Well folks, it’s been quite a year. On the personal front, I married the Missus and made an honest man of myself. I saw my oldest child graduate from college. One of my boys got engaged to a wonderful young lady and we got her daughter as an adorable grandchild out of the deal with another to follow soon. Our insurance business is turned around and we survived the changes and adjusted to the sacrifices. Our rental properties are all occupied with good tenants. The house is warm, the fridge is full, and we are going to host the family Christmas dinner this year here at Heartland Central.

On the blogging front, BrianR managed to stave off a rampaging wild fire in his neck of the woods. Although he probably believes it’s due to his willingness to make an armed response courtesy of the second amendment, I think he merely kept his cool while all around him panicked. His beautiful daughter got married, and he continues to be the Townhall Blogfather.

We waged an ideological war here at Townhall about where we would draw the line with respect to candidates and many a heated exchange was joined throughout the summer. Despite the passion of the participants, I noticed a reassuring level of good manners and mutual respect by those so engaged. It made me proud to be a part of the Townhall blog community.  

Some new faces appeared around here as well. We saw the rise of Loyal Democrat with his unique talent for cutting satire. We welcomed our resident Doctor with the addition of Shining City.  Crawfish dredged out a Swamp and his prolific content rivals old Gunny. Our super-patriot Nee started her blog this year and kept it real for us at the Gathering of Eagles rallies this summer. Perhaps the most unique name in blogging was first seen this year with the arrival of SquiddyPopPerkyJean. Kilroy was here starting this year and what an addition he was.

We also have a few MIA’s in the family. Husker Jeff (A Critique of Pure Unreason), Bradford (Iron Cages), Charles Mudgeon (Mudgeon is Not Amused), all seem to have slipped the bonds of this ephemeral coil. We have a few that many would not be sad to see join them. The perpetually self aggrandizing and irritating Black Tygrrrr, the always unhinged Sanity 102, the assorted Ron Paul supporters and the unbelievably unhinged Sarah Palin nutroots come readily to mind.

To those of the old guard that started here while the sawdust was still fresh on the floor I tip my hat to you all. Brian at the Island, Jimmy over at the Closet, Sandra & Sheila the pugnacious sisters from South America at A Word to the Wise & One Eighty, Flagwaver over at the Spade, Fletch, Gunny, PasPhil, and Jevica, all have a special place in my heart this holiday season. Thank you my brothers and sisters in arms.

I couldn’t make this an encyclopedic compendium of all of the events this year and still keep it readable, so I’m going to stop here knowing full well that there are some I’ve overlooked, some incidents that should have been here, and maybe a few points of disagreement. So be it! That’s what the comment threads are for and I hope you all use this one to drop by and add your own special remembrances of the year to it. Merry Christmas to one and all and a special thanks to those that drop by regularly to read my stuff and add their own to it. God Bless you all.

Scottie

My loyal readers will no doubt recall my essay a while back about how I wound up with not one but two cats, despite my preference for dogs.  Well bury me in an anthill and smear my ears with jam if it didn’t happen again! I was minding my own business, unloading tools from my truck the other night when they struck like lightning. As I made multiple trips up and down the basement stairs lugging tools and materials into my basement, two little commandos infiltrated my perimeter and slipped through the open door. Their mission: FOOD! 

Now friends, I’ve seen a few dog food commercials in my day. I know they practically starve a dog for a day or two before shooting them wolfing down the product in commercials. I’ve also been around animals all my life in one form or another, and I know that isn’t the way any normal animal eats if they’re reasonably fed. So it broke my heart to discover two kittens nose down in the cat’s feed dish down in the basement swallowing dry cat food whole as fast as they could gulp it down. I called the Missus down to have a look at them and it broke her heart, too. Together we watched them chow down until they were so full they could barely walk.

When they finally came up for air we gave the critters the mandatory once-over. Two male tiger stripped cats that were not much more than furry sacks of bones with wildly distended tummies.  Neither of them weighed more than a sachet of feathers.  Every bone in their emaciated bodies was easily discerned through their dull little hides.

I said to the Missus, “You know I hate cats don’t you?”

