Burning Words

A few weeks ago I wrote about how America need not apologize for its treatment of dead enemy soldiers.  Turns out that small furor was nothing compared to our latest request to apologize.

This week in Afghanistan, some NATO troops accidentally burned some copies of the Quran.  Apparently this is a serious no-no in Islam, burning former trees that have taken the shape of the word of Allah.  It may shock some that this act resulted in massive demonstrations there, with many people killed including two Americans, but read this and you won't be that surprised.

With all due respect to the beliefs of another religion, this really is an outrage - to humanity.  Equating a bound compilation of wood products that was put together in some print shop (maybe in China?) with something so sacred that human violence and death is wished upon its (accidental) desecration?  This is taking the concept that Christians might call 'Word Made Flesh' to a whole different level.

To add injury to insult, President Obama apologized on behalf of America.  He called the act "inadvertent," and said, "We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible."

OK, I'm sure at some level we had to do this to try to save other lives - presumably American lives.  But damn him for making me agree with this reply from none other than Newt Gingrich: "The president apologized for the burning, but I haven't seen the president demand that the government of Afghanistan apologize for the killing of two Americans."

Of course, the Taliban rejected the apology anyway.  They called on Afghans to take revenge, saying, "We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Quran."

Clearly, it's less offensive to some Muslims to kill people than it is to burn a Quran.

I suppose all religions have doctrines that don't make sense.  Regardless, if any belief or act can be justified in the name of a religion (be it Islam or Christianity or anything else) you don't have a religion, you have a cult.  That's something we'd all be better off without.

The Pretenders

No, this is not an entry about the 1980s English rock band with hits such as Back On The Chain Gang and Middle Of The Road.  They are not worthy.

This is about people who jump on the bandwagon.

We've all seen this before, in a variety of ways.  In the past couple of weeks, I've witnessed no less than three manifestations of it....

It's the person who doesn't give a damn about a sports team the entire regular season, and then suddenly acts like the team's biggest long-time fan when they get to the championship game.  Never mind that the person can't name more than one or two of the team's players.

It's the person who claims to not like a certain musician, and then suddenly acts like the artist's biggest fan when they are coming to town for a concert.  Never mind that the person can't name more than one or two of the artist's songs.

It's the person who claims not to like a certain part of the country, and then suddenly acts as if they should be the tour guide when that place is chosen for a group trip.  Never mind that the person can't name more than one or two tourist destinations in that region.

The Pretenders don't actually care about the team, or the musician, or the trip.  They care about not being a part of something, even if they couldn't care less about that something.

So to all of the Pretenders out there, stop your phony coat-tailing and go away, and let the people who really care take your place.

Praising Arizona

Got away for a few days of R&R in the Phoenix, Arizona area this past week.  I've been there several times before, and the older I get, the more I like it.  (If you visit there in the winter months, you can plainly see this attitude is shared by a lot of older Americans.)

A few observations about the trip:

*I'll take Arizona winter over Florida winter anytime.  No humidity, no daily thunderstorm threat, no bugs (unless you count scorpions).

*Played another awesome golf course there.  I've now played 5 different resort-style courses in the Phoenix area, and only one didn't meet or exceed expectations.  The price/value isn't any better than in Iowa, but the courses are more scenic and in better condition.

*Speaking of scenic, I can't imagine a more scenic city/area than Sedona, Arizona.  Plus, it's cyclist-friendly.

*The Phoenix area is currenly on sale.  Tons of property in on the market, no doubt for a fraction of what it might have cost a few years ago.  Basically, it's the desert version of what's been going on in Florida - lots of empty property originally bought to rent out to now non-exisitent vacationers.

And one sort of non-Arizona thing:  I don't understand why anyone would want to fly on any other airline than Southwest, if possible. Cheaper fares, friendlier employees.  Yeah I know, no first class seating - that only makes it better.

How To Rob A Bank

According as analysis of 2010 census data done by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian-leaning think tank, more than one in three Americans lived in households that received Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance in mid-2010.  When Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are included, nearly half of the nation lived in a household that received a government check.


For those scoring at home, that's more than 148 million Americans.  By comparison, in 2008 one-quarter of people lived in households receiving a government lifeline, and about 45 percent a government check, according to the Census Bureau.


So what already sucked in 2008 is sucking even more.  I've written before about paying people to not work and how we need better means testing in this country. We don't have to be cruel about it.  Clearly we should have a social security net, we just have to make sure we aren't unfairly providing assistance to those who have made bad/easy choices as opposed to those who have had bad luck.


Based on this week's news, however, we are still headed in the wrong direction.  To wit, this week a bunch of state attorneys general finalized a $25 billion settlement with five big banks, as compensation for the banks' sloppy paperwork in their mortgage foreclosure process.  In the end, $10 billion of this will go toward principal reduction for delinquent borrowers or those on the brink of foreclosure.  Another $3 billion will be used to refinance homeowners who are not delinquent, but who owe more than their home is worth.  (Not sure about the other $12 billion, although you can bet states will get a big chunk of it.)


Let me put this into perspective:  Government is taking money from bank stakeholders - ultimately, their customers in good standing - and giving it to people who chose not to pay their bills and/or who made a choice to buy more home than they could afford.  There is no relief for anybody who properly paid their mortgage and/or lived within their means.


This sucks all right - it sucks money from responsible citizens to feed the irresponsible ones.


If solving this country's economic problems means rewarding bad behavior, we have bigger problems ahead.

Caught In Traffic

Here is the text of an email I sent today to my elected representatives in the Iowa House and Iowa Senate, as well as the governor's office:

I’m writing to oppose HF 2048, i.e. the traffic camera ban.

I can’t think of a single reason why individuals and municipalities (not to mention their representative politicians) would oppose using technology to sustain already existing laws.  Traffic cameras, and the fines they may impart, are a ‘win’ in almost every conceivable way.

Traffic cameras keep the roads safer for drivers, especially law-abiding ones.  They make money for municipalities.  They free up resources for law enforcement to spend on more important things. The list goes on…

Sure, there could be some legislative tweaking.  For example, fines might be reduced – that may also be a way to limit the money made by the private companies behind the cameras.  But those are just details.

The fact is, those who oppose traffic cameras are afraid of something, and it isn’t Big Brother.  Opponents are afraid they will no longer be able to break the law while no one is watching.

Automated enforcement technology isn’t Big Brother.  It’s a behavior modification tool (like any camera is), and it clearly works.

We have the power, in the form of technology, to continue doing good here.  I would expect our elected officials to not stand in the way of that.