Sometimes the people who know me get a good chuckle out of the fact that I've worked as an administrator in higher education over the past ten years. Of all the people to acquire a Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership and pursue a career in this field, why me? An arch-conservative working amongst the plethora of left-wing liberals who absolutely dominate university campuses throughout our country? Am I a glutton for punishment? Well, no...I'm just trying to bring some balance to the institution, that's all.
But make no mistake about it, I have often felt the need to conduct myself like I was working as part of a clandestine spying operation. I've had to watch what I say, keep my views to myself, and not allow myself to be lured into political conversations for fear of being outed. Why? Because like it or not, I've had to collaborate with liberal faculty in starting new academic programs that would benefit my department. I sometimes felt that they would not be willing to assist me if they knew where I stood and what I believed. Without their help, my new initiatives would have been dead in the water. It's sad, but I'm afraid it's true.
So that begs the question: why is higher education so populated with liberal faculty? Where are all the conservatives? To answer this question, I believe we have to start with a simple premise. The premise is this: the job of college professor is the DREAM JOB for any liberal. Why? There are at least three major reasons why I believe this is the case. The first reason is that it gives them a captive audience for espousing their radical views. Think about it. If some nut was standing on a street corner ranting about abortion rights, amnesty for illegals, or the ratification of gay marriage, then any person could choose to ignore the shouting. We could simply walk past the raving lunatic without acknowledging that person's existence.
Unfortunately, college students who are stuck in classes with these types of professors cannot do the same. They have enrolled in the course, they're paying to be there, and they need to earn a passing grade in order to receive credit toward graduation. Sure they can drop the course, but sometimes they don't have another alternative. Sometimes it's too late before they realize how radical their professor is, and dropping the course after the add/drop deadline would mean that they would not receive a refund of their tuition. Those who oppose the professor's philosophy are often frightened to speak out in class, believing that it may affect their final grade. They're essentially confined to lock-up with a left-wing ideologue, and there is no escape. Thus the professor has a captive audience: one that is often afraid to challenge the instructor's views, and one that can be quite impressionable given their young ages. What an opportunity to spread the doctrine of liberalism!
The second reason why the job of college professor is so attractive to liberals is that they receive protection from being persecuted for expressing their radical views. This protection is granted under the umbrella of "academic freedom."Academic freedom is the golden rule on college campuses, and it states that freedom of inquiry must be granted to students and faculty alike. Thus professors are allowed to communicate ideas, no matter how radical they may be, without fears of repercussion. Where else in American society can you do that? Would that fly in the corporate world?
College deans, provosts, and presidents are deathly afraid of violating this long-held doctrine. If they are perceived to be infringing upon a professor's academic freedom, then they might be deemed as applying censorship and thus assaulting the very mission of higher education. It's a major no-no, even if a student had come to them to complain about a professor's outlandish views. Very few university administrators have the stomach to enter such a battle, so most will simply try to smooth things over with the student and allow the professor to keep advocating their own personal, liberal agenda.
The third reason, and in my opinion the most important one, why this job attracts liberals is the possibility of tenure. The process of attaining tenure differs from institution to institution, but for the most part it works like this. A full-time instructor in his sixth year of teaching must submit a portfolio of accomplishments to a group of university faculty who comprise the Tenure and Promotion Committee. The faculty on the committee review the portfolio and make a recommendation on whether or not this candidate should be granted tenure. The criteria for evaluation are teaching, research, and service. In virtually all cases, the recommendation of the committee on whether to grant or deny tenure to the candidate is upheld. Once a professor attains tenure, it is almost impossible to remove him.
Now, if you guessed that the majority of faculty members on the Tenure and Promotion Committee are left-wingers, then chances are you guessed correctly. It only stands to reason that if liberals comprise the vast majority of university faculty, then they would also make up the majority on this committee. It would be naive to believe that they don't look out for their own, seeking to perpetuate liberal dominance in higher education. Over the years, I have read numerous articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education that detailed the plight of conservative professors who were denied tenure. While the committee may have cited them for shortcomings in their teaching, research, and service, these candidates firmly believed that their conservative views are what ultimately cost them their jobs.
So there you have it. The job of college professor gives the liberal loon a golden platform to express their radical views. They have a captive audience who they can shape and mold with little fear of opposition, they are protected from repercussions from the university administration under the guise of academic freedom, and the attainment of tenure allows them to do this for life, with virtually no chance of ever being removed from their teaching post. Wow! Where else in America can you get a deal like this? Is it any wonder now that this field is so over-populated by the left?
So now we need to ask ourselves whether there is any hope of reversing this trend. Can we ever achieve a balance in higher education between liberal and conservative faculty? I honestly don't think so. The position of college professor will always attract more liberals than conservatives, and the powerful committees that decide whether to grant tenure to a faculty member will always look out for their own. It's something we need to accept, but I'm not so sure that conservatives need to be too concerned about it. There are enough young men and women who form their belief system before they head off to college, and thus won't be swayed by their professors' arguments. There are many more who may even be so turned off by the prevalent liberalism that they become conservatives by default. If this year's mid-term elections are any indication, the impact of liberal university faculty on our nation's belief system is infinitesimal. It won't stop them from ranting and raving in their classrooms, but who cares as long as the majority of Americans aren't listening.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
We Need a Little Christmas Now
Something tells me that one day, when historians look back and remember the year 2010, it will not exactly incite fond memories. They'll talk about how those of us who lived through this time period experienced the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. They'll discuss America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly our "third war" at the Mexican border. They may recall how Iran and North Korea defiantly pursued nuclear weapons. By that point in time, we can only hope and pray that no catastrophic damage will have resulted from the actions of these rogue regimes.
But for the most part, the history books will surely focus on this economy and how it impacted the lives of Americans. They may well explain how it changed our lives forever, and I for one would not be surprised if that turns out to be the case. Why? Because you can't place the blame for this financial collapse entirely on the banks that took on billions and billions of troubled assets, approving mortgages for people who had no business applying for them in the first place. The people themselves have to accept their share of responsibility as well.
