Monday, April 26, 2010

Recently Ursula Burns(Xerox CEO) was asked about the state of education in the U.S., she replied "Very, very, very poor."

Further more:

"It's one of the most important structural problems we have in this nation. The world is full of opportunities -- everyday there's something new that you can do. . . We are structurally creating an underclass that will be hard to fix. If we don't have people who can create value, they will be servers forever. This is not an insurmountable problem. . . If you look at the list of the top nations and try to find out where we are in reading, math, and any science, it is stunning. I don't look at the list anymore because it's an embarrassment. We are the best nation in the world. We created the Internet and little iPods and copying and printing machines and MRI devices and artificial hearts. That's all science and engineering. Who's going to create those thing?"

By now all this shouldn't be so stunning to anyone, but I like the quote. It is embarrassing after all.

Recently I read a book on Presidential facts by Dr Knowledge (Knowledge in a Nutshell) where he informs that Theodore Roosevelt had a simple mantra, to lead a strenuous life.

Coincidently, old T. R. was called a Progressive back then, 100 years ago. Today Liberals increasingly wish to be called Progressive.

While one could draw a few comparison I'm sure, I'd rather draw the distinction that so called Progressives today don't champion anything remotely strenuous.

Despite, and perhaps in spite of, the many wealthy who are drawn to the Democrat party and the liberal idealogy, in practice the left today are more intent on conspiring to increase the nanny state than they are inspiring self-esteem, self-motivation, and hard work.

Improving our schools and our collective intelligence? We could use that kind of progress.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

I was reading a Fortune magazine blurb reporting on the apparent increase in happiness across America.

I talk politics, so I'm, by nature, cynical about any metric based on people's opinions.

Is it coincidental that more American's are happier now and that there is a new President?

Here's what my mind's eye is seeing: I'm seeing a lot of Democrats answering that question in the affirmative, "Yes, I'm happier."

I envision a lot of Republicans say the opposite, "No, I'm not happier."

This is a topic that could use a lot more developing, but considering nothing has substantially changed in the last 2-3 years, and you gotta wonder why people are happier now.

In fact, all of our long term problems have only gotten worse. More deaths in wars, more deficit, more debt, more unemployed and 'dropping out' of the work force.

Even health care reform won't kick in right away for most of us.

Why are people happier?

My theory is because the squawking and cackling of the news media and Liberal leadership has unceremoniously stopped, many Americans are freed from a negative tyranny that prohibited them from being happy.

But a lot of Conservatives and Republicans where quite unhappy with Bush back then too. We all had a lot be unhappy about, the metric reflected that.

Today, Democrats are allowed to be happy.

A lot of people are just happy anyways, so there is a steady base.

And many Conservatives won't be unhappy just because some people on the Right want to play the same game the Liberals did for the 8 years of Bush -- keep a steady stream of negativity rolling.

I'm part of that last group.

The metric reflects our happiness right now.

I would hope that the Democrats and Liberals who don't pout and whine so much anymore, will realize how good they have always had it, even when their President didn't have a 'd' next to his or her name.

As for the Conservatives who are unhappy now.

The Christian among you should remember your faith and the agnostic remember this too shall pass.

Don't give the politicians so much power, influence, or credit over your life, to allow them to coerce you to be unhappy.

That, and vote.

Monday, April 19, 2010

After this weekend's back and forth between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton, I must ask the rhetorical, "Why give Bill Clinton the opening?"

Recently I've been affronting people with my belief that most Republicans and Conservatives have been acting just like the Democrats and Liberals had acted during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Mean, angry, hateful, anti-government, and even more.

Its not pretty, and now its being exploited by the Master of the Game.

Instead of taking the high road, we've taken the base road.

I'm not against airing all the dirty laundry that escapes network and liberal media scrutiny, but I'm against all the deviant personal attacks and hysterical hyperbole about the end of society as we know it.

Newsflash: Society as we know it changes everyday as norm, and as fact, the finances of this country are in such poor state due to both parties' negligence.

I don't wish to ascribe that much power to Obama, he hasn't ruined us, but I don't think he is helping much either.

Back to Clinton v. Limbaugh.

If Mr. Limbaugh is going to play his cards just like he did during Mr. Clinton's 8 years, well, I think it would be reasonable to expect the latter learning something about how to neutralize or even turn the tables on the radio Maestro.

And by taking the stand he did, I think Clinton scored one for his team. It was reasonable and somewhat indirect. Direct enough to prove a point, but reasonably general in his target, so that he doesn't look partisan.

Collectively, we Conservatives do a poor job of imitating Liberals. We ought to stick to the intelligent conversations, not the ugly paranoia and implied anti-Americanism.

The facts we can win with, acting like them just plays into their hands.