Lost Iowan Diary

I'm Baaaacccckkk.......

2009-01-03T14:23:00.001-08:00

Wow. Over six months since my last post, and what a six months it has been. Since my last post I have found a new job, relocated my family to Iowa, and basically changed just about everything in my life. One thing I haven't done during those six months is blog..... there just didn't seem to be time. And with my life as it is right now, there isn't really any time currently either, but I've made a New Years Resolution to start blogging again... at least once a week.

And given that my blog had a decidedly political slant, now that the elections are over I hope to return to a more "What's going on in Bob's life" slant, although I'm sure that from time to time I will have to jump in and comment on the political issues of the day.

And as we prepare for a new administration in Washington, let me take a moment to tell you what I will NOT be doing in the coming year (politically speaking):

1) Although I did not vote for Obama, I hope his presidency is successful - not for him, but rather for the American people. I do not wish to see the Obama administration fail simply because I do not share their ideology.

2) While from time to time I may point out the Obama/Pelosi/Reed administration failures, I will also do my best to point out their successes. And there will be successes, just as there were successes (as well as numerous failures) during the last eight years. The problem is, if you read the left leaning blogs, you would never know of those successes.

3) I will refer to Barack Obama as President Obama, Obama, and maybe occasionally "Barack". I will not uses any "clever" variations of his name or any other derogatory names. The man is our president, whether I voted for him or not, and I do have respect for the office. I will not use names, as I like to think that I am not immature, childish, or incapable of a real argument, one that does not reduce me to a name caller.

4) I will not spend the next four (or eight) years complaining about how Barack Obama "Stole" the election. where there "issues"? Of course there were (Hello Acorn). However even with the "questionable" voter fraud issues of the election, I am confident that Obama would still have one.

Unlike the 2000 Election that the Left keeps claiming they really won. You remember that election - the one where the center of debate was how unfair the "Butterfly Ballot" was, despite the fact that the ballot was designed AND approved by the Democratic party. And, despite the fact that The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of the 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties and determined that Bush was indeed the winner.

5) I will not comment on the intelligence - or lack of it - that our President has. My good friend Chris likes to refer to George W. Bush as "That "C" Student from Yale", and it's true that Bush's grades were less than stellar, as were those of his two opponents Al Gore and John Kerry. While all Three had there shares of Both B's and C's, Bush never scored below a "C" (which he received in Sociology and Economics). Okay, those of you on the left can start with the Economics jokes now, but before you do, you should know that both Gore and Kerry DID receive grades below a "C" - Gore receiving a "C-" in Government, and a "D" in Natural Sciences. Yes, the man who is currently leading the national debate on Global Warming got a "D" in Natural Sciences.

But he fared much better than John Kerry, who not only pulled a "D" in Geology as a Freshman, but also pulled a "D" in TWO History classes as well as a "D" in Political Science. Bush's grades in History and Political Science - "C's". Not great, and actually abysmal by the standards of selecting a world leader BUT still better than his opponents.

Obama's grades? Lets see what a search of the Internet brings up. This, from Wikipedia: "Barack Obama has not released transcripts for his grades from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law. He has also not released his SAT and LSAT scores. No explanation has been offered for not releasing them."

Despite the mystery surrounding Obama's grades, he is still hailed as a "Genius" and the "Smartest Man To Hold The Office of President." Based on....? Oh don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that Barack Obama is an intelligent man, especially when there is a TelePrompter around. He is a great public speaker, and light years better than Bush, who was possibly the worst public speaker of the modern presidents.

But just how smart he really is, we'll have to wait and see. (P.S. - I think that Jimmy Carter was one of the more intelligent Presidents that we have had in the last 50 years - and also the worst President we have had in the last 50 years. I'm just saying......)

6) I will not seek out and post embarrassing or Photoshopped photos of the President. Okay, the one above isn't flattering.... but it shall (probably) be my last. Hey, if the guy does something stupid and it's caught on film......

7) Finally, I will not be calling for Obama's impeachment at the drop of a hat. That one gets old really, really fast.

President Obama, I wish you all the luck in the world, and hope your administration is a shining one. You'll understand if I have my doubts, and I am unlikely on my next trip to Vegas to put any money on it, but I still have hope. If nothing else, I want to thank you for making Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. Why? Otherwise we would have her as a Senator for the next twenty years. This way she serves a couple of years in this role, and hopefully is relegated to the dustbins of history. If that is the only thing you accomplish in the next four years I will already consider you a success.

Oh, I Have An Idea What We Should Do With Hillary......

2008-06-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

In the last couple of weeks, as it became apparent that despite every dirty trick Bill and Hillary tried Obama was going to get the Democratic nomination, all of the talk has been "What next for Hillary?" Now I remember in the old days (like the week before last), when the person that lost a primary was, well, the loser.

Look, at the beginning of the year the presumptive Republican candidate was going to be Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani, and yet here we are with John McCain. Okay, well I guess that's why they actually hold the primaries and the caucuses, rather than just appoint the nominee. However, how many news stories have you heard in the last few months asking what role Mitt or Rudy would play in a Mccain White House? Oh, Mitt or Rudy might play a role in a McCain administration, but who is out there demanding a role for either two gentleman?

And yet everyone, it seems, is calling for a new role for Hillary, as if there is great shame in having to go back to being "just a Senator". is the democratic party so afraid of Hillary Clinton that they have to reward her with some grand, unearned position to keep the beast sedated? Apparently.

Now we've all heard the talk of Vice President, and that is not that uncommon, as those who do well in the primary but don't receive the nomination are usually considered for this position, or at least there is talk about the consideration. The only problem with Hillary for VP is that she and Obama really don't like each other. I mean they really don't like each other. Not that that is not without precedent, there have been several President/Vice-President combo's that were lukewarm or worse in the past: Clinton/Gore, Reagan Bush, Kennedy/Johnson, and that's just in the last 50 years. But in those instances, how many of those vice presidents had ever floated the idea of assassination before the general election even began? No, there is only one reason to appoint Hillary VP: Fear. And you know what, while I think Obama is too liberal and too naive to hold the presidency, I do consider him a man of principle, a consideration that will evaporate immediately if he allows himself to be bullied into putting Hillary on the ticket.

So if not the Vice President, what then. Well, Hillary's a lawyer, so why not Attorney General of the United States, or maybe Supreme Court Justice? Seriously, people are floating these suggestions, as if a law degree is adequate for these positions. Does it matter that we want to put someone in one of the top legal positions in the land who got caught illegally with 900 FBI files, falsely accused the White House travel office executives of a crime, or over billed her clients as the Rose Law firm. I I ain't even gonna bring up White Water.

Secretary of State? Why Hillary simultaneously opposed the War in Iraq and voted to start it. Is there a country or a leader out there that Hillary is not capable of offending? I doubt it.

Here's a good one: Hillary for Health Care Reform Czar. Seriously? She didn't screw this up enough in the 90's that we want to give her another shot at it? Hey, while we are at it lets put Bill in charge of the intern program? Sure, he had a little problem in the 90's, but if Hillary can get another shot at her problem, ..........

Others are pushing for Hillary for Senate Majority Leader. Sure, eight years is long enough to earn that position, and it's not like Dodd, Biden, or any of the other Democrats who have been there for 30, 40, or 50 years actually WANT the job.

What is it that this women knows that has people so frightened? Why is it that these otherwise intelligent people bow to giving this woman whatever she wants. Why is Hillary so scary? Can anyone tell me. Anyone.... Yes, Mrs. Foster, you have your hand up.......

Jay? Not Jay? Either Way I Like The Way He Thinks!

2008-06-01T18:02:00.000-07:00

My Brother sent me an e-mail the other day, one of those e-mail that gets past on from person, to person, to person, until it gets to me. Then it dies, because I'm not one to pass on e-mails. And yet today, I don't feel like going into the political rat race, like rubbing Obama's thumping by Hillary in Puerto Rico (68% to 32%!!!) into my old pal Chris' face. Okay, I probably had enough in me for that one jab........

So today I'm going to break my rule and repeat my brothers e-mail. This is a story that was suppose to have been written by Jay Leno. I doubt it really was, as most of these types of things floating in the digital ether are rarely actually written by the person they were attributed to. I guess we're not open to advice from someone we don't know, but as far as I'm concerned, good writing is good writing. I hope you agree.

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some Poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?''

A.. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?

B.. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

G.. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.

H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.

J.. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.

K.. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

L.. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

M.. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy. Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!

Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'

And if you don't send this to at least ten people.....well, nothing bad will happen to you. But really, would a true friend not turn his or her pals onto lostiowandiary.blogspot.com

What Happened?

2008-05-29T21:39:00.001-07:00

What indeed. For those of you who don't recognize that phrase (What Happened), it is of course the title of the new book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland. This book is causing a lot of fury right now, and I for one am getting a real kick out of it. Considering that my "real job" is running a book store, I'm all for anything that will drive book sales.

What I really get a kick out of is seeing my liberal friends fall for every Bush-bashing comment that is made in this book. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people who is going to say "It's all a bunch of lies", because first of all, I haven't read it, and secondly, once I do (and I will) I will probably believe most of the claims that Mr. McClelland makes. Not all of them, but most.

And the funniest thing of all is watching the Libs trip over themselves without even stepping back to see the wholes in some of McClellands stories. For example, my good friend Chris over at http://www.redhogdiary.wordpress.com/ wrote: "McClellan asserts that the aides - Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff - “had at best misled” him (or in other words they lied) about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity." This is based on the fact that Libby and Rove had met with each other. Was McClelland in the meeting? No. Did Rove and/or Libby discuss what they talked about in the meeting with McClelland? No. So McClellands assertions are assumptions at best.

One of the big questions that has been making the rounds on the cable news channels, talk radio and the blogosphere lately has been this: If McClelland was so put off by the inner workings of the Bush Administration, why not quit or express your concern at the time? I mean if Scott McClelland is the honorable man he paints himself to be in this book, why do "Satan's work" for all of those years?

Before we attempt to answer that question (and really, the answer is pretty simple), lets look at what McClelland himself had to say when another former Bush appointee wrote a "tell-all" book after leaving the White, former U.S. National Security Council advisor Richard Clarke. McClelland was asked why he thought Clarke wrote his book.

McClelland replied: “Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book”

Speaks volumes, doesn't it? Oh, and the answer to why McClelland didn't step down and why he is writing that book now - follow the money!

My Lunch With Bob, Part II

2008-05-28T20:36:00.001-07:00

Wow, I can't believe I left this out. First of all, if you haven't read my previous post, please read that first, it helps set this one up.

So anyhow, I'm having lunch with Bob Woodward (see, if you didn't read the last post, you're probably scratching your head right now), and he starts talking about a lunch he had the previous week with Al Gore (which, by the way, he described as "mind-numbing").

Now, with all the current talk about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new "tell-all" book, I don't know how this bit slipped my mind. I guess I should have put this story on the blog a month ago and forget about the pictures (which I still haven't developed).

Anyhow, Woodward is having lunch with Al Gore, and he asks Gore what percentage of what went on in the Clinton White House is the public aware of, and Gore answers (probably 1%). So Woodward suggest that Gore write his own tell-all book, to which Gore replies that there is no way he would ever do such a thing (no surprise, and I would be disappointed in him if he even considered it).

So Woodward pushes him a little further, and says "Okay, obviously that was a joke, and I know you'd never write such a book, but indulge me. If, If you did write a tell-all book, telling all you know about what went on in the Clinton White House, how much then would the public know about what went on in the Clinton White House."

Gore's response: "probably 2%".

Now that's scary!

My Lunch With Bob (and Breakfast With Jenna)

2008-05-28T17:14:00.000-07:00

I was holding off writing this post until I had my pictures from my Florida trip last month developed, but they are on one of those disposable cameras, and I still have like fifteen shots to go (and I rarely take photos), so you're just going to have to trust me on this one. But once I have the photos, I'll trow them up on the website.

As many of you know, I manage a bookstore that's part of a big national chain. I won't say which one, but I will say that in the immigration debate, I am very interested in protecting our Borders. Anyhow, last moth we had our annual managers meeting in Florida, and we had an opportunity to see and hear several top authors speak, as a matter of fact we had an author speak at each meal. Some of us had the honor of being able to sit at the table with the authors, and I was fortunate enough to share a table with Bob Woodward, and also have breakfast with Jenna Bush.

Now I'm going to spend the rest of this post talking about Bob Woodward, but let me take a brief moment to say what a delightful, intelligent, and thoughtful girl Jenna Bush was, and what an honor it was to speak with her. Say what you will about George W. Bush (and many of you have), he and Laura did something right to turn out such an impressive child.

Now in all fairness, I have not meant Jenna's sister Barbara, so I'm not saying George and Laura were flawless in the raising of their children. Actually, from what I've learned from numerous T.V. shows and movies, the likelihood is that Barbara is probably pure evil, such most twins consist of a good twin and an evil one, but I digress....

Okay, Bob Woodward. Bob Woodward is of course half of the team of Woodward and Bernstein, the two reporters who broke the Watergate story and effectively ended the Nixon presidency. And while Bob is nowhere near as attractive as Jenna Bush, he was equally captivating. What an interesting man, and not at all what you would expect of someone of his stature.

Now given Woodwards past association with bringing down Nixon, and his association with the Washington Post, you would expect the man to be pretty liberal. And who knows, maybe he is, but if so he does a great job of hiding it. Well during the lunch (there were seven of us at the table, as well as Mr. Woodward), we took every opportunity we could to pick the mans brain. After all, it's not every day you get to speak to someone as knowledgeable as Bob Freaking Woodward.

And Bob was equally interested in what we had to say. Bob went around the table and polled us as to whether or not we supported the invasion on Iraq at the time it occured. Not now, at the time it occured. And we were split about 50-50 (okay, with seven people you can't split 50-50, but it was 3 to 4, I just don't remember which way it went). We asked Bob where he stood, fully expecting him to say "I knew it was wrong from the start" but he startled us by saying he was 100% for it from the beginning, and that even though he and the majority of the press corp knew the information wasn't 100% solid, they felt there was plenty of reliable information to support the invasion.

We asked Bob who he supported for president. Like I said earlier, Bob is a very intelligent man, intelligent enough not to let that little gem out.

The question that I got to ask Bob (Jesus Christ, I got to ask Bob Woodward a question) was "A lot of people think George W. Bush is the worst president we have ever had, do you agree". His answer: "A lot of people don't know history" he later went on to say that while he wouldn't likely claim George W. Bush was a good president, in reality he "probably wouldn't make it into the bottom five, and isn't even in the bottom three of the last 100 years". This lead to a discussion as to who was worse than Bush in the last 100 years, and Woodward kept his cards close to his chest on this one. Most of the people at the table listed Jimmy Carter, which Woodward would neither confirm or deny. I feel that he was conflicted on this one, given that his take down of Nixon (whom despite Watergate, Woodward says wasn't one of the bottom three) lead to us getting Jimmy Carter. Afterall, how would you like to be the one who - directly or indirectly - gace us Jimmy Carter.

I did get him to agree that number on on the list of the last 100 years was Woodrow Wilson, but anyone who knows Wilson's history knows that. But again, as Woodward pointed out, not too many people have a real grasp on history, especially history prior to their birth.

The final thing that I thought interesting was his take on Bush. Don't get me wrong, he's in no way a Bush fan, but he does have a unique perspective having interviewed the man several times. As a matter of fact, he had recenly completed a round of interviews for his upcoming book "Bush at War IV", in which he sat with the president for two days asking him over 500 questions about the war (he joked that had he had the opportunity to sit with Clinton for two days, he would have been lucky to get in two questions). This was in fact the most amount of time in the history of the United States that a member of the press has been given access to a sitting president to discuss a single subject.

And keep in mind, Bush At War I, II, and III were NOT love letters to the president, Woodward had been very critical of George Bush and a number of his decisions. So why, we asked, did Bush agree to sit with him for so long? Because, according to Bob Woodward, George W. Bush knows that he is right. Oh, I'm not saying George Bush is right, and neither is Bob Woodward, but he says that on Iraq, George W. Bush has been guided by principle, and feels 100% that he is acting appropriately. I asked if he (Bush) felt that he had ever misled or lied about anything related to the war. Woodward doubted that he did.

Asked if he felt George W. Bush was a principled man, Woodward said that while he didn't always agree with the mans principals, he's never covered a president that was more led by principle than George W. Bush.

Just thought you might find that one interesting.

Oops, he did it again......

2008-05-27T17:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, campaigning in New Mexico (I think it was New Mexico - after all the man has visited 57 states), Barack Obama spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren't the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.”

First of all, let me say that I agree with Senator Obama the health services for the troops - mental and otherwise - are extremely important, and the Bush administrations handling of Veterans Administration responsibilities, such as health care, have been deplorable.

Now, lets get on to the good stuff. Gaffe A: Obama's mother is an only child, so he didn't have an uncle serving in WWII. Could have been on his fathers side, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have anyone from Kenya serving in an American uniform.

Gaffe B: The Americans didn't liberate Auschwitz, Russia did.

Now those are the two things the news channels seem to be commenting on the most, but really, after more than 16 years of Bill and Hillary campaigning, Aren't we all used to politicians making up stories to make themselves look righteous? As far as I'm concerned, this gives Obama some Washington cred - it proves that he is just another politician after all.

No, the thing that really caught my eye (or, I guess I should say ear) was this line: "The story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and didn't leave the house for six months." Look at that sentence again. When was the last time you recounted some of your family history, and started with "The story in our family was....". Ever heard of Plausible Deniability? This is exactly the way you present something you know to be false, because then when you're caught in your lie, you can say "Hey, that was the story I was told."

You know what Barack? When I repeat a family story, a story I believe to be true (because, even though I wasn't there, I have no reason to doubt it), I state it as fact, not as a "story in our family", but fact.

Now before you think I'm being too hard on Obama, let me say that I don't think he should be held responsible, because he was under a great deal of express. After all, I understand that his helicopter landed in New Mexico under sniper fire......

Air America Proves Once Again They Know Nothing Of How Politics Works

2008-05-25T15:48:00.000-07:00

One of the e-mail newsletters I subscribe to is the one from Air America. Why? Well, The Office is off the air for the season, but I still love a good laugh. I got a big one out of the following article by Air America's Thom Hartmann titled "Obama - Ask Hillary First!" Now Thom Hartmann is one of the few people on Air America that I can listen to for more than a few minutes. Sure, I rarely agree with the man, but he does occasionally try to at lease try to understand how the other side (aka "The Real World") works. At least I used to think that about him.

But then Thom wrote this:

The issue at hand for the Democratic Party for winning in ‘08 is not losing to McCain but losing to a divided Democratic party. The first thing Obama should do if nominated is put Hillary on the ticket. Will the Republicans have a field day with her on the ticket? Yes! Is their some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!

Howard Dean said a few months ago that the loser will be the most important person in the Democratic presidential run this year. Hillary's legacy in this 08 election could place her as the healer and bring together a united Democratic party. As a winning ticket they also move this country closer to healing the racial and misogynist undertones that still have roots.

Can you picture Denver with Hillary's delegates close to half of all delegates demanding that she be included on the ticket? To some it's a crusade. If Hillary was the one out ahead - by just a little over half - wouldn't Obama supporters want the same?

Obama's offer and Hillary's acceptance of an Obama/Clinton ticket hold the healing and the power to move this country in the direction of the real change in Washington that Obama talks about. First he must bring the Democrats back together again.

Obama - Ask Hillary first! And if she should say no, the offer would still have a unifying affect.
- Thom Hartmann

When did it become a requirement that the nominee offer the VP slot to whomever came in second? Joe Libermann didn't come in second to Gore, Bill Bradley did. Al Gore did not come in second to Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown did (Really? Jerry Brown?). As a matter of fact, Jerry Brown garnered 596 Delegates to Al Gore's 1. That's right, in 1992 Al Gore picked up 1 delegate.

Now it's not that there has never been an instance where the nominee picked the person who finished in the number two spot to be his running mate. As a matter of fact, John Kerry picked John Edwards.

But why should Obama be FORCED to ask Hillary? After all, He and Hillary really don't like each other. Some of the most hateful things said about Obama during this campaign have been said not by the Republicans, but by Bill and Hillary. And do you really think Hillary, as V.P., would sit back and let Obama run the show?

Then why? I'll tell you why, because the democrats are afraid that if Obama and Hillary don't unite, they will split the party apart and hand the presidency to McCain. And that could, in effect, mark the beginning of the end for the Democratic party. I mean lets face it, after eight years of George W. Bush, AND going up against what I would consider to be a pretty weak opponent in McCain, if they were to lose what does that say about their party. I love it when I run across a liberal that says "Oh, George W. Bush is the worst president ever" or "Oh, George W. Bush is a total moron". My reply? "Okay, George W. Bush is a moron, and yet your guy couldn't beat him. Twice."

The simple answer is that this is all about the "win at any cost" mentality of politics today. Notice I didn't say the "Democratic win at any cost" mentality, because this is an issue on both sides of the aisle. But if Obama does ask Hillary to be his running mate, he will be doing it out of fear: fear of not winning, and fear of losing power. The Democrats have already shown in 2006 that they are willing to throw away principle for power, so why should 2008 be any different?

Chris, Buddy, You're Starting To Worry Me...

2008-05-23T20:39:00.000-07:00

The other day my good friend Chris over at www.redhogdiary.wordpress.com wrote a story about a grandfather teaching his grandson the value of the Quran. I responded to Chris that I had heard the same story 30 years earlier, but that the story had been about the Bible, not the Quran. I finished my comments with “I guess it’s more politically correct these days to spin it towards Islam than Christianity”.

Chris’s reply was “I was always a fan of political correctness anyway. I think another way to say political correctness is civility. Those who rile against political correctness often times want an excuse for rude behavior.”

Now I have known Chris for 35 years, and I love him dearly. And while Chris is a liberal and I am a conservative, we realize that we have more in common than we are different, and we (generally) respect each others opinions, even though we don’t always (or often) agree with each other.

Never before has Chris said anything that angered me or made me question whether he was losing his mind, until his “I was always a fan of political correctness anyway…” comments. Now in Chris’ statement he argues that political correctness equals civility, and if you are going to take that narrow of a view, than yeah, I agree with him. I’m actually a big fan of civility. But saying you are a fan of P.C. because you like civility is like saying you are a big fan of fascism because you really like having the trains run on time. Again, this is a narrow point of view. Political Correctness isn’t about civility, it’s about exerting power and control over others. It’s also about pure stupidity.

Lets look at a couple of examples. In his book Bias, Author Bernard Goldberg talks about a report he filed as a reporter for CBS about a hurricane in the Caribbean, where he had referred to the natives as “Black”. The brass told him to change “Black” to “African Americans.” When Goldberg reminded them that they were not African Americans, in fact they were not Anything-American, he was told it didn’t matter – change it, or the story doesn’t get on the air. So I guess it’s “civil” to take a person’s nationality away from them.