America has always had citizens who purchase and consume goods in excess of their basic needs. This practice can even be traced back to ancient civilizations, such as the Roman Empire, Babylon, and Egypt. But common sense tells you that at some point, something had to give. As consumerism rose, there had to come a point when too many people will have purchased and consumed too many goods beyond their basic needs. This event contributed as much to the financial collapse as those greedy Wall Street bankers who everyone loves to hate. People bought more house than they could afford in an ongoing attempt to keep up with the Joneses. They continuously purchased goods with their credit cards, creating a mountain of debt that they would never be able to escape. Those American citizens who were irresponsible with their money are just as much to blame for the situation we're in as anybody or anything else.
And so, now we are at a point when the national unemployment rate has hovered between nine and ten percent for the past year-and-a-half. It has even exceeded that level in several states, such as Nevada, Michigan, California, and Florida. The Census Bureau has come out and reported that we now have over 43 million Americans living in poverty, the highest number in 51 years of record keeping. Over the past decade, the rate of poverty has risen from eleven percent to just over fourteen percent. The rate of home foreclosures has been staggering over the past two years, and only subsided a little bit in November due to the "robo-signing" controversy. Banks were forced to suspend foreclosures while they conducted investigations into widespread claims of notary fraud, giving troubled homeowners a brief respite. Finally, according to the latest Fox News polls, 74% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, over 65% believe the country is going in the wrong direction, and more people disapprove of the job President Obama has done than approve, by a margin of 47.8% to 45.7%.
What does it all mean? To me, it means that Christmas could not have come at a better time for Americans. We all need to step back and, at least for a little while, take our minds off the myriad of problems that has continued to plague our country over this past year. Be grateful for what you have, rather than ungrateful for what you don't have. Think about all those who have lost their jobs and their homes, and hope that the New Year has better things in store for them. Remember all of our men and women in uniform who fight for our freedom each and every day. But most of all, it is my hope that we will all remember what is most important, and indeed the very reason why we celebrate Christmas every year. Remember that God sent His only Son into our world to guide us, teach us, heal us, and ultimately sacrifice Himself for our sins. If this fact alone cannot comfort you in these difficult times, then nothing will.
At perhaps no other time has Johnny Mathis' words in his classic Christmas song rang so true:
For we need a little music,
Need a little laughter,
Need a little singing
Ringing through the rafter,
And we need a little snappy
"Happy ever after,"
Need a little Christmas now.
Need a little Christmas now.
Merry Christmas to all, and may God's presence in our lives help us make it through the many challenges we are facing during this troubling period in history.
But for the most part, the history books will surely focus on this economy and how it impacted the lives of Americans. They may well explain how it changed our lives forever, and I for one would not be surprised if that turns out to be the case. Why? Because you can't place the blame for this financial collapse entirely on the banks that took on billions and billions of troubled assets, approving mortgages for people who had no business applying for them in the first place. The people themselves have to accept their share of responsibility as well.
America has always had citizens who purchase and consume goods in excess of their basic needs. This practice can even be traced back to ancient civilizations, such as the Roman Empire, Babylon, and Egypt. But common sense tells you that at some point, something had to give. As consumerism rose, there had to come a point when too many people will have purchased and consumed too many goods beyond their basic needs. This event contributed as much to the financial collapse as those greedy Wall Street bankers who everyone loves to hate. People bought more house than they could afford in an ongoing attempt to keep up with the Joneses. They continuously purchased goods with their credit cards, creating a mountain of debt that they would never be able to escape. Those American citizens who were irresponsible with their money are just as much to blame for the situation we're in as anybody or anything else.
And so, now we are at a point when the national unemployment rate has hovered between nine and ten percent for the past year-and-a-half. It has even exceeded that level in several states, such as Nevada, Michigan, California, and Florida. The Census Bureau has come out and reported that we now have over 43 million Americans living in poverty, the highest number in 51 years of record keeping. Over the past decade, the rate of poverty has risen from eleven percent to just over fourteen percent. The rate of home foreclosures has been staggering over the past two years, and only subsided a little bit in November due to the "robo-signing" controversy. Banks were forced to suspend foreclosures while they conducted investigations into widespread claims of notary fraud, giving troubled homeowners a brief respite. Finally, according to the latest Fox News polls, 74% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, over 65% believe the country is going in the wrong direction, and more people disapprove of the job President Obama has done than approve, by a margin of 47.8% to 45.7%.
What does it all mean? To me, it means that Christmas could not have come at a better time for Americans. We all need to step back and, at least for a little while, take our minds off the myriad of problems that has continued to plague our country over this past year. Be grateful for what you have, rather than ungrateful for what you don't have. Think about all those who have lost their jobs and their homes, and hope that the New Year has better things in store for them. Remember all of our men and women in uniform who fight for our freedom each and every day. But most of all, it is my hope that we will all remember what is most important, and indeed the very reason why we celebrate Christmas every year. Remember that God sent His only Son into our world to guide us, teach us, heal us, and ultimately sacrifice Himself for our sins. If this fact alone cannot comfort you in these difficult times, then nothing will.
At perhaps no other time has Johnny Mathis' words in his classic Christmas song rang so true:
For we need a little music,
Need a little laughter,
Need a little singing
Ringing through the rafter,
And we need a little snappy
"Happy ever after,"
Need a little Christmas now.
Need a little Christmas now.
Merry Christmas to all, and may God's presence in our lives help us make it through the many challenges we are facing during this troubling period in history.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Kill the Lame Duck
As yet another lame duck session of Congress comes to an end, we once again witness firsthand why these sessions should never take place. Having suffered a decisive defeat in the mid-term elections, the Democrats have used this session to ram through every last piece of Obama's high-priority, politically charged legislation that they can. The DREAM Act, the spending bill, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the START treaty...isn't it amazing how so many bills have been introduced in such a short period of time?
