Recently I attended a band concert of one of my children.  The band was arrayed in the classical concentric semi-circle arrangement.  Prior to and during the concert, various students walked up to the microphone to explain some aspect of what the band was doing.  The only problem, I couldn't understand a word any one of the kids said.  It wasn't my middle aged ears, or problem with the public address system.  The problem was the source.  The children did not speak clearly.  I've heard professional athletes speak more clearly.  What's wrong with these kids?

In the United States, we allegedly share a common language, so why is it that the younger generation is unable to speak it?  I'm not speaking about the slang that each generation uses, I'm speaking about the fundamentals of the language.  The ability of a person to be understood generally has a direct influence on their ability to secure a good job, or advance to a position of responsibility.  Imagine for a moment, asking to speak with a manager and upon beginning the conversation, your confidence in having the issue resolved plummets to zero as you are unable to decipher the words eminating from some mush mouthed bozo who can't complete a sentance without resorting to barely recognizeable catch phrases like "You know", "Know what I'm sayin'" or worse.  While we all like to skewer the "Valley Girl Syndrome" of the 1980's, it is far worse today because the result is an unintelligible stream of noise with an occasional sylable of coherence.

I suppose my midwest upbringing, coupled with my parents insisting that I did not pick up the local drawl has allowed me to be understood by all english speaking peoples from the many different countries and local's that I have visited.  The thought of only being able to effectively communicate in only one section or subculture of our great nation is inconcievable.

I think of the presidential race going on right now.  People say of Barack Obama how well spoken and eloquent he is.  Why isn't this the norm?  Imagine for a moment how far Mr. Obama would have gone on the national stage if he spoke as do many rap or hip-hop 'artists'?  He would be laughed off the stage.  We would not trust him to represent our country to the rest of the world.  Thank heavens that Mr. Obama's parents and teachers taught him to speak clearly.  He is an impressive speaker that I disagree with, but that's another story.

Now, if you are a business owner, and you want to make a positive impression on your customers, just who are you going to hire?  Would you want your customers to wonder if they've called your company or the local low budget rap studio?  I think the answer is clear, unlike the speech patters of millions of tweens, teens and young adults who will be entering the work force soon, and can't understand why no one will hire them.

So, what's the solution?  It boils down to parents and teachers, church members and the public in general.  They should insist that children speaking should enunciate their words.  Catch phrases should be eliminated from their vocabulary, know what I'm sayin'.  I should not need an English to English translator if, heaven help me, I actually want to watch something on MTV, or a music awards show.  I should not need subtitles on the local news to help me understand what the eye witness to a shooting of a drug dealer, or victim of a natural disaster says.  Go look up "Boo got Shot" on YouTube for a perfect example.  America should raise the level of our speaking intelligence immediately.

I confess that I was actually watching MSNBC the other night.  They had a program on about the California penal system that caught my attention.  There were two things that have stuck with me.  The first is that there are over 500 people on death row, and the second is that how much it costs to house and feed a criminal.

Ron White, the Blue Collar Comedy Tour guy, was talking about Texas and the death row there having an express lane.  I think that is a GREAT idea.  There are some people in our society, who have no interest in being 'rehabilitated' and if released from prison, will simply rob, rape and kill again.  Once guilt has been established, appeals should take place within MONTHS, not years and then they should be escorted quickly to their eternal dirt nap.

One of the death row inmates on the MSNBC program was completely unapologetic about killing his first victim and actually described the plotting of and murder of another inmate.  His guilt is not in doubt, so why is this guy continuing to turn oxygen into carbon dioxide and food into waste on my dime? 

A recent case here in Georgia adds credence to this argument.  A drifter has been sent away for life for the recent murder of a young woman and is the prime suspect in several other murders.  This guy needs to die.  There is no doubt about his guilt and as a tax payer, I'm not interested in preserving his sorry life any further. 

Bring back the hangman, or the firing squad.  Fire up the needle, gas chamber or electric chair and lets rid our society of these people.  None of us would be comfortable if they moved in down the street from us, even if they found religion in prison.   It is an absolute crime against society that "Life without the possibility of parole" is ever offered to a criminal.  If we are willing to put them away for the rest of their natural lives, to the tune of somewhere between 25 and 100 thousand dollars per year, why don't we as a responsible society just cut our losses and execute these criminals.

I've heard it said that the death penalty is no longer a deterrent to crime.  My take on the reason is, that it is not used often enough and quick enough.  Imagine from the time that a criminal in death penalty case is convicted until their death, only 6 months to 1 year have elapsed, instead of the more typical 10-20 years.  Imagine the savings.  Imagine that some wannabe criminal actually remembers this when considering their next crime.  Unlikely I grant you, but possible.