I remember another story regarding a group of nuns who worked with Mother Theresa. They had purchased an abandoned warehouse in New York City with plans to turn it into a soup kitchen and housing for the homeless. NYC Officials told the nuns that they wouldn’t be able to house the homeless, because the planned beds were on the upper floors, and they were “discriminating” against wheelchair-bound homeless. The nuns said they would handle the situation the same way they did in Calcutta: They would carry the handicapped (sorry, I mean “handicapable” – or is it “differently-abled”?....) up to the rooms. The city said no, that carrying them up the flight of stairs would be an assault on their dignity. Apparently it’s more “civil” to let them freeze in the snow.

And no, it’s not just the left that are to blame (although they have truly made it an art-form). In 2006 Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele accused a leading democratic congressman of racial insensitivity for saying that the Republican candidate “slavishly” followed the GOP. Steele, and African American running for the U.S. Senate, was reacting to remarks made by Steny Hoyer, who characterized Steele as having had “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”

You want another example? Actually, I could give you dozen’s more, but hopefully you, dear reader, “get it”.

Get Well Uncle Ted

2008-05-21T23:41:00.000-07:00

Today I heard the news that Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with brain cancer, a for of cancer that can be treated, but not cured. They said that half the patients with this form of cancer die within a year. Sad.

Now let me get this straight, I don't really care for Ted Kennedy. I've always considered him one of the worst Senators on the Hill, and I won't even go into his personal life. However, that doesn't mean that I would take any kind of pleasure in this kind of news. It's tragic, and I wish him and his family the best in these trying times.

As I was driving in to work today I heard Rush talking about the situation. At Dinner I heard Hannity discussing it, and on the drive home I heard a replay of John Gibson, and all three of these men discussing Kennedy's health, and all three were very respectful to the man. They didn't try to hide the fact that they rarely agree with the man on political issues, but all felt this was a horrible situation, and wished the man well.

I thought back to how the media on the left handled the recent death of Jerry Falwell, and the not so recent death of Ronald Reagan, and all of the cruel, vile and downright despicable comments that I heard. Just one more reason why I choose to be a conservative.

Ted, I know you will use the time you have left to its best use. Like I said, we rarely saw eye-to-eye, but bless you for your service to our country.

Another Take On The High Cost Of Gas....

2008-05-18T21:21:00.000-07:00

I heard on the radio that the cost of a regular gallon of gas just hit a new record high of $3.79 a gallon. Of course, living in California $3.79 would be a bargain, as we have been paying over $4.00 for the better part of a month now.

A lot of people like to remind us that when George W. Bush took office, gas was $1.30 a gallon. That means in seven years and four months, the cosy of a gallon of gas has almost tripled. Wow. And of course, the link we are suppose to make is that GWB is responsible for that increase, and I don't necessarily disagree with this thinking. I mean think about it, we went to war against a country in a region where we get the majority of our oil, and gas prices go up. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection.

But here's the part of that equation they always seem to leave out: When George Bush took office as President in January of 2001, the price of gas was $1.30 a gallon. Six years later, in January of 2007, the price of gas was $2.19 per gallon, and increase of 89 cents over 72 months, or put another way, during the first six years of George Bush's presidency gas rose at an average of 1.236 cents every month.

In the last 16 months, the average price of gas has gone from $2.19 to $3.79 a gallon. That is an increase of $1.60 in 16 months, or put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, gas has increased an average of 10 cents per month, OR put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, the price of gas has increased an average more than EIGHT TIMES as fast as it did before we had Democrat control.

Coincidence? Not likely. Wait until they get control of the House, Senate and the White House. If I were you, I'd start buying oil company stocks right now.

Investigate CEO Pay? Investigate Others, Too!

2008-04-20T16:21:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow I leave for Florida for a week (work, not fun.... okay, probably a little fun), so I wanted to do another post before I left, but then I started packing, and then started getting my carry-on together and then Smokey and The Bandit was on, so I had to stop for two hours to watch that, and then..... Well, the bottom line is you get a guest post today, from an article by Pam Meister.

Pam asks "If politicians worry that CEOs make too much, shouldn't they also investigate movie stars and Al Gore — not to mention senators who campaign for higher office while feeding at the public trough?" I think it's a pretty good question, so here goes:

Investigate CEO Pay? Investigate Others, Too! by Pam Meister

Certain members of Congress — some of them presidential candidates — think it’s a great idea to investigate how much CEOs of major corporations earn. This is an effort to make Americans think they’re doing something — not to mention an effort to keep class envy alive. Barack Obama is pushing legislation that would allow investors to approve a CEO’s pay based on their satisfaction of stock performance, while John McCain wants to “shine a light” on CEO pay packages.

When Congress decides to get involved in the private sector, be prepared for unexpected consequences. They mean well, of course, but invariably something goes wrong. Guess who ends up paying for the mistake? Hint: not Congress.

Envy and jealousy, those two ever-present human emotions, are at play, and “greedy” corporate fat cats are once again in the spotlight. But when it comes down to it, how many average Americans know what CEO pay is based on? We all imagine the CEO living in his posh mansion and being driven in his limo to his office where he spends maybe a couple of hours a day “working.” Then it’s off to the golf course or the yacht club, where he socializes with his peers, waited on hand and foot by the hoi polloi who bow and scrape for paltry tips.

Do those of us who envy from afar realize how much these people go through to get to the top of the pay scale?

One of my brothers-in-law is not a CEO, but he’s darn close — he’s a CIO for a major American corporation. But he didn’t start out that way. He had an average job as an electrical engineer, making decent money but not scads of it. In a way, he was “discovered,” being in the right place at the right time with the right skills — and he was on the track to corporate stardom. In the process he had to earn two master’s degrees (including his MBA) at night while working days; moved his family across the country four times; and at his last job ended up traveling 80 percent of the time all over the world and not always to nice locations — in some places he actually needed armed body guards. Fun, huh? He travels with his current job too, but only about 20 percent of the time and only in North America — one of the reasons he accepted their offer.

When you get to this level, you often work late and always have to be available via Blackberry, cell phone, and computer at home in case a crisis crops up. Your time is never your own unless you are on official vacation. You have to make big decisions that affect the entire corporation — and if they’re the wrong ones, it’s your head on the block. You are paid handsomely, yes, but your home life suffers. Believe me; he earns every penny of his salary. And he’s a nice guy to boot who enjoys fishing and hunting, and he’s a lifetime member of the NRA. (By the way, he drives himself to work in his own car. He only gets a limo when he goes to the airport.)

But in case my brother-in-law’s story isn’t enough to convince you, let’s look to someone with a little more clout than I have: Thomas Sowell, one of this nation’s most respected economists, who explains why anyone would want to pay a CEO such exorbitant amounts of money:

One popular explanation is that executive salaries are set by boards of directors who are spending the stockholders’ money and do not care that they are overpaying a CEO, who may be the one responsible for putting them on the board of directors in the first place.

It makes a neat picture and may even be true in some cases. What deals a body blow to this theory, however, is that CEO compensation is even higher in corporations owned by a few giant investment firms, as distinguished from corporations owned by thousands of individual stockholders.

In other words, it is precisely where people are spending their own money and have financial expertise that they bid highest for CEOs. It is precisely where people most fully understand the difference that the right CEO can make in a corporation’s profitability that they are willing to bid what it takes to get the executive they want.

If people who are capable of being outstanding executives were a dime a dozen, nobody would pay eleven cents a dozen for them.

When CEOs don’t make the grade, they’re dropped like hot rocks. Yes, many of them receive “golden parachutes.” But it’s likely that those parachutes are packed when the CEO signs on, not in a mad rush to get him out the door.

More from Sowell:

Given the high degree of specialization in a modern economy, demanding that everything “justify itself before the bar of reason” means demanding that people who know what they are doing must be subject to the veto of people who don’t have a clue about the decisions that they are second-guessing.

It means demanding that ignorance override knowledge.

The ignorant are not just some separate group of people. As Will Rogers said, everybody is ignorant, but just about different things.

Should computer experts tell brain surgeons how to do their job? Or horse trainers tell either of them what to do?

One of the reasons why central planning sounds so good, but has failed so badly that even socialist and communist governments finally abandoned the idea by the end of the 20th century, is that nobody knows enough to second guess everybody else.

This is why I believe Economics 101 should be a required class in either high school or college. Even so, unfortunately, this kind of logic is usually thrown overboard when people are concerned about the economy and their own pathetic standing in it. Personal responsibility to manage your own finances in a sensible manner will always take a back seat to being part of a mob with pitchforks and torches, looking for the nearest scapegoat.

This being an election year, don’t expect Congress and presidential candidates to listen to people like Thomas Sowell, who know what they’re talking about. They must do something to look as though they’re appeasing the masses. More bread and circuses! And so, in that light, I’d like to suggest a few other areas of salary inequity they may want to look into. No, it’s none of their business how much these people make, but neither is CEO pay. And it would make some really good press.

X Movie stars, singers, sports stars, and other entertainment celebrities. Think about it: every time you go to a movie, concert, or sports event, the people entertaining you are making millions of dollars, which often translates into higher prices for you at the box office or music store. And, as is often the case — with movies, anyway — you don’t always feel as though you’ve gotten your money’s worth. Why should you shell out more for increasingly mediocre talent? It’s an outrage!

Additionally, think about all of the starving actors and performers out there who don’t make as much as “big stars” like George Clooney, Madonna, and Tom Cruise. It’s just not fair that they’re making the big bucks and living lives of luxury while the unknowns are waiting tables in between auditions just to make ends meet. Talent, luck, and supply and demand? Fugheddaboutit! If we’re going to level the playing field for everyone else, let’s not leave pampered celebrities out of the loop. And don’t forget the heads of the entertainment companies.

X CEOs who head “politically correct” companies. Why isn’t Congress looking into how much the CEO of Starbucks is making? Because Starbucks is a company beloved by its patrons for giving them that Friends feeling when they buy an overpriced coffee masquerading as something else and sit down in comfy chairs to peruse the New York Times or surf the free WiFi. And Starbucks is at least ostensibly committed to the right causes, like fair trade. Forget the fact that the CEO probably makes more in a month than an average “barista” — that’s a sophisticated name for a coffee server — will during his entire career with Starbucks, right? But if we’re going to look into CEO pay, then Starbucks and all the other companies that make us “feel good” when consuming their products should be fair game too.

X Al Gore. It’s amazing that Al Gore has managed to parlay his concern for the environment into a vast personal fortune. In fact, his fortune allows him to comfortably heat his massive home and zigzag across the globe on private jets, all while telling the rest of us to turn down the thermostat and bicycle 20 miles to work in an effort to reduce our so-called “carbon footprints.” It’d be interesting for Congress to learn just how his “carbon offset” scheme works, especially seeing as how he buys the offsets from a company for which he just happens to not only serve as chairman, but also partly owns. When it comes to Mother Earth, shouldn’t we all be making economic sacrifices?

X Finally, Congress should take a look at the salaries of officeholders who run for higher office. Nothing gets my goat more than public officeholders who spend more time campaigning for a better position than doing what they were originally elected for. Wanna be president? Fine. But you should be made to either wait until your current Senate or House term expires or be forced to resign your post. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for these yahoos who, rather than doing the work of the American people, are looking for more prestige and power for themselves? One of my senators was among the not-so-lucky contenders for the presidential nomination. He missed nearly 40 percent of the votes that occurred during his time on the campaign trail — and when he threw in the towel, headed back to his nice office in Washington and (I’m sure) will run for Senate again when his term is up. How many of you have bosses who would pay you to skip work to look for a better position elsewhere?

It’s nice to dream, isn’t it?

Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org (the opinions she expresses here are her own), and her work has also been featured on American Thinker

Lets Give Politics A Break....

2008-04-19T19:49:00.000-07:00

You know, I'm trying to keep this blog going, with at least one or two posts a week, but sometimes even though there is news out there, it bores me. Today, I'm going to take my lead from my friend Chris over at Redhogdiary.wordpress.com. While Chris and I rarely see eye-to-eye on politics, we both share a passion for good music, and since there was so much cross-pollination of our musical tastes when we were roommates in college. Today Chris had a post of top ten favorite songs - for today at least at http://redhogdiary.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/top-10-favorite-songstoday-anyway/

Check it out (but then come back). Chris got me to thinking about that age old question: If you were stranded on a desert island, what five albums would you take with you. Before I answer that question, let me speak to the under-30 crowd: An "album" is kind of like a CD, only bigger, and was played on a thing we called a "record player". Also, a CD were these shiny things that we listened to in the days before we had Ipods. You'll understand this a few years from now when you're forced to explain to your own kids what an Ipod is.

And no, you can't take your Ipod. I know, I know, an Ipod is a lot smaller than five albums (or five CD's), but if that's the case you have to sit hear and read the list of the 3,000 albums that I would take on my Ipod, and no one wants that.

As a background, I have no musical talent whatsoever, although I continue to harbor delusions of grandeur that one day I will break through as a rock star. The good news is I get closer every year, not because my (nonexistence) talent is improving, but the bar for "rock star" gets a little lower every year. Can you say Courtney Love? Terry Schibo had more talent than that women.

But I do love music, and personally own about 2,000 CD's, and just added my 10,000th song to my Ipod. I listen to Pop, Rock, Acid, Easy Listening, Country, Rap, and just about everything else under the sun. Sure, some of it is crap, and I'm not going to tell you that what I listen to is good for you, but I'm telling you that I like it.

And with that, let me present my top five CD's for a Desert Island, in no certain order:

LITTLE FEAT: Waiting For Columbus. Now some people would say you can't include this album because it's a live album. Others would say it has to be two of my five, since its a double-album (kids, ask your folks). To those people I say, get your own damn blog.

Little Feat is a band that has been around in some variation or other since the late 1960's, and they still tour and release material to this very day. And, in the vein of the Grateful Dead, most of the CD's they release are live shows, of which Waiting For Columbus was their first. And while the group is still great, they are a mere shadow of whom they were when founder Lowell George was still alive (Lowell died in June of 1979 at the age of 34 of a massive Heart Attack). It was Waiting For Columbus, which was released in 1978, that was their biggest seller, and still sells well today. According to Wikipedia, "The group's 1978 live album Waiting For Columbus, hailed by critics and fans alike as one of the greatest live records ever released." Check this one out, you will not be disappointed.

BARENAKED LADIES: Gordon: Many people know the Barenaked Ladies (or BNL, as they are known to their fans) through their hit One Week. This is the first CD released by the Barenaked Ladies, and while their more recent release are solid, they will never again reach the peak the achieved with Gordon. This album is hard to describe. Several songs are pop, some are rock, and most have a real intelligent strain of humor running through them. As musicians they are flawless, and their vocals are perfect. I can honestly say that there is not one wasted track on this CD. I bought this CD based on a two paragraph review in People Magazine, which has lead to seeing the band four times in concert.

REO SPEEDWAGON: You Can Tune A Piano, But You Can't Tuna Fish. That's right, REO Speedwagon. Actually, I debated between this album and "Got Live If You Want It", but I didn't want to push my luck with two live double-albums.

REO Speedwagon falls into a group of late seventies Midwest rockers that define my youth. This group includes Styx, Cheap Trick, Head East, and Foghat. Maybe it's because these were the bands that came through Cedar Falls at that time. Now REO Speedwagon really hit the big time with Hi Infidelity (and at the same time left the big time with the same album), and while that was a great album, nothing beats You can tune.... except maybe "Riding The Storm Out" from the aforementioned live album. But with such tunes as Roll With The Changes and Time For Me To Fly this is one great album.

THE ALAN PARSONS PROJECT: Tales Of Mystery And Imagination: Like all of the artists listed above, I love just about everything Alan Parsons has ever done, and it would be easy to make a realistic argument for I, Robot, or Eve, or Eye In The Sky, or any of a dozen other Parsons albums being named their best. And one of the reasons I choose this one is A) because it was their first album, which of course introduced them to me, and B), the unique premise on which this album was founded.

This album was a concept album, based on the poems of Edgar Allen Poe, and while that is a recipe for disaster, it actually works quite well here. Parsons has also based albums on the life and works of architect Antonio Gaudi (Gaudi), and gambling (Turn Of A Friendly Card).

As if I need to sell him further, know that Alan Parsons was an engineer (at age 18) on The Beatles Abbey Road album, as well as Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon and Al Stewarts Year of The Cat.

And that brings us to the fifth album (drumroll please...........)

Aw come on, you didn't expect me to stop at five, did you. That means I would have had to choose from Boston by Boston, Heaven Tonight by Cheap Trick, Hotel California by The Eagles, Back In Black by AC/DC, Born To Run, The River, or Born In The USA by Bruce Springsteen, Toys In The Attic by Aerosmith, From The Inside by Alice Cooper, Life Beyond L.A. by Ambrosia, Just about anything by The Beatles, Whatever and Ever, Amen by Ben Folds Five, The Stranger By Billy Joel, Night Moves by Bob Seger, A Hangover You Don't Deserve by Bowling For Soup, BR5-49 by BR5-49, Built For Speed by The Stray Cats, Lines by Charlie, Twangin' by Dave Edmonds, Seconds of Pleasure by Rockpile, Van Halen I by Van Halen, Making Movies by Dire Straits, Fickle Heart by Sniff n' The Tears, Out Of The Blue by ELO, They Only Come Out At Night by The Edgar Winter Group, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road by Elton John, Flat As A Pancake by Head East, Running On Empty by Jackson Browne, Deja Vu by CSN&Y, See The Light by Jeff Healey, M.U. by Jethro Tull, Anything by Jim Croce, London Calling by The Clash, Songs You Know By Heart by Jimmy Buffett, Night & Day by Joe Jackson, Scarecrow by John Mellencamp, Who's Next , Tommy and Who Are You by the Who, Deguelo by ZZ Top, anything by Led Zeppelin, and for Chris, Fotomaker by Fotomaker.

And about five hundred more.....

Guess I'm going to have to take that Ipod after all.

And dear reader, what albums would you bring.....

The Ship Is Sinking, And Obama Is Rearranging The Chairs On The Deck

2008-04-12T22:20:00.000-07:00

Consistency. Websters defines it as “an attribute of a logical system that is so constituted that none of the propositions deducible from the axioms contradict one another” Quite a mouthful. In laymans terms, consistency means speaking a consistent message.

Why am I defining consistency for you? Well, I’m not speaking to ALL of you, just the Obama supporters, because I doubt that they understand the meaning of the word. It’s clear their candidate doesn’t.

We all know that Obama continues to support his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, even after Wright has used inflammatory language in sermons that have been characterized as being anti-American, anti-Semitic, and racist. But that’s old news.

Wright has retired, but Obama’s current pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, Rev. Otis Moss, wasted no time in using race to defend Wright by equating criticism of Wright’s language with a public lynching. Equating, for those of you unfamiliar with the word, means that one thing is the same as another. Yeah, criticism of ones speech and hanging someone from a tree are pretty much the same.

Another Chicago minister strongly supportive of Obama is James Meeks, who is also an Illinois state senator. Meeks has come under fire for his own choice language and positions. The minister has drawn the ire of gay rights advocates for his strident stands against homosexuality, which some critics categorize as homophobic. Meeks has refused to denounce the bashing of whites, even referring to white American mayors as “slave masters.” He has also called African-American ministers he sees as working for the current system “house n*#@ers.” Despite these points of friction and intolerance, the Obama campaign has not severed ties from Meeks. Instead, it has sought to merely downplay his statements.

Then there’s the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who has helped set Barack Obama’s “moral compass” for 22 years — which is longer than Obama has known Wright. Pfleger also happens to be a radical apologist for the Nation of Islam, and he has asked followers to murder (his exact word was “snuff”) a firearms retailer because he’s against the ownership of firearms. Despite calling for the death of John Riggio for engaging in lawful commerce and his own history of anti-Semitic diatribes, Pfleger is still featured on the campaign’s “People of Faith for Obama” page.

Well, so far I’d say Obama has been consistent, and I’m sure his supporters would support this consistency by saying Obama is a forgiving man. It seems that infamous anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan is one of the few radical Obama supporters who has been rejected by the presidential candidate. Although this only happened after Obama was badgered about that support in a debate with Hillary Clinton.

But I don’t want to talk about any of those instances today. Today I want to discuss Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski. Haven’t heard of her yet? This past weekend, Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski — a Carpentersville, Illinois village trustee elected as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention — was encouraged by the Obama campaign to resign for inflammatory speech. Ramirez-Sliwinski did not assert that America was run by hate groups. She did not state that the country deserved terrorist attacks; nor did she indict our government with conspiracy theories of racial genocide. And she didn’t try to goad followers into snuffing out a man’s life for running a legal business she does not like.

What Ramirez-Sliwinski did do was tell children to stop playing in a small magnolia tree “like monkeys.” The two children are African-American. The mother of one of the two children called the police over the slight, which Ramirez-Sliwinski insists was not racial in nature. Ramirez-Sliwinski was issued a citation for disorderly conduct, even though she claimed to have acted on behalf of the safety of the boys.

For the weekend slight, the Obama campaign convinced Ramirez-Sliwinski to resign on Monday. She has since reversed her decision, and decided to fight the disorderly conduct charge and remain a delegate. The mother of one of the children has stated that if Ramirez-Sliwinski fights the disorderly conduct change she will “involve” the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, though it’s unclear what purpose would be served by having the civil rights group take sides in a case pitting one minority it serves against another.

Now I don’t know about you, but when I put this woman’s comments up against the comments of someone asking their followers to “snuff” a fellow human being, I know right away which one I’d be most likely to forgive first. And honestly, is their any one of you reading this whose mom, dad, aunt, uncle or neighbor didn’t at least once call them a “little monkey” when they were a child. I know I heard this phrase dozens of times.

But lets assume that Ramirez-Sliwinski did mean it in a racial manner. So what? Okay, okay I know that doesn’t sound real sensitive, but the point I am trying to make is that, in the state of Illinois at least, you can be issued a citation for calling a person a name. Seriously? Hell, if name calling were illegal, the playgrounds of America are going to be pretty empty.

And no, I don’t support name calling, be it a highly racial term (of which I don’t think “little monkeys” really is), or simply “Booger Face”. Should this kind of behavior be dealt with? Sure, at home, by your parents. If my mom would have ever called the cops to complain that a neighbor called me a name, they would have laughed in her face, and rightfully so.

Considering Obama’s historical support from radicals and his record of hesitatingly distancing himself from them (if at all), it was curious that Ramirez-Sliwinski found herself in discussion with Obama staffers Monday about her status as a delegate for the campaign. Especially since it was over a statement that most are willing to write off as an unfortunate word choice.

Or perhaps it isn’t surprising at all.