To me, allowing politicians who have been defeated to return to Congress and pass legislation is akin to allowing convicted criminals to run free in society and commit a few more crimes before they are imprisoned. It can only result in more harm and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The lame duck session creates opportunities for outgoing congressmen to turn against the voters and perform any last minute, self-serving acts that they possibly can before their time is up. It's sad, really. They may sell their votes in exchange for a job at a government agency, or simply vote for or against a certain bill just to spite the people who voted them out.
It's time to kill the lame duck sessions in Congress once and for all. The current economic climate makes it impossible for us to afford them, both literally and figuratively. For example, take the fact that this congress started off by passing an $814 billion stimulus bill. It was supposed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and pull us out of the recession. Did it accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish? No. What did it do? Well, it blew up the federal budget and added to our ridiculously enormous deficit. Nice going, Capitol Hill. No wonder the approval ratings for the current congress are the lowest we've ever seen them in our lifetime.
Now, fast forward to the current lame duck session. After failing miserably with the $814 billion stimulus bill and receiving a clear message from American voters this past November to cut spending, what does this lame duck congress attempt to do? They do everything they possibly can to pass a $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, loaded with over 6,000 earmarks that would cost taxpayers over $8 billion. How is this even possible? Could they be so tone deaf that they did not hear the message of the American people on November 2nd? I doubt it. It is my firm belief that those who supported this bill were looking out for themselves and could care less about what the voters had to say. But that's what happens when you have a lame duck session. Those who were voted out have nothing more to lose, so why should they care about whatever message the voters may have sent them on Election Day?
Thanks be to God that the spending bill was defeated. Harry Reid thought he had secured enough Republican votes to ram it through, but common sense prevailed in the end and those GOP senators decided to back off. This forced Prince Harry to give a concession speech on the Senate floor, one in which he lamented over how those Republicans who said they would support the bill withdrew their support at the last minute. Aww, poor baby. I feel so bad for you, Mr. Reid. It's just so unfair that you should suffer such betrayal. I mean, it's not as if you're betraying the American people by continuing to mortgage our children's future in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Not to digress, but lame duck congressman aren't the only problem we have in these sessions. Senators like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, who never met an entitlement program they didn't want to marry, make the situation far worse. Unexplicably, the people of California and Nevada continue to elect them despite the dire economic situation in both of those states. There are plenty of others who fall into this category, and the fact that they deem themselves invincible gives them the nerve to continue to fly right in the face of American voters. Why should they back off from their own agenda when they're so entrenched that they would have to literally commit murder in order to suffer an Election Day defeat?
So now, Democrats can pat themselves on the back for repealing DADT, passing the START treaty, and fulfilling Obama's request to approve the tax cut deal. They did fail in passing the omnibus spending bill and the DREAM Act, but overall you'd have to think that the President views the lame duck session as an overall success for his radical agenda. As Christmas Day approaches and Congress gets ready to adjourn, I only pray that they close up shop before they can do any more damage. For me, the GOP victories in the mid-term elections were the greatest Christmas gift I ever could have received. I just can't wait until the gifts are unwrapped in January, when the new session of Congress begins. May their New Year's resolution be to listen to the message that voters sent them on November 2nd and get our country back on the right track.
To me, allowing politicians who have been defeated to return to Congress and pass legislation is akin to allowing convicted criminals to run free in society and commit a few more crimes before they are imprisoned. It can only result in more harm and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The lame duck session creates opportunities for outgoing congressmen to turn against the voters and perform any last minute, self-serving acts that they possibly can before their time is up. It's sad, really. They may sell their votes in exchange for a job at a government agency, or simply vote for or against a certain bill just to spite the people who voted them out.
It's time to kill the lame duck sessions in Congress once and for all. The current economic climate makes it impossible for us to afford them, both literally and figuratively. For example, take the fact that this congress started off by passing an $814 billion stimulus bill. It was supposed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and pull us out of the recession. Did it accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish? No. What did it do? Well, it blew up the federal budget and added to our ridiculously enormous deficit. Nice going, Capitol Hill. No wonder the approval ratings for the current congress are the lowest we've ever seen them in our lifetime.
Now, fast forward to the current lame duck session. After failing miserably with the $814 billion stimulus bill and receiving a clear message from American voters this past November to cut spending, what does this lame duck congress attempt to do? They do everything they possibly can to pass a $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, loaded with over 6,000 earmarks that would cost taxpayers over $8 billion. How is this even possible? Could they be so tone deaf that they did not hear the message of the American people on November 2nd? I doubt it. It is my firm belief that those who supported this bill were looking out for themselves and could care less about what the voters had to say. But that's what happens when you have a lame duck session. Those who were voted out have nothing more to lose, so why should they care about whatever message the voters may have sent them on Election Day?
Thanks be to God that the spending bill was defeated. Harry Reid thought he had secured enough Republican votes to ram it through, but common sense prevailed in the end and those GOP senators decided to back off. This forced Prince Harry to give a concession speech on the Senate floor, one in which he lamented over how those Republicans who said they would support the bill withdrew their support at the last minute. Aww, poor baby. I feel so bad for you, Mr. Reid. It's just so unfair that you should suffer such betrayal. I mean, it's not as if you're betraying the American people by continuing to mortgage our children's future in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Not to digress, but lame duck congressman aren't the only problem we have in these sessions. Senators like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, who never met an entitlement program they didn't want to marry, make the situation far worse. Unexplicably, the people of California and Nevada continue to elect them despite the dire economic situation in both of those states. There are plenty of others who fall into this category, and the fact that they deem themselves invincible gives them the nerve to continue to fly right in the face of American voters. Why should they back off from their own agenda when they're so entrenched that they would have to literally commit murder in order to suffer an Election Day defeat?
So now, Democrats can pat themselves on the back for repealing DADT, passing the START treaty, and fulfilling Obama's request to approve the tax cut deal. They did fail in passing the omnibus spending bill and the DREAM Act, but overall you'd have to think that the President views the lame duck session as an overall success for his radical agenda. As Christmas Day approaches and Congress gets ready to adjourn, I only pray that they close up shop before they can do any more damage. For me, the GOP victories in the mid-term elections were the greatest Christmas gift I ever could have received. I just can't wait until the gifts are unwrapped in January, when the new session of Congress begins. May their New Year's resolution be to listen to the message that voters sent them on November 2nd and get our country back on the right track.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Deal or No Deal?
