SamSaid!

CHURCHILL

    The name of Churchill is revered in western civilization  –  the legacy of Winston Churchill who is generally regarded as the Man of the Twentieth Century. Now his good name is being dragged thru the mud by a far left Professotr at the University of Colorado. This guy, nominally Ward Churchill, claims to be  an Indian (oops, Native American) although there is serious doubt about his origins. But whatever his ancestry, he is a far left liberal hell-bent on challenging or destroying our traditions and way of life. This is the guy who says that the victims of 9/11 “had it coming” and that these poor souls were “little Eichmanns” — see Nazis. His supporters quickly claim the high ground of free speech  — the First Amendment. No matter how offensive, he has the unlimited right to express his views.

    Does he?  Personally, I come down on his side on the freee speech issue. . Indeed, he can spout off his garbage diatribes wherevever he sees fit  — the Harvard Yard, Inpendence Square, Hyde Park, the Main drag at Berkeley, Central Park, or any of the other havens of leftism around the country. But it is another question entirely whether the taxpayers of Colorado or the USA are obliged to keep on paying him with taxpayer dollars while disseminating such intellectual filth. Churchill is saying in effect, I have the right to say whatever I want to say and you have to keep on paying me whether you like it ot not. That's where I part company.

     I think the filth disseminated by Churchill is beyond ordinary measure, but he illustrates the high price we pay for thre First Amendment. There are consequences to be paid for the exercise of any rights. Let him pay the consequences, but don't tell taxpayers “You have to pay for his unconscionable idiocy”.

     Fire him. Let him try to make a living working rather than being a sponge at the public trough. And you wonder why College faculties stand in such disrepute?? 

It will be interesting how the Faculty at Colorado decide on retaining the services of this “professor??”

JACKSON

     So now we will be treated with months of legal and judicial wrangling over the conduct (misconduct) of pop star Michael Jackson. Fortunately, we will be spared the lurid details since the court proceedings will not be televized. The charges are pretty serious and if found guilty Mr Jackson could spend serious time behind bars.

     When viewing Mr. Jackson' appearance or observing his behavior, the first word that comes to mind is not “normal”. He looks like a weirdo and simply  listening to him gives one the impression that there might be only 10 eggs in his dozen. If you want to view him as a great entertainer, be my guest; but from any other standpoint he is a sorry case indeed. Yet  when it comes to a court proceeding, he has one big thing going for him  — he is a black celebrity. It should be clear nowadays that society does not convict black celebrities   — regardless of the crime. OJ Simpson (murder); Jesse Jackson (tax evasion). Kobe Bryant (rape), Jamal Lewis (drugs)  — the list goes on. Maybe the white guilt associated with slavery is too much to overcome, but the plain fact is that justice system lets  black celebrities get away with most anything. So why should it be different with Michael Jackson??

     Is Jackson guilty of the charges?  I think he is. But thru legal manuevering, the defense will methodically destroy the main prosecution witnesses, and the black hero will go free. Maybe I am wrong. We''ll  see. But if Las Vegas offers odds on conviction, I know which way I will bet.  

THE FINGER

    On January 30th, the people of Iraq gave Bin Laden and Zarqawi the finger  –not the middle finger  –  the index finger with the tip stained with purple indelible ink. They voted. Nine million of them, risking life and limb  – some for the first time in their lives. In the long run, the actual outcome of the election may be of less importance than the fact that a free and open election took place in an Arab country. George Bush rolled the dice on the 1/30 election, and won big –  much to the chagrin of the naysayers like John “the waffler” Kerry, California's Senator Worthless, and the Sage of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy. With so many parties and candidates involved, it no doubt will take weeks and months for the elction results to jell down into a mangeable entity. And Zarqawi's mindless raghead thugs will do their best to sow discontent thru unrelenting terrorism. But when the Iraqi people get a taste of freedom, I think they will start to put the finger on the “bad guys” so that either the US troops or the Iraqi Security folks can end their tenure on this earth and let them enjoy the great beauty of death.

     Looking ahead, the worst possible thing we can do is to set a schedule for troop withdrawal. Maybe our planners have a date or will settle on one. That is OK with me. But the most stupid thing we can do is to announce such a date or specify a number of troops publicly. That's the kind of script that Zarqawi or Bin Laden would write.