Although the controversy over Jeremiah Wright’s sermons still resonates across American society, Obama will not risk damaging his long-established relationships with local Chicago firebrands. This is because they assure his future after this one long-shot presidential election bid. Wright, Meeks, Pfleger, and other Obama supporters like them in Chicago are part of the local power base that assured his assent from local politics to the U.S. Senate. No matter how venomous their rhetoric, these acidic relationships also protect his reelection. Obama is wise enough to plan for the long term.

People on the edges of Obama’s campaign like Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski may make mistakes and be guilty of nothing worse that a poor vocabulary choice. But with the candidate’s judgment and relationships already in question, “just words” may now be enough for his campaign to throw supporters to the wolves.

Randi Rhodes Is At It Again

2008-04-06T21:22:00.000-07:00

Two posts in two days! Wow.

So last week I tuned into Air America on Tuesday (I appreciate a good laugh on my drive home), only to find Sam Sedar filling in for Randi Rhodes. I have a real love/hate thing going with Rhodes, you hate her because she is such a pinhead, but then again you have to love her, because she’s a pinhead for the left. Okay, she’s one of many pinheads for the left.

Anyhow, Sam was filling in for Randi. Then when I went to pick up my daughter from school on Wednesday, I again was greeted with Sam’s voice instead of Randi’s. Oh well, even pinheads need vacations, I guess. Thursday is my day to close at work, so on Thursday I get to listen to Randi on my drive into work, insuring a fun-filled day all day long. Of course by now I was expecting Sam instead of Randi, and Sam I got. I also got an explanation for Randi’s absence: She had been suspended.

Of course Sedar was apprehensive to go into the details as to why Rhodes had been suspended, so when I got home I went to the Air America website, and found this:

New York - Air America has suspended on-air host Randi Rhodes for making inappropriate statements about prominent figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, at a recent public appearance on behalf of Air America in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station."

Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts," said chair Charlie Kireker.

That was it. That was the entire explanation. So I dug a little further, and it seems that Randi was doing “stand-up” at an event in San Francisco, an event sponsored by the local Air America affiliate. Now I found this information to be dubious at best, because Randi Rhodes doing stand-up is an interesting concept, since Randi Rhodes isn’t funny, at least not intentionally. We all know that one person that thinks they are the funniest person on the planet, while they in fact are rarely the funniest person in the room, even when they are the only person in the room. That person, is Randi Rhodes.

Here is a sample of some of Randi’s “comedy” from the San Francisco show: Apparently she repeatedly called Hillary a "big f***ing whore", to both cheers and jeers from the audience. In addition, Rhodes referred to former Democrat vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro as "David Duke in drag".

Before we go any further, lets look at some of the things that Randi has done in the past on her show that did NOT result in her being suspended: In February she aired a piece on her show, a psychotic “faux ad, supposedly for Mitt Romney, says his supporters will commit mass killings if John McCain becomes the nominee. Here is part of the script from that piece of “comedy”:

ANNOUNCER: "... If John McCain is the Republican Presidential nominee, it will destroy the Republican Party. We’re Romney supporters and we know. Cause, if you vote for John McCain, we’re going to go on a killing rampage. Hey, better dead then moderate.”REPUBLICAN

CHARACTER VOICE: "Look, I for one don’t want to die in a hail of gun fire from crazed Mitt Romney supporters, but it’s better then nominating a man who opposed the Bush tax cuts. Hell, John McCain spent years in a North Vietnamese prison. A prison? That doesn’t make him a hero. That makes him an ex-con.”

It goes on, stating such classy things that if John McCain is elected he’ll call for legalizing sodomy among other things. And no, she wasn’t suspended for this.

This following an earlier skit calling for the assassination of George Bush. Here is that “ad”:
The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

Classy. And again, no suspension.

She also claimed on the air that Blackwater started the San Diego wildfires, and that she had been mugged by a “conservative operative” when in fact she passed out drunk in a New York Bar. No suspension. Hell, Randi Rhodes wasn’t even suspended after – and I am not kidding about this – she urinated on the Christmas Tree at the company Christmas party.

But call Hillary a “F*&%#$g Whore”, and she’s off the air. If that doesn’t show you the scary kind of power that Hillary has, nothing will. Apparently calling for the assassination of a sitting president is slightly less offensive than calling a candidate a name.

Now it might surprise you to know that I am with Randi on this, not because her target was a Democrat, but rather because the real target is freedom of speech. I believe Ms. Rhodes has the right to say whatever she wants. I also believe the people who pay her have the right to do whatever THEY want, and in this case I think they should fire her, OR let her remain on the air. If they had suspended her after the other incidents that I listed, I would have felt a suspension was fine here as well. However, they are clearly just proving what we as conservatives already know: Liberals do not believe in free speech. They believe in the freedom of THEIR speech, just not yours or mine, at least if our speech disagrees with them.

Some of you may know that I run a book store. I have been with this company for a short time, and yet almost daily I find books written by conservative authors either mis-shelved, hidden behind other books, or turned around so the spine is facing in. Occasionally I’ll find a pro-George Bush in the “Humor” section (okay, that’s kinda funny). Why? Because Liberals don’t believe in free speech, and they want to surprise what the right has to say at any cost.

And in the same amount of time I have not once, not ONCE come across a book by a liberal writer being treated in similar fashion. Why? Because conservatives don’t believe a damn thing liberals have to say BUT the respect their right to say it. Okay, I will admit I have a hard time not shelving Hillary’s autobiography in the “Fiction” section, but I have not.

And so, I would like to say that like most things that come out of the mouth of Randi Rhodes, I find this latest episode sick and disgusting. And at the same time I totally stand behind her right to say it, moronic as it may be.

There is an old philosophical question that asks “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?” I think the real question is “If a talk show host is suspended from a station no one listed to in the first place, has she really been “suspended” from anything?”

Bumper Sticker Philosophy From The Left....

2008-04-05T23:23:00.000-07:00

I was driving home today when I got stuck behind a soccer mom in her minivan, and the slow traffic gave me plenty of time to read her multitude of bumper stickers. I’m pleased that she was so proud of her Honor Roll middle-schooler, and I was equally pleased that we didn’t pass any garage sales, because apparently she brakes for them.

But the one that caught my attention was the one that said “The more I learn about men, the more I appreciate my dog.” Oh, as you can imagine I just laughed and laughed. Not. And if that weak joke wasn’t bad enough, It stuck in my head the rest of the way home, although by the time I rolled into the driveway I had changed it slightly to read “The more I learn about liberals, the more……” Well, I’m still having trouble figuring out Liberals. Which brings me to today’s post.

I want to share a few quotes with you today. See if you can find a common theme….

QUOTE #1: At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots (the New England Football Patriots) set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good.

QUOTE #2: It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance to in comparison with the existence of the nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of the individual…. This state of mind, which subordinates the interest of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…. we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.

QUOTE #3: There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or a hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war.

QUOTE #4: Ethics begin with the acknowledgement that it is not the individual who confers meaning on society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual.

QUOTE #5: We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.

So, did you catch the common thread in those five quotes? I’ll give you a hint: Individual!!!

It probably won’t surprise you that quote number one comes from none other than Ted Kennedy. Don’t you just love it when politicians glom onto the accomplishments of pro athletes? Like the New England patriots couldn’t have made it without the help of Uncle Teddy. I guess he did do one thing that contributed to the Patriots making it to the Super Bowl…. He didn’t drive them to practice. And really Ted, do you think the Patriots could have become one of the greatest teams in sports history unless they had each first decided to be the best at their individual positions.

And quote number 5 comes from Hillary “It Takes A Village” Clinton.

So what about quotes two through four? Well, number two comes to us from Adolph Hitler, Number three from Benito Mussolini, and our final quote comes from Mario Palmieri, writing in The Philosophy of Fascism, 1936.

Hey, I finally figured out my bumper sticker: “The more I learn about liberals, the more I learn about fascism”

Thank You Eliot Spitzer

2008-03-11T18:45:00.000-07:00

It's been almost three weeks since my last post, and honestly, I was beginning to wonder if there was ever going to be another post. Sure, the new job has been taking up more of my time, and making finding time for blogging more difficult, but the reality is there is nothing that I felt passionate about writing. And then comes Eliot Spitzer. But not for the reason you think.

For those of you who don't know (and if you're that out of touch how did you even learn to operate a computer?), Eliot (yes, he spells it that way) Spitzer is the governor of New York, and this week he was caught using a prostitute. Now, that's bad enough, but before he was the New York Governor, he was the New York District Attorney, and made a name for himself as a no-nonsense prosecutor, going after, among other things, prostitution rings.

Now those of you on the left (heck, those of you on the right as well), are going to assume that I'm happy about this situation because Spitzer is a democrat. No, my joy, if that's what you want to call this, comes from the reactions of the pundits on the left. And, their reactions come from the fact that Spitzer is a lib, so I guess in a backhanded way my joy does come from the (D) that follows Spitzers name.

This morning on my ride into work, I went right to Air America, and I was surprised to hear Mark Seder, liberal extraordinaire, spouting “Look, this is a bottom of the barrel sex scandal, and he has to go.” Wow, what a surprise, until it soon became apparent that he wasn’t talking about Spitzer, but instead was talking about Larry Craig. What? These are the same people that screamed “double standard” when the Larry Craig, David Vitter, and Mark Foley cases broke.

Now let me side step the discussion for a second, and say that – at the time these events AND now – I think Craig, Vitter and Foley should have resigned following their scandals, I never once said “Yeah, but they should be able to stay in office because Bill Clinton did”, or in anyway have ever supported these guys. Once more, I have never heard Hannity or Limbaugh support these guys. After each of these scandals broke, all the right wingers called for their resignations. Now granted, in some instances they phrased it like “Should he be found to have actually done this, he needs to step down.” In other words, innocent until proven guilty, but if guilty, they’ve got to go.

And honestly, if I had to stand up for any of these guys, it would be Craig. Why? Well, I find his actions immoral and unsavory, but is what he did – even if we believe that what he did is what they accused him of (and I believe it is) – is it illegal? I’m not so sure. Look, basically what Craig supposedly did, was solicit a man for sex. He wasn’t actually having sex in a public bathroom, simply asking for it. Now, if instead he had gone into the airport bar, picked out a patron (man or women), and said “Hey, do you want to have sex?”, that wouldn’t have been illegal, assuming that he didn’t offer money for the sex.

So what Craig did was, in my mind, immoral and unsavory, but not necessarily illegal. However, I still think that Craig should step down, specifically BECAUSE his actions were immoral and unsavory. The problem is, in Spitzer’s case, immoral and unsavory doesn’t necessarily bother the left, when it’s their guy who is the immoral one. Oh, don’t get me wrong, the right isn’t that much more righteous, but look at the leaders on the left: An accused rapist and serial abuser (Clinton), a drunk who killed his mistress (Kennedy), a former member of the KKK (Robert Byrd), a man who had a gay prostitution ring run out of his townhouse (Barney Frank). Yep, the left is a real moral group. (This is the point where my friend Chris points out all the immorality on the right, so to save you some time, I’ll admit (as I already have) that the right ain’t much better.)

So by the time I left work this evening I assumed that clearer heads would prevail, and my friends at Air America would now be judging Spitzer on his actions, not his affiliation. Yeah, right! According to Rachel Maddows (who, as a liberal isn’t too bad – clearly better than Randi Rhodes) Was complaining that she wasn’t so upset by the alleged prostitution, but rather the “actions” that lead to the charges. You see, Maddows is convinced that this is all the doing of the Bush Administration. No, really.

You know, at first it was kind of funny how the left would blame everything – no matter how far-fetched (do you remember the Minnesota bridge collapse?) - on George W. Bush. Apparently Bush is an idiot AND capable of masterminding all sorts of evil plans. Folks, it’s not funny any more. It’s not interesting or compelling (not that it ever was). Really, it’s kind of pathetic. Look, I’m not a big supporter of the left, but at the same time I don’t want you see you turn into any more of a characture than you already are.

In the meantime, pay attention to how the media – especially the left – tries to spin this Spitzer thing to blame the right. Folks, it’s not about the right, it’s not about the left. It’s about a man who did a stupid thing, and whose real punishment is that he has destroyed what appears to be a very nice family. Way to go Eliot…..

Happy Birthday Chris, And Other Observations

2008-02-23T20:00:00.000-08:00

First of all, I want to start out by wishing a huge Happy Birthday to my old friend Chris over at www.redhogdiary.com. Chris turned 48 today, the same age that I will be turning in three weeks, and while I am not sure if that number - 48 - is an issue for Chris, it's been on my mind a lot lately. Why? I mean when you think about it, 48 isn't a "milestone" birthday like 40 or 50. I think the thing that bothers me about 48 is that I will no longer be able to refer to myself as in my "Mid-forties." 48 is closer to 50 than 45, so I will soon be in my "Late-Forties". But, the good news is that no matter how old I get, The ol' Red Hog will always be older - even if only by three weeks.

And if number 28 isn't bad enough, I have only four months until my 30th High School reunion, which means I only have four months of my youth left. The people I went to high school with, most of who I haven't seen since the 20th reunion, looked pretty good at that reunion. I have a feeling that the 30th won't be as kind to some of them. Oh, not me - I haven't aged a day since high school.......

And while I don't really want to pile on Chris on his birthday, I do want to address some comments he made the other day on his site. Normally I would comment there, but Chris's site has been undergoing some changes, and leaving comments has been difficult.

Chris reported on the NY Times accusations of John McCain last week, and while Chris is a liberal and it shouldn't surprise me he took the Times side, I was disappointed with his reaction. What disappointed me was the following sentence: "The story is no less newsworthy than the stories about the alleged and the proven affairs of Bill Clinton and it obviously has an infinite amount of more credibility than the Swift Boat allegations made against John Kerry." Lets look at that, shall we?

First of all, the "allegations" regarding McCain's "affair" amount to a former aide suggesting that McCain avoid contact with Vicky Iseman during his failed 2000 Presidential run. It appears that the most damning thing we have here is the fact that these two had contact with each other. Period. There is zero evidence of an affair, not even a shady witness who saw or knows something. Compare that to semen-stained dresses, accusations of unwanted physical attacks, and settling sexual misconduct cases for hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention Clinton testifying under oath that he and Genifer Flowers did have a sexual affair - after years of accusing Ms. Flowers of being a lying loon. Yeah, I'd say the two are equal.

The funny thing here is that anytime I commented on anything regarding Clinton's sexual past, Chris would attempt to shoot me down for wallowing in the gutter, and ignoring real issues. Yet as soon as he has the chance to wallow in that same gutter - regardless how flimsy the charges are - he jumps right in.

And then there is the "swiftboating" comparison: The story.... obviously has an infinite amount of more credibility than the Swift Boat allegations made against John Kerry." Oh really? Well, here we are several days after the McCain "story" broke, and the big explosion that Chris was expecting is there - however it has been addressed at the Times for "reporting" such a shallow allegation. Not unlike the story that Dan Rather broke about George Bush's service which ultimately lead to his downfall, the Times has shown that as long as the target is a Conservative, the left will believe anything.

And let me say this before I go any further: The story that the Times is reporting MAY be true. I doubt that it is, but I don't discount the fact that it could be. And if it is, then I will deal with that, but I'm not going to waste any thought on what might be, until you can give me a little more proof.

And what about Kerry and the swiftboaters? Well, basically the swift boat advertisements claimed that Kerry lied about parts of his military history, and Boone Pickens, one of the funders of those ads, publicly challenged the critics to demonstrate the ads' inaccuracies. He promised to provide $1 million to anyone who succeeded. Well, Kerry took the bait, and wrote to Pickens that "I am prepared to show they [the Swift Boat Veterans, often his fellow officers] lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false, I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."

Pickens's perfectly reasonable response was to ask for Kerry's proof. As of today, no proof has been tendered by the Massachusetts Braggart.

As retired Marine Corps Major Michael E. McBride wrote in Townhall.com, Kerry "has always had the power to clear up any of the Swiftboater challenges; all he had to do is allow the Navy to distribute unaltered copies of his service record, medical records, and DD214. It is essential that these records come from DOD, so that they cannot be tampered with by Kerry or his supporters. The DOD copies are the true copies of record and the only viable evidence for these maters." McBride, citing Kerry's long reluctance to do, so goes on to write, "it is unlikely that any credible evidence exists to refute the base charges of the Swiftboaters." He concludes, "If any of my ex-squadron mates dumped on me like the Swift boat vets are dumping on Kerry, my records would have been available the next day...."

Chris my friend, I'd like to give you Birthday present: Next time you want to take the side of the New York Times, don't use as your basis for a moral foundation Bill Clinton's alleged sexual exploits (because the word "alleged" is rarely necessary in any story about Bill Clinton and sex), or John Kerry's swift boat allegations, allegations that Kerry himself can not offer any proof that they are false.

Happy Birthday My Friend!!!

Thank God some things never disappoint....

2008-02-16T16:55:00.000-08:00

After roughly 100 posts without missing a day, this will be my only my second in the last two weeks. Why? Well, most of you know that I recently started a new job and I have spent the last two weeks (and next week) out of town training, and even though I had my evenings in the hotel to myself - perfect blog time - I just didn't have anything to talk about. Oh, I had stuff I could talk about, but just wasn't interested in talking about.

I'm hoping that as I settle into the new job that I will return more to blogging. in the meantime I will try to get one or two posts a week in.

So what do I write about? The fact that as my friends back in Iowa were enduring single-digit temperatures I was tooling around L.A. with the top of my convertible down, enjoying whether in the 80's? Naw, that's just mean. Do I discuss the differences between spending last week in L.A. and the week before in Bakersfield? Naw, suffice to say that 100 miles is sometimes the difference between two completely different worlds. Do I talk about my favorite topic, Hillary? You bet.

A story out today on Foxsnews.com starts out with: "A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision."

The advisor by the way was Harold Ickes. The thing I find interesting about all of this is that the Clintons are being so honest about their intentions. The fact that this is their plan does not surprise me, but the fact that they admit it does.

Look folks, if Clinton and Obama come out of Puerto Rico - the last primary - on June 7th basically neck-and-neck, then those Superdelegates are going to play a big, big role. But lets say that on June 7th Obama is three or four hundred delegates ahead, but still doesn't have the 2,000-plus delegates necessary to wrap up the nomination. In this Scenario, Hillary see's about 600 or so of the 795 Superdelegates coming to her, securing the nomination. could this happen? Sure it could, and I'm hoping it does. Why?

Simple. This would not only spell the end of Hillary as we know it, but it would hand the presidency to McCain. Look, Obama supporters are going to see this as Hillary "stealing" the nomination, and they’d be "almost" right. "Almost", because what she would have done IS legal, but farther from moral than Bakersfield is from L.A.. If Hillary gets away with this she may win the nomination, but she will lose a huge share of Obama’s supporters. Now I'm not sure those Obama people would vote for McCain, but they certainly wouldn't vote for Hillary.

The funny thing about this is that Ickes is saying that the superdelegates would swing towards Hillary because they "have a sense of what it takes to get elected”. So what Ickes is saying is that even the superdelegates that WANT to vote for Obama will swing towards Hillary, because supporting Obama does them no good if the guy can't win. Never mind that the averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing.

Yeah, it looks like there will still probably be things to talk about as long as Bill and Hillary stick around. And like that bad smell in my garage that I STILL can't find the source of, I don't think Bill and Hillary are going away anytime soon.

I'm Still Here....... Kind Of

2008-02-10T18:24:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been about a week since I last posted, and it may be rare that I post for the next month or so. I have started my new job, and I spent all of last week in Bakersfield, and tomorrow I head to L.A. for a couple of additional weeks of training. I assumed that since I had my nights free - and since Bakersfield is not necessarily the entertainment capitol of the world - that I'd be able to do a lot of posting in the evenings. However, given the choice of blogging or lying on a fluffy bed watching T.V. all night, T.V. seemed to win.

Obviously a lot has happened in the world of politics since we last spoke. It's just a formality, but McCain has won the Republican nomination, and given Obama's performance on Super Tuesday, and especially his performance SINCE Super Tuesday, I'd say he's on the way to wrapping up his parties nomination, although that is far from a foregone conclusion, and knowing the Clinton's we are going to see a sudden rise in "dirt" on the Senator from Illinois.

So how do I feel about this turn of events? Well, I'm not a big fan of McCain on most fronts, but I do think that he has the best shot of beating Hillary in a head-to-head battle. The question is, is that the best outcome? I've been a strong proponent of the "Anyone but Hillary" stand, and I know that McCain will be 100% better than Hillary. But, I doubt that McCain will be the great president that we need, and it might be the best thing for the Republican party to have Hillary in the White House. Look, it took the abysmal record of Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan, so in the long run Hillary might be a blessing. That is if there is still a country left to save.

In an Obama/McCain race, I'd give the edge to Obama. I think the reason McCain beats Hillary is because A) There is so much hatred for Hillary on the right that her candidacy will bring out the conservatives who otherwise might not support McCain - not as much of an issue in an Obama race, and B) McCain generally does well with independents, but those same independents would probably favor Obama.

But the bottom line is, there is still a long way to go between now and November. While we have a good idea of who the players are, we only know the tip of the iceberg as far as what their policies are. Sure, we know all about thier campaign promises, but now we start to actually analyze those plans, and decisions will be made.

But me, I have a lot of learning to do. So while I will try to add to these pages as often as possible, for now it may not be too often. We'll see.....

It's Not Easy Being Green

2008-02-04T00:05:00.000-08:00

Today we have a guest post from Robert Parkhurst. Robert is a gentleman who I recently met online after I published one of his Letters to the Editor here on my site. Robert contacted me via e-mail, we've corresponded via e-mail, and today I am pleased to present another of Robert's essays here today. Thank you Robert.

What Being Green Means To Me by Robert Parkhurst

Being “green” is what our grandparents practiced and it was just called frugal living. They didn’t have to worry about low flush toilets; they called them outhouses — no water at all. They didn’t have to worry about efficient clothes driers; they called them clotheslines and they used fresh air and sunshine. That was “green” living the old fashioned way. I remember my grandmother darning socks when they got holes in them by using a needle and thread to weave the thread back and forth to make them like new. What do we do now? Throw the socks out and buy new ones, of course!

About a year ago our 30-year old Maytag drier would not work any more. My wife called the Maytag repair shop and was told they could not repair it — they just didn’t have the parts. They informed her that they would sell her a new efficient “green” drier for less than $500 and that included picking up the old one. After calling around, she finally located an older shop that said they might have a replacement pilot light for such an old drier and they would check. The repairman came out and replaced the pilot light (a small part the size of a cigarette). The charge was about $80. My 30-year-old drier didn’t have to be transported to San Francisco, crushed, shipped to China, smelted down into metal ingots, rolled out into sheet metal and stamped out into new more efficient “green” driers. The amount of energy that would have been required to get the new drier compared to the amount of energy to repair the old one would be a good exercise for a college engineering class but it was a lot cheaper for me to just have the old one repaired. Even without the engineering class’s report, I can assure you my wife was doing the green thing just like grandma would have done and I didn’t have to burn all that gas going to work to earn the $500 either. Will the real environmentalist please stand up? Yeah — it’s my wife!