The tax deal that President Obama recently made with Republicans breezed through the Senate by a vote of 81-19. It now heads to the House, where its fate is somewhat uncertain. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have criticized the deal, each obviously for different reasons. Some conservatives feel that it did not go far enough with the tax cuts, failing to make them permanent. Among those in this group are 2012 presidential contenders Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee. Many liberals oppose the deal because they are against extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, believing instead that those cuts should be allowed to expire so that the federal government can collect more tax revenue.
For those not aware, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire on December 31st. President Obama knows full well that allowing those cuts to expire will be disastrous for the American economy. Allowing taxes to go up will bring consumer spending down. It will also force small businesses to lay off workers rather than create new jobs, thus driving the already high rate of unemployment up even further. Essentially, the expiration of the tax cuts will result in a double dip recession, something which the President needs to avoid if he is to have any hope of being re-elected in 2012. He knows this better than anyone, and that is why he compromised his principles to cut the deal with Republicans.
President Obama has made it well known that he is fully against extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, defined as those earning at least $250,000 per year. But Senate Republicans made it quite clear that they will not allow any tax cuts to be extended without including the wealthiest Americans. Since the Democrats lack a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama had no choice but to meet with Republicans and work out a deal. For him, it was a choice of the lesser of two evils. He could have held his ground, drawn a line in the sand, and allowed the cuts to expire. The problem with that is he would have shouldered most of the blame for the rise in taxes and termination of federal unemployment benefits. The fact that Christmas is coming only makes things worse, for many Americans would have most certainly depicted him as The Grinch. America would have then fallen into another recession, and the President would be the one who'd have to answer for it.
It's so easy for liberals like Bill Maher to criticize the President for making the tax deal. Maher said that Obama was weak, and that when he voted for him in 2008 he "thought he was getting Suge Knight, not Wayne Brady." Ha ha. Very funny, Mr. Maher. But let's face it: if it was Maher's rear end sitting in the Oval Office instead of Obama's, then his view would change dramatically. It's easy to tell someone to hold their ground when you're not ultimately the one who is going to have to face the consequences. If those tax cuts expire, no one is going to blame Bill Maher. They will blame President Obama, and rightly so since he is the leader of our country.
I firmly believe that President Obama did what he had to do. He had absolutely no choice in this matter. The Republicans held all the cards, and Obama was thus forced to meet them halfway. Although he sounded somewhat subdued when he announced the deal, he really shouldn't feel that way. Through the tax deal, I believe that he is essentially getting another stimulus package from Congress that may well pull the economy out of recession. Should that happen, then he can take credit for it and use that as his main argument in campaigning for re-election. By now, you must be shaking your head and asking yourself, "Is Dr. Right actually defending the president?" Well...not really. I am merely stating that he had no choice in this matter, and that anyone on the left who criticizes him for the deal would have done the same thing if they were in his shoes.
So now, will the deal get done? I don't know. You have both conservatives and liberals (though mostly liberals) in the House who are not happy about the deal, and they're ready to do everything they can to kill it. I honestly can't understand why they would want to do that at this point. The deal did not make the tax cuts permanent. It merely extended them until 2012, ensuring that they will be a hotly-contested topic during the next election. Why then would you want to hurt the American people during the most difficult economic period since the Great Depression? If the cuts were permanent, then I might understand why they would want to dig in and get ready for a long, hard-fought battle. But even the disputed estate tax, which Democrats want to raise by returning it to 2009 levels, is not a valid reason to kill this deal. Those pondering this move may want to think again before they act.
This is one of the few times when you'll hear me disagreeing with several of my colleagues on the right. I think the deal is a good one, because it's a win-win for all parties involved. The middle class gets their tax cuts extended, the upper class gets their tax cuts extended, small businesses will be able to keep their employees and hopefully hire new ones, and the unemployed can still qualify for federal benefits for at least another full year. Who then can possibly complain? I am not at all upset about the cuts not being made permanent. We have to be realistic, and that simply isn't going to happen unless a conservative wins the White House in 2012. Even then, Republicans would have to maintain their majority in the House and gain the majority in the Senate. The fact that the tax cuts will at least last through 2012 gives us hope of achieving this goal in the end.
So now the question for the House is this: "Deal or no deal?" President Obama has obviously pushed Nancy Pelosi to get the required votes to pass the bill. But as I write this blog post, several lawmakers have just decided that they want to bicker over procedural issues, forcing the vote to be delayed. With the tax deal stuck in limbo, what does that mean for us as Americans? To me, if the tax deal is not approved, then it would mean that those in the House who helped kill it will have committed the most egregious of acts toward the people they are supposed to serve. All of us, whether middle class or upper class, small business owners or unemployed, will suffer greatly. Our economy will suffer even worse. I am still holding out hope that the procedural wonks will save the day by working out a creative solution to this problem. If they don't, then 2011 will not be a good year...for anyone.
For those not aware, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire on December 31st. President Obama knows full well that allowing those cuts to expire will be disastrous for the American economy. Allowing taxes to go up will bring consumer spending down. It will also force small businesses to lay off workers rather than create new jobs, thus driving the already high rate of unemployment up even further. Essentially, the expiration of the tax cuts will result in a double dip recession, something which the President needs to avoid if he is to have any hope of being re-elected in 2012. He knows this better than anyone, and that is why he compromised his principles to cut the deal with Republicans.
President Obama has made it well known that he is fully against extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, defined as those earning at least $250,000 per year. But Senate Republicans made it quite clear that they will not allow any tax cuts to be extended without including the wealthiest Americans. Since the Democrats lack a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama had no choice but to meet with Republicans and work out a deal. For him, it was a choice of the lesser of two evils. He could have held his ground, drawn a line in the sand, and allowed the cuts to expire. The problem with that is he would have shouldered most of the blame for the rise in taxes and termination of federal unemployment benefits. The fact that Christmas is coming only makes things worse, for many Americans would have most certainly depicted him as The Grinch. America would have then fallen into another recession, and the President would be the one who'd have to answer for it.