    The Shiites and Kurds will relish their newborn  governmental prominence in Iraq.  The Sunnis can either boycott or sign on. It seems to me they are not really in a position to play hardball. My guess is that the Shiites and Kurds will go out of their way to be accommodating  –  up to a point. After that, the resentment of the last 50-100 years may take over. If so, it won't be pretty.

AGENCIES

     Some of the worst abuses of citizens in different countries have come at the hands of “Agencies” of these Governments. With Hitler it was the Gestapo; with Stalin it was the NKVD; with the Cold War Communists it was the KGB. The list can go on and on with the Iranians (The Shah) , Libya (Khaddafi), Iraqis (Saddam), the Chinese, North Koreans, etc. etc. Critics of America like to throw in the FBI and CIA, but I prefer to think of them in other terms. As far as Americans are concerned, the Agency that strikes fear in the hearts of many is the IRS  — the Internal Revenue Service. A notice of an IRS “audit” can be very worrisome.

     The US Tax Code and IRS regulations are mess. They form a bewildering assortment of percentages, brackets, deductions, exemptions, credits, alternatives, etc.  —  thousands of pages long and measured in mega pounds and square yards. The cost of COMPLIANCE ALONE  is estimated at $225 Billion per year. We know that government takes money – lots of money. But think of $225,000,000,000 just for compliance with the tax laws and rules. If nothing else, the present system encourages cheating. Most people would conclude that something is wrong and  the present system and needs to be fixed  –  better yet, replaced. .

     George Bush has appointed two quality people to lead an effort to simplify and reform the tax structure. They are former Senators Connie Mack (R) and John Breaux(D). Prior efforts at meaningful tax reform have failed, but these two men have a good chance to recommend meaningful change instead of more bandaids. This time around, a “flat tax” has a fighting chance to be heard and considered seriously. Other countries have successfully used this approach, so it cannot be dismissed out of hand. A plan proposed by some tax experts would be an alternative flat tax that would greatly simplify the current “1040″ approach. That would mean that current taxpayers could choose between the present system and a flat tax at 15-20% (to be determined). The total change would be phased in over the next several years. Naturally, we all would be able to choose the system that would be best for us, but in the long run, both the taxpayers and the nation could benefit from the conversion to a flat tax which is supported by some very savvy financial experts. .

    Getting Congress to approve and implement such a major change would be about like a mouse booting an elephant 20 feet in the air. But give “Dubya” credit  — at least he has identified tax reform as a major objective in the coming year and is receptive to alternatives that make sense. If Connie Mack and John Breaux can engineer a change, I guess we would still have an IRS, but one has been de-fanged. I like the sound of that.

     I have no idea when a proposed change will be debated on the floor of the Senate, but whenever it occurs my guess is that the Noon Ballon (Teddy) and Senator Worthless (Boxer) will oppose it.

VERSIONS

     In the next several months we no doubt will be bombarded with all kinds of data regarding the social Security System. In his State of the Union address, Prez Bush will certainly launch his campaign for change and at the same time the BSLs (Blue State Liberals) will voice their strong opposition. Of course, both sides will base their own arguments on their own statistics. Presumably, all of us will have to sift thru the conflicting data to find the truth about the status of the system and the need for change. The dialogue will probably be like a debate with A speaking Russian and B speaking Japanese.

     In a society like ours, it is healthy to have this kind of discourse, but wouldn't it be nice if both sides could settle on a specific number of facts that are not in dispute? It is the whole notion of both sides being on the same sheet of paper. But in the power struggle that dominates Washington DC, there seems to be little chance of a commonly accepted baseline of information even though it is not rocket science to establish undisputed facts. To wit:

     .  The Social Security system is 70 years old . At that time (1930s) there were more than 30 workers paying into the system for each recipient of benefits. That ratio is now 3:1 and will soon be 2:1. Foreseeably, the time will arrive when payments exceed revenue

    . During years when there has been a Social Security surplus, the Federal Governmant has spend that surplus on other programs

     . Life expectancy of Americans has significantly increased  — hence the seniors will receive benefits for a longer time.

     . The only real variables in the current system are a) the rate of taxation, b) the retirement age, and c) the benefit schedule.

