Who is Really Betting Against American Workers?

Recently, in what was heralded by the MSM as a major "win" for our country's masses of unemployed workers, Congress, at the urging of the White House passed the latest extension of unemployment benefits. "Checks will start flowing again soon" beamed the New York Times. "Relief is on the way" shouted the Associated Press.

This last week, while I was sitting with 2,000 wannabe lawyers during the Bar Exam, President Obama was sitting with the "ladies" (can that term honestly be used to describe Whoopi Goldberg) of "The View." You know your presidency is circling the proverbial drain when you are taking questions on a couch with Joy Behar.

Though most of the coverage surrounding the show had to do with whether Mr. Obama was soiling the Presidency by appearing on a day-time talk show, I was struck by the President's following comment:

Touting increases in private sector jobs, restructuring and recovery in the auto industry, and saving thousands of jobs that could have been lost, President Obama said -- with an eye towards the future -- "Don't bet against American workers."

The unemployment bill extended unemployment benefits for workers unemployed as long as 99 weeks.

Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that there are people out there who are not in desperate need of help. I'm not now unemployed nor have I ever been unemployed for anything close to two years. I also know that unemployment benefits don't even come close to covering most salaries.

My questions: Why does the President and other liberal elites feel like they have to "take care" of these workers? And why is the President ignoring the vast majority of economists who have stated that continually extending benefits is only prolonging the unemployment problem? How you may ask? Because by continuing to pay benefits, we are taking away the incentive for people to go out and get a job!

Does Obama really think that American workers are so weak that won't surviving without him (and an average benefit of $309.00 a month)?

If the President were truly betting for the American workers, he'd immediately lower our corporate tax rates, which are among the highest in the world. Then he'd be showing his trust in the workers of our country, the best the worlds has, are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

Even more important than that would be for the President, and the Federal Government, to get out of the private job market! The continual meddling of the Fed is only prolonging and distorting the unemployment problem and the job market in general.

Obama is like a parent who needs to be told that there 35 year old son still living at home needs to be kicked out of the house. Yes the guy is going to struggle at first, but trust me, he'll be fine.

The President is right, no one should bet against the American Worker. I just wish he'd be the first to stop.

No More Music Television on MTV - Is this Really News?

As a kid I swore that when I was older I would never begin a story with "when I was your age." But there is one subject that I can't help but make such comparisons in discussing. The price of gas you say? Nope. What you could buy with a dollar? Don't care.

If I hear someone under 25 mention the former Music Television channel (now exclusively MTV, no music, no television) and suddenly I'm an old fogey with a walking cane and a propensity for wearing pants and suspenders at the same time. I can't help but tell these young whippersnappers that when I was their age, MTV had MUSIC. Lots of it!

That's right, MTV literally was music television. My wife and I often reminisce about our favorite music videos of yesteryear. And guess where we saw them? Not CBS.

My favorite show was Dial MTV. A precursor to TRL, and frankly, the internet, daily video lovers would call in (no doubt using the then modern miracle of touch tone phones) to vote for their favorite video. How much have times changed? The record for number one videos of the day was held by Def Leppard.

Then came the seminal game show "Remote Control." I loved the show and in fairness the challenge round did revolve around music videos, but little did I know then that "Remote Control" was the harbinger of things to come.

Within a few years MTV increasingly cut into to videos to show more and more reality shows. But it was ostensibly at least, still focused on music.

Now MTV has dropped all pretense by dropping the reference to music from its title.

I can't say I blame MTV. Remember the A&E channel once meant "Arts and Entertainment." I'm pretty sure Dog the Bounty Hunter was not what they had in mind. Even the Weather Channel shows movies now.

And given the creative morass that pop music finds it in, I'm not sure that if MTV were to go back to its roots much would change.

Still when I think about my formative music years, I will always think about MTV of lore. And I'll think about my favorite videos.

Then I'll listen to my Ipod.

Does the Thought Really Count on Jobs?

One of the mantras of modern-day liberalism is that caring and good intentions can make up for actual failure. Put simply, even if what we are doing isn't working, criticism should be avoided because hey, we meant well!

This is a topic I've written of before.

Today the AP, hardly a bastion of right-wing reporting, reports that the "bi-partisan" jobs bill is unlikely to create any jobs.

Quoting from the article:

Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers— would work only on the margins.

As for the bill's effectiveness, tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.

"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."

Now does any one believe that the good intentions can compensate for billions of dollars in failure? I know the administration is on the ropes right now with jobs, and they want to show they are doing something.

But can we stop pretending that this bill is anything other than glorified PR?

Things You Learn While Trying to Sleep in Your Car at 5:30 in the Morning

I usually have no trouble sleeping. In fact, I typically have the opposite problem.

When its time for me to hit the hay, I'm unconscious with such rapidity I almost never remember actually falling asleep. I kind of just come to in the morning and ask Marnie, "what happened?"

My normal routine has me up at 5:15am. To put that in perspective, for the last four years I've been in night school three nights a week, forty five miles from home with classes that don't even end till nine or ten.

Over the years, I've averaged about five hours of sleep a night. Yes I know we are supposed to get eight or more but frankly, anything beyond six is wonderful to me.

I hear people talk of having problems sleeping - what is that? I'm sure its legitimate - but that's a problem like having too much money - a challenge I'd love to take on.