It's so easy for liberals like Bill Maher to criticize the President for making the tax deal. Maher said that Obama was weak, and that when he voted for him in 2008 he "thought he was getting Suge Knight, not Wayne Brady." Ha ha. Very funny, Mr. Maher. But let's face it: if it was Maher's rear end sitting in the Oval Office instead of Obama's, then his view would change dramatically. It's easy to tell someone to hold their ground when you're not ultimately the one who is going to have to face the consequences. If those tax cuts expire, no one is going to blame Bill Maher. They will blame President Obama, and rightly so since he is the leader of our country.
I firmly believe that President Obama did what he had to do. He had absolutely no choice in this matter. The Republicans held all the cards, and Obama was thus forced to meet them halfway. Although he sounded somewhat subdued when he announced the deal, he really shouldn't feel that way. Through the tax deal, I believe that he is essentially getting another stimulus package from Congress that may well pull the economy out of recession. Should that happen, then he can take credit for it and use that as his main argument in campaigning for re-election. By now, you must be shaking your head and asking yourself, "Is Dr. Right actually defending the president?" Well...not really. I am merely stating that he had no choice in this matter, and that anyone on the left who criticizes him for the deal would have done the same thing if they were in his shoes.
So now, will the deal get done? I don't know. You have both conservatives and liberals (though mostly liberals) in the House who are not happy about the deal, and they're ready to do everything they can to kill it. I honestly can't understand why they would want to do that at this point. The deal did not make the tax cuts permanent. It merely extended them until 2012, ensuring that they will be a hotly-contested topic during the next election. Why then would you want to hurt the American people during the most difficult economic period since the Great Depression? If the cuts were permanent, then I might understand why they would want to dig in and get ready for a long, hard-fought battle. But even the disputed estate tax, which Democrats want to raise by returning it to 2009 levels, is not a valid reason to kill this deal. Those pondering this move may want to think again before they act.
This is one of the few times when you'll hear me disagreeing with several of my colleagues on the right. I think the deal is a good one, because it's a win-win for all parties involved. The middle class gets their tax cuts extended, the upper class gets their tax cuts extended, small businesses will be able to keep their employees and hopefully hire new ones, and the unemployed can still qualify for federal benefits for at least another full year. Who then can possibly complain? I am not at all upset about the cuts not being made permanent. We have to be realistic, and that simply isn't going to happen unless a conservative wins the White House in 2012. Even then, Republicans would have to maintain their majority in the House and gain the majority in the Senate. The fact that the tax cuts will at least last through 2012 gives us hope of achieving this goal in the end.
So now the question for the House is this: "Deal or no deal?" President Obama has obviously pushed Nancy Pelosi to get the required votes to pass the bill. But as I write this blog post, several lawmakers have just decided that they want to bicker over procedural issues, forcing the vote to be delayed. With the tax deal stuck in limbo, what does that mean for us as Americans? To me, if the tax deal is not approved, then it would mean that those in the House who helped kill it will have committed the most egregious of acts toward the people they are supposed to serve. All of us, whether middle class or upper class, small business owners or unemployed, will suffer greatly. Our economy will suffer even worse. I am still holding out hope that the procedural wonks will save the day by working out a creative solution to this problem. If they don't, then 2011 will not be a good year...for anyone.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The New Europe?
I know that many of my friends don't follow what's going on in the world. Some claim to be too busy to watch the news, or even read it on the web. Others will admit that they honestly don't care about current events. Still others will say that they purposely avoid it because most news tends to be negative, and it only serves to bring them down. But all people who ignore what's going on around the world need to realize something: what's happening in other parts of the world could wind up affecting them in a terrible way, and that they may have the power to minimize that effect. But they can't take action if they are ignorant of what is going on. Allow me to explain this further using the example of events that have taken place in Europe over this past year.
We start in Greece, home of the ancient gods of Mount Olympus. If those gods were real, they'd be frowning down upon the Greeks today, and may even leave Olympus for another home. You see, Greece has gone bankrupt. Why? Because they gave away too many government entitlements to their citizens over too long a period of time. They allowed workers to retire young and collect nice, fat pensions. They provided their citizens with free healthcare. They did this over the course of many, many years, and now they have run out of money. What a shock.
In no way is understanding the system of entitlements a matter of rocket science. In fact, the explanation is so simple that it's quite scary that liberals can't seem to grasp it. If you keep giving away everything you have, giving and giving and giving until you can't give no more, then eventually you will run out. Once you run out, what then will you do? There's only one thing left to do, isn't there? Start taking back what you gave away. That is what has happened in Greece, and that is why people there have been rioting in the streets. They don't want to give back what they've received all these years. Greece created a culture of dependency, so its current citizens know nothing else. Now that this culture has been turned upside down, the people have gone crazy.
Despite Greece only comprising 2% of the European economy, the European Union came to the rescue and awarded Greece a bailout. They did this because they know that if one domino falls, no matter how small, it can cause other dominos to fall around it. The same thing happened with Ireland. Ireland was on the verge of bankruptcy recently, and though also a relatively small portion of Europe's economy, the European Union again offered them a bailout. Ireland was hesitant to accept it at first, but in the end they caved. Thus the tally of countries bailed out by the EU this year stands at two, and it could still grow given the crises in Spain and Portugal.
It would be great if we could say that the violence that erupted in Greece was just an isolated incident. But unfortunately, it wasn't. Since then, we've seen riots break out in several other European countries as a result of governments cutting back on entitlements. The French rioted in Paris after the government raised the retirement age. Students rioted in Great Britain recently over the rising cost of tuition at public universities. They were even able to make contact with Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, as they sat inside their royal car. Then, just this past week in Italy, riots broke out in Rome after Silvio Berlusconi survived a no confidence vote in Italy's Parliament. The economic situation there is also dire, with unemployment at 8.5% and Italian citizens looking for a change in leadership to turn the tide.