She smirked and replied, “So we’re keeping them then?”

And the little rascals began to purr on cue and sealed the deal.

“I guess so.” I said, and we gathered them up and took them upstairs to apply some Frontline to them and turned them loose. They introduced themselves to the two resident cats. They were disabused of any delusions of superiority by our resident matron cat, Margo. She quickly established that she wasn’t going to take any nonsense and quickly administered the cat’s equivalent of laying down the law to them.  They’re still giving her a wide berth, but things are slowly thawing. The big boy cat, Gyro regarded them with bemused disinterest and pretty much ignored them. And then the little kitties we christened Beavis and Butthead, now filled to the bursting point, sacked out under our newly installed Christmas tree.  Christmas Kitties; Too cute!

Scottie

One of my assignments in college was a group effort to analyze a company. Our professor assembled the groups with great care. In my group, the majors included accounting, marketing, management, economics, and even a liberal arts student. It was a wonderful exercise in diversity, despite the ham-handed method used to form the group. And it was quite an eye opener, too. As the group’s accountant, I had a decidedly linear approach to the task. The marketing major saw things as primarily a psychological exercise. The management major was a flake but he added what he could. And the Liberal Arts major had all sorts of interesting takes on nearly every aspect of the effort. Our economic major turned out to be an excellent “big picture” type. The whole exercise was very synergistic and the end product was better than any of us could have produced by ourselves. If the point was to demonstrate the value of diversity in problem solving, it was an unqualified success.

However, this was a controlled situation with many variables held constant. Everyone in the group was near graduation. That is to say, it was a group of college educated people. The course was a requirement for graduation, so all of the parties were motivated to at least make a reasonable effort. And while the outcome was important, the process was even more so. While I learned that diversity can be a good thing, I’m not altogether convinced that it is the panacea our professor would have had us believe.

Remember, this exercise only worked because the entire situation was contrived to illuminate the benefits of diversity. I would like to posit that while diversity can be a good thing, having it for its own sake misses the point. Like the man with a hammer seeing every problem as a nail that needs pounded down, I fear the intelligencia try to apply this philosophy to every problem in a similar manner. Let’s take a look at some lessons to be learned here that were glossed over.

First, this wasn’t a random group of people plucked from the population at large. This was a fairly homogenous group plucked from a class of college seniors with all that implies. These were educated people with budding expertise in a variety of areas, but they shared more similarities than differences beyond that. This aspect may have been glossed over, but it was absolutely essential to the success of this diversity lesson.

Second, there were no victims in the group. Or conversely, we were all equally victims on the same terms in this situation. None of the participants expected any quarter for being from their particular major. The group was equally on the hook for the assignment and everyone would share in the success or failure equally. This was not pointed out either, but diversity as it is currently promoted is usually based on some of the parties having membership in one or several victim groups.

Third, all of the parties were motivated to produce an acceptable result. None of the participants focused on how the project reflected upon their major, but rather on how the project reflected on the group as a whole. We all worked to a common end, participated enthusiastically, and focused on the end product rather than how much of our own input took center stage. This was only possible because of our commonalities; it was not the result of our differences. If we all had diverse goals, this project wouldn’t have worked at all.

Finally, the reward for success was relatively small and the penalty for failure was very high. If the project was good enough, we all would graduate and the grade would join the multitude of others on our transcripts; if it wasn’t good enough, we wouldn’t graduate. We were all united with a common goal that had serious consequences for failure. The consequences in a real life are seldom so evenly divided among the participants.

So while diversity has its advantages, it only works as an enhancing ingredient in the overall recipe. If added judiciously, like a spice, it can really perk things up. But it can’t carry the entire dish all by itself. It is unreasonable to expect that it can. Almost any project will do fairly well if you start with a motivated group of educated people working earnestly toward a common goal with serious consequences for failure. I think that’s true even if the group is comprised entirely of white middle aged engineers.  So before we buy into this diversity demonstration, let’s cast a jaundiced eye on some of the underlying premises first.