It may not surprise anyone that the Maytag repair shop didn’t carry spare parts for an old drier. They would be happier selling us a new drier even taking away the old one all included in the price. You may not even be surprised that businesses are all trying to sell you a new, more efficient “green” everything from new cars to a whole new house. No one can blame them, that is the way they make a living — nothing wrong with that. It used to be that the businesses had to convince the purchaser that the product was really worth their hard earned money. That is all changed. Now businesses and the government have discovered that they can work together. Businesses lobby to get the government to make laws mandating that many products are obsolete, inefficient or unsafe and that consumers will just have to buy new replacements. The businesses win because the consumers are buying more and the government wins because the more consumers buy the more taxes are paid. What a deal: everybody wins — well, maybe not everybody — the consumers don’t win if they buy things they don’t need and the environment is not improved if people are discarding usable items that could be fixed — you know, like my wife’s drier or the socks we discarded last week.

We're Baaaccckkk!!!

2008-02-03T00:05:00.000-08:00

Well, Cindy and I are back from Vegas, and what a great time we had. While I go to Vegas a couple of times a year with some buddies, It's probably been at least four years since Cindy and I have gone together, maybe longer.

We decided to make the trip to celebrate out 22nd Anniversary, and also because I had a few days off before I start my new job on Monday. One of the reasons that the two of us rarely go together is because I really enjoy gambling, and Cindy doesn't, so even when we do go together, we rarely spend time together. One of the other things that we rarely do is see a show, despite the fact that there is always world class entertainment in Vegas.

Well this time we decided that we would see a show, and after researching our options we narrowed it down to three shows: The Producers, Mamma Mia, and Spamalot. We decided to see The Producers, the musical by Mel Brooks, at The Paris. What a great show, we really, really enjoyed it. And we were lucky to get to see it, as it's year long run comes to an end next week. I loved the original movie starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, and have yet to see the Nathan Lane/Matthew Broderick movie, but the play, starring Tony Danza, was great.

So great in fact that we decided to catch another show the following night, and this time we decided to see Mamma Mia, the broadway musical that's been playing for years at The Mandelay Bay. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Mamma Mia, it's a musical based on the music of Abba. Okay, that probably doesn't sound like a selling point, but it really was an amazing show. It's hard to believe that you can take a group of songs and plug them into a story and actually make sense of it. Now I'm a big fan of Hollywood musicals, and both of these shows were as good as anything coming out of Hollywood.

Then there was the gambling. Ah, the gambling. Well, I'd love to tell you that I was so lucky at the tables that I don't even need to start that new job on Monday, and that is exactly what happened..... Nah, just kidding. I didn't do so hot at the tables, but fortunately I had a nice winning streak towards the end that helped me leave town just a little shorter than when I came in.

I did learn something important though. If you've ever been to Vegas you've seen signs in front of the Casino's saying "Liberal Slots". I always thought that that meant that they were liberal in their payoffs. No. Liberal in Las Vegas means the same thing that Liberal means in Washington: They take ALL of your money.

But all in all we had a great time. Now, when can we go back?

Barstool Economics

2008-02-01T00:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'm cheating. This is my Friday post, and I've already posted the Wednesday and Thursday ones as well. As you know I am heading to VegasWednesday morning, and as much as I love my blog and my readers, I love Vegas more. But rather than short change you, I decided to post three days of posts at once.

This is a terrific piece called "Barstool Economics" from David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE CLINTONS' POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION

2008-01-31T00:05:00.000-08:00

GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE CLINTONS' POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION?By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on January 29, 2008.

What does Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama really mean?

In addition to seriously boosting Obama’s chances for the Democratic nomination by anointing him as the generational heir to John F. Kennedy, there’s something else that’s just as important for the body politic: Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, and the voters of South Carolina may have personally tolled the death knell for the Clintons’ reprehensible politics of personal destruction.

It’s about time.

For more than thirty years, no one has been able to stop Bill and Hillary Clinton from routinely acting on their shared base instinct: to annihilate anyone who gets in their way, in whatever way it takes, however long it takes, whatever it costs And then to enjoy watching their targets suffer.

Throughout their long public careers, they’ve had no moral overseers, no one to challenge them. The sycophants surrounding them simply implement their orders, never questioning them. So after successfully employing their slash and burn tactics for years, they’ve come to truly believe that their reprehensible politics are justified, even necessary.

Remember Hillary’s glee when she announced that the “fun part” of the campaign was about to begin – her attacks on her fellow Democrats? She was serious. The Clintons have repeatedly and successfully embraced the politics of personal destruction – and enjoyed every minute of it.

In Washington, Arkansas, and recently in South Carolina, they’ve used whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed - ruining reputations, invading the privacy of their targets by dispatching private detectives to comb their records and troll through their trash, lying about their opponents, blackmailing and threatening women who dared to say yes – or even no – to Bill Clinton, releasing confidential employment records.

Remember how the Clintonites released Linda Tripp’s confidential employment files to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker after Clinton hit man Harold Ickes met with Tripp’s boss? Years later, the Department of Defense settled a lawsuit with Tripp for over $600,000 for invading her privacy. And then there were the stories branding Monica Lewinsky as a ‘stalker’ who was trying to hurt the president? Those were traced back to Sidney Blumenethal, a Clinton White House adviser, and the author of the right wing conspiracy theory that Hillary so loves. Of course, then it turned out that this ‘stalker’ had been called by the President from the White House hundreds of time and invited into the Oval Office for sex in the private kitchen. Then there was Gennifer Flowers –smeared by George Stephanopoulos and James Carville as a liar and opportunist. Eventually, Bill Clinton admitted under oath that he, in fact, had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Etc., etc., etc. And none of these folks have ever apologized for their as the brass knuckles enforcers of the Clintons.

Throughout the recent primaries, Bill Clinton has been Hillary’s hit man, especially in South Carolina where he was in charge of branding Obama as the ‘Black candidate.’ Shamelessly distorting Obama’s words and deliberately using the race card to try and marginalize the first serious African-American candidate for president, Bill Clinton worked overtime at stirring dissension.

It’s been revolting.

And it seemed that no one could stop them.

Until Barack Obama. Until Ted Kennedy. Until South Carolina. Until the voters said: ENOUGH.

Now the voters of South Carolina and the Kennedys have stepped forward and openly challenged the tawdry Clinton politics of personal destruction, their hit job on Obama, their use of the race card, their claims of dynastic privilege.

On Saturday, 55% of the South Carolina voters said ‘NO’ to the Clintons. After listening to the two of them disparage Obama, distort his record, dis his hopes and dreams for America, South Carolina backed Obama and his politics of hope.

And Ted Kennedy, in his lofty endorsement of Obama, served notice on the Clintons that the days of their politics of personal destruction are over.

Apparently Senator Kennedy called the Clintons last week and demanded an immediate end to their transparent racial politics and attempts to destroy Obama. They ignored him. After the polls closed, Bill Clinton’s surly and irrelevant reference to Jesse Jackson’s showing in South Carolina twenty years ago was meant to diminish Obama’s victory. But the press and the public – and apparently Senator Kennedy – caught the unattractive performance on YouTube.

Now, for once, someone has challenged the Clintons’ dirty, outdated, and unacceptable politics.

Ted Kennedy has made it clear that the Democratic Party and the voters of America are no longer going to tolerate and ignore the Clintons sordid personal politics.

Bravo!

Clinton = Mess. No Surprise Here

2008-01-30T00:05:00.000-08:00

Property manager: Clinton campaign left a mess behind

CLINTON, Iowa — The manager of a downtown Clinton building said Thursday he’ll likely never rent office space to a political campaign again after the mess he says Hillary Clinton campaign staffers left behind after the Iowa caucuses.

Duane Jones, who manages the Wilson building at 217 5th Ave. S., said he rented six rooms to the Clinton campaign beginning in June or July and ending a few days after the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. Jones said when he went into the building after the campaign staff had cleared out, he discovered garbage, spoiled food, holes that had been drilled in the walls to run phone lines without his authorization, and stains on the carpet that will require some of the carpeting to be replaced.

“ Generally speaking, they left quite a mess,” he said.

He said a smoke alarm in one of the offices was missing and he noticed the windows in the building were sometimes open even on cold days, leading him to believe the campaign staffers were smoking in the building, which is not permitted.

Jones said he kept the $500 deposit the campaign staff gave him to rent the space, but it wasn’t enough to cover the damage expenses. He said he had contact with Clinton campaign workers in Des Moines and at the national campaign headquarters in Virginia, and finally received a check for $1,750 on Thursday that he believes will cover his expenses for cleaning up.

Jean Pardee, chairwoman of the Clinton County Democrats, said Thursday she was “shocked” and “frustrated” to hear about the mess. She said she had heard that at least one downtown property owner refused to rent space to political campaigns this year because of a similar incident involving another candidate during the previous Iowa caucus campaign.

Ray Fredericksen of Clinton, who served as the Clinton County chairman for the Clinton campaign, said Thursday he was not in the campaign office very much, but did not notice any damage the last time he was there, which was caucus night. He said the first he heard about the allegations was Thursday.

“It’s really news to me,” he said.

A call to Clinton’s campaign headquarters was not immediately returned.

"and stains on the carpet that will require some of the carpeting to be replaced" - Well, it's good to know that Bill took the time to stop by the office

Bill Has A Dream....

2008-01-29T00:05:00.000-08:00

Sometimes something happens in the news that, while not significant, is interesting, and you want to comment on it. Sometimes it’s better to hold off for a few days, and then comment around the “news surrounding the news”.

As some of you may have seen, last Monday, on Martin Luther King Jr. day, Bill Clinton fell asleep during a service commemorating Dr. King. Now before you think I’m going to start piling on Bill here, I will admit that I too have been known to nod off in church before. And I also am well aware of the rigors of the campaign trail, and that they have to be pretty hard on a sixty-one year old man who has semi-recently had heart surgery.

But Bill, if you’re going to nod off during a campaign stop, do you really think it it’s smart to A) nod off at a service honoring Dr. King, B) when said service is ON Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and C) the speaker you are nodding off during is none other than Martin Luther King III? And did I mention that Mr. Clinton was seated directly behind King III (well, you can see that from the picture to the right).

But to me, the story isn’t so much the fact that Bill nodded off, something that by the way Bill has a habit of doing (He fell asleep during Ronald Reagan’s funeral – does that mean that Clinton puts Reagan and Dr. King on the same level of interest?). What I want to focus on today are some of the blog comments about the incident, not from the “evil conservative” sites, but from The Huffington Post, a liberal blog. Here we go (Huffpo comments in red, my comments in black):

“This type of news is all the media can come up with. TABLOID fluff. Meanwhile more soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday but that is old news isn't it?” – Certainly the death of any soldier in Iraq is more important than Bill’s nap, but the fact is those deaths will occur whether or not this story happened or is covered. Had the press pushed the nap story as being as important as any news coming out of Iraq you might have a point, but I don’t remember seeing any “Nation mourns as Bill takes nap” headlines.

“Obviously a doctored photograph.” – This is one of my favorite comments, because it was echoed by so many other people making comments. First of all, do you think that major newspaper chains would run an “obviously” doctored photo? Also, on the same Huffington Post site where the photo appeared was a video of the incident. Also, why would a LIBERAL website like the Huffington Post run a doctored photo of Bill Clinton?

“He has had health problems and being exhausted isn't an indication a person is a racist. It means they're human. I used to support both Clinton and Obama equally but all the outrageous attacks accusing the Clintons of being racist has really made me decide that I don't want Obama for President.” – I included this quote to show you the Clinton’s tactics are actually working. Anyone of any intelligence who has watched this campaign closely knows that the only time Obama has ever brought up race at all is when he is responding to a Clinton attack. But the thing is, the Clinton’s know that most people do not follow the campaign closely, so their little “scorched earth” strategy against Obama is actually working.

"Because Axelrod and Plouff were behind the camera, sent it to all of the media circuits and threatened to sue them if they didn't release it.” – Okay, I have to admit, this one had me puzzled. I googled “Axelrod & Plouff” and found out that they are advisors to the Obama campaign. According to “Lonestarr”, the nut bag who left this comment, Axlerod and Plouff videotaped this (because God knows there probably wasn’t any media coverage at an MLK Jr. Day event where the former president and MLK III were speaking). So then they threatened to sue the networks who didn’t run it. Wow.

“There's nothing wrong with dozing off in the midst of a campaign for your spouse. What is most disturbing, is when he wakes up and feigns attention. The hand cupping the ear to hear better, the phony nods of agreement... He lies even when he's sleeping.” – “He lies even when he’s sleeping.” Brilliant

"We have lots of serious issues in this country. I don't want people distracted by these petty issues and telling everyone "you have to be very, very, very, very, very careful when you talk about the civil rights era" and calling everyone racists.” – I chose to include this one because it actually makes sense – something you don’t see too often on a liberal blog.

“F'crissake, it's a photo from the NY Post. You'd have to be a total moron to rely on that rag. For all you know, that photo was taken while he blinked, or looked down for a second. How dopey. This website has a lot of gotcha' misleading blogs, doctored photos, and misleading headlines. Some of you are just too willing, too gullible to be believed.” – And some of YOU are so gullible that you believe the Clintons are not capable of any wrong, despite overwhelming evidence. Sure, I too think the NY Post is not the most reliable source, but two minutes on Google would have given you the same info from much more reliable sources. And again, viewing the video pretty much says it all.

On another subject, an AOL straw poll today shows that Hillary Clinton has the support of 46% of the people voting in their straw poll, and Obama has the support of 45%. Hillary has 3,784 votes, and Obama 3,801. Now only when a Clinton is involved can the candidate with fewer votes be the one with a higher percentage of the votes.

Until tomorrow………….

Barack & Hillary, Sweeney Todd, And A Really Bad Day To Be A Church Leader

2008-01-28T00:05:00.000-08:00

The worst thing about Sunday is that it is usually a pretty slow news day. I guess that’s probably the best thing about Sunday’s as well. Just a few totally unrelated comments today.

U So Ted Kennedy endorses Barack Obama today. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, but for Obama it probably is. I just hope for Kennedy’s sake – and every other Senator and Congressman (I’m sorry, congressperson) that Obama win’s the nomination, because if Hillary wins she will make those who supported her opponent pay.

It’s odd that the elephant is the symbol of the Republican party, and not the Democrats, because if there is one universal truth, it’s the fact that Hillary Clinton NEVER forgets. NEVER.

U Well, I just had to see what this was all about. The Huffington Post ran the following headline today: Clinton Camp Says Obama Is Now "The Black Candidate" . Well, I have to wonder if that’s a ringing endorsement for the Clinton campaign, that after a year of running against this guy NOW she realizes he’s a black man.

And I really loved this from the same article: “...Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South”

Can you believe these people? And do you know what the sad thing is? If the Clinton’s are successful in destroying Obama’s campaign, in time people will forget these acts and actually consider the Clintons as defenders of civil liberties. Sure they are, right up there with David Duke. Actually, I’d put Duke on a higher moral level, because at least he doesn’t try to hide his true intentions.

U Getting away from politics for a moment, Cindy and I went to see Sweeney Todd this weekend, and while I am reluctant to recommend it, I will. I say that I’m reluctant because a musical about a mass murderer isn’t exactly everyone’s cup of tea, but I certainly enjoyed it. Visually it was quite a treat, but then most Tim Burton movies are. And a big thumbs up to both Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter who did a great job with their roles, and are actually really good singers. Again, not for everyone, but if you’re a fan of Depp or Burton, and don’t mind blood (oh yeah, there’s a LOT of blood), you’ll probably enjoy this film.

U Bank robbers hit a Washington Mutual bank in Palm Desert, California this last Friday. What made this robbery even a little more interesting was that actress Carol Channing was a patron in the bank at the time. As this story was reported across the nation, I’m sure that millions of Americans had the same reaction: Carol Channing is still alive?

U Here’s another great headline I ran across today on the internet: Bone Gives IPod to Japan Prime Minister Fukada, Seeks Support In Anti-Poverty Campaign. Really, is that all it takes? Wow, well in that case I have a slightly used Playstation 2 that I’m willing to donate to rid the world of juvenile diabetes, and a portable DVD player to end the ethnic cleansing in Kenya.

Actually, the funniest thing about this story is that Bono gave the IPod to the PM in the company of Bill Gates. Bono, dude, you could have at least given him a Zune.

U This is weird. Gordon B. Hinckley, the longest-serving president of the Mormon church died Sunday, a church spokesman said. He was 97. The weird part is that Greece's Orthodox Church leader, Archbishop Christodoulos, died Monday at his home of cancer, church officials said. He was 69.

I don’t know, but if I were the Pope I’d be pretty nervous right about now.

U Three days ‘til Vegas, Baby.

Obama Pulls Out a BIG Win In South Carolina

2008-01-27T00:05:00.000-08:00

Wow, did Hillary get her hat handed to her tonight. We knew that Obama would win South Carolina, but this big? Obama more than Doubled Hillary’s numbers, 55% to 27%, the first time anyone has pulled more than half of the votes in any primary or caucus. Is it enough? Hard to say, but it is definitely a huge win.

As of this moment Hillary leads Florida, our next primary, by an average of 18 points. And while Obama can expect a bump from South Carolina, is it going to be enough to overcome Hillary’s huge lead. And don’t forget that a lot of people vote early via absentee ballot, so there are probably a lot of people that have already voted for Hillary, people that are now kicking themselves for that decision.

Now I like politics, you might say I’m a political junkie. And if you are reading this blog there’s a good chance you may be too, and this election cycle has been very, very exciting on both sides. And at this point I’m more interested in the Democratic nominee than the Republican, mainly because my main choice – Fred Thompson – has pulled out. Being a Libertarian, I like Ron Paul too, but lets get serious, he doesn’t have a chance.

I like Hillary because she would be the ideal candidate to run against. While I doubt whoever the Republican candidate is will have the ability to rally the Republican base, I have no doubt that Hillary will have that power. Not the power to unite HER party, but the ability to unite the Republicans. My only fear with Hillary being the candidate is, she could win. And that’s a chance I am weary to take.

Then there’s Obama. While I think that the Republicans can beat him, I think it is less likely than Hillary. And should Obama ultimately win the White House, I can definitely live with that much more easily than Hillary.

Heck, don’t hold me to this, but in an Obama/McCain election, I might even vote for Obama.

Ideally I would like to see an Obama/Somebody race, where the Republicans win. Why? If Obama is the nominee and fails to win the White House, that would make Hillary the likely candidate in 2012. Hillary is also up for re-election in the Senate in 2012, so that means if she runs for President she won’t be running for the Senate. Actually, she COULD run for both, but what does that say about her character. I’m sorry, did I use the words “Hillary” and “Character” in the same sentence?

But the bottom line is if we can push Hillary’s run back to 2012, we have a shot at getting her out of Washington completely. Because remember, even if we shut down her presidential run, she will still continue to be a thorn in our side for years to come.

But if Hillary bombs in Florida, we have a whole new ballgame. Now we just need John Edwards to wise up and get out of the game (and support Obama).

Somebody Help Me.......

2008-01-26T00:05:00.000-08:00

I need your help. I know that I have about 50/50 liberal and conservatives reading my site, so I’m hoping someone out there is planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. No? Well one of you has to know someone who is planning to vote for this women. So here’s what I need you to do: Find that person, and have them tell me WHY they plan to vote for this women. I’m being serious here, I really want to know what her appeal is.

And this isn’t coming from a “why would anyone ever vote for a Democrat” angle. I understand the appeal of Obama. I understand on some level the appeal of Edwards. These are not necessary appeals that I relate to, but when it comes to Hillary, outside the fact that she would be our first female president, I don’t get the appeal. The women and her husband have been involved in scandal after scandal, they have shamelessly used race as an issue in this election, and sleaze just seems to follow both her and Bill.

For those that claim she has the most experience, that may be true among the current crop of Democratic hopefuls (assuming what your definition of “experience” is), but we certainly had candidates with MUCH more experience (Dodd, Biden) early in the race, and they never cracked double digits in any of the polls, so I really doubt that the experience card is the one that counts.

Then there is the “voting for her because she is a woman” thing. I guess I can’t just toss this one out, because if I belonged to a group, any group, that had never been represented in a presidential race (black, women, Hispanic, Jewish, gay, Eskimo, etc…..), I’d probably support the candidate that was most like me as well. I don’t think this is a good reason. Imagine if the race came down to Hillary and whoever on the right, and I choose the Republican candidate “because he’s a man”. Or if it was Obama and I chose the Republican “Because he’s white”. Would you support either of those reasons? God I hope not.

Which leaves the reason to vote for her as…… wait, I can’t think of another reason. Because you want Bill back in the White House? Look, as bad as I think George Bush has been as a president, he still has a core group of ardent supports (of which I am not one) that would LOVE to see him in the White House for a third term, yet I have never heard anyone suggest drafting Laura as a candidate to run. “Of course not” you say, “Laura Bush does not have the experience”. Hmm? Oh I know, Hillary has seven years as Senator that Laura doesn’t have, but Hillary keeps going back to those White House years as proof she is ready to “hit the ground running.”

The good news is that a lot of those on the left are FINALLY learning what the rest of the country has known about the Clintons for years. Obviously all of the right wing pundits don’t like her, but each and every day we are hearing from more and more on the left who have set down their Kool-Aid and seen the light. For example, these words from Democratic Senator John Kerry: “I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened,” Kerry said. “I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it’s been over the top. Things have been said about Barack Obama’s positions that are just plain untrue."

Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

This from the liberal blog, Digbysblog: "But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?"

While this is promising, I’m not holding my breath that these folks will not go back to drinking the Kool-Aid should Hillary earn the nomination.

So once again, can anyone tell me why ANYONE is supporting this woman? Anyone?

One other thing. Both Bill and Hillary have been slamming Obama this last week for supposedly praising Ronald Reagan. Well, if that is a sin, consider these comments from the Clintons, from Tom Brokaw’s book “Boom”:

Hillary Clinton: Reagan "Understood" Economic Pressures On The Working And Middle Class, "He Played The Balance And The Music Beautifully." Tom Brokaw wrote, "As for the political climate in America, she (Clinton) understands that America has historically tilted toward the conservative side, with intermittent periods of what she calls 'progressive energy.' She also believes that modern conservatives such as Karl rove are 'obsessed' with defeating her. She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan. He was, she says, 'a child of the Depression, so he understood it . When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.' In 1969, who would have imagined that the Hillary Rodham on the Wellesley commencement stage would find herself thirty-eight years later paying tribute to Ronald Reagan?" ("Boom," p. 404)

Bill Clinton Praised Reagan's "Unflagging Optimism, His Proud Patriotism, His Unabashed Faith In The American People." In dedicating the Reagan building, Bill Clinton said, "The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that.... This is a great day for our country. This is a day of honoring the legacy of President Reagan, remembering the service of President Wilson, and rededicating ourselves to the often difficult but ultimately always rewarding work of America. As I stand within the Reagan Building I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off -- to lead freedom's march boldly into the 21st century." (Clinton Dedication of Reagan Library, 5/5/98)

I Love My Wife.