So the question now becomes, "Can this ever happen in the United States?" My answer to this question is a resounding "yes." Greece, France, Great Britain, Italy...these are hardly third world countries. This isn't comparable to political unrest in countries like Haiti, Honduras, or Burma. This is Europe we're talking about, that wonderful continent which serves as the birthplace of Western culture. The land with amazing architecture, beautiful sights, and rich history that all Americans strive to visit at least once in their lifetime. If it can happen there, then guess what? It can happen here.
There is evidence to suggest that Europe is merely one step ahead of us. Here in America, we have at least four states that are on the verge of bankruptcy. These states, along with their deficits, are California ($1.3 trillion), Illinois ($1.1 trillion), New York ($690 billion), and New Jersey ($490 billion). What's most troubling about these particular states is that they comprise 13% of the entire U.S. economy. Now think about it...if the EU was concerned about Greece causing the dominos to start tumbling, and Greece is only 2% of the European economy, then how much more should our government be concerned about CA, IL, NY, and NJ? Hmmm...
Let's face it. These states have also given away too much for far too long. Politicians have given unions everything they've asked for in exchange for votes. Great health plans where workers don't even have to contribute, generous pensions, double dipping...it's been a way of life among public employees in this country. Just as in Europe, government entitlements have created a culture of dependency here in America. Just as in Europe, U.S. states are now being forced to cut back on those entitlements due to dire fiscal circumstances. Look no further than Governor Christie of New Jersey for evidence of this. So does it not make sense to say that the next step, rioting in the streets, could also happen here? As I write this blog entry, our military is holding drills to prepare our troops for civil unrest. Coincidence? I think not, though they would say that it's merely a routine annual exercise.
If our government doesn't cease giving handouts, if it doesn't stop in prolonging this culture of dependency that has been created, then we are in big trouble. Excessive spending needs to stop now, before it is too late. As much as I support the right to bear arms, I honestly do not want to see the day when fearmongers who hole themselves up with all kinds of weaponry to prepare for Armageddon are proven right. I'd like to think there's still time to stop this ship from sinking, and I truly believe there is. What can we do as citizens? First, we can learn to be self-sufficient. We can't control others from becoming dependent on the government, but we can control ourselves from doing so. Second, we need to get out and vote on Election Day for public servants who will show fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, this never seems to happen in some states where the political machines still run the show (e.g., Barbara Boxer's re-election in CA and that of Harry Reid in NV).
If ever there was a time for U.S. citizens to stand up and involve themselves in the process of government, this is it. Being ignorant of what's going on in the world will only hurt us in the end. They may say ignorance is bliss, but if it prevails among us during this period of major crisis, it will become equated with sheer misery. Replacing several members of Congress with fiscal conservatives on November 2nd was a major step in the right direction, as well as the fact that several states elected more fiscally conservative governors and state legislators. But we still have a ways to go, and the window for salvaging our future closes a little more with each passing day. It is my prayer that we as Americans will take action and prevent the end of our world as we know it, before it is too late.
We start in Greece, home of the ancient gods of Mount Olympus. If those gods were real, they'd be frowning down upon the Greeks today, and may even leave Olympus for another home. You see, Greece has gone bankrupt. Why? Because they gave away too many government entitlements to their citizens over too long a period of time. They allowed workers to retire young and collect nice, fat pensions. They provided their citizens with free healthcare. They did this over the course of many, many years, and now they have run out of money. What a shock.
In no way is understanding the system of entitlements a matter of rocket science. In fact, the explanation is so simple that it's quite scary that liberals can't seem to grasp it. If you keep giving away everything you have, giving and giving and giving until you can't give no more, then eventually you will run out. Once you run out, what then will you do? There's only one thing left to do, isn't there? Start taking back what you gave away. That is what has happened in Greece, and that is why people there have been rioting in the streets. They don't want to give back what they've received all these years. Greece created a culture of dependency, so its current citizens know nothing else. Now that this culture has been turned upside down, the people have gone crazy.
Despite Greece only comprising 2% of the European economy, the European Union came to the rescue and awarded Greece a bailout. They did this because they know that if one domino falls, no matter how small, it can cause other dominos to fall around it. The same thing happened with Ireland. Ireland was on the verge of bankruptcy recently, and though also a relatively small portion of Europe's economy, the European Union again offered them a bailout. Ireland was hesitant to accept it at first, but in the end they caved. Thus the tally of countries bailed out by the EU this year stands at two, and it could still grow given the crises in Spain and Portugal.
It would be great if we could say that the violence that erupted in Greece was just an isolated incident. But unfortunately, it wasn't. Since then, we've seen riots break out in several other European countries as a result of governments cutting back on entitlements. The French rioted in Paris after the government raised the retirement age. Students rioted in Great Britain recently over the rising cost of tuition at public universities. They were even able to make contact with Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, as they sat inside their royal car. Then, just this past week in Italy, riots broke out in Rome after Silvio Berlusconi survived a no confidence vote in Italy's Parliament. The economic situation there is also dire, with unemployment at 8.5% and Italian citizens looking for a change in leadership to turn the tide.
So the question now becomes, "Can this ever happen in the United States?" My answer to this question is a resounding "yes." Greece, France, Great Britain, Italy...these are hardly third world countries. This isn't comparable to political unrest in countries like Haiti, Honduras, or Burma. This is Europe we're talking about, that wonderful continent which serves as the birthplace of Western culture. The land with amazing architecture, beautiful sights, and rich history that all Americans strive to visit at least once in their lifetime. If it can happen there, then guess what? It can happen here.
There is evidence to suggest that Europe is merely one step ahead of us. Here in America, we have at least four states that are on the verge of bankruptcy. These states, along with their deficits, are California ($1.3 trillion), Illinois ($1.1 trillion), New York ($690 billion), and New Jersey ($490 billion). What's most troubling about these particular states is that they comprise 13% of the entire U.S. economy. Now think about it...if the EU was concerned about Greece causing the dominos to start tumbling, and Greece is only 2% of the European economy, then how much more should our government be concerned about CA, IL, NY, and NJ? Hmmm...