Scottie

It seems our esteemed Speaker of the House is pleading for us to consider the children. It seems likely that it’s only a dodge to obfuscate the situation, but on the off chance she’s sincere I’d like to offer a few suggestions about how she could truly make things better for the children.

If you really want to help the children in this country, stop sexualizing them. It seems to me that a pretty good place to start would be to quit selling thong underwear and hip huggers to nine year olds. Let me suggest that we stop discussing sexual matters with prepubescent children altogether. If we must discuss sex with children, how about grounding the material in the context of morality and values instead of covering the mechanics in excruciating detail. And while we’re at it, let’s remember that only about five percent of the adult population is GLBT and keep the material related to the more esoteric aspects of sexuality in relative proportion to their occurrence.  

I would also suggest we revive some old standards that have served us well for most of civilization. Let kids play! Give them time for recess and let them do what kids naturally do. Bring back tag, and dodge ball, and monkey bars. Quit doping little boys up on Ritalin and let them be boys again. Stop stifling the natural competitive instincts these little ones need to develop to succeed in the world. Stop giving out trophies for just showing up. There are winners and losers in life; there are risks and rewards to be evaluated; there are consequences to be faced. How are children ever going to learn these things without having ever experienced any of them?

Here’s another great idea: before we teach multiculturalism, how about teaching our kids about their own culture first? Wouldn’t that be helpful? There’s time enough for the protoctologist’s view of America in college. Shouldn’t our kids have some sense of who they are and how we got here before we start comparing our great nation to the rest of the world? Why is it that the only thing our children know about Thomas Jefferson is that he owned slaves? I think that leaves out quite a bit about one of the most brilliant men to ever trod the earth, don’t you? Sadly, the same could be said about all of our founding fathers, the Constitution, and civics as well. How will they ever learn these things if they are not taught? Just maybe we could teach these things to them; it would be like giving them a real education instead of indoctrinating them at school. It’s a concept well worth exploring.

Finally, let’s support the organizations that foster our children on their way to adulthood. For reasons I cannot fathom, the Boy Scouts are under attack for refusing to expose their organization to the same folly visited on the Catholic Church. You want to help kids? Support the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. I know it’s a radical thing to do; but teaching children the value of teamwork, solid moral values, self-reliance, and confidence hardly seems like a bad thing to me.

So Ms. Pelosi, if you sincerely want to do something “for the children”, I suggest you review these simple time-tested strategies. You will find them much more productive than calling a healthcare bill for adults and illegal aliens a program “for the children” when the reality is the children will still be paying for your folly long after we are all gone to our reward. You see, we both can agree that something should be done “for the children”. I simply offer that my suggestions are far more productive.

Scottie

She wanders about the old place, lingering here and there to soak in the memories one last time. The house is in total chaos, her children busily scrambling about with various tasks. She directs their efforts, but her heart just isn’t in it. The accumulated treasures of a lifetime are being lovingly packed and sorted by the assembled throng of children, friends and grandchildren. Trucks and trailers line the driveway, waiting to receive the neatly packaged contents of a home she’s lived in for over thirty years. This whole affair has been quite a shock for her and it shows in the concern and fatigue on her normally smiling face.

There’s the china she received from her mother, the furniture she’s lovingly dusted and polished to a brilliant gloss, photo albums, vacation memorabilia, school projects her children made for her, and the millions of little things that one accumulates over the course of a long and fruitful lifetime. These things can be moved of course, but the memories attached to them are a different matter. Every particle of the old place evokes memories and she hears all of them clamoring for a last visit before the cosmic tranquility is permanently broken.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with the new place, but it’s not the same. As her treasures are transferred, she stops by to supervise their delivery and placement for later unpacking. The new house is rapidly becoming a warren of trails through many stacks of boxes and furniture. The physical work of transferring everything will be ably handled by others, but the monumental task of sorting and placing it will be to a large extent her sole domain. It’s going to take some time for her to create a new nest here and even longer to overcome the loss of the old one. But in the end, she’s a tough old bird; she’ll roll up her sleeves and one box at a time she’ll create a new home. And soon the holidays will come, and her new nest will be filled with the love of her extended family as she once again holds court and continues collecting her precious memories of home and hearth and family.