2008-01-25T00:05:00.000-08:00

Those of you reading this post that actually know me and my wife Cindy know that I married up. No one of my limited talents and physical appeal deserves a woman as wonderful as my wife Cindy. And just when I think she can’t be more wonderful, she proves me wrong.

Next Friday (February 1st) will be Cindy’s and my 22nd anniversary. Wow, I can hardly believe that it’s been 22 years, and at the same time I can hardly remember my life without her. And as I prepare to start my new job the Monday after our anniversary, My wonderful spouse has informed me that we will be spending three days next week in the happiest place on earth. That’s right, we’re going to Las Vegas. Okay, Okay, I know that Disneyland is suppose to be the happiest place on earth, but I’ve been to Disneyland, and I’ve been to Las Vegas, and I know which one makes ME happier.

Next to the Mrs., I love Las Vegas. In fact, when we finally do make the move back to Iowa, the thing I will miss the most are my twice-yearly trips to Vegas. Vegas is a short six hour drive from our home (and a long six hour drive back), And I generally hit the town every January and July, although last year I wasn’t able to make the July trip, so it’s been almost 13 months since my last trip, and that is too long. Also, I generally make the trip with a group of hard partying friends (I’m the designated driver), and it’s been a number of years since I was last in Vegas with Cindy and without the kids, so I’m really looking forward to the calmer nature and the time spent with my wife.

I’m already restudying my Blackjack tables and getting ready to hit the tables. I’m pretty good at Blackjack, and usually come out ahead. But don’t worry, even if I lose at the tables, I always come out ahead at the Buffett.

Man I love my wife.

Thank God The Fed Dropped Interest Rates, Now I Can See That Concert I Wanted To See....

2008-01-24T00:05:00.000-08:00

I see from looking on the Des Moines Register website that Billy Joel is coming to town, with ticket prices at $96 or $50.50. while I am not going to be in Des Moines for the April 15th concert, it’s certainly one that I would love to see. But $96?

Back when I was in High School and College in Cedar Falls, we used to go to almost every concert that came through town. And considering that we had a domed football stadium in town, we had quite a few concerts come through town. And while I always considered concert ticket prices too high, in hindsight I didn’t realize what a bargain concerts were in the 70’s. Early on I remember seeing Kiss, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Pablo Cruise, and Harry Chapin, and I’m pretty sure that I didn’t pay anymore than $7 for any of these concerts. My good friend Chris and I saw Elton John in 1981 – a pretty huge concert – and those tickets were $9.00 each.

Now when you consider that the minimum wage in 1980 was $3.10 (and I was a minimum wage earner in those days), we’re talking about having to work roughly three hours to earn enough for a concert ticket. That means that today a concert ticket should cost $18 to $25 at the most.

And $96 to see Billy Joel is in no way as high as these tickets are going. Heck, Cindy and I saw The Eagles three years ago, and we had to pay a whopping $175 EACH for those tickets. A quick check of Ticketmaster.com shows Van Halen tickets at $147, Bon Jovi at $129, and Def Leppard at $125. At least Def Leppard has Styx and my personal favorite – REO Speedwagen – playing with them. And don’t even get me started on Hannah Montana tickets.

While I live in a small, small town, I’m only three hours away from L.A. or San Francisco, so we can see the big names, it’s just kind of a hassle. And we do have the California Mid-State Fair in Paso Robles, less than 10 miles from our house. This is not your average fair folks – The Mid State Fair is known as one of the top fairs in the country with regards to talent. Last year we had Aerosmith, Daughtry, Bob Dylan, Velvet Revolver, Rascal Flatts, Toby Keith and Martina McBride. And the free entertainment included Foghat (I LOVE Foghat) and Joan Jett. All of these great concerts to choose from, and who did I get to see: The Jonas Brothers. For those of you who don’t have an eleven year old girl in your house, The Jonas Brothers are like Hanson: three teeny-bopper brothers for the Disney Channel set. The things I won’t do for my little girl.

So Many Topics, So Little Time....

2008-01-23T00:05:00.000-08:00

Some days you have to search the dark, deep recesses of your mind for something to write about (and trust me, my mind can be pretty dark sometimes). Often I just find something interesting that someone else has written, and take the day off.

And then there are days like today, with enough happening to fill ten blogs. So lets get started:

+ Fred Steps Down: Okay, I knew it was coming, but it still hurts to see the one true conservative in the race step down. I still have hopes that Fred may play a role as a VP candidate, but I’m not sure the remaining candidates, with the possible exception of Huckabee, are smart enough to see the value that Fred would bring to the ticket. And since I don’t see Huckabee getting the nomination, Fred can probably go back to Law and Order.

This is the time of the year when we start playing “What If” with the candidates. According to most of the polls I’ve seen, any of the Republican candidates can beat either Obama or Edwards, But who really trusts the polls? As for Hillary, she ekes out a victory over all of the candidates except McCain, who would be likely to pull in the independent vote.

Now personally, I think any of the Republicans, with the possible exception of Huckabee, would win in the General Election. Primaries are all about style, and once the nominees are set we get into substance, and we have more substance. I’d probably give the nod to Obama over McCain since that same independent vote he would garner in beating Clinton, he would lose to Obama.

But the only real thing that matters is that it is ANYONE but Hillary. I can live with an Obama victory, but Hillary sends shivers down my spine

+ Speaking of Obama and Hillary: I have watched every debate this season, and the one time I miss one, something actually happens. So Hillary blasts Obama for his stance on the war (When her stance is a true embarrassment), and then she has the Bal…., um, the guts, to blast him on a fundraising “scandal”. This from the queen of fundraising scandals.

At the debate, Obama and Clinton landed several rattling punches over each other’s prior business relationships, with the Illinois senator remarking that he was working to protect jobs from leaving the United States when Clinton was “a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”

In return, Clinton said she was fighting against the policies of Ronald Reagan when Obama was “representing your contributor, (Tony) Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

At this point Obama should have brought up Hillary’s role in defending the Black Panthers, as an intern at a law firm headed by the President of the California Chapter of the American Communist Party.

Honestly, I think the entire democratic primary results could have been decided last night with one easy sentence, one that would go down in debate lore with Lloyd Bentsen’s “…and you sir are no Jack Kennedy” jab at Dan Quayle. Jus imagine Obama looking into the camera and stating “I can’t believe I’m getting a speech on morals by a Clinton.” Campaign over.

+ Is It True Because You Say It, Or Do You Say It Because It’s True?: I was going to write this great piece today on all of this economic doom and gloom coming out of the media, and whether they were merely reporting on economic woes, or whether or not they were actually contributing to these woes with their dour predictions. And then my Blog friend Doug over at http://www.iowageekonline.com/ went and beat me to it. Sure, I could put my thoughts down, or I could just direct you over to Doug & Jody’s site and ask you to read the post titled: Stupid Headlines of the Day. Well done Doug!

+ I Must Be A Masochist: Sometimes I shove sharp bamboo sticks under my fingernails. Sometimes I just cut ¼” deep valleys into my abdomen and pour Morton’s salt into the wounds. But usually when I want to inflict real pain, I just flip over to the Randi Rhodes Show on Air America.

All I did was listen to ten minutes – just ten minutes – of Ms. Rhodes show today as I was waiting to pick up my daughter from school. These were just a few of the tidbits that I got out of that short time period (remember, this is the same woman who claimed that Blackwater started the California fires, and claimed she was mugged by a "right-wing operative" after a drunken blackout.)

First, we should elect Hillary because we already know all of her scandals, and we have no idea what skeletons might be hiding in Obama and Edwards closets. Well heck, using that logic we should work to change the constitution to allow us to re-elect George for a third term. Oh, and Randi, I have a little hint for you: There are still PLENTY of skeleton’s in Hillary’s closet.

Next, in a discussion on those very scandals, Randi informs us that whole Paula Jones thing never happened. Never mind that Bill settled the case for over $800,000 – a princely sum for something that “never happened” – nor that Bill was found guilty and impeached because he lied about the Jones case to a grand jury. Now I always thought that was pretty damning evidence, but apparently Randi knows something the rest of us don’t.

Have you ever heard Bill Clinton referred to as “our first black president?” Of course you have, and if you ever wondered where that came from, Randi filled us in today. Apparently Republicans hate Bill Clinton as much as they hate black people, therefore Bill is “our first black president.” Using this logic she also concludes that Mr. Clinton was also our first gay president and our first female president, because Republicans hate them as well.

Can you imagine if a conservative host claimed that democrats hate blacks, gays and women? All hell would break loose. Ms. Rhodes should consider herself lucky that no one actually listens to her show.

+ R.I.P. Heath Ledger: Wow, Heath Ledger is dead at only 28 years old. Apparently he was found near empty sleeping pill bottles, although at this point it has not been determined if the possible overdose was accidental or suicide. Ledger had several memorable roles in his short career, including a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain, and most recently appeared in I'm Not There, in which he played one of the many incarnations of Bob Dylan.

Ledger also recently finished filming The Dark Knight, in which he plays The Joker to Christian Bale’s Batman. From the previews, I think this could have been one of Ledgers greatest roles. Sadly it will be his last.

+ On A Lighter Note: Well lets face it, wouldn’t anything be a lighter note after that last story? But today the nominations for the Oscars were announced, and I’d like to put my two cents in. Cindy and I try to see all of the nominated pictures each year – not always an easy task considering that some of the art fare doesn’t make it to our small town – and we still have a few to see before I can give my official picks. But in my mind mind it’s going to be tough to beat “No Country For Old Men”.

So what do you think? Any input?

+ As if this wasn’t enough: On top of all of this going on, I start a new job in less than two weeks, and I have a lot of work to do to get ready. I decided that since I was going to be running a large book store, it was time to brush up on the classics. I’ve already finished “One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish” and “The Cat In The Hat”, and now it’s on to “Goodnight Moon” and “Everybody Poops”.

Actually, I can probably skip “Everybody Poops”, as I have been doing a pretty good job of following the Clinton campaign already.

I Too Have A Dream….

2008-01-22T00:05:00.000-08:00

Of course my dream is a little different than Dr. Kings, and illegal in at least 38 states, but hey, a dream is a dream.

Today we celebrate the legacy of Dr. King, a man I greatly admire. I’m afraid that if the good Doctor were alive today he would be disappointed in what we as a people have done with his dream in the nearly 40 years since his untimely death. Oh sure, we have a black man as a viable candidate for the President of the United States as well as a black Secretary of State, the second African-American in a row to hold that position. And when you look back on the world that Dr. King left behind, a world with separate lunch counters, separate water fountains, and segregated schools, it seems like we have come a long way since Martin Luther King, Jr. first espoused his dream.

And yet I can’t help but feel that we have so much further to go, and the people stopping us from getting there aren’t the southern white racists and Klan members, but the white liberals and the “so-called” black leadership in this country.

Lets get this out of the way first: There ARE some white racists out there who really want to “keep the black (Hispanic, gay, etc…) man down”, and there is no room in America for these people. These people are antiquated idiots, and I will not give them a platform for their hate speech. That being said, these people represent a miniscule amount of our population, and yet if we listen to these voices on the left, those group’s views are the same as the vast majority of the right. Folks, it just ain’t so.

And if Dr. King could hear the words of his “successors” – and in reality no one could succeed Dr. King – I think he would be appalled. Compare any speech made by King with a speech – any speech – by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Louis Farrakhan, and there is only one conclusion you can come to: There is no comparison. Dr. King spoke of progress, he spoke of opportunity, no matter how slim that light of hope may have been. Sharpton, Jackson, and the others speak of the exact opposite, no matter how slim the notion of racism is.

Consider this: The Washington Post in 1995 wrote about black, white, Hispanic and Asian views on race. Pollsters asked middle-income members of each race whether “past and present discrimination” is responsible for your group’s problems. 84% of blacks answered “Yes”. When middle-income whites were asked whether “past and present discrimination” holds blacks back, only 30% answered yes. Granted, a black person can probably answer this question with more experience than a white person.

But here’s where it gets interesting. When Hispanics were asked if “past and present discrimination” was responsible for holding them back, 43% said yes. Yet when Blacks were asked if “past and present discrimination” was responsible for holding Hispanics back, 58% said yes. In other words, 30% more blacks perceived discrimination against Hispanics than did Hispanics themselves. And when Asians were asked if “past and present discrimination” was responsible for holding them back, 31% said yes. Yet when Blacks were asked if “past and present discrimination” was responsible for holding Asians back, 41% said yes. Again, 30% more blacks perceived discrimination against Asians than did Asians themselves.

So what does this mean? Well, there is room for interpretation, but the way I see it is that for the last 40 years – after we lost Dr. King – Black Leadership has been preaching that every problem facing the black community is due to racism, which means that no one is preaching that blacks themselves have the power to determine the course of their lives. Look, one of my favorite shows, one that I watch each and every day (thank you TiVo) is Cops. And I have seen numerous times where the cops have arrested a black man for whatever – car theft, selling drugs, burglary – and the perp is screaming “racism, racism”, despite the fact that he was caught red handed, sometimes caught by a black cop. Explain that?

As for white liberals, one of the main reasons that we are facing some of the issues we are is due to white liberal condescension. Two of the greatest problems facing the African-American community today are a 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate (with the teenage out-of-wedlock birthrate at nearly 90%), and a 44% high school drop out rate. But when was the last time you heard anyone in a liberal position talk about these issues. Don’t strain yourself, because I doubt that you can come up with one. And yet the fact is that an African-American currently below the poverty level who graduates from high school and refrains from either fathering or mothering a child, has a 94% likelihood that he or she will rise above the poverty level. It’s a no-brainer, and yet liberal “compassion” – which is actually liberal condescension – ignores this problem, a problem if properly addressed and worked on, would all but eliminate the economic gaps between the races.

Of course Dr. Kings greatest speech was the “I Have A Dream” speech, and to me the most powerful line in that speech was “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Wow!. And then consider this. The California chapter of the NAACP is condemning the choice of Chinese Sculptor Lei Yixin, who was chosen to sculpt the Martin Luther King monument on the Mall in Washington D.C., saying an African American artist should have been commissioned as the lead artist. So apparently that not judging “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” only counts with certain colors of skin. Shame on you NAACP! Imagine if a black artist had been chosen to create a monument to Ronald Reagan, and there were protests that only a white artist should create the monument. Imagine the outrage, and outrage there should be. But again, we’re talking about liberal condescension here, so yeah, it makes sense.

And what about the outrage that Oprah is experiencing? Alright, I know this doesn’t really fit todays topic, or maybe it does. Consider this from the Times Online: AMERICA’S favorite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton. Winfrey’s website, Oprah.com, has been flooded with a barrage of abuse since the queen of daytime chat shows joined Obama on a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-December."

So if Oprah supports Obama she’s “abandoning” her gender, if she supports Hillary she’s abandoning her race. You know, I remember the good old days when we choose our candidate based on WHO they were, not WHAT they were.

A Good Run While It Lasted

2008-01-21T00:05:00.000-08:00

I'm still fighting a nasty bug, so today's post will not be too long. I just want to take a moment and congratulate the New York Giants for earning a trip to the Super Bowl by defeating my Green Bay Packers. It was a tough loss for me, but at least it was a lose that I feel we deserved. Eli Manning did a terrific job of controlling the ball, and the Giants just flat out beat the Pack.

At least now I can root for the Patriots to win it all and end up with a perfect 19-0 season. I knew that a Packers-Patriot Super Bowl was going to be a tough win for us, and it's going to be a tough one for the Giants as well. Who knows though, if Eli plays like he did today, they just might pull it off.

And this time I can say "There's always next year" and actually believe it. Look, the Pack won their division, and so did my Cubs, so this has been a better year than most for me. We'll see you next year Brett........

Cheating today.....

2008-01-20T00:05:00.000-08:00

I'm sick. I hate being sick, but not as much as my wife hates it when I'm sick. Apparently I'm not a "good" sick person, and since I need to be better for the big packers game tomorrow, I'm taking a break today.

So today I'm going to pass along an e-mail I got titled "New Rules for 2008" By George Carlin. I'm not sure if it was really written by George Carlin. It seems that an awful lot on the internet these days are attributed to George Carlin, but whether it is or it isn't, it's still pretty good. Hopefully I'll be better tomorrow following the Packer's victory. Here it is:

New Rule: No more gift registries. You know, it used to be just for weddings. Now it's for babies and new homes and graduations from rehab. Picking out the stuff you want and having other people buy it for you isn't gift giving, it's the white people version of looting.

New Rule: Stop giving me that pop-up ad for classmates.com<http://classmates.com/> ! There's a reason you don't talk to people for 25 years. Because you don't particularly like them! Besides, I already know what the captain of the football team is doing these days--- mowing my lawn.

New Rule: Don't eat anything that's served to you out a window unless you're a seagull. People are acting all shocked that a human finger was found in a bowl of Wendy's chili. Hey, it cost less than a dollar. What did you expect it to contain? Lobster?

New Rule: Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged . I have a better description for these kids: 'Lucky bastards.'

New Rule: If you need to shave and you still collect baseball cards,you're a dope. If you're a kid, the cards are keep sakes of your idols. If you're a grown man, they're pictures of men.

New Rule: Ladies, leave your eyebrows alone. Here's how much men care about your eyebrows: Do you have two of them? Good, we're done.

New Rule: There's no such thing as flavored water. There's a whole aisle of this crap at the supermarket, water, but, without that watery taste. Sorry, but flavored water is called a soft drink. You want flavored water? Pour some scotch over ice and let it melt. That's your flavored water.

New Rule: Stop screwing with old people. Target is introducing a redesigned pill bottle that's square, with a bigger label. And the top is now the bottom. And by the time grandpa figures out how to open it, his ass will be in the morgue. Congratulations, Target, you just solved the Social Security crisis.

New Rule: The more complicated the Starbucks order, the bigger the asshole. If you walk into a Starbucks and order a 'decaf grandee, half-soy, half-low fat, iced vanilla, double-shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one Sweet-n'-Low, and One NutraSweet,' ooooh, you're a huge asshole.

New Rule: I'm not the cashier! By the time I look up from sliding my card, entering My PIN number, pressing 'Enter,' verifying the amount, deciding, no, I don't want Cash back, and pressing 'Enter' again, the kid who is supposed to be ringing me up is standing there eating my Almond Joy.

New Rule: Just because your tattoo has Chinese characters in it doesn't make you Spiritual. It's right above the crack of your ass. And it translates to 'beef with broccoli.' The last time you did anything spiritual, you were praying to God you weren't pregnant. You're not spiritual. You're just high.

New Rule: Competitive eating isn't a sport. It's one of the seven deadly sins. ESPN Recently televised the U.S. Open of Competitive Eating, because watching those athletes at the poker table was just too damned exciting. What's next, competitive farting? Oh wait, they're already doing that. It's called 'The Howard Stern Show.'

New Rule: I don't need a bigger mega M&Ms. If I'm extra hungry for M&Ms, I'll go nuts and eat two.

New Rule: If you're going to insist on making movies based on crappy old television shows, then you have to give everyone in the Cineplex a remote so we can see what's playing on the other screens. Let's remember the reason something was a television show in the first place is that the idea wasn't good enough to be a movie.

New Rule: And this one is long overdue: No more bathroom attendants. After I zip up, some guy is offering me a towel and a mint like I just had sex with George Michael. I can't even tell if he's supposed to be there, or just some freak with a fetish. I don't want to be on your webcam, Dude. I just want to wash my hands

New Rule: When I ask how old your toddler is, I don't need to hear '27 months.' 'He's two' will do just fine. He's not a cheese. And I didn't really care in the first place.

New Rule: If you ever hope to be a credible adult and want a job that pays better than Minimum wage, then for God's sake don't pierce or tattoo every available piece of flesh. If so, then plan your future around saying, 'Do you want fries with that?'

And Tomorrow, A New Baby (Oh I hope not)

2008-01-19T00:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, a new job. Today, a new car. Okay I didn't get a new car, but the little lady did. And as much as she loved her old Ford Explorer, I can't even begin to tell you how thrilled I am that the new SUV - A Honda CRV - gets almost twice the milage of the old Explorer.

We loved that car, but it's time was up. We're through with Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, so we don't have much of a need for a seven seater any more. And now that Blake is in college and has his own car, it's usually not any more than Cindy, Madison and Myself, so the Honda is a perfect fit. And when we bought the Ford gas was $2 a gallon, and since it is now over $3.50 in California, the Honda REALLY makes sense.

And the bottom line is that Cindy is happy, so I'm happy too.

That's all for today - It's been a long evening at the dealer, so this is all I have time for. More tomorrow

Anticipation.....

2008-01-18T00:05:00.000-08:00

Anticipation. God how I hate anticipation, and I’m not talking about that Carly Simon song. Okay, I hate that song too, but I’m talking about the real anticipation here. And I don’t care if you are anticipating something good or something bad, anticipation sucks. Okay, it probably sucks more if you’re anticipating bad news, but….. do you get where I’m going with this?

The reason I bring up anticipation is because I have been living with it for the last week, in reality for almost two months now. About six weeks ago I interviewed for a new job, and considering that this was a retail management position – and this was the beginning of December – there were a lot of other things going on to slow down the hiring process. It was after the first of the year that I heard back from the District Manager who had first interviewed me. She liked me, so now it was on to the HR Director.

Of course that interview didn’t get set up for almost two weeks, so there was more anticipation there. That interview went well, I thought, and I was pleased at the end of the interview when the HR manager said she wanted me to do an on-line assessment. I figured, why have me do an assessment if they weren’t still interested? And the assessment was one of those where they have about 200 questions and you answer if you agree or disagree with the statement. Of course agree or disagree is too easy, so you have to totally agree, kind of agree, sometimes agree, and so on. Of course following this assessment there are a whole new set of anxieties. Did I answer that right? Will the answers I provided eerily match those of the Unabomber? Why did I say I kind of disagreed when I only sometime disagree on question 24? Anticipation.

The good news is I didn’t have to freak out for long. I got a call the next day to set up an interview with the Zone Manager, a gentleman in charge of over 150 branches. Hey, they wouldn’t waste THIS guys time if they weren’t interested, right? Or maybe he just had to have a conversation with someone whose test scores showed a level of psychosis unmatched in company history. So last Friday, I had my final interview.

Now I’m on top of the world. Sure, the anticipation level has just been turned up to eleven, but I felt so good about that interview, and I knew my phone was going to ring Monday with an offer. Except it didn’t. More anticipation, but hey, Monday’s are busy days at the district office, of course they weren’t going to call on Monday. What was I even thinking? Idiot!