Let's face it. These states have also given away too much for far too long. Politicians have given unions everything they've asked for in exchange for votes. Great health plans where workers don't even have to contribute, generous pensions, double dipping...it's been a way of life among public employees in this country. Just as in Europe, government entitlements have created a culture of dependency here in America. Just as in Europe, U.S. states are now being forced to cut back on those entitlements due to dire fiscal circumstances. Look no further than Governor Christie of New Jersey for evidence of this. So does it not make sense to say that the next step, rioting in the streets, could also happen here? As I write this blog entry, our military is holding drills to prepare our troops for civil unrest. Coincidence? I think not, though they would say that it's merely a routine annual exercise.
If our government doesn't cease giving handouts, if it doesn't stop in prolonging this culture of dependency that has been created, then we are in big trouble. Excessive spending needs to stop now, before it is too late. As much as I support the right to bear arms, I honestly do not want to see the day when fearmongers who hole themselves up with all kinds of weaponry to prepare for Armageddon are proven right. I'd like to think there's still time to stop this ship from sinking, and I truly believe there is. What can we do as citizens? First, we can learn to be self-sufficient. We can't control others from becoming dependent on the government, but we can control ourselves from doing so. Second, we need to get out and vote on Election Day for public servants who will show fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, this never seems to happen in some states where the political machines still run the show (e.g., Barbara Boxer's re-election in CA and that of Harry Reid in NV).
If ever there was a time for U.S. citizens to stand up and involve themselves in the process of government, this is it. Being ignorant of what's going on in the world will only hurt us in the end. They may say ignorance is bliss, but if it prevails among us during this period of major crisis, it will become equated with sheer misery. Replacing several members of Congress with fiscal conservatives on November 2nd was a major step in the right direction, as well as the fact that several states elected more fiscally conservative governors and state legislators. But we still have a ways to go, and the window for salvaging our future closes a little more with each passing day. It is my prayer that we as Americans will take action and prevent the end of our world as we know it, before it is too late.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Heisman Hopeless
OK, it's now official. QB Cam Newton of the Auburn Tigers has won the Heisman Trophy in a landslide victory, defeating runner-up Andrew Luck of Stanford by over 1,000 points. Whoop dee do...congratulations, Cam. I hope the Heisman voters are happy, and that they're proud of themselves for having elected a cheater, a criminal, and a liar for the nation's greatest honor in college football. Way to go, boys.
Let's face some facts about Mr. Newton, shall we? First, the guy is a beast who had a phenomenal season at Auburn, playing in what is traditionally considered to be the toughest conference in all of college football. At 6'6" and 250 pounds, Newton was a man among boys, becoming the first player in SEC history to pass for 2,000 yards and rush for 1,000 yards in the same season. His final stat lines were ridiculous. 242 carries for 1,409 yards and 20 rushing touchdowns. 2,589 yards passing and 28 touchdown passes versus only 6 interceptions. He even caught 2 passes for 42 yards and a touchdown, leaving him just one short of 50 total touchdowns for the entire 2010 season.
Second, the man some have referred to as "Scam" Newton has been implicated in an academic cheating scandal at the University of Florida. According to an anonymous source there, Mr. Newton had three different instances where he was caught cheating and thus faced expulsion from the university. He put his name on another student's research paper, but got caught after the professor asked the paper's real author why he hadn't turned in his work. When he was forced by the professor to hand in another paper, he went out and purchased one off the internet. Now there's an honorable guy for you. That's just the type of guy I'd want representing college football as the Heisman Trophy winner. Of course, even though he may not have been smart enough to write his own research paper, he did have enough sense to transfer out of Florida when it became evident that his hearing before the Student Conduct Committee was not going to turn out well for him.
Oh, and did I mention that he stole another student's laptop computer while he was enrolled at the University of Florida? Gee, that must have slipped my mind. Well anyway, in 2008 Cam Newton was arrested for possession of stolen property. The crimes that he was charged with were felony counts of burglary, larceny, and obstruction of justice. The allegations were that Newton stole a laptop from another student (worth $1,700) and threw it out of his dorm window. There were accusations that he tried to hide the stolen laptop after he had been caught, which led to the further charge of Newton trying to obstruct justice by impeding the original investigation. Newton was then suspended from the team. Nice going. Again, there's a model citizen for you.
Finally, during the 2010 football season, word leaked out that a man supposedly representing Newton had asked for $180,000 from Mississippi State University to secure his commitment to the Bulldogs last year. No money changed hands, and Newton eventually took a recruiting trip to Auburn and signed with the Tigers on New Year's Eve. After Newton committed to Auburn, Mississippi State turned over its information on this pay-for-play scheme to the Southeastern Conference in January 2010. But the SEC did not notify Auburn of these allegations until July, two months after Newton had been named Auburn's starting quarterback.
The first stories of these events started breaking in November of 2010, forcing the NCAA to conduct an investigation. On November 29th, the NCAA officially concluded that a "violation of amateurism rules" occurred during Newton's recruitment by Mississippi State. The following day, given the outcome of the investigation, Auburn felt compelled to suspend Newton from the team indefinitely. But on the very next day, December 1st, the NCAA ruled Newton eligible to play. They concluded that Newton's father was the guilty party in the pay-for-play scheme, and that his son had no knowledge of it whatsoever.
OK, so now you have the facts surrounding college football's latest addition to the exclusive club of Heisman Trophy winners. Allow me to say that I would really like to give the kid the benefit of the doubt. Really I would. But come on...this is a guy who cheated three different times while he was at Florida. Even when he got caught, he only went out and cheated again. He stole from a fellow student and got arrested for it. He did his best to hide the stolen property, thus obstructing justice in the process. I'm sorry to say it, people, but Cam Newton is not exactly a model citizen. Far from it, in fact.