I'm up so early because I take my oldest son Joshua to seminary (a church-run religious class that meets before school). We carpool with another family and the arrangement is that I pick up the kids, and the other family takes them to school after the class ends. I usually work out after dropping the kids off.

This morning, the other family couldn't pick them up so instead of the gym, I had the opportunity of spending an hour, in the dark, in freezing weather, in quiet solitude in my mini-van.

The problem is, you can't sleep in my van. Oh sure you could fold down the seats, blow up an air mattress and camp out just fine. But sleeping on those seat cushions? Nope, not going to happen. Apparently the Dodge engineers, in an effort to cut down on driving fatigue designed their seats so as to avoid any possibility of comfort. Think of rocks and plywood.

So after reading the morning news on my phone and after giving up on stealing a few minutes of sleep, I just sat there. And did nothing.

The last years have been so full of school, work, family, church service, parenting. I'm always doing something. Most times I'm doing like fifty things. But this morning, I just stared out the window, watched the rain dribble down my windshield and savored the sunrise.

It hit me this morning that I should make more of an effort to take time to just be at one with my thoughts. I always have time to read and to pray. But taking time to just ponder, why is that so hard to do?

I got home still an hour before work and was excited to tell my wife about my experience this morning. I got about two lines into the story.

Then I feel asleep.

If a Tree Falls..

Since I started this blog last Fall, I've not gone as long as the last few months between posts. Much like my long-suffering personal journal, which has gaps that measure in the years, I've contemplated just giving it up.

Plus I often wonder if it even really matters? Its kind of like the tree that falls in the forest, if no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

I've thought about this a lot recently, and as I approach these last few months of school before I close myself off from all of civilization to prepare for the bar, I've decided that even if that tree doesn't make a sound when no one is there to hear it - I need this.

I spend so much time ready news, following current events and paying attention to things. And for what its worth, I want to throw my two cents in.

So even if the only person to read these ramblings is myself and my wife (who, after prodding and begging eventually reads these things) I'm going to keep on writing.

That sound in the forest? It's mine.

Is "History" Being Made Too Often?

Many of us who have labored through a history class will remember hearing the dire warning from all who teach history: "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." So far in my life I've had no trouble remembering history, and have managed to avoid assassinating any Archdukes from Austria. In high school, however, I did find out that forgetting Geometry does in fact require one to literally repeat it.

Recently I've noticed that the term "history" or more specifically "making history" has sure been thrown around a lot. I think we're using this term a bit too casually.

When I think of making history I think of, well, history. You know, important elections, wars, major events, natural disasters, etc.

The New Jersey Nets potentially setting the NBA record for worst franchise start? I'm sorry sports fans, that is not making history.

I mean can't sports writers come up with a better phrase than making history? Do they really think a sports franchise win-loss record should be described the same way as the lunar landings?

Baseball is even worse. How often do you hear commentators gushing over a pitcher who "made history" by setting a record for the number of strikes thrown on an odd day of the week with a full moon?

The phrase is also grossly overused in politics. Yes the election of Obama was historical (indeed all Presidential elections are). But remember the night Pelosi said the House health care bill would pass, her quote was: “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act… We will make history..."

I know the Dems see this whole health care debate as big deal and frankly it is. But does she really believe voting on her bill was a chance to make history?

There is one thing Pelosi and supports of her insanity should realize.

Infamy is sometimes as easily made as history.

This Time The Music Gets Lost in the Scandal

One of my all time favorite rock and roll stories involves rock god Alice Cooper biting the head off of a chicken. Way back in the days of Heavy Metal's infancy, Cooper was on stage performing a concert at temporary venue erected on someone's farm. Somehow a chicken wandered up on stage. Cooper had never been on a farm and assumed the chicken, as most birds, could fly. He picked it up and threw it out over the audience. Of course the fowl fell into the crowd where the, no doubt stoned, masses of moshing fans promptly stomped it to death.

The next day the press reported the incident something to the affect of "Alice Cooper Bites Head Off Chicken on Stage." Apparently Frank Zappa, responding to the stories, asked Cooper if the rumors and stories were true. Cooper initially denied it to which Zappa famously replied, "Well whatever you do, don't tell anyone you didn't do it."

You've likely heard by now of American Idol runner up Adam Lambert's performance on the AMAs this week which prompted literally thousands of complaints to the network and a subsequent cancellation of another show. No chickens were involved but Lambert kissed another male musician and gave a face-full of crotch to another.

I'm sure the whole incident will no doubt serve as great publicity for his album and certainly can be justified under the mantra that even bad press is still nonetheless press.

However Lambert spent all of the Idol competition and the months afterwards not focusing on his sexuality but on his music. This prompted many in the gay community to criticize him for not being gay enough.

Clearly Lambert's actions were both premeditated and designed to shock and to garner attention. And they were likely in response to these critics. The tragedy is that now instead of a focus on his very obvious talents as a musician, the story is instead about what really amounts to a juvenile publicity stunt.

Lambert of course claims a double standard, and claims the furor is because he is gay.

Unlike Alice Cooper, who frankly needed a good chicken biting story to make up for mediocre at best singing skills, Lambert would do well to focus not on sensationalizing his sexuality, but to truly make his career, all about the music. In other words, let the talk be about his merits as a musician.

Isn't that what being treated equally really means?