukkah" to them which seems to be the proper thing to do. Nice! I even listened to the Hanukkah song by Adam Sandler - I just love that, "drink your Gin and Tonica" line. From Adam I learned OJ Simpson is not a Jew.

On the other hand, Christians seem to have caved this year and are saying, "Happy Holidays" to each other. Now that is nuts. Somebody just has to take a chance.

Next year, and I mean starting January 1, 2008 Christians everywhere, led by Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, etc. Christian churches should begin a campaign to get Christians to not buy anything for Christmas 2008 from any store that advertised "Happy Holidays" and put a picture of a Christmas tree or ornament on the advertisement in 2007. If they called a Christmas tree a family or holiday tree - no one should ever shop in their store again - period. Are you kidding me - a holiday tree?

We will need all year to build momentum and get the word out - "don't buy from Happy Holiday sayers!"

One outcome might be that Christmas gets put back into our most decidedly Christian country. If not, all the money we don't spend on plastic doo-dads that we don't need and will break any way, could be used to take a vacation together as a family or to support a worthy cause that interests us. Wouldn't that be nice? I am going to use the money to go on a cruise to Ixtapa.

What isn't nice, and is totally unreasonable, is the PC term "Happy Holidays."

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Outrageous and Totally Unreasonable!

This will be short.

Apparently the U.S. Military is asking injured soldiers to return portions of their signing bonuses because they can no longer serve. What?

So you go to the ridiculous war in Iraq, have your arm, leg, etc. blown off by a bunch of fanatics, and then your employer (U.S. Military) asks you to give them money!!

Apparently these hero troops are a little irritated by this development which seems reasonable to me. Think about this, there were people sitting in a meeting who actually decided and agreed upon this ridiculous policy. Are you kidding me? Shame on our military and political leaders.

Tis' the Season

Yesterday's mail brought 5 pieces of mail from retailers getting a jump start on what I assume is advertising to lure Christmas shoppers. If I were a retailer, I would definitely target Christmas shoppers with my limited and crucial advertising dollars. While the ads may not appeal to Jewish or Muslim folks, I suspect they are looking for a good bargain as well. Atheists? I think they too want a deal even if they have to endure some Christmas greeting.

So back to the 5 pieces of mail. Exactly one, from Harry and David, mentioned Christmas. Harry and David is the company that sells ridiculously expensive and oh so good Pears. Yes, Pears - the fruit. They sell other stuff as well, but we have mostly enjoyed the fabulous Pears.

Everyone on my Christmas list this year, at least so far, is going to be getting Pears. There is a simple reason for this - my family (like about 90% of American families) celebrates Christmas. We don't celebrate the season or the holidays. We observe Thanksgiving, celebrate Christmas and ring in the New Year.

In the end, it will be totally reasonable to believe that my relatives and friends will all be happy to open their box of Pears.

Merry Christmas!!

Social Security in the Future

First, I suppose it is safe and reasonable to say that Social Security will not be able to pay full level benefits to retiring citizens in another 20 years or so. The estimates vary, but we should just assume that those of us in our mid-40s will not get a full share.

Hopefully we are all putting money in a 401-K, Roth IRA, IRA, or some other retirement vehicle. Then we have heard suggestions about privatizing of the fund or some part of it so that we can manage our own money. Seems like a great idea - except too many of us will not put the effort in, thus we will farm it out to "professionals" who will manage it for us.

Do you think they will do their best for us? Who will get rich? The professional money managers of course. At first they will probably do a good job and only moderately rip us off. Then as they need more money to buy bigger boats, gold faucets, and larger estates, they will rip us off some more.

Then when it becomes a crisis, the government will let the scam artists off the hook and pay the lost money to the people who were scammed. Of course they will get the money from those of us who paid into Social Security and decided that one broken system is not better than another and stayed with what we knew was broken.

Sound familiar? Think mortgages. Think Savings and Loans.

The government is incapable of running these huge programs. They cannot manage immigration, education, defense, etc. They have botched nearly every endeavor they have tried. Yes I know it is better than any other place on earth - that only makes us more tolerant of the endless rip-offs.

Totally unreasonable.

Peein' in a Jar

This is not an original thought. It was sent to me and reprinted, in part, here as I couldn't agree more.

URINE TEST

"Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass doing drugs while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"

Now this is a reasonable stance if you ask me!

Is this the best we can do?

The news today is that Hillary is now the majority choice for the Democrats. Add to that fact that the Democrats are raising more money that the Republicans, and you have to wonder what is going to happen in this presidential election.

The Republicans on the other hand are longing for Ronald Reagan to lead them out of the abyss that George has created. There is no Ronnie - unfortunately - to bail out the Republicans. The only chance here for the Republicans in 2008 is deep seated prejudices coming to the surface.

When the curtain closes on the voting booth (yes I know most of us don't really get to go in a booth any more) will Reagan Democrats and Independents actually vote for a woman? Or a Black man? Or a Tort Lawyer? Even Democrats have prejudices and if they boil up, they may vote for Rudy Giuliani!

Of course if Al Gore gets any inkling around January that deep seated prejudices might in fact come into play, you can count on Al, Tipper, and the Nobel Peace Prize to jump into the fray.

All of this begs the question, "are Hillary, Rudy, John, Barack, and the others the best we can do in this country?" If yes, that definitely is unreasonable.

Mortgage Bailout

As usual, the hard working, honest person who endeavors to live within his/her means gets screwed. Some mortgage companies decided a few years ago that business was not brisk enough so they dreamed up sub-prime loans with teaser rates and interest only loans. I imagine some investors got fabulously wealthy on those loans.