But then they didn’t call on Tuesday. Well hey, maybe she’s in meetings on Tuesday, surely she’ll call on Wednesday. But she didn’t, and going into today the anticipation had been replaced by a creeping sense of dread, and as the day wore on it was being replaced once again by nauseousness.

Now I’ve interviewed for jobs before that I ended up not getting, and in some cases it really wasn’t such a big deal, mainly because I could take or leave the job I was applying for. And I am currently employed, so it wasn’t like I HAD to get this job or my family would be on the streets. No, what caused so much anticipation this time was the fact that I REALLY wanted this job.

And at 3:00 this afternoon, I got it. You are now looking at – okay, you’re not really looking at me, but you know what I mean – you are now looking at the new General Manager of Borders Books in San Luis Obispo, CA (See picture at right). Sure, I’ll miss Target (where I am currently the Logistics Manager), and I’ll miss the fact that my current job is two miles from home while my new job is 25 miles away. I’ll miss the fact that I currently fill my gas tank once every three weeks. But I am going to love my new job. Books, Music, DVD’s – all things that I really love. And I sure as heck am not going to miss going to work at 3 am to oversee a truck getting unloaded.

Who knows, I might even go out and by that Carly Simon CD? Nah…….

Political Correctness Gone Wild….

2008-01-17T00:05:00.000-08:00

I’ve never been a big fan of political correctness. Okay, I HATE political correctness. And just when you think they’ve gone as far as they can, they always take it to another, unbelievable level.

Below is the Student “Code of Responsibility” drafted by Bergen Community College in New Jersey

In the full knowledge of the commitment that I am freely willing to undertake as a student, I promise to respect each and every member of the college community without regard to race, creed, political ideology, lifestyle orientation, gender or social status sparing no effort to preserve the dignity of those I will come in contact with as a member of the college community. I promise to Bergen Community College that I will follow this code of responsibility.

1. Honesty, integrity and respect for all will guide my personal conduct.
2. I will embrace and celebrate differing perspectives intellectually.
3. I will build an inclusive community enriched by diversity.
4. I am willing to respect and assist those individuals who are less fortunate.
5. I promise my commitment to civic engagement and to serve the needs of the community to the best of my ability.

Now are all of these things admirable? Well, I doubt that there are many out there opposed to honesty, integrity, and such. But to REQUIRE respect? What is that all about?

And before you say “Yeah, but this is just a symbolic action meant to provoke honest debate”, consider this quote from a college spokesperson today: "The pledge would not be optional .... If you don't agree, it is President Ryan's vision that you cannot attend the school."

And exactly what groups are we applying this “respect” to? Sure, race, creed, and gender are pretty black and white. But what about “Political Ideology?” Do we need to respect White Supremacists or the Klan? Do we need to respect Communists, Socialists of Fascists? And let me ask you this: Do you really think that the liberal minds that came up with this “code” respect conservatives or pro-military groups?

Look, I think that the university has a responsibility to make sure that no member of any group is denied their rights. Should a university force you to like and respect, for example, gay people? No, I don’t think they should. Should they stop you from attacking – verbally or physical – someone because they are gay? Of course they should.

Hey, I know this is a radical idea, but how about we increase respectability for groups through education, understanding, and open dialog. And how about we also understand that certain groups (such as the white supremacists, or any color supremacists for that matter) don’t deserve our respect.

And having read this code, does it surprise anyone that the banner below is prominently displayed at the top of the Bergen Community College website – almost as big as the name of the college? Liberals!

On a completely unrelated note, I think Mike Huckabee has officially torpedoed his campaign (Not that it was all that strong to begin with.) Huckabee told a Michigan audience the following on Monday:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the Living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

While I think most of the arguments for “Separation of Church and State” are full of water, I think Mike stepped over the line on this one. Sure, this will play well with evangelicals, but there are not enough evangelicals out there to push Huckabee into the White House, and he needs to broaden his base. Statements like this ain’t gonna do it.

Political Tidbits......

2008-01-16T00:05:00.000-08:00

U Citizens United, a conservative group, must abide by campaign finance laws if it wants to run ads promoting its anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie, a federal court ruled Tuesday. The court ruling means the group must either keep its ads off the air or attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors.

Campaign regulations prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and identify candidates. Citizens United argued that the advertisements promoted the movie and should be treated as commercial speech as opposed to political advocacy

Now if promoting this movie truly violates campaign regulations, then so be it. My question though is why THIS movie can’t be promoted, but Farenheit 9/11 which did identify a candidate (Bush), was allowed to be promoted. Seriously, does anyone have a legitimate answer for that?

By the way, you can view the trailer for the movie and purchase it here: http://hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html

U Okay, here’s what I propose: We should pick a week – any week – an for that week the Obama and Clinton camps should run on nothing but race and gender. Then, once that week is over, no one brings up either of those subjects again. Okay?

Look, we have had numerous veiled racial comments thrown out this week, most of which have been blown out of proportion. For example, Hillary’s comments about Martin Luther King, Jr. and LBJ. Technically, what she said was correct. Was it a little insensitive, especially coming as close as it did to MLK’s birthday? Sure it was. Was it racial? Probably not.

So lets get it all out there, and deal with it. Rather than apply meaning to every little comment, lets just address it, and then bury it. Of course this will never happen, so the other option is to just grow up and act like adults. Yeah, I don’t see that happening either.

U All of this implosion on the Democratic side has been very interesting to watch, and honestly I don’t know who to root for. Oh, being a conservative it’s unlikely I would vote for either Obama or Clinton (and lets face it, those are the only two with a shot – pick up your ball and go home John and Dennis). And frankly, I would rather run against Hillary than Obama because I feel she has more skeletons in her closet than Jeffery Dahmer. But, on the off-chance that the Democratic Nominee actually gets elected, I can certainly live with an Obama White House more than I can a Hillary one. And while some polls show that Clinton would be a stronger candidate, I disagree.

And lets face it, we are not talking about an off-chance, are we? Right now – not knowing who the nominee is going to be on either side – I’d say it’s fifty/fifty as to which party takes the White House. And regardless of who the nominees are, it’s going to be a tight race. Honestly, I think I’m going to have to stay with Obama, because just now as I was thinking of the POSSIBILITY of a Hillary Presidency, I pee’d myself a little.

U Well, we had another Democratic debate tonight. If you’re like me, you need a little….shall we say “incentive” to get through these debates. I used to play a drinking game where I took a shot every time the candidate dodged a question and answered it with a completely different twist. I found that this generally puts me under the coffee table about ten to twelve minutes into the debate.

Not wanting to do that, I revised the rules, and tonight we only took a shot every time Hillary mentioned that she had “35 years of Experience.” Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I had better go and lie down…..

I've Got The Music In Me....

2008-01-15T00:05:00.000-08:00

I love music. All kinds of music, and I always have. People who are around me when I have my Ipod on “shuffle” are driven nuts, as we go from AC/DC to Dean Martin to Ray Charles to Dr. Dre to Garth Brooks to Bo Donaldson & The Heywoods to.... well, you get the picture. And I am very fortunate because I married a women who loves music just as much as I do. It used to be that if we ever had a fire the first thing to grab was the photo albums. Now, it’s the IPods.

And then there are the kids. The kids too are big music lovers, but their tastes tend to veer away from ours. Well, at least the Boy. Blake is a big hard rock/metal fan, and while we share our appreciation of Led Zeppelin and AC/DC, even those bands don’t register with Blake anywhere near the level they do with me. Madison is a different story. Being an eleven year-old girl she’s into Hannah Montana and High School Musical, but Madison is also a huge country music fan. Where did that come from?

Look, I don’t have a problem with country music. Country music was huge in our house when I was growing up. My dad wasn’t a huge music fan, but when he did listen to music, it was always country. And every Saturday afternoon we watched The Porter Waggoner Show, and then on Sunday afternoon it was Hee-Haw. But how did my daughter get hooked on country? To be honest, I have absolutely no idea.

If there was ever any disappointment with regards to my kid’s musical taste, it is the fact that I have had little luck in influencing their tastes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to control what my kids listen to, I’m merely trying to expand their tastes. I’ve pretty much given up on Blake, but with Maddie I’ve had more luck, mainly because I’m the one driving the car (and controlling the radio).

And then, on Christmas morning, everything changed. Madison got the one thing she really, really wanted for Christmas: Guitar Hero III. For those of you unfamiliar with Guitar Hero, it is a video game for your system (in our case, a PlayStation II) in which the game controller has been replace with a guitar shaped controller. In the game you play classic rock songs on your guitar. And apparently, as you play the song, you gain a whole new appreciation for the classics. My daughter now knows all the words to “Slow Ride” by Foghat, and even Blake has been caught humming “Smoke on the Water”.

And then today, I noticed that I hadn’t seen my daughter for awhile. She wasn't in the sun room playing Guitar Hero. She wasn’t in the backyard on her trampoline, nor was she in her room. Finally, I found her on the computer in our bedroom. “What are you doing?” I asker her. “Downloading Cheap Trick videos on YouTube,” She responded. I have never been so proud. Excuse me, I have something in my eye…….

Speaking of having something in your eye, yesterday The New York Giants defeated the favored Dallas Cowboys yesterday. And at the press conference after the game, Terrell Owens, the Cowboys oft-cocky receiver came very, very close to breaking down. His lip was quivering, and I’m sure that behind his sunglasses his eyes were welling up. On the bright side, Owens is now the frontrunner in the Nevada primaries.

"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein

“Replace the word ‘world’ with ‘Clintons’” – Bob Peters

Pat, I'd Like To Try To Solve The Puzzle.....

2008-01-14T00:05:00.000-08:00

Today I’m going to talk about Global Warming. Actually, Pat Sajak is going to talk about Global Warming. Sajak? We’ll, what you may not know is Pat Sajak got his start on T.V. as a meteorologist. Does that make him an expert? No, but I think it makes him more knowledgeable than the average man on the street. Plus, look at his wife!

The reason I am discussing this today is two-fold. First, I found this article on a link over at my friend Jody’s blog last night, and I found the article interesting. Secondly, I used today to clean out my garage, something made possible by near 80 degree temperatures today. Thank you global warming.

I’m kind of on the fence as far as this discussion goes. I do believe there is climate change, I do think that man contributes to it, but I think it’s miniscule. Sure, we’ve had a number of record setting years lately, but if you look at the average temperature by year from 1900 to 1980, six of the top years were in the 30’s. And then it got cooler, so much so that in the 70’s these same scientists were predicting the coming Ice Age.

The earth’s temperature fluctuates. Does that mean we shouldn’t worry about it? Of course not, I think we all need to do our part. That means looking for a high MPG car next time you buy one, turning off lights when you’re not in the room, putting on a sweater instead of turning up the heater – you know, the stuff your mom told you to do.

What bothers me about the “Al Gore” crowd is that most of them are so certain that they are right that they refuse to even debate the subject. Why? Look, I’m pretty darn sure the earth is round, and I have no problem arguing with those who think it’s flat. And what Sajak is doing in this article is not saying that one side or another is right. What he is saying is, hey, before we make huge, drastic changes, lets ask a few basic questions first. What’s so wrong with that?

Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions – By Pat Sajak
The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-too-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers:

1. What is the perfect temperature?
If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?
At any one time there are temperature extremes all over the planet. How do we come up with an average, and how do those variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming?

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?
Again, I don’t ask this in a judgmental way. There is no argument that warming cycles (or cooling, for that matter) have been a part of earth’s history. Why are we so sure this one is different?

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?
I’m always troubled by arguments that begin, “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...” In fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theory of man-made global warming. A large (and growing) segment of those who study such things are questioning some of the basic premises of the theory. Why should there be anything wrong with that? Again, this is a big deal, and we should have the best information and opinion from the best minds.

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics?

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?
Again, I don’t ask this mockingly. Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such improvement (health, crop production, lifestyle) balance any negative impact from the phenomenon?

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?
There are some who say we can’t afford to wait, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move ahead with altering the way we live. While there are good arguments for changing some of our environmental policies, should they be based on “what it?”

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?
Nothing happens in a vacuum; there are always unintended consequences to our actions. For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income? There are thousands of other implications, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking about them and talking about them?

9. How will we measure our successes?
Is the measuring stick going to be temperature, sea level, number of annual hurricanes, rainfall, or a combination of all those things? Again, do we have a goal in mind? What happens when we get there?

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?
We’ve faced environmental issues throughout our history, but it’s difficult to remember one which has gained such “status” in such a short time. To a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down” of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality?

Just asking

The Pack, The Quake, And Bob Actually Defends The Clintons

2008-01-13T00:05:00.000-08:00

Once again I have nothing worthy of an entire post, so here are a few more random ramblings.

U Go Pack: Wow, what a game. Seattle gets two quick touchdowns off of Packer fumbles and goes up 14-0. This had me nervous because the pack has only been down by 10 or more twice this season, losing both games. But then the pack exploded, tying it up before the first quarter was over (and tying the NFL record for most post-season points in a single quarter), and then exploding to win the game by 22 points in a huge snowstorm.

And now, for the first time in 10 years the Packers are in the NFC Championship game. New York or Dallas? Well, we won’t know until tomorrow – and the Giants have been as hot as the Cowboys have been cool lately. Giants win and we’re back in Lambeau next week. Cowboys win and we travel to Dallas, where Brett Favre is 0 and 9. Go Giants…..

U Snow Falls In Baghdad: Lambeau Field I understand, but Baghdad? Yes, snow fell today in Baghdad for the first time ever in recorded history. Do you know what this means? I have spent the entire afternoon compiling a list of things I promised to do if Hell froze over. This means that I will have to vote for Hillary, and there are a couple of girls from college that I owe phone calls to. Oh the humanity….

U Snow I Can Take. Earthquakes? Not So Much: I don’t know if there is anything “Biblical” about this, but just as I am typing the phrase “Hell Freezes Over” we experience a 3.1 earthquake. Now 3.1 isn’t huge, but any earthquake you can feel freaks me out. Four years ago, two days before Christmas, we were hit with a 6.5, which is pretty huge. All of the shelves in my garage went over, spilling every paint, stain and solvent I had on Cindy’s Explorer. The buffet with all of Cindy’s grandmothers good china went over, losing everything. Our fireplace pulled away from the wall, and the kids playhouse, which was supported on four 12 x 12 posts, came down.

Being two days before Christmas, the kids were home and could have been in that playhouse. Thank God they weren’t up there. And in my daughters room all of the dresser drawers shoot across the room. Thank god they weren’t there either. But my daughter and her friend were sitting right in front of the big screen T.V., which had it been on the opposite wall, it would have fallen right on top of them. But given the “wave” nature of earthquakes, all of the items on the east side of the house remained fairly stationery.

In my son’s room, the action was very violent. Everything moved towards the middle of the room, and despite the fact that everything that was on a shelf was now on the floor, the room seemed strangely cleaner than it had been in weeks. Could be my imagination though. Anyhow, ever since that day, and the several hundred (yes, several hundred) aftershocks that came after, I’ve had a, shall we say, healthy respect for earthquakes. Coming from the Midwest, where I had a healthy respect for tornadoes, I can honestly say that I’ll take an “I know it’s coming” tornado over a “What the hell was that” earthquake any day.

One last earthquake related item. In the picture on the right you see the rubble of the “Acorn Building” in downtown Paso Robles. The Acorn Building fell, killing two. If you look at that picture, you will see that three doors down from the Acorn building is a green awning. One year prior to the quake that building – the one with the green awning – Housed “The Yardstick Fabric & Crafts”, a fabric store owned by my wife and myself. We had made the decision to close, and had we not my wife, and possibly my daughter, would have been in this mess. Thank god for small miracles. Okay, maybe not that small.

U Well, I Was Waiting For This: Yesterday I commented about Bill Clinton’s “Fairy Tale” remark regarding Obama’s stance on the Iraqi war. Well today it seems Clinton is taking flack from “black leadership” regarding the comment, which they interpreted as not only attacking Obama’s stance on the war, but also his overarching message and his drive to be the first black president.

Look, I’m not in the habit of defending the Clinton’s, but this is B.S.. If you read or listen to Clinton’s original comments, it is obvious that he is talking about the war, nothing else.

Look, I have no problem whatsoever with our having America’s first black president, or Jewish president, or Hispanic president, or even America’s first women president (but God please, not THAT woman). But if that means that every time they say or do something, or everytime somebody criticizes their actions we’re going to pull out the race or the gender card, then count me out. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with pulling the card out whenever an obvious slight to race or gender has been made, but if you need to “read into” comments, then there probably wasn’t anything racially charged there to start with.

I was surprised that, in an effort to explain the difference between the New Hampshire exit polls and the actual vote, several commentators suggested that some people would have told pollsters that they voted for Obama when in fact they may not “be ready yet” to vote for a black man. What sense does that make? Like saying that you voted for Clinton or Edwards makes you a racist? I just don’t get it.

U One Last Thing: Go see “The Bucket List”. Good movie.

Slow News Day

2008-01-12T00:05:00.000-08:00

Crazy day, not enough time to really get in deep on any single topic, but there are a few things going on that I thought I’d comment on.

U Dennis gets his way: Well this kind of came out of left field. It seems that Dennis Kucinich is unhappy with the New Hampshire results, and has called for a manual recount, and surprisingly, he’s getting it. Well, he’s getting it because he’s paying for it, so because of that, I don’t have a problem with it.

Now Dennis only got 1.4% of the vote, so I don’t think that he’s calling for a recount because he thinks he won the thing, but because he thinks that there are “serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors” about the integrity of the primary results.

Do I think they are going to find anything? Probably not, BUT if they do find that Clinton didn’t actually receive the votes she did, her candidacy is over. But before you take that as me stirring things up, know that I really think nothing will come of this

U In other political news Bill Clinton today said “There’s nothing ‘fairy tale’ about his (Obama’s) campaign. It’s real, it’s strong, and he might win.” Clinton said this today in a phone interview for the Rev. Al Sharpton’s Radio One network talk show.

Clinton said his “fairy tale” remark on the eve of the New Hampshire primary at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., and had accused Obama of misrepresenting himself on the Iraq war.

Now personally, I’m a believer that you shouldn’t speak out about something you know nothing about, which means that I fully support Bill Clinton in his attacks on Obama. Why? Well think about it, is there really anybody out there who knows more about misrepresenting their stance on the Iraq war than Bill Clinton? I Didn’t think so.

U You couldn’t make stuff like this up: Animal rights group PETA has asked the jail housing a man accused of murdering his girlfriend and possibly eating her body parts not to feed him meat.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals faxed a letter Thursday to the Smith County Sheriff's Jail in Tyler, Texas, asking that 25-year-old Christopher Lee McCuin be placed on a strict vegetarian diet to prevent him from being "involved in any senseless killing" while he's behind bars, said PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"Only in a culture where people routinely kill and eat living, feeling beings — corpses — would anybody think to kill and either eat or pretend to eat a human corpse," Friedrich said in a phone interview.

You might be surprised to know that I actually understand where PETA is coming from here. I too believe that there is a special place in this world for all of God’s creatures, and it’s right next to the mashed potatoes.

So Who's Fair & Balanced Now?

2008-01-11T00:05:00.000-08:00

My friends on the left are constantly putting down Fox News, and sometimes (not often) they have a valid point. I Just hope they were watching Bill O’Reilly Wednesday evening. O’Reilly was discussing a comment made by Chris Matthews at MSNBC. These are Matthews comments from Wednesday morning:

"Lets not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on the merits..."

So how did Bill O’Reilly, a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) at the evil Mothership respond to this allegation: “NBC is a very powerful network, and we have said for years that this network is not fair and it has an agenda a mile long, and now I think their own people are admitting it. Now Mr. Matthews has ever right to say what he wants to say because he is not a reporter, he is a commentator, as I am. But it’s rough, it’s rough business what these people are doing over there. We don’t do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband “messed around”. I mean that is, that is a personal attack, and it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not. Senator Clinton, whether you like her or not, is a sitting senator who earned her position by winning the election in New York. And for somebody to denigrate her like that is stunning.”

Look, Matthews worked for four Democratic politicians. He worked in the Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before himself campaigning (and failing) for a seat in the House of Representatives. He was a presidential speechwriting for four years during the Carter administration, and later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill. In other words, we are not talking about a member of the VRWC here.

In a related story (related due to the fact that it involves the media and a candidate), Lee Cowan, the NBC News correspondent covering Barrack Obama said this about covering Obama: “You know I think from a reporters point of view it’s almost hard to remain objective because it’s infectious”

To which NBC News Anchor Brian Williams, speaking on MSNBC, responded: “I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama while I was out yesterday, we posted the interview on the web, and Lee says to me “It’s hard to stay objective covering this guy” and it was very courageous for Lee to say that to be honest.”

Courageous? Look, I’ll be the first to admit that Obama is a very infectious man, but basically what this reporter is telling us is that he (the reporter) is no longer objective. If this was a Republican candidate he’d be yanked by the network in a minute, and here the Network anchor is calling this guy courageous. Huh? And okay, I’ll be the first to admit that “Infectious” is probably not an adjective we’ll be hearing regarding the Republican field anytime soon.

On another “Media” note, I spent some time in the car on Wednesday, which means I spent time listening to talk radio, mainly Air America. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the Iranian speedboats that approached and potentially threatened US warships in the Straight of Hormuz, and both the commentators and the callers spent more time blaming the incident on the US, and giving Iran a pass.

While this bother bothered and amazed me, imagine my shock when I found similar comments on the blog of my good friend Chris. Yes, Chris is a liberal, and yes, liberals have shown themselves to let their hatred of George Bush cloud common sense, but I’ve always felt Chris was to smart for that. Yet here he is, questioning the US Navy, and giving credence to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an organization that was labeled a terrorist organization by the US Congress by a vote of 76 to 22. I realize that Chris’s candidate – Barack Obama – did not vote for the resolution, but he did not vote against it either.

Could this be a staged event by the Bush administration in order to drum up support for attacking Iran? Sure it could be. Could Bill Clinton be the Zodiac Killer? Well, they never found the guy, so he could be…. But why would your mind go there? Look, if this turns out to be a staged event – which I highly doubt – I’ll be screaming at the top of my lungs along with Chris calling for Bush’s impeachment. But if it WASN'T a staged event, I doubt that those on the left will be screaming they were wrong.

Of course Chris’s response was that there is a history of George Bush lying to get us into war. I asked Chris for the proof that Bush knowingly misled us. Chris’s response: “Why don't you show me some proof that there wasn't bad intelligence. The burden of proof is on your side”. Wow. Guilty until proven innocent. Ladies and gentleman, I give you the American Left.

In Memory Of John Vincent Coulter

2008-01-10T00:05:00.000-08:00

My friend Chris has on occasion accused me of saying certain things just to rile up my liberal readers (okay, reader). That’s not really my style, but one person who I think you could safely accuse of that is Ann Coulter. I put Ann in the same category as Rush – intelligent, informative, but with a little bit of a wild streak and someone who perhaps takes a little too much pleasure in pushing the envelope.

