Gay Marriage

This summer the Supreme Court issued one of the least thoughtful rulings in history when they ruled that all states must recognize same sex marriage.  The ruling effectively struck down legally passed amendments to state constitutions (do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment?) and laws passed by state legislatures banning same sex marriage.  The ruling was poorly made and leaves a multitude of unanswered questions that will require litigation for the foreseeable future.

The case of the Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who sat in jail for several days, held in contempt for not signing same sex marriage licenses, is but the first of many to come.  Davis holds that she cannot do what is against her religious beliefs.  The Supreme Court did not provide exception for religious belief, but did cowardly acknowledge there would be challenges based on deeply held convictions.  How this case plays out will largely determine if religious liberty will continue in America.  Will Davis become an example intended to keep other public servants in line?  If so, wouldn't that be the same as excluding Christians from certain public offices? Isn't that in itself discriminatory?

I am somewhat torn by the Kim Davis case.  I acknowledge her bravery to go to jail for her beliefs.  I also acknowledge that she is not doing the lawful work required by her elected position.  There has to be an accommodation made.  Accommodations are made by business and government organizations every day.  Ergonomic chairs are purchased for those with back trouble.  Work hours are adjusted to accommodate child care needs.  The list goes on and on.  There has to be an accommodation for someone who, due to religious conviction, will not perform new work that was not part of the original job description.  Anything less is a direct attack on religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruling was a great win for the LGBT activists.  To their credit, they worked long and hard to bring the case to the highest court and to sway public opinion to their side.  Public opinions shouldn't sway the justices, but it did.  The cowardice of the high court should have been, and could have been avoided.

Marriage has historically been an institution defined by religion.  The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one women, and uses marriage as an example of the relationship between Christ and his church.  Marriages have traditionally been performed in a church and led by a pastor.  Only recently has government played a role in marriage by establishing licensing standards and providing preferential treatment for married individuals.  Ironically, state government became involved in marriage licensing to restrict inter-racial marriage, not to expand the marriage definition. The net take away is that marriage was defined and administered by religion long before the American government existed.

The high court could have taken a more reasoned approach that deferred to religion by establishing a government definition of same sex union that offered the rights and preferential treatment provided by government laws.  This would have effectively created a firewall between the Biblical and government definition of marriage.  The benefit would be that religious freedom would be protected while societal trends of acceptance could be accommodated.  But that solution assumes the LGBT community would be satisfied with equal treatment by government.  Their activist wouldn't.  They want something much larger than the "rights" they appear to fight for.  They want complete and unequivocal acceptance of their lifestyle.

They use the courts and the media to fight for thought control.  Every public official or merchant who attempts to use a religious exception will be sued and shamed.  This is the fight that will continue until they feel completely accepted as a normal lifestyle. Every challenge, public or private, will be shamed.  Those who do not accept same sex marriages will automatically be labeled as haters and homophobes.  This is already happening. How organized religion reacts to this new persecution will be interesting.

Already many Christians have taken a live and let live position. Same sex marriage is driven by the homosexual agenda.  Homosexuality is sin, jut like lying, cheating and stealing are sin.  Homosexuals need forgiveness just like liars, cheaters and thieves do.  Should Christians be accepting of unrepentant liars, cheaters and thieves?

Christians must not hate.  Regardless, we will be called haters. Thank you Supreme Court justices.

The Candidates

Based on the implosion of Hillary Clinton and the un-electability of the old socialist Bernie Sanders, I am optimistic for conservative chances in 2016.  But the repubs have stacked a field of 17 candidates. There is a risk they will eat each other and diminish the repub chances for winning the White House.

The surprise of the candidate list remains Donald Trump. The mainstream media continue to predict he will soon step in it and fade away, even though evidence seems to indicate the more he steps in it (by their standards), the more popular he gets. Other media channels are shocked that he is still leading all repubs in the polls.  It's really not that hard to understand.  All you need to do is remember and assess the mid term elections of 2010 and 2014.  Both were landslides for repub candidates, from national to local races.  Most were elected after campaigning on stopping Obamacare and stopping Obama's open border policies.  Conservatives sent these representatives to Washington for one explicit purpose - to stop Obama.

What did they do?  Nothing!  At every opportunity, the repub controlled house and senate failed to follow through on the campaign promises.  And we the constituents are upset.  Our support is gravitating to the only candidate that speaks our thoughts. Will it last?  Maybe.  It's still 5 months until the first primary, and 14 months to the election, so anything can happen.  If the repub leadership wanted to destroy the Trump candidacy (and they do), all they would need to do is follow through on their campaign promises. If Obamacare was defunded and the open border policies rescinded, if we were seriously building a wall, Trump would fade away.