Now, to those who will try to convince me otherwise, don't waste your time bringing up statistics about how inmate X served N number of years on death row before being freed by DNA evidence.  I get it.  I'm not talking about those guys.  I'm talking about the really hardened criminals where there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT about their guilt.  Send them along.  Maybe they can find redemption in the next life.  They knew the rules here and chose to break them.  Sorry, you're out.  ZAP!  NEXT!

Somewhere down deep in my heart I have a glimmer of hope for the non-violent "three strikes and your out crew", but it's just that, a glimmer.   I'm kind of divided on the whole issue.  Seems a shame though that we have to feed and house these bozo's too.  Doesn't Darwin have a theory about survival of the fittest?  If you are too stupid to not have gotten the message after two tries and continue in your criminal ways, maybe you should be executed for just being too stupid.   If you can't get out of prison after three strikes, why bother keeping you there?  Why should I as a taxpayer continue to pay for your stupid mistakes by housing, feeding and giving you prison health care?  Sorry, you're out.  ZAP!  NEXT!

There are lots of reasons I can think of to eliminate this human debris from our law abiding society and a scant few to actually keep them around.  I have yet to hear a compelling, non emotional argument to the contrary.  Even in our enlightened Judaeo-Christian society, mercy (Life w/o parole) cannot rob justice (execution) for the truly hardened.  Executing criminals ... It's the right thing to do.

Every time I hear the term "Maverick" when describing John McCain, it always conjures up a picture of a dude with a cowboy hat, a pair of six guns, wad of chewing tobacco, bandanna around his neck and generally in desperate need of a bath.  In other words, some kind of cowboy.

Early in the current Bush presidency, the main stream media commonly referred to and compared GWB as a cowboy, particularly when relating his actions to the war in Iraq.  He was accused of 'going it alone' in the invasion, but let's not forget how there were many in the legislative branch of government who made up the posse of deputies.

In my profession, when one of the programmers decides to 'do things his own way', he is referred to as 'going cowboy'.  This generally results in the rest of the programmers working on the project to stop what we are doing, figure out what he has done and why, install new software on our system to make it possible to compile the project again and then after this generally painful and lengthy diversion, we can get back to the tasks we have been assigned, which are now late because of the actions of one 'cowboy' programmer.

I have to wonder just what kind of Maverick we have in John McCain.  Is he going to be like the "cowboy" programmer that screws things up for everyone else?  Or, will he be the "Maverick" that comes in an takes on the establishment, shakes things up and cut through the obstacles that everyone else is encumbered with.

Somehow, after 25 or so years in Congress, I think McCain is much less a maverick than what he or his supporters would like us to believe.  I'll grant that he's got some chops with the pro-life, pro-military and some fiscal restraint, but I have such a hard time with his positions on immigration, campaign finance vs. the first amendment, and global warming that I just can't bring myself to support him.  I see him as the 'establishment' candidate who will deliver 4 more years of the same mind numbing, freedom restricting, tax extracting, wasteful spending, entitlement expanding policies, initiatives, earmarks, laws, and other assorted mechanisms that have characterized the last several administrations.

Come Tuesday, I'll be casting my vote for Romney.  Call me crazy, but having a CEO in chief has a certain appeal to me.  I'm so sick of pork barrel spending, waste, duplication, expanding entitlements and other financial idiocy engaged in by almost every member of Congress that having someone with an eye on the bottom line of the balance sheet makes me hopeful for a better future for me and my kids.  Serving in the military or having a military background to be the Commander in Chief is over rated.  Thats why the Joint Chiefs of Staff exist.  They advise every president on military issues.  Dealing with international diplomacy... well, most of those negotiations come down to money anyway.  "We want you to do X, and were willing to give you Y in "foreign aid" to get what we want."  That kind of negotiation is no different than going to any supplier in the business world.  Our government is really just a big business anyway.  The price we pay for it's services are our taxes.  So, having a CEO who can negotiate contracts should have the vast majority of the skills necessary to deal with foreign policy.


Being pragmatic about the whole situation, come fall, I may need to swallow a bitter pill and pull, the lever for McCain, but I'd rather not.  I'm really so tired of American politics being the choice of the lesser of two evils instead of a good vs. evil or even a good vs. better.  Unfortunately for conservative Americans, the choice will again be a choice of the lesser of two evils.