Yeah, sometimes she goes too far, but to often she is dead on and damn funny in her observations. Today dear readers I am risking breaking a few dozen copyright laws and reprinting Ann’s most recent posting from Human Events. Ann lost her father last Friday, and I was just too touched by this post to not share it with you. As you know if you have been reading my posts, last week was the sixth anniversary of my own fathers passing, and he has been on my mind a lot these last few weeks.

This post is a little longer than my already too long average post, so I hope you will bear with me. And to Ann, I thank you for sharing this bit of your life with us:

The longest baby ever born at the Albany, N.Y., hospital, at least as of May 5, 1926, who grew up to be my strapping father, passed away last Friday morning.

As Mother and I stood at Daddy's casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." And we laughed.

John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them: men.

When he was moping around the house once, missing my brother who had just gone back to college, he said, "Well, if you had cancer long enough, you'd miss it."

He'd indicate his feelings about my skirt length by saying, "You look nice, Hart, but you forgot to put on your skirt."

Of course, he did show strong emotion when The New York Post would run a photo of Teddy Kennedy saying the rosary. I can still see the look of disgust. I saw that face in "How To Read People Like a Book" and it was NOT a good chapter.

Your parents are your whole world when you are a child. You only recognize what is unique about them when you get older and see how the rest of the world diverges from your standard of normality.

So it took me awhile to realize that by telling my friends that Father was an ex-FBI agent and a union-buster whose hobbies included rebuilding Volkswagens and shooting squirrels in our backyard, I was painting the image of a rough Eliot Ness type, rather than the cheerful, funny raconteur they would meet.

Besides being very funny, Father had an absolutely straight moral compass without ever being preachy or judgmental or even telling us in words. He just was good.

He would return to a store if he was given too much change -- and this was a man who was so "thrifty," as we Scots like to say, he told us he wanted to be buried in two cardboard boxes from the A&P rather than pay for a coffin.

When I was bombarded with arguments for baby-killing as a kid, I asked Father about the old chestnut involving a poverty-stricken, unwed teenage girl who gets pregnant. (This was before they added the "impregnated by her own father" part.) Father just said, "I don't care. If it's a life, it's a life." I'm still waiting to hear an effective counterargument.

Father hated puffery, pomposity, snobbery, fake friendliness, fake anything. Like Kitty's father in "Anna Karenina," he could detect a substanceless suitor in a heartbeat. (They were probably the same ones who looked nervous when I told them Father was ex-FBI and liked to shoot squirrels in the backyard.)

He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement. But he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known. He was, in short, the molecular opposite of John Edwards.

Father didn't care what popular opinion was: There was right and wrong. I don't recall his ever specifically talking about J. Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy, but we knew he thought the popular histories were bunk. That's why "Treason" was dedicated to him, the last book of mine he was able to read.

When Father returned from the war, he used the G.I. Bill to complete college and law school in three years. In order to get to law school quickly, he chose the easiest college major -- a major that so impressed him, he told my oldest brother that if he ever took one single course in sociology, Father would cut off his tuition payments.

As a young FBI agent fresh out of law school, one of Father's first assignments was to investigate job applicants at a uranium enrichment plant, the only suitable land for which was apparently located on some property owned by the then-vice president, Alben Barkley, in Paducah, Ky.
One day, a group of FBI agents saw the beautiful Nell Husbands Martin at lunch with her mother. They asked the waitress for her name and flipped a coin to see who could ask her out first. Father lost the coin toss, so he paid off the other agents. And that's how Nell became my mother.
Mother swore she'd never marry a drinker, a smoker or a Catholic, and she got all three, reforming Father on all but the Catholicism. Even in foreign countries where none of us spoke the language, Father went to Mass every Sunday until the very end.

Of course, toward the end, he probably didn't even remember he was a Catholic. But on the bright side, he didn't remember that Teddy Kennedy was a Catholic, either.

Father spent most of his nine-year FBI career as a Red hunter in New York City.

He never talked much about his FBI days. I learned that he worked on the Rudolf Abel case -- the highest-ranking Soviet spy ever captured in U.S. history -- during one of my brother's eulogies on Monday. But when Father read a paper I wrote at Cornell defending McCarthy and came across the name William Remington, he told me that had been his case.

Father mostly had contempt for Soviet spies. In addition to damaging information, such as military plans and nuclear secrets, the spies also collected massive amounts of utterly useless information on things like U.S. agricultural production. These were people who looked at a flush toilet like it was a spaceship.

He told me Soviet spies reveled in the whole cloak-and-dagger aspect of espionage. One spy gave weirdly specific details to a contact before their first meeting: He would have the New York Herald Tribune folded three times, tucked under his left elbow at a particular angle.

When the spy walked into the hotel lobby for the rendezvous, Father nearly fell off his chair when the man with the Herald Tribune folded under his elbow just so ... was also wearing a full-length fur coat. But he couldn't have told his contact: "I'll be the only white man in North America wearing a full-length fur coat."

In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still. President Reagan had broken the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981. But unions recognized that it was the breaking of the Phelps Dodge strike a few years later that landed the greater blow, as described in the book "Copper Crucible."

There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work. Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.

By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved. For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."

To Mother's lifelong consternation -- until he had dementia and she could get him back by smothering him with hugs and kisses -- Father wasn't demonstrative. But all he wanted was to be with Mother (and to work on his Volkswagens). They traveled the world together, went to DAR conventions together, engaged in Republican politics together and went to the New York Philharmonic together -- for three decades, their subscription seats were on the highest landing, or as we Scots call it, the "Music Lovers" level.

When Mother was in a rehabilitative facility briefly after surgery a few years ago and Father was not supposed to be driving, we were relieved that a snowstorm had knocked out the power to the garage door opener, so Daddy couldn't get to the car. It would just be a week and then Mother would be home.

My brother came home to check on Father the first day of this arrangement to find that he had taken an ax to the side door of the garage, so he could drive to the rehab center and sit with Mother all day.

When she left him for five days last summer to go to a family reunion in Kentucky, at some point, Father, who hadn't been able to speak much anymore, looked up and asked his nurse, "Where is she?"

And last Friday morning at 2 he passed away, in his bedroom with Mother. The police and firemen told my brother that they kept trying to distract Mother to keep her away from the bedroom with Father's body, but she kept padding back into the bedroom to be close to him.

Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. I hope they stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me.

Call My Travel Agent And Cancel My New Hampshire Vacation

2008-01-09T00:05:00.000-08:00

Sad Day. I came home from work today ready to settle in for the night and watch sports, and my favorite sport of late is watch Hillary get her butt kicked. And boy, was she going to get her butt kicked tonight. And then…….

Oh, well. As sad as I am, I can’t even begin to imagine how my friend Chris, the biggest Obama supporter out there, must be feeling tonight. But we still have a long way to go in this race, and coming in three points behind Hillary when you were 20 points behind her six weeks ago is not exactly defeat. I still am pulling for Obama, but you can never count out the Clinton Political Machine.

On one hand I should actually be supporting Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Why? As a conservative Hillary is the one you want to run against, because I do not think she can win a general election. However, ANYTHING is possible, and do we really want to chance that she might win it all? Yikes!

One other thing to keep in mind. Obama won in a state (Iowa) with a black population of 2%, and just came in a tight second in a state where blacks make up less than 3% of the population. So How is Obama going to fare in states with a larger black population. Well, common sense says that the black population will vote for Obama, but don’t forget that in his last election, Bill Clinton received over 93% of the black vote, and a lot of those people are going to stay with Hillary.

What we really need to see right now is John Edwards drop out of the race and throw his support to Obama. It’s well known that Edwards dislikes the Clinton’s, and it is also fairly safe to assume that Edwards voters would be more likely to support Obama than Clinton, ESPECIALLY if Edwards threw his support to Obama. Look John, short of a Barrack/Hillary sex tape being released, you are not going to win the nomination. If you really want change, like you say you do, than do something about it and support Obama.

Over on the Republican side, congratulations to John McCain. McCann is my number two choice after Fred, and given Fred’s dismal numbers in New Hampshire, he is not long for this campaign. You really have to wonder if Rudy can come back after all but skipping Iowa and New Hampshire. If he does, he will re-write history. Frankly, I think whoever convinced Rudy to use this strategy has their head up their caucus.

But the bottom line is that on both sides of the aisle this has been – and is looking to continue to be – one hell of an election. I received my ballot in the mail today (I always vote absentee), and I’m going to have to hang on until the last possible to fill it out. That is, except for Proposition 223b, those damn greedy orphans…..

An Iowa Dis And An Iowa Doll

2008-01-08T00:05:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is the New Hampshire Primaries, and I am really looking forward to the results. While Obama and Hillary were neck-and-neck going into the Saturday debates, one day later the polls are showing Obama up by anywhere from one point to thirteen points, with an average from Realclearpolitics.com showing Obama up by 7 points. The next primary is Michigan, where Hillary is up by 23 points (really?), followed by Nevada, where Hillary is also up by 20 points.

It’s no secret that I don ‘t like Hillary, but given her gracious exit from Iowa, the State I was born in and love, I now have zero respect for her. Clinton’s opening remark in her New Hampshire campaign: “Iowa doesn’t have a good track record in determining who’s going to be the presidential nominee.”

I suppose it’s better than saying “If I don’t win here I’ll go on to the next state and tell them that you don’t know anything”, but lets face it, that’s exactly what she is saying.

I watched a lot of Hillary’s campaigning in Iowa over the last year, and I don’t remember her telling potential Iowa voters about how poor their political judgment was? Honestly, I think the only poor judgment that the Iowa voters showed was letting her come in as high as third.

Lets face it, Hillary Clinton is so transparent and heedless in her attempts at calculation, embodied in that sore loser kiss off to the Iowans she professed such love for up until the day after the election. In this respect she’s taken on the worst traits of her husband, treating voters the way her husband has treated women, only even more clumsily.

And then today Hillary got teary, almost breaking down during a news conference. Why? I’m not going to try to offer an opinion, but the thing that I find most interesting is that the discussion of the event on the Democratic blogs, such as democraticunderground.com, is actually swinging toward Hillary’s actions being calculated or a meltdown. On that website 17% of those voting said “Because she truly felt she had a lot to offer the country and now she won't get that opportunity”, while almost twice as many stated “Because she has a lot of ambition and a big ego and her biggest dream may be crashing down”. And this is from Democrats!

All I know is that Hillary Clinton has been telling us since day one that she is ready to be the President the day she takes office, and that she, and she alone can handle any tough issue that the president may have to deal with. If elected, lets hope that she never has to deal with a crisis worse than coming in second in New Hampshire, as that seems to be where the bar has been set.

One other VERY IMPORTANT item: Some of you may have seen the picture on the right in newspapers or other outlets. It has made it into newspapers as far apart as the Sacramento Bee, and the Miami Herald. This photo was taken last week in Iowa on Caucus Day. I don’t include it here merely because it’s a darn cute baby, but I include it here because the baby in question is 15 month-old Caelan Halsted, who is the daughter of fellow blogger and frequent responder here Jody Halsted of http://www.iowageekonline.com/. Congratulations Jody, does this mean that Caelan is announcing her candidacy for the 2044 election?

A Final Word On Liberal Racism

2008-01-07T00:05:00.000-08:00

For the last few days I have been talking about Liberal Racism. As I have discussed over these last few days, Liberal Racism differs from “normal” racism in the fact that this type of racism stems from good intentions, just misguided ones. Most of the liberals who support such things as Affirmative Action and Hate Crime Legislation actually do think that they are doing the right thing. These people DO want to work towards eliminating racism and eliminating the economic disparities between the races. So why can’t they see that their actions are causing more harm than good?

Honestly, I wish I could answer that question. I can speculate – and I will – but I’ll be the first to tell you that all I am doing is expressing an opinion. This is really a mystery to me. At the same time you may ask why I would bother devoting the majority of a weeks worth of posts to the subject of racism. After all, I’m a middle-class white guy, and a conservative one at that, so how much do I really care about minorities. See, that’s part of it right there. I DO care about minorities and the under class in this country, yet because I am a conservative there is this myth out there that we are the enemy of the downtrodden and underprivileged, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Did you know that Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster. Did you know that Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation in public schools, was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the three-term Republican governor of California appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, and it was President Eisenhower who sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to protect the black students and enforce the Federal court order into Little Rock to make sure that desegregation took hold. Eisenhower’s actions were necessary because Orval Faubus, the DEMOCRATIC Governor of Arkansas used the National Guard to STOP African-Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School.

It was Abraham Lincoln, the nations first Republican President, who ended slavery. Did you know that the two African-American women who were co-founders of the NAACP, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, were both Republicans. The Environmental Protection Agency was signed into law by Richard Nixon. George Bush I signed into law the Americans with Disability Act. The only former KKK member in the senate is a Democrat.

So is what I am saying that Republicans have always been at the forefront of civil rights while Democrats have always opposed them? Of course not. Both parties have had both moments of shame and moments of glory. Yet somehow the left carries the banner of the party of civil rights. And you know what, that’s fine with me, as long as they do the right thing with that banner, and currently they are not. So far I have posted several commentaries addressing liberal failures with regards to racism, and despite the fact that I have several liberal readers, I have not had one comment that has shown any of my points to be incorrect.

Look, the presidency of George Bush has, for the most part, been a failure. I as a proud conservative can make that observation, and not have my conservatism shaken. Why is it that liberals are so afraid to acknowledge the failures on their end. Standing up and saying “you know what, Affirmative Action IS a bad idea, and we should be using the efforts that we have thrown behind that bad idea and instead direct them towards addressing the poor education system that caused the need for affirmative action in the first place” does not make you a bad liberal. It makes you a smart liberal.

And quit supporting and forgiving those on your side who say one thing and do another. The other day I talked about how Michael Moore claimed he was only going to hire minorities, and yet on his last several projects he has hired only three African Americans out of 134 senior staff positions.

Consider another left-wing icon: Al Franken. Franken once blasted fundamentalist Christian college Bob Jones University as a racist, bigoted and “nutty” school. Lets look at Franken's glowing record of commitment to diversity. At Air America Franken’s two producers and four researchers were white. When Franken wrote Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them he selected 14 Harvard undergrads from a pool of over 700 applications – all white. Likewise all of the researchers on his previous books were white, as were all the senior people on his feature film Stuart Saves His Family, his 2004 documentary Fox vs. Franken, and the entire crew of his Sundance Channel show, The Al Franken Show.

He produced three primetime specials for Saturday Night Live, on which all of his senior people were white. On his film When a Man Loves a Women, all of the producers, the director and all other senior administrative staff were white, as they were for his 1986 picture, One More Saturday Night. His short-lived series Lateline (which he starred in and created) included 25 senior slots – all but one of which were held by whites. During his days at Saturday Night Live Franken hired dozens of writers, none of them black.

Of 112 people we are talking about here, 111 were white. What this means of course is that Al Franken’s staff is actually whiter than Bob Jones University (which manages a one percent black enrollment), a school that Franken labels “Racist”.

And consider this gem: Here’s what Franken told the Harvard Crimson when he was working for Saturday Night Live: “I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexual s in the Pudding (Harvard’s Hasting Pudding Club, the humorous dramatic society). Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.” It was in reference to the death of a Harvard Grad in that city.

And yet Franken continues to be accepted by the left, as a matter of fact he is currently campaigning for the Senate seat in the state of Minnesota. Oh well, if he wins at least Robert Byrd will have somebody to sit with in the Senate cafeteria.

And as long as liberals ignore the idiocy in their own party, they will continue to be a also-ran player in really effecting change. We hear the current crop of Democratic candidates shouting how it is time for change, and I couldn’t agree more. How about changing into a party that isn’t afraid to say when the emperor has no clothes, and quit pandering to special interest groups. The stage is yours: Show me that Change is more than a bumper sticker slogan. I want to believe in you, but words will only go so far.

I Miss You Dad

2008-01-06T12:05:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers, today’s post will be brief, for two reasons. First of all, if you read my post yesterday you know that we have been hit by some powerful storms, and I lost part of my backyard fence yesterday. The good news is I lost less than I could have, and so far all of the trees are still standing. I wish I could say that was the case across the city, but several of my friends and neighbors are dealing with downed trees and power lines, so I guess I can consider myself lucky.

And as we have had a short break between storm systems today, I have spent most of the day dealing with fixing the fence, which means I’m a little too tired to be blogging today. The rains of the second system have already started, so I guess I just have to wait and see if my handyman efforts of today will keep the fence up.

The other reason that I’m not in the right frame of mind for blogging today is because today is January 5th, which happens to be the sixth anniversary of my fathers death. And so in the old man’s honor, I’m going to lay off of politics and picking on liberals, although if he were alive today he would be picking on them too.

I would love to tell you about the extra special relationship that I had with my father, but the truth is we were never that close. Oh, there was never any gun play or anything like that, we just didn’t always see eye-to-eye growing up. By the time I was an adult and was starting a family of my own, and I finally started understanding how smart my dad really was, he was stricken with Alzheimer’s and our final years together were a shadow of what they could have been.

So dear readers, today I am asking you to do me a favor. If you are lucky enough to have your parents still with you, please take the time to call them and tell them that you love them. And if you are a parent yourself, PLEASE do not take the time that you have with your children for granted. It can all be gone in a moment, and you don’t want them wondering “What if” of the time you could have spent.

Hate, Fox News & Crime (But Not In That Order)

2008-01-05T00:05:00.000-08:00

As I sit here putting thought to…. well, not really paper, but “thought to screen” sounds kinda stupid, but we’ll go with that. Anyhow, as I sit here writing today’s post, California is getting pounded by the biggest storm we have seen in a long time. I have already lost a large section of my back fence, and will possibly lose the whole thing. I also have a couple of trees that are worrying me, and if they do go I am hoping it is backwards into the empty lot behind the house, not forward into my new addition. It will probably be a sleepless night. At least I don’t live in the mountains. They are predicting 10 feet of snow for the Mount Shasta area. No, that was not a typo – TEN feet.

But to get my mind off of something I have no control over, I always have my blog. Lately I have been talking about the unintended consequences of liberal policies, policies that are suppose to help minorities, but ultimately hurt them.

Today I’m going to address another well-intentioned liberal policy that I feel, if fully implemented, would cause more harm than good: Hate Crimes. I’ve always kind of been on the fence with regards to hate crimes, whether or not they are a good thing. Actually, that sounds real bad, of course HATE CRIMES are a bad thing (any crime is a bad thing), what I am talking about is hate crime legislation.

Like I said, I’ve been on the fence regarding hate crime legislation, and what finally pushed me against it was a quote from the father of one of the Columbine victims. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed several students at Columbine High School they had written of their hatred for blacks and athletes. When asked if he felt that the killers – had they lived – should have been charged with a hate crime, one father of a white student who was NOT an athlete (and therefore was not a “targeted” student) said to the reporter “Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me these boys deserve less punishment for killing my son?” How do you look that father in the eye and tell him his son deserves less justice?

And please, don’t get me wrong, hate crimes are heinous. When those three rednecks in Texas chained James Byrd to their truck and dragged him until he was dead, well all I can say is there is a special place in hell for those types of people. And yes, they deserve to be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. But if Byrd had been white, or his murderers had been black, should those men have received a lighter sentence. The law already allows for a range in sentencing, and so-called hate crimes can already be dealt with more harshly.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about “hate crime legislation” is that what we are basically talking about here is a “Thought Crime”. Too many shades of Big Brother for me. And who’s to say what is and what isn’t a hate crime? Sure, if I bust into a black church screaming “Kill all of the #%&*($@”, it’s pretty obvious what my motivation was. But what if I bust into a school, and I shoot the first five people I see – and those five people happen to be black (or Asian, or Hispanic, or…..). Is THIS a hate crime? Sure, I killed a group of a single ethnic group, but did I kill them because of their race, or because of their proximity. And regardless of the case, does one group deserve less justice then the other.

Remember Rodney King? Kind of hard not to. Do you know why the cops got off on the first trial? Because they were charged with attempted murder, instead of assault. The prosecution could not prove that the cops were trying to murder King, and they had to rightfully find them not guilty. On an assault charge, they would have rightfully been able to return a guilty verdict, and 58 people who were subsequently murdered in the riots would be alive today. Add into the mix what was in the perp’s mind at the time of a crime, and proving guilt gets much, much harder, which ultimately means those who commit the most heinous of crimes have a better chance of going free.

And supposedly the hate crime legislation is aimed at “helping” minorities. Consider this: Americans commit about 1.7 million interracial crimes each year, of which about 1.2 million involve blacks and whites. Nearly 90 percent of these crimes involve a black perpetrator and a white victim. Granted, not all of these interracial crimes are hate crimes, but isn’t it likely that more blacks will be jailed for hate crimes? Another example of how the liberal agenda punishes minorities – intentionally or not.

I think Larry Elder, the African American talk show host, put it best when he said “If I’m standind at an ATM machine and a Ku Klux Klansman hits me in the back of the head with a brick, the operative word is not “Klansman”, it is “Brick.”

In other news, congratulations to Fox News. According to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, Fox News has the “Most Balanced Election Coverage on TV.” The study also found that Fox NewsChannel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

On a related note, congratulation to George Mason University for joining the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.” Oh, I know you have data and proof to back up your findings, but good luck getting anyone on the left to look at it, let alone take it seriously. Just as it is easier to shout “Racist” than deal with the actual causes of minority disparity, It’s easier to shout “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” than look at facts (cause lets face it, looking at facts takes a long time).

Have a good weekend my friends, I now have an ark I need to go build.

Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest Obama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo) TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites,

Caucus Day Racism

2008-01-04T00:05:00.000-08:00

Well, as expected I am already getting some flack from my series on racism. Of course, no one has yet actually attacked my data, just the idea that liberals may be more racist than conservatives. And you know what, even that comment isn’t fair, a fairer statement would be that the liberal agenda is more damaging to minorities than a conservative agenda. I truly feel that most liberals do care about minorities – maybe even more than most conservatives (although I think conservatives care a lot more about the poor and minorities than liberals will ever give them credit for) – But for whatever reason, the liberal agenda is all about band-aids and not addressing the real issues.

Just a real quick recap of affirmative action: first, I feel it suggests that certain people are too inferior to compete in an open field. Secondly, when someone is hired or given admission to a certain school based on race – when their grades or experience would otherwise keep them out – you are setting that person up for failure. Every time? No, but often. Minorities who are accepted through affirmative action when their grades are less than what would normally be required have a high drop out rate. So I can let you into Harvard, and you’ll probably drop out, or I can let you into Ohio State, where the chance of dropping out are less than half. Is a Harvard education a better education? Maybe, maybe not. But almost all employers are going to more impressed with an Ohio State graduation than a Harvard drop out.