    . There are millions of people receiving benefits or who are eligible for benefits who paid nothing into the system 

     . Not a single American has a dime in  his/her SS Account. All of the money flowing in is being paid out to current retirees.

     . National demographics clearly show a great surge in those who will be receiving benefits soon  — the baby boomers

     . There is no Social Security crisis in January 2005. In 10 – 20 years there will be. Doing nothing is simply not an option.

     . Geo Bush favors the establishment of Private Savings Accounts as a partial solution. That is a legitimate option, strongly opposed by the BSLs 

     . The BSLs propose nothing in the way of change. They claim that there is no problem, and are prepared to wait for 10-20 years.

     There may be more simple truisms, but this list will do as starters. Is it so difficult just to recognize these simple truths as a way to initiate national dialogue??

     When a problem is clearly in sight,  leadership is needed to tackle the problem  before it becomes a crisis. It is short sighted political manuevering to sit on your hands, do nothing,  and wait till the crisis develops —  and then try to figure out what to do about it.  One option that would  pump more money into the System would be to raise payroll taxes, but the BSLs gag at the thought of imposing higher and higher taxes. So, they oppose the Bush plan and do nothing.

     I don't think the symbol of the BSLs should be a donkey. I think an ostrich would be more appropriate.  

WORTHLESS

      I play golf with an interesting group of guys  — all about the same age, plus or minus 10 years. It is a mixed bunch – ranging from blue collar to white collar to professional, to business owners, to teachers etc., with typically varied views in the political spectrum. Over a warm cup of coffee, the conversation focused on  California's Junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, and her asisnine behavior in recent weeks. First there was the sideshow over the Ohio election when the plurality was way over 100,000 votes for Geo Bush, and more recently Boxer's disgusting effort to impugn the integrity of Condolleeza Rice at the Senatorial confirmation hearing. Without exception, all 13 guys deplored the notion of Boxer representing California. It's bad enough to be called the land of fruits and nuts and being the homeland of a repulsive flake like Michael Moore. Now we have our ditzy Senator, Ms Boxer to boot.

      Our group has no issue with female leaders, and Senator Diane Feinstein wins high marks. But not Boxer. Senator Feinstein is a lady who has earned the respect of all of our group, but our well grounded group feels that Boxer's brain in a mosquito's bladder would look like a pea in a bass drum. If you want to see the difference between a lady and a broad, you need to look no further. Many of our group think Boxer should be termed Senator Dimwit, but the majority preferred Senator Worthless. That name seemed to be appropriate and it stuck —  Senator Worthless. We think it would be great theater for the Leader of the Senate speaking from the podium to say. “the Chair recognizes Senator Worthless of California”. The term may not be flattering, but it is accurate. At least we all would know to whom he is referring. She is an embarrassment to California and its citizens.

     Six more years. Isn't that pathetic??

STEELERS

     In the topsy-turvy world of sports, the story of the Pittsburgh Steelers is truly remarkable. For the uninitiated, the Steelers are the professional football team located in Pittsburgh, PA. In 1933, the franchise was acquired by the Rooney family which has owned and operated the Steelers for 3 generations –  more than 70 years. The Steelers were not notably successful until 1969 when Chuck Noll, a relatively unknown assistant coach, was hired as the Head Coach. In short order he fashioned a football dynasty that won 4 Super Bowl Championships in 6 years  — a remarkable accomplishment. When Noll stepped down in the early 90s he was succeeded by Bill Cowher, a native Pittsburgher, who is still the Head Coach today. Imagine  – in times when wealthy owners of other teams spend fortunes on coaches in a futile effort to buy a championhip, the Steelers have had just 2 Head Coaches in 36 years. Bill Cowher may not be a household name, but he is “one of a kind” and there is an excellent article about Bill  and his family in the 1/17/05 issue of Sports Illustrated. The article is authored by Rick Reilly who is generally considered the best of the current crop of sports scribes. The sports world needs more articles like this one. Good reading.