God bless you Phyllis.

Scottie

One of the consistent themes of American culture is the self-made man. Given the Left’s stranglehold on Hollywood, Academia, and Journalism, it occurs to me that every conservative had to come to their philosophy through dint of personal effort and self-determination. Conservatives certainly didn’t learn the values they hold dear at a University. Their point of view is seldom bolstered by the fare emanating from Hollywood; in fact it is far more likely to be undermined than supported by the glitterati. And they most certainly didn’t arrive at their conclusions by following the lead of our nation’s mainstream media.  All conservatives are therefore by definition self-made.

I will acknowledge that many conservatives get a good start from their parents. But parents can only take you so far. It takes tremendous effort and character to run against the prevailing wisdom of the “in” crowd. It takes real courage and a true belief in your core values to hold them dear in the face of ridicule by your peers. I’ll give parents their props, but I didn’t arrive in early adulthood fully formed; none of us do. In the absence of strong parents, the rest of us had to arrive here by forsaking fantasy for reality, by using reason, and by tamping down hysterical emotionalism. In short, we had to grow up. 

While the Left claims to champion diversity, what could be more diverse than the multitude of individual paths conservatives have taken? While the Left champions the notion of tolerance, how could any conservative have arrived where they are intellectually without tolerance in abundance? The ranks of the Left swell with those whose only claim to legitimacy is their victimhood; that they have been offended in some way. Who among conservatives gets through a week, let alone an academic year without having their values and sensibilities offended? The difference is conservatives shrug it off and go about their business instead of making themselves the center of attention for something someone else did or failed to do.

Take comfort in the knowledge that conservatives are self-made people. They daily demonstrate tolerance, diversity and honest intellectual curiosity. In fact, you could say conservatives actually live what the Left preaches. No accolades are necessary; our self-esteem is just fine. After all, we’re grown-ups, we’re used to it. 

I had no idea how much I had grown to depend on my little electronic buddy until it went kaput. It was ever handy; always ready to gather and present articles and news from dozens of sites. It knew all of my logins and passwords, kept track of all of my favorite sites, and made surfing a true joy. It waited with stoic patience as I composed my articles, stored my ideas to be fleshed out later, posted my comments on various threads, and called my attention to incoming e-mails. It personified and occupied the nexus of my intellectual universe, and now it is no more. It is very much like losing a good friend.

It wasn’t my first laptop, and it won’t be the last one I own. Every one of them has had endearing personality quirks that made them unique. I think because I had such minimal expectations of the last one, and its price was quite reasonable, it had the greatest chance to impress me and it truly did. Now it’s dead and gone and I am in mourning for my little buddy.

It went quickly over the past month or so despite my fevered attempts at resuscitation. First the power connection got iffy and progressively worse. Then the hard drive failed bit by bit, in what I can only describe as the computer equivalent of Alzheimer’s disease. The cost of a new hard drive is about half the cost of a replacement computer, so I think I’ll opt for another machine of the same make and model. And while it will be mechanically identical in every respect, it just won’t be the same. Goodbye little buddy. Godspeed and God Bless.

We all tell a fib now and then, and those little white lies we tell to spare the feelings of others probably won’t land us in hell. We also know the lies we tell deliberately to deceive others for our own benefit; but our conscience has a way of alerting us to these faults. But what of the lies we tell ourselves? We do it all the time. In fact it’s become a part of the social structure, a norm if you will.

We are compelled to lie these days or face onerous social repercussions. We are under constant pressure to tell the proper lie instead of confronting the truth. And we all go along with it; whether from moral cowardice, or obliviousness, it’s hard to tell.  But we do it nonetheless. This has to change; it will ruin the nation if left unchecked.

Every time I hear the politically correct crowd spout their blather, I see their lies go unchallenged. Profiling is wrong! Why? Why must we believe that a ninety-year-old woman from Des Moines is as threatening as a twenty three year old swarthy male from Yemen named Muhammad? To accept this logic is nothing less than to actively participate in an obvious lie.