This makes it very hard for me to believe that he was completely innocent in the pay-for-play scandal. Are you telling me that if MSU came up with the $180,000, that the elder Newton was going to keep that from his son? That he was going to sit back and let Cam go somewhere else if he felt inclined to do so? Please. I suppose you could make the argument that he only would have told his son if the money had been offered, but I still think that Cam was in on it from the start. No, I can't prove it. No, I don't know for sure. That's just my opinion based on what I do know about the character of one Cameron Newton.
Look, here's the bottom line. We had three other viable candidates for the Heisman who were never caught up in an academic cheating scandal, never got arrested for burglary, larceny, or obstruction of justice, and did not get implicated in a pay-for-play scheme. All three had great seasons on the football field. All three seemed to have the integrity we would expect of someone eligible to receive this award. All three would have been good choices based on the stats they put up and the success of their respective teams.
But instead, the Heisman voters went with the guy who has the shadiest past. He may have had the best numbers, but he certainly doesn't have the best character out of this group. You'd think the voters would have learned from the Reggie Bush fiasco, but it looks as if they're willing to make the same mistake again. What a shame it would be if Newton's Heisman had to be retracted one year, two years, or three years down the line after further investigation. It will tarnish the award even further, and will have deprived one of the other fine young men of an opportunity to represent the trophy, and all of college football, the way it deserves to be represented. I truly hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, then the Heisman voters have no one to blame but themselves.
Let's face some facts about Mr. Newton, shall we? First, the guy is a beast who had a phenomenal season at Auburn, playing in what is traditionally considered to be the toughest conference in all of college football. At 6'6" and 250 pounds, Newton was a man among boys, becoming the first player in SEC history to pass for 2,000 yards and rush for 1,000 yards in the same season. His final stat lines were ridiculous. 242 carries for 1,409 yards and 20 rushing touchdowns. 2,589 yards passing and 28 touchdown passes versus only 6 interceptions. He even caught 2 passes for 42 yards and a touchdown, leaving him just one short of 50 total touchdowns for the entire 2010 season.
Second, the man some have referred to as "Scam" Newton has been implicated in an academic cheating scandal at the University of Florida. According to an anonymous source there, Mr. Newton had three different instances where he was caught cheating and thus faced expulsion from the university. He put his name on another student's research paper, but got caught after the professor asked the paper's real author why he hadn't turned in his work. When he was forced by the professor to hand in another paper, he went out and purchased one off the internet. Now there's an honorable guy for you. That's just the type of guy I'd want representing college football as the Heisman Trophy winner. Of course, even though he may not have been smart enough to write his own research paper, he did have enough sense to transfer out of Florida when it became evident that his hearing before the Student Conduct Committee was not going to turn out well for him.
Oh, and did I mention that he stole another student's laptop computer while he was enrolled at the University of Florida? Gee, that must have slipped my mind. Well anyway, in 2008 Cam Newton was arrested for possession of stolen property. The crimes that he was charged with were felony counts of burglary, larceny, and obstruction of justice. The allegations were that Newton stole a laptop from another student (worth $1,700) and threw it out of his dorm window. There were accusations that he tried to hide the stolen laptop after he had been caught, which led to the further charge of Newton trying to obstruct justice by impeding the original investigation. Newton was then suspended from the team. Nice going. Again, there's a model citizen for you.
Finally, during the 2010 football season, word leaked out that a man supposedly representing Newton had asked for $180,000 from Mississippi State University to secure his commitment to the Bulldogs last year. No money changed hands, and Newton eventually took a recruiting trip to Auburn and signed with the Tigers on New Year's Eve. After Newton committed to Auburn, Mississippi State turned over its information on this pay-for-play scheme to the Southeastern Conference in January 2010. But the SEC did not notify Auburn of these allegations until July, two months after Newton had been named Auburn's starting quarterback.
The first stories of these events started breaking in November of 2010, forcing the NCAA to conduct an investigation. On November 29th, the NCAA officially concluded that a "violation of amateurism rules" occurred during Newton's recruitment by Mississippi State. The following day, given the outcome of the investigation, Auburn felt compelled to suspend Newton from the team indefinitely. But on the very next day, December 1st, the NCAA ruled Newton eligible to play. They concluded that Newton's father was the guilty party in the pay-for-play scheme, and that his son had no knowledge of it whatsoever.
OK, so now you have the facts surrounding college football's latest addition to the exclusive club of Heisman Trophy winners. Allow me to say that I would really like to give the kid the benefit of the doubt. Really I would. But come on...this is a guy who cheated three different times while he was at Florida. Even when he got caught, he only went out and cheated again. He stole from a fellow student and got arrested for it. He did his best to hide the stolen property, thus obstructing justice in the process. I'm sorry to say it, people, but Cam Newton is not exactly a model citizen. Far from it, in fact.
This makes it very hard for me to believe that he was completely innocent in the pay-for-play scandal. Are you telling me that if MSU came up with the $180,000, that the elder Newton was going to keep that from his son? That he was going to sit back and let Cam go somewhere else if he felt inclined to do so? Please. I suppose you could make the argument that he only would have told his son if the money had been offered, but I still think that Cam was in on it from the start. No, I can't prove it. No, I don't know for sure. That's just my opinion based on what I do know about the character of one Cameron Newton.
Look, here's the bottom line. We had three other viable candidates for the Heisman who were never caught up in an academic cheating scandal, never got arrested for burglary, larceny, or obstruction of justice, and did not get implicated in a pay-for-play scheme. All three had great seasons on the football field. All three seemed to have the integrity we would expect of someone eligible to receive this award. All three would have been good choices based on the stats they put up and the success of their respective teams.
But instead, the Heisman voters went with the guy who has the shadiest past. He may have had the best numbers, but he certainly doesn't have the best character out of this group. You'd think the voters would have learned from the Reggie Bush fiasco, but it looks as if they're willing to make the same mistake again. What a shame it would be if Newton's Heisman had to be retracted one year, two years, or three years down the line after further investigation. It will tarnish the award even further, and will have deprived one of the other fine young men of an opportunity to represent the trophy, and all of college football, the way it deserves to be represented. I truly hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, then the Heisman voters have no one to blame but themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)