Now, surprise-surprise, people cannot pay the bill on the big house with the ever expanding mortgage payment. So our government says, we will bail you out of your bad decision. In other words, reward bad behavior. The executives of the mortgage companies will get sweetheart deals on their way out for their fine work, people with huge houses or worse, those that took out equity from their homes, will get bailed out by the government and this will all be paid for by people who lived within their means.

Totally unreasonable.

Gun Control

For the first time in my adult life, a presidential campaign hasn't been saturated with discussions about gun control. What has happened? Usually one side is claiming that all the world's ills are caused by guns and the other (Charlie's side) is espousing the ridiculous statement, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Neither stance is reasonable. What is clear is the founding fathers most likely all owned guns. This was for protection and hunting and sport. So when they wrote about the right to bear arms, I believe they meant you have a right to have a gun. Period.

And, no I don't own a gun personally. I had a handgun and determined that the criminal would take it away from me before I could defend myself/family/home because I didn't practice using the gun. If you are going to have one, you should be a responsible user. I was not, so I sold it (and kept the receipt.)

On the other hand, the gun lobby seems to oppose any constraints at all. I for one think that the UZI was definitely not on the founding father's mind. Weapons such as these completely change the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" equation. While it is a person shooting, the weapon itself is making that person capable of mass mayhem in a matter of seconds. The saying becomes, "Uzis don't kill people, Uzis kill many people."

Gun manufacturers and the gun lobby need to apply some common sense before the majority of VOTING Americans shift their attitude because of situations like VT and Columbine. Those that want all guns banned need to see the unreasonableness of that as well - that will never happen in America.

As is almost always the case, the extremes are just not reasonable.

Immigration Continued

I was driving down the road in Phoenix, AZ yesterday and people were picketing, but the signs were in Spanish so I don't know about what they were complaining. One sign was in English and it said they were unhappy about new employment laws in Arizona. Is it reasonable for people to complain in Spanish when that is one of the very things that lead to the laws about which they are complaining?
Just a thought.

Family Values

I have decided that I will no longer vote for any candidate who says he/she is for family values. Isn't nearly everyone for family values? It isn't reasonable to expect to win my vote by saying, "I stand for family values."

It also seems that he who yells "I am for family values" the loudest is the one most likely to be having an affair, chasing interns, and now looking for sex in the men's room. Think Senator Craig, Mark Foley, Livingston, Henry Hyde etc.

"I stand for family values" is a catchphrase that means nothing and may in fact be a sign of some untoward activities. I want someone who stands for growing our economy, fixing immigration, handling medical and tort reform, ending the war in Iraq at whatever is the appropriate time, and being a good steward of our environment. That is only reasonable.

Freedom of Religion

This post could easily have been called separation of church and state. Depends on your perspective I suppose.

The founding fathers came to North America partly to escape the Church of England and to practice freedom of religion. Clearly, at the time, and really up to very recent times, religion - primarily Christianity - played a large role in American society. Despite that, it seems highly likely that the religious men and women who founded this country thought that religious entities should not be running the country.

It seems equally as likely that they didn't mean that Christian symbols should be banned from public life. Nor any other religious symbol for that matter. In terms of the United States and Christianity, they are joined together forever because of the huge majority of citizens who identify themselves with at least modest Christian beliefs. That huge majority should not be apologetic, nor asked to forgo their important symbols.

However, other faiths with fewer followers, and indeed those who are "faithless", should not be any way discriminated against either. Symbols that apply to the vast majority do not discriminate against people of other religions or no religion. To think that a nativity scene or crucifix in a public building somehow violates separation of church and state is simply not reasonable. It even pays tribute to the beliefs of the brave men and women who founded this great land.

Immigration

Okay, now we have to move on to more meaningful topics such as immigration reform. The broken U.S. government was unable to get the deal done. Based on the document they created, that is a good thing. However, since they won't deal with this again until 2009, the following should be done:
1. Secure the border as much as possible by wall, patrols, destroying tunneling, night vision tracking, etc. Work hard it.
2. Enforce the laws already on the books and the newer tighter rules and laws being passed or contemplated in the states. Arizona today passed tighter laws.
3. Deal with the Legal Immigrants now. They are a different problem. Think about the fiasco with passports and realize that these folks are being unfairly and unduly delayed. They have followed the rules so let's get them done.
4. Take time to talk to illegal immigrants and try to understand what will make them step forward and identify themselves and learn English.
5. Immediately detain and deport any illegal immigrant convicted of a crime - finger print them, get their DNA, and never let them apply. Tell them if they are ever caught here again, they will be detained in a U.S. prison and their families will also be barred from entering even legally.
6. Finally, in 2009 pass comprehensive immigration reform that rewards the achievers and English speakers, and allows for some of the traditional family inclusion.

To have passed the so called bi-partisan bill would have been simply unreasonable as it was, as President Bush clearly announced, an amnesty bill that would have been terrible for this country.

My First Try at Blogging

The goal for my very first post ever is to pick a non-controversial subject, or at least only mildly controversial. To that end, I will pick Paris Hilton.

One turns on CNN hoping to see news, even biased news, not to see a spoiled and contrite heiress. Okay, I guess it is reasonable for Larry King to interview her because he is in the entertainment business. But does Anderson Cooper's 360 need to recap? Really? Do we care that she cried, took notes, and was scared while in jail?

Paris is a lovely young lady who has been taped in all sorts of "interesting" ways. Despite this, she continues to garner interest from main stream media - taking time from the real and serious matters we face today. This is simply not reasonable!