If we don’t condone changing traditional marriage to conform to the radical agenda of a small but vocal activist minority group, we’re “homophobic”. This is patently untrue, but we go along to get along, afraid to confront the reality of the matter for fear of being unjustly accused of this falsehood; and traditional values are sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. The truth is those seeking this change haven’t made, and can’t make, the case for doing so and traditionalists are under no obligation to defend the status quo against an unpleasant and unpersuasive whining radical minority.

If we object to expanding a health insurance program that was passed ostensibly “for the children” to include adults, illegal aliens, and people that obviously have the means to provide this coverage themselves, we’re somehow against the best interests of children. This is also a lie, yet we fall silent instead of confronting it. We sit silent to avoid being accused of something patently untrue. To object to increasing government intrusion into healthcare is not anti-children; in fact it is in the children’s best interests in the long run, since they will inherit the ultimate costs of this program. But no one voices this obvious truth.

The dysfunctional family structure of the African-American community is the biggest root cause of the many maladies suffered there; but we must profess that more government action is the solution when we all know that prior government action is largely responsible for the problems that currently exist. To offer any constructive analysis about the problems suffered by the black community is to be tarred as a racist or a sellout, depending on your race, and dismissed; so the truth is buried and we all pay lip service to the trendy new policies which are nothing more than the old ones dressed up in new rhetoric. And the problems remain unsolved and festering and the truth remains unspoken.

Anyone with the ability to reason will readily conclude that if women were truly paid only 77% of what men make, no man would be able to find a job until every available woman was fully employed. No capitalist worth their salt would dare hire a man if a woman were available for seventy-five cents on the dollar for equal work. Yet this bromide continues to be presented as fact and goes unchallenged. It is an obvious statistical lie, but we silently accept it for fear of being falsely labeled misogynists. The truth is men work longer hours at jobs that are so unpleasant, or so dangerous, women won’t do them; and that is the root cause of the differential.

We are told that if we could only ban guns, violent crime would cease to be a problem. This runs counter to our intuition and our constitution, but the position is purveyed unchallenged by those that seek to punish the law abiding in order to avoid dealing with the criminal element. An element, by the way, that would benefit tremendously from a disarmed and vulnerable population; which is the net result that would be achieved by enacting this insane policy.  But to argue against this is to be labeled a “gun-nut” and dismissed, so we let yet another obvious lie pervades the public discourse unchallenged. The truth is cities with the strictest gun control laws are the most crime ridden and violent; think Washington D.C.

It is impossible to remain the greatest nation on the planet if we allow these caustic agents of untruth to saturate our national discourse unchallenged. I challenge you all to think for yourselves, to question the conventional wisdom, and to challenge those things you suspect are false. We must return to being a nation of people that can look themselves squarely in the mirror and see an honest person reflected there. It will not be a single argument that turns the tide, but numerous small ones. Now go forth and wage truth! Your nation is depending on you.

Scottie

“Oh, it’s Mr. Landlord! Can you say scumbucket boys and girls?” – Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood on SNL

With the start of the new school year here in the Heartland, I’ve been running pretty hard getting my rental properties cleaned up, performing repairs, and the myriad other activities being Mr. Landlord requires. Sometimes I meet myself coming back the other way from Home Depot; other times I find myself at the tool truck trying to figure out why I am there. The relentless August heat and humidity doesn’t make things any easier.  This has restricted my time on the blogs for the last couple of weeks, but I do try to put in an honest hour over breakfast reading the posts and comment threads of my compatriots. Rest assured this too shall pass and I’ll be back in good form soon. In the meantime, here is a thread to keep in touch. Thank you all for your forbearance.

Scottie

"In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:..a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." – The Communist Manefisto

It’s time to rethink the income tax system in this country. It really boils down to fundamental fairness. Currently, nearly half of the people in this country pay virtually no income tax at all while the bulk of the burden falls increasingly on fewer and fewer wealthy taxpayers. This is a receipe for disaster. Eventually, if the current system continues, the wealthy will move their money offshore and the system will collapse. Simply mandating that everyone shall eat steak doesn’t produce any steak.