     In the 1960s and 70s, Pittsburgh had a thriving economy supported by  many corporate giants including US Steel, J&L Steel, Westinghouse, Gulf Oil, PPG, National Steel, Alcoa, Mellon Bank, Heinz, etc., etc., who were headquartered in the City.  Now,  many (most?) of these firms are gone. They either relocated away from Pittsburgh or just vanished from the industrial landscape. The City suffered an enormous financial setaback and still hasn't recovered. For all practical purposes, the “steel” in the Steel City is long gone. All that is left is the Steelers. But if a City down at the heels needs a rallying point, it is the Steelers who are once again just a couple of wins away from the Super Bowl. They are now the emotional backbone of the City. Cowher has put together a solid team made up of veterans and led by a precocious rookie Quarterback. They are the pride of a City trying to fight back from tough economic times.

     There may be better owners, or better coaches or better teams, but there is no better story in Pro football than that of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

COINCIDENCE

     On Jan 6th, Senate hearings began on the confirmation of George Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzalez as the new Attorney General replacing John Ashcroft. As expected, Gonzalez received some flak from Democrats Joe Biden, Pat Leahy and Chuck Shumer (among others) over his legal opinions that  captured terrorists are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. To the Democrats, this translates into legitimatizing torture. It all hinges on whether we are at war with the terrorists (Bush), or whether terrorist behavior is just a matter of law enforcement (Democrats).

     On the same day, January 6th, Anti-Gonzalez articles appeared on the front pages of the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. Also, on the same day  — Jan 6th – these same newspapers carried editorial page articles opposing the nomination of Gonzalez –  accusing Gonzalez of finding “torture” as being acceptable when  interrogating terrorists. All five of these newspapers are regarded as being “left of center” in the political spectrum, and their opposition to a Bush appointee was fully expected.

     Newspapers are free to publish and editorialize as they see fit. No quarrel. But how long can the long arm of coincidence be?  Same appointee, same day, same issue, same front page treatment, and same editorial page treatment. Coincidence?? That sort of stretches credibility. A simple review of the 2004 elections makes it clear that the majority of  media outlets (very much including these aforementioned 5) are anti-Bush, and anti Republican. They have properly earned their label as being “left wing”. So is the Jan 6th assault on Alberto Gonzalez just a coincidence? Or was it a COORDINATED  effort to discredit his candidacy. You can decide for yourself, but if you really believe it was coincidental, I have a big bridge I'll sell you cheap!!

TRILLIONS

     I don't think there is any way in which the average citizen can relate to the enormity of a Trillion dollars. Our minds just don't work that way.

     Years ago when I first began to review Accounting Statements and Financial reports, there was a little notation that said (000 omitted). That meant that a $Million appeared as $1000. Thus, mentally, everyone had to add three zeroes mentally to get the real number.

     Fairly simple system that worked well. And in those days, a million dollars wasn't exactly considered chicken feed. I recall the famous quip of Senator Everett Dirksen (Ill.) who commented during a Federal Budget session, “A million here, a million there — pretty soon it adds up to real money”. Of course, that was long before the age of Billions. Now we are in the Age of trillions, and a trillion is 1,000 billions Just think for a minute about a mere BILLION.  A billion seconds ago was in 1959  — 46 years ago; a billion minutes ago, Jesus Christ was walking on the earth; a billion hours ago we were in the Stone age. But in the age of Mega-Federal spending, the most recent expenditure of a Billion dollars by the US Congress was just 8 hours ago. Now, translate that into a 5-10 TRILLION dollar budget. That amounts to a thousand Billions times 5 or 10. Is it any wonder why our leaders in Washington brush off Billions of dollars of unnecessarey spending as trivial or ho-hum?

     So now we enter the age of trillions when Financial and Accounting statements carry the little notation (000,000) omitted. I guess it makes sense when you imagine figures or entries  like $5,000,000,000,000. I can imagine $5,000,000 dollars in an age when ball players or entertainers can make $20-30M per year. But Billions are a thousand millions and trillions are a thousand billions.

    How do we hire scorekeepers who can really think in those terms? How should we think of financial statements or budget figures that round off the numbers to the nearest Billion?  If the variance is only $450 million, just round off the figures to the nearest Billion and forget it. I wonder if I can do my income tax return that way.

     Now I understand a trillion  — the odds of rounding off my income tax to the nearest thousand dollars is about a trillion to one. Now I am getting the picture!