I am still sorting through how I would feel if Trump became the repub nominee.  On one hand, he has the business savvy that Obama lacks and may be the right mix of pragmatism and business acuity that America needs. On the other hand, he has baggage that makes his commitment to conservatism questionable.  That baggage might prove embarrassing in a general election where his enemies could revisit his past.  Yet, to date, these issues haven't seemed to dent his support.

The one lasting change I would love to see as a result of the Trump candidacy, would be a pledge by all candidates to tell us what they really think. If that were mandated, we would not have lived though the worst presidency in American history.  If Obama had told us that he would ram Obamacare through in the dark of night with preferential treatment (bribes) to get the needed votes, if Obama had told us he would stop enforcing immigration law, if he would have told us he would light the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate the same sex marriage Supreme Court ruling, does anyone think he would have been elected?  I'm dreaming now.

Most surprising repub primary news has been that Ben Carson has solidified his #2 position.  Early Ben Who? was barely drawing a few percentage points of support until the first debate.  I think he was unknown until then, but now occupies the same "political outsider" turf as Trump.  Carson seems to be a good man with a great story, and conservative ideals. I could definitely support him as the nominee, but do question if he is prepared for the job.  The last thing we need is another 4 years of on the job training. 

If I were forced to vote today for one of the 20 candidates, 17 repubs and 3 dems, Carly Fiorina would be my choice.  If you have ever seen her handle a tough question, you have no doubt that she has a sharp mind with great articulation.  She is a bulldog that will challenge the media and make her points.  She is conservative.  My only concern is that some believe she wasn't that great of a CEO at Hewlett Packard.  That could hurt her later if she faced a polished politician with some executive experience.  

The primary goal of conservatives must be to defeat progressive liberals, Clinton, Sanders, Biden, and retake the White House without losing either legislative house.  Only then could real conservatism be implemented.  In the end, we may think that Obama was a good president in that he ushered in a new era of conservatives.  But I'm dreaming again.

New Job

Surprisingly, a friend told me a couple days ago that they miss my blog when I don't post for a while. I haven't posted for 6 weeks or so.  I know it is hard to believe that somebody misses my blog, but if I hadn't heard it with my own ears, I would not have believed it myself.  So I immediately began thinking of something to write about.  I have intentionally avoided political posts after realizing that I probably offend a few friends and family, but that can't continue too much longer.  The political current events are calling me.

For now, just accept that I still believe Barack Obama has solidified his place as the worst president in American history, liberal progressives (the democrats) are the vermin in American politics, and I will have more to say on these beliefs soon.  On a lighter note, I have a new job and the atmosphere is so unlike anything I have recently experienced, I will take a few minutes to describe it.

Remember where I came from.  My prior position was with a foreign-owned company that had no clue of how to keep an American workforce happy.  Their belief is that if you pay a competitive wage and offer good benefits, your employees will be loyal and happy no matter how often they are beaten.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  If employees are not made to feel valuable, if innovation is stifled, if bureaucracy rules and there is little to no autonomy, the work environment will become toxic and morale will submarine.  I know because I worked at that place for almost 6 years.

Without forgiving them, I will say I understand why they do stupid things.  They are part of a service business with ever increasing pressure to do more work for less money.  Knowing they could be replaced, they automatically agree to doing more for less whenever asked.  It's not a sustainable business model, but some publicly held companies only think of the next earnings release.  The result was that as a manager, I was repeatedly asked to motivate a workforce that was asked to perform heroic efforts daily, with no reward system.  The executive leadership would pass mandates down to management and let it be known that we should salute or be replaced.  In March, I left behind the most frustrating job I ever held.

Then after a 4 month "sabbatical" and PTSD recovery period, I stepped out of a time machine. Nearly everything I remember from my 15 year career in cable TV (19 years ago) was different in the cable TV world of 2015.  The technology had advanced by an order of magnitude, the company had evolved into what appears to be a well run corporate entity with mature HR and financial tools, and a host of support organizations that did not exist way back when.  And even though the new company is shareholder-owned, they don't seem to behave as if the next earnings announcement is the only priority.  Revenue and margins are healthy, and good projects get funded with minimal effort.

I haven't seen a single example of onerous expense control.  I have traveled twice with only cursory approvals.  I spent nearly a half million dollars in my fourth week justified only by my need for manpower to produce results.  I posted three job openings, then expanded it to 5 as an opportunity presented itself.  My only effort was to describe the need and the strategy to my leadership chain.

The result of this environment has been that a program the company had talked about implementing since 2007 is now making substantial progress.  All that was required of them is autonomy and resources, something that did not exist in the prior job.

Will my working bliss continue?  Who knows.  A lot is changing.  We expect to be purchased early next year by another cable company, and that is an obvious unknown.  But my mindset has also changed.  Regardless of my negative experience in the prior job, I know that all companies are not as clueless nor as constrained as my previous employer was.  Time will tell, but for now, leaving my prior job and accepting my new job were great decisions.