Why should the people receiving the benefits our society provides be excused from paying anything for it? When a majority of voters have no stake in the cost of government, can more and bigger government be far behind? Isn’t this the essence of Universal Health Care? A class of people that pays little or no taxes wants the rest of society to pick up the tab for them, even if it ultimately destroys the system for everyone, including themselves. How long before this majority demands transportation, food, shelter, utilities, and every other conceivable human need from an ever shrinking minority paying for it?

How much care and consideration will be given to the fruits of this largess? Don’t people naturally devalue things that are free and protect the things that come dear? If the majority can demand whatever it likes, and the politicians will certainly respond to that demand, what is to prevent them demanding everything essential to life as if it were an entitlement due them? And once they have enshrined their “right” to it, will those receiving these benefits have any appreciation for the value of what they receive? Not likely.

If you mull this over, you may well come to the conclusion I’ve come to. The income tax system as it is currently configured is really just Marxism by other means. It takes from the most productive in order to give to the less productive. It takes from those that have the resources (from their ability), and gives the spoils of this taking to those less fortunate (to their needs). You can bet the recipients of this largess will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. But it’s a fight worth contemplating. In my opinion, this is a more existential threat to our nation than radical Islam.

It’s time to give a solid look at the Fair Tax plan. It has much to recommend it, but the principal reason I support it is that it creates a sharing of the burden by all but the truly poor in a straightforward manner. That it also returns to the people the power to control the amount of money available to the government is just icing on the cake. Can you imagine a democracy based on the cummulative votes tallied at the nation’s cash registers replacing the current system of Marxism by other means? Poetic justice in its truest form. Wreck the economy, no money for you!

Scottie

There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether or not the Republicans should accept a debate in the YouTube format recently enjoined by the Democrats. I must vote a well considered no. This process may be entertaining, but it doesn’t add anything of substance to the political process. Let me explain how I arrived at this conclusion and see if you agree.
 

This is really a chance for the MSM to cull through thousands of questions submitted by “normal Americans” and select a set of questions to pose to the candidates. While the actual questions come from the population, the MSM still maintains editorial control over which questions are asked, and which are discarded. In so doing, they’ve created the impression that the questions are not theirs when in effect they really are. It gives the MSM cover to ask questions no journalist would dare soil their hands with while appearing completely neutral. Kind of like using Triumph the Insult Comedy Dog as an intermediary for questions you wouldn’t dare ask yourself. In a sense, the MSM is using the submissions as a proxy for a sock puppet. It gets to control the debate without having to defend the questions asked by attributing them to someone else.

Also, there is no upside to participating. How does one maintain a presidential bearing while engaging a question from a sock puppet? In the last debate, the candidates got to engage with a literal sock puppet on the subject of Global Warming. Even if the puppet is Lambchop, it is impossible to convey a sense of decorum while so engaged. Remember, the MSM is actually in control of the questions, the format only gives the appearance of coming from the hoi polloi. Is there really a Republican alive that trusts the MSM to be objective and fair in its selection of these questions? I would have no problem coming up with a nice round of “Gotcha” questions, nor would you. I’d wager even money that the DailyKos would have a contest for the most obnoxious question submitted. Given the volume of the entries that will be available from the nutroots, and the MSM selecting the questions from this pool, would you put your candidacy on the line? Me neither.

To the taunts that will surely follow from the Left, the reply is a simple question: “Why is it OK for Democrats to refuse to debate in a dignified forum moderated by Fox News, but not OK for Republicans to decline to reenact a media circus? No matter how tough Fox News may have been on the Democrats, they certainly wouldn’t have reduced them to responding to literal and figurative sock puppets.” Why do the Democrats get to decline dignified forums that garner an educated audience, while requiring the Republicans to perform like trained seals in a media Circus Maximus? A YouTube debate for Republicans is a horrible idea. And with the recent experience of the Democrats on vivid display, it would be unbelievably dumb for them to follow suit. Surely they know better than to play along with this thinly veiled sock puppetry of the MSM. If not, they likely don’t have enough political sense to be elected anyway. At least, that’s the way I see it anyway.

Scottie

Scottie