One other thing that bothers me regarding race and the left is the lack of acknowledgement of the accomplishments that minorities have made. Are Blacks and Hispanics on an equal footing with White America economically? Not yet, but they have made incredible strides. But when was the last time that a so-called member of the “Black Leadership” stand up and declare that we are heading in the right direction with regard to racism.

For example, in 1958 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriages. Today that number is over 85%. Progress, right? In 1958 35% of Americans said they would vote for a black president. By 1997 that number was up to 93%, and today as I sit here my fellow Iowans – A state that is 97% white – have voted a black man as their number one choice for president. Again, this sounds like progress to me.

Yet last year CBS announced that in it’s upcoming season of Survivor they would be dividing up the tribes by race (White, Black, Hispanic and Asian), and an African-American commentator from the New York Times stated that “This will set back race relations by 50 years.” Really? Survivor divides up the tribes by race, and because of this blacks will have to go back to riding in the back of the bus, and we’re going to see “colored” water fountains start popping up. And the absurd thing about this comment – as if the comment itself weren’t absurd enough – is that this comment was made before the show ever hit the air, BEFORE we knew what the outcome of the tribe experiment was. What if the black team had proved to be the far superior team? Why would that have been cause for a rift in race relations?

Imagine if you will that you are a 350 pound man, and you decide to go on a diet, with your goal weight being 175 pounds, meaning that you are going to LOSE 175 pounds. Suppose that you lose 100 pounds, and those nearest and dearest to you do not comment on your success. As a matter of fact, if they do comment at all, it is to bitch about the 75 pounds you have yet to lose. And lets say you lose 30 more, with 45 to go, and still no “congratulations” or “I’m really proud of you.” How easy is it going to be to lose that last 45? Oh, you can still do it, BUT don’t you think losing that final 45 would be a lot easier with encouragement and acknowledgement of your previous achievements? Think about it.

Are you aware that a Time-CNN poll showed that 89 percent of black teens found little or no racism in their own lives. Interestingly, white teens were more likely than blacks to consider racism a major problem. Maybe the victicrat mentality is dying after all.

One last thing for today. Lets look at how a prominent liberal attacks racism in America. Today’s liberal” Michael Moore. Several years ago Moore complained that only 5% of journalists were black, and that there were practically no blacks in senior positions in Hollywood. In 1998, Moore proposed initiating what he called a “very strong affirmative action policy regarding gender and race, but especially regarding class.” He said he wanted to hire minorities “who come from the working class, who do not have a college education, and through those people we will reach a wider audience than the converted.” In Stupid White Men he proclaimed his plans to “hire only black people.”

Now you have to admire Moore for that. Talking the talk is one thing, but walking the walk shows true commitment. Lets see how he did:

Fahrenheit 9/11: Fourteen producers, Three editors, a production manager, a production coordinator, three cameramen, two people who wrote the music: 24 people, all white.

Bowling for Columbine: Fourteen producers, Two executives in charge of production, a cameramen, and a music composer: 18 people, 17 white.

The Big One (his 1997 documentary about workers rights): Five producers, Two Directors of Photography, two musical composers, a Production Manager and an Editor: All white.

Canadian Bacon (his 1995 feature film): Ten producers, two musical composers ,
Two editors, and the Director of Photography: All white.

I could go on, but to save time lets add in the senior people on Pets or Meat: The return to Flint (his follow up to Roger and Me); Roger and Me; TV Nation, and The Awful Truth, a TV show that ran for several seasons. Also, add in his staff from his book Dude, Where’s My Country.

In short, of the 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers, and production coordinators Moore hired, only three were black. Remember those black 5% of journalists? That’s almost twice the percentage of Moore’s black hires.

One other thing. Michael Moore lives in an upscale community in Northern Michigan called Central Lake. The number of African Americans living in Central Lake: Zero.

Now you know what? I don’t care if Moore hired all blacks, all whites, all Norwegians, all Gays, or all black/white Norwegian gays. Also, I could care less where he lives, BUT if you are going to stand on a pedestal and preach about how America is evil and racist, then be part of the solution, NOT part of the problem.

In closing, congratulations to Barrack Obama and Mike Huckabee for their wins in the Iowa Primaries, and thank you to the people of Iowa for voting Hillary third (although sixth would have been better). See you tomorrow….

The Most Racist Group In America Exposed

2008-01-03T00:05:00.000-08:00

Before I start my post, let me please ask those of you who are reading this in Iowa to PLEASE make sure that you take part in Thursdays Caucus. I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, because I don’t think anyone should TELL you who to vote for. I can give you my opinions (but I won’t – other than stay away from Hillary), but the bottom line is you have a terrific opportunity to help set the tone for the rest of us. Use it wisely.

Okay, yesterday I started a conversation on racism, and at the end of the post I stated that in fact you can be a racist simply by association with a group. Earlier I had argued that this was not the case, given that my liberal friends believe that the mere fact that I am a white male, I am a racist. Frankly, I think that having negative attitudes toward another race – any race – is what makes you racist. And acting on those negative attitudes just makes it worse.

But in all my research on the subject, I have come to change my mind. Yes, being a member of a specific group CAN make you a racist. That group? Liberals.

But liberals are the champions of the lower class and minorities, aren’t they? Well, you may remember that yesterday that racism basically exists on two planes: ignorance and hate, and liberal racism stems from ignorance. Not the kind of ignorance we associate with being uneducated, but the kind of ignorance associated with the inability to truly see the fruits of your actions.

Some may consider what I am about to discuss as not being racist, because there is no (conscious) intent to do harm, but if the end result is harm, what difference do the intentions make. You know what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Lets start with a biggie: Affirmative Action. Now I know that the intention behind affirmative action is to “level the playing field” and make up for past injustices, but that’s just not what we are getting. And before I go further, let me acknowledge that there have been injustices done on minorities in the past, horrible, horrible injustices. But replacing those injustices with a new injustice is no answer. And no, I’m not complaining about “reverse discrimination”, rather I am complaining about the injustice done to the very minorities that affirmative action is meant to help.

What affirmative action – whether it be race or gender based – is, is unfair. It suggests that certain people are too inferior to compete in an open field, and it continues the misguided notion that the government should make people whole because of racial and sexual discrimination done to previous generations.

The real problem with affirmative action is my opinion is that it ignores the real issues facing minorities today. If I am a good – not great – student of minority descent, the reason that I am not eligible to get into a top-notch university is possibly because I attended a poor-performance school and didn’t get the proper opportunities. And perhaps it’s because I had the opportunities but didn’t take them. Rarely however is the reason racism. But by taking a liberal point of view that these issues are racism related, that allows the left to ignore the real causes of lower performance in certain minorities, mainly the poor performance of the public school system – especially in the inner cities – and skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rates. But in order to address the REAL issues, the left would have to take on the education unions, and considering that they are one of the lefts largest political donors, don’t expect any improvement here anytime soon. And why should there be, when shouting “Racist” is so much easier.

And the scary thing is, affirmative action is actually hurting the ones it is suppose to be helping. Lets say that affirmative action helps me get into Harvard, when my grades never could have. I am now competing with people that are smarter than me and doing work above my ability. Can I succeed? Sure I can, but in reality I am almost twice as likely to drop out than a student who was accepted on merit.

And to often liberals act like if affirmative action didn’t exist, those that it “helps” would be on the streets. Affirmative action IS NOT the difference between Harvard and McDonalds, it’s the difference between Harvard and UCLA, or Iowa State, or Colorado State. This “but-for-affirmative-action-I’d-be-driving-a-truck” mentality is yet another unintended consequence of preferences. The “beneficiary” demeans and cheapens his own achievement by overestimating the impact of affirmative action on his own life. Without drive, study, and a sense of purpose, all the preferential programs in the world wouldn’t have helped this guy.

And what about the minority individual who didn’t need affirmative action. Suppose she or he applied for and was accepted at an Ivy League school based on their own merit, and graduated at or near the top of their class. Upon entering the corporate world, they quickly rise up the ladder, only to have those who are not personally familiar with them wonder if they are where they are at due to affirmative action. Remove affirmative action, and you remove the doubt.

But affirmative action is just the tip of the liberal racism iceberg. Join me tomorrow for more examples of how “The Man” is keeping minorities down, and why “The Man” is voting democrat.

Maybe After I Rid The Worldof Racism, I'll Tackle That Pesky Middle East Thing....

2008-01-02T00:05:00.000-08:00

For the last several posts, with the exception of a couple of Christmas posts, I’ve been writing a lot about Hillary in an attempt to get some information about this woman out to the electorate in the early primary states. As we are now less than 48 hours from the Iowa Caucuses, it’s time to sit back and see what is going to happen. Therefore, I’m going to lay off Hillary for the next couple of days, and tackle a lighter issue: Racism.

Three times in my life I have been accused of being a racist. The last two have come in the last couple of months during discussions on race on this and other sites, and they weren’t direct accusations at me per se, but rather accusations that as a white male I am racist due to the mere fact that I am white (compounded by the fact that I’m a male). The funny thing is, I think that that kind of comment is one of the most racist things I have ever heard in my life.

The only time I was every directly accused of being a racist came about 10 or 12 years ago when I was a manager at Kinko’s. I had a coworker – lets call her Sheryl (we’ll call her that because here name was Sheryl) – And Sheryl was a very weak coworker. She was slow, she had attendance issues, and she was basically a poor worker. And when I wrote Sheryl up for her performance issues, she accused me of discriminating against her because she was black. See, I didn’t mention earlier that Sheryl was black, because it doesn’t matter that she was.

To make a long story short, my district manager conducted a full investigation, interviewed every coworker, and they all told him the same thing: Sheryl was a lousy worker. Now if you’re expecting me to go into a rant about how African Americans use the race card to yada, yada, yada, it ain’t gonna happen. This was a situation where one women pulled a stunt, and her actions are the actions of her alone. Heck, it may not have even been a stunt; for all I know Sheryl truly believed she was being discriminated against. However, for that to be the case she would have to have believed that her performance was solid, and it wasn’t. She truly was a poor performer.

I tell you this to clear the air about who I am and what my personal feelings are regarding race. I do not consider myself a racist, but at the same time you have to define what racism is. To me, a racist is someone who makes an assumption about a person because of their race, and then acts on that assumption, usually in a negative way. I mean, assume that you are a young male of Latin ancestry, and a young women wants to get with you because she wants a “hot Latin lover”. Now this women is acting on a stereotype, but I doubt if you were the young man in question that you would be shouting “Racist”.

Some people say that you can’t be a racist unless you are in a position to cause harm. For example, If I’m a boss and I choose to deny someone a promotion because of their race, then I’m a racist, BUT the immigrant that I deny the promotion to can not be a racist because he holds no “power” over me. I think this kind of thinking is B.S.. Sure, the boss racist can cause more harm because of his position, but what if the boss was Latino and the person denied the promotion was white? Is that any different than if the boss were white and the worker Latino? Of course not. Racism basically exists on two planes: ignorance and hate.

So where is all of this going? Well, dear reader, all of this time I have been arguing that someone can’t be a racist simply because they belong to a group of people (white people, republicans, etc….), well, unless that group is the Klan. And as rare as this is for me to say, I’m going to say it anyhow: I was wrooo…., eh hem, I was wrooooo…... Okay, I was not exactly 100% right. I take it back, I was wrong when I said that racism could not come from membership in a particular group.

And what exactly IS that group? Ah dear reader, for that you will have to tune in tomorrow…..

14 Questions I’d Ask Hillary After I Hooked Her Up to a Lie Detector

2008-01-01T15:07:00.000-08:00

Todays guest post comes from John Hawkins, writing in Townhall.com. I shall return tomorrow, today I will be watching football.

Few politicians in America have as much scandal, sleaze, and controversy surrounding them as Hillary Clinton and perhaps none of them, with the exception of her husband, has been given a bigger free pass.

As Peggy Noonan once said, "People have pointed out (Hillary's) ethical lapses for so long that they seem boring, or impossible to believe. ‘That couldn't be true or she wouldn't be running for president.’ This thought collides with ‘And we already know all this anyway.’ Her campaign uses the latter to squash the latest: ‘old news,’ ‘cash for rehash.’

That is indeed how it works with Hillary Clinton's campaign, but nobody who is running for the presidency in the era of the blogosphere and YouTube should be allowed to skate on the controversial issues.

With that in mind, here are 14 yes or no questions I'd like to ask Hillary after I hooked her up to a polygraph machine, assuming that she hasn't gotten so good at lying that she could beat the machine.

A Culture Of Corruption
1) Your former friend and business partner, James McDougal, claimed that "he and a longtime businessman at McDougal's S&L, Henry Hamilton, 'developed a system to pass money to Clinton.' Did you or your husband ever take payoffs from your friend James McDougal?

2) While you were with the Rose Law Firm, you personally worked on a document that was used to "obfuscate and hide the fraudulent nature" of a piece of the Whitewater land swindle. Did you know that the document you were working on was going to be used for illegal purposes?

3) Your Rose Law Firm billing records were removed from Vince Foster's office after his death. Those records were "(m)issing and under subpoena for two years (and) they turned up in January 1996 in the Clintons' private quarters at the White House." Whoever took those records committed a crime by obstructing justice. Despite the fact that your records were taken and eventually turned up in your private quarters, you have denied taking the records or having anyone take them for you. Is that true?

4) Clinton supporter David Hale claimed that your husband pressured him into making a "fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan to Susan McDougal, some of which went into Whitewater Development Corp." Did your husband pressure David Hale into making that fraudulent loan?

5) You once turned $1,000 into $100,000 in less than a year in the cattle futures market. The odds that this was done legitimately have been put, in some estimates, as high as 250 million to 1. It has been alleged, and seems likely, that the $100,000 was actually bribe money that was paid to you while the cattle futures market was merely used as cover for the payout. With that in mind, were your cattle futures winnings actually bribe money?

6) During the Clinton Administration, Craig Livingstone, the Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, improperly looked through the FBI files of hundreds of your political enemies. There are allegations that you got Livingstone hired, that he went through those files on your orders, and that you also read some of those files. Are any of those allegations true?

7) In his report on the Travelgate firings, Independent Counsel Robert Ray said your testimony was "factually false," and said that he didn't go after you for perjury because there was "insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false." Did you commit perjury in your testimony about Travelgate?

8) Your brother, Hugh Rodham, pocketed $400,000 (which was returned) from people who later received pardons from your husband. At the time, you claimed that you had not discussed those pardons with your brother or your husband beforehand. Is that true?

9) You have been tied to a surprising number of shady fundraisers including Peter Paul, Norman Hsu, John Huang, Johnny Chung, and Charlie Trie just to name a few. Were you ever aware that any of these men were engaged in illegal activities that benefited you and your husband before it was brought to your attention by law enforcement authorities or the press?

No Wonder She Kissed Arafat's Wife
10) Former Clinton consultant Dick Morris said that in a dispute over money, you said to him, "That's all you people care about is money." He took that to be a slap at him because he is a Jew. Did you say that to Dick Morris?

11) Former Clinton adviser, Paul Fray, claims that you called him a "Jew Bastard" after Bill lost his congressional bid in 1974. Is that true?

12) Larry Patterson, an Arkansas state trooper who also acted as your bodyguard says that he heard you, "use the term 'Jew Bastard' and call (your) husband a 'Jew Boy' and a 'M—–rF–king Jew.'" Is that true?

Are You "Experienced?"
13) You've been portrayed as an extremely talented lawyer, but isn't it true that you flunked your D.C. Bar Exam, that James McDougal said that he only hired you as a lawyer "because Bill came in whimpering (that) they needed help," and that you only were able to become a partner at the Rose Law Firm because your husband was the Governor of Arkansas?

14) According to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who's certainly no conservative, "Hillary negotiated nothing and was present at no major meetings on foreign policy and national security after 1994. …On domestic policy, Hillary was essentially sidelined after her disastrous 1994 health-care plan." Is that true?

Goodbye 2007, Hello Uncertainty

2007-12-31T00:05:00.000-08:00

Well here we are, the last day of 2007. I suppose I should write something profound, but I never feel all that profound this time of year. While others are busy making resolutions, I find that I have never been the resolution type of guy. Actually, I don’t think that that is 100% true, I think it’s more that I don’t like NEW YEARS resolutions. Why? Frankly, when you decided it’s time to do something – whether it’s lose weight, save money, quit smoking, or whatever, just do it. Why wait until an arbitrary date. Frankly if I decide on December 4th that you’re going to quit smoking on January 1st, that means you’ll probably smoke more for the rest of December, making it that much harder to quit on the first.

I can’t say I’m not sad to see 2007 go. It wasn’t the best year on a lot of levels, and I have a lot of hope for 2008. 2007 started off with the deaths of my Aunt and Cousin in January, and while there have been no more deaths this year, there have still been challenges. Outside of the loss of loved ones, I think the biggest disappointment for me is the fact that as I write this year-end remembrance, I am writing from California rather than Iowa. Cindy and I put our house on the Market in March and we were hoping to be in Des Moines by the time Madison started school in the fall, but you all know what the housing market is like right now, and it looks like it may be another couple of years before we get back to the Midwest. For twenty-plus years I’ve been pressuring Cindy to move the family back to Iowa, and now that she is as excited as I am about that idea, the bottom falls out of the housing market.

Not that everything went wrong in 2007. Blake graduated from high school and is now in his first year of college, and he was recently promoted to a management position at his job. Madison started Middle School this year, and she is doing very well in school. Cindy started a new job at a high-end quilting shop and she is really enjoying that. Cindy owned and operated a fabric store for more than 15 years, and now she is getting to do all that she loves without the burden of being the boss. As for myself, I would say the highlight of the last year was first reconnecting with a couple of old high school and college friends that I haven’t seen in over 20 years, and secondly starting this blog. Which of course means that I am truly grateful for you, dear reader. Oh, I’d still probably write the damn thing even without any readers, but it’s nice to have a few of you out there – and hopefully a few more in 2008.

Speaking of 2008, I am looking forward to what the next year will bring. As something of a political junkie, I am thrilled that the caucus/primary season is mere days away, and I look forward to our electing a new president in 2008. Frequent readers to this site know that I am fighting hard to keep that from being a Clinton presidency, but it looks like it’s going to be a tight race, a tighter race than we have seen in many, many years.

I guess I do have a New Years resolution after all. Actually, I guess this would be a 2009 resolution, but I’ll throw it out there now: In the event that either Hillary or John Edwards (I fear them both) is elected president, I pledge to respect that fact that this man or woman A) is president, and B) is MY president. That means while I may be critical of some of their actions, I will do my best to not show petty personal criticisms, and even though these individuals represent very little that I stand for, I will give them my prayers and hope that their presidency is a successful one.

Look, I’m no fan of George Bush, and as a conservative I have been very disappointed in his presidency. However, I have been more disappointed in my fellow Americans who have ripped this man at every opportunity, and totally fail to see anything successful coming out of his eight years. Sure, those successes didn’t come as fast or often that we would have liked, but if you listen to a “typical” voice from the left, Bush has an I.Q. below 50, and his administration has done nothing of any positive value. Nearly every liberal I know takes every opportunity to call Bush every name in the book, while at the same time accusing him of every crime imaginable, but of course with zero solid evidence.

Look, one of the things I am looking for most in the coming year is the end of the Bush era – and hopefully the end of the “Bush-Clinton” Era, an era that began before my college student son was even born. But if that era does not end, I will not follow the path that so many on the left have gone down (and yes, a lot of people on the right went down that path during Bill Clinton’s years in office). I respect the office of the President of the United States of America, and the occupant of that office deserves my respect. Not necessarily will I agree with their beliefs, but I will not humiliate myself with grade-school name calling. Over the last several years the rhetoric from the left has gone from being annoying, to boring, to laughable. Many on this side – including many formerly distinguished lawmakers – have gone from critical opponents to cartoon figures, using words like “Neo-con” to such a degree that they have totally taken away any meaning that word had by applying it to anyone with a viewpoint different from their own.

In 2008, and more importantly in 2009 and beyond, I resolve to not be that person.

Happy New Years Everyone!!!

Useful Idiots Will Sell Our Enemies Rope To Hang Us.

2007-12-30T00:05:00.000-08:00

Greetings from Dublin, California. As you know, the family is spending a long weekend with friends in The San Francisco Bay area, and we had a wonderful time today at the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, followed by a lovely Thai meal. The photo at the right is Madison, weightless in space (kinda).

I want to share with you today a commentary from Michael K. Hurder writing in The Valley Times, an East Bay newspaper. Those of you familiar with San Francisco know what a hotbed of liberalism this area is, so to find an article such as this in a Bay Area newspaper is refreshing to say the least.

Lenin was right! Several years back the president and the vast majority of the U.S. political circle heeded the U.S. (ahem) intelligence community’s assessment that Saddam Hussein was a really bad man. They all agreed that Saddam was a threat to the world and the U.S. directly, that he had WMD, possibly even nukes and the absolute chutzpah to use them. All but Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oaklan, decided to oust the bad man…. at least verbally.

Only then did the Democrats find out that there existed a man in the White House who would do just that. (Arianna Huffington ststaed that the Dems would never have gone to war over that intel in spite of all the huffing and puffing they did prior to the invasion. My guess is they thought President Bush was as gutless as they).

Some years down the road it turns out the intel was “less than accurate.” The same folks who pretty much demanded the president do what he did immediatelty attempted to crucify him. It didn’t work.

After all, we were attacked and our security was still at risk. He was re-elected.

Fast forward to today. The U.S. (ahem) intelligence community has now tendered a report stating that Iran is not a near-term nuclear threat. The president, having been scorched from relying on such intel sources before, doesn’t buy it.

The press and the Democratic Party do buy it and run with it. The president is now being attacked for not heeding what could be another dose of “less than accurate” intelligence.

Some folks might even call it speculation.

No matter. If it goes against president Bush it must be good.

Forget that Iran is led by vicious, blood-thirsty theocratic dictators, who have openly stated that we in the west must die; according to sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Harry Reid, it’s Bush who is the enemy of the U.S. (Does either of them realize that Bush is not running in ’08?).

In the meantime, Joe Liberal moves to the press driven beat of the socialist drum, ignores another threat and blames Bush on the editorial page while slurping down another latte.

Lenin was absolutely correct. The useful idiots among us will indeed sell our enemies the rope with which they will hang us.

I'll see you tomorrow Lost Iowan readers, from the warmth and comfort of home. And thank you to Alan and Tamera and the kids for being such wonderful hosts this weekend.

In Her Own Words......

2007-12-29T00:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, I promised to lay off of the "Get Hillary" stuff this weekend, but as you know me and the family are on vacation this weekend, and I'm just too busy to type, so we're going to give you one more previously prepared Hillary blog, and today we’re going to let Hillary speak for herself. Warning: Some of Hillary’s language can be “Salty”.

"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian." - Hillary Clinton in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1997

"If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle”

"Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular."(Hillary telling a post-9/11 world what a 'great' commander in chief her husband was)

"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned [about Islam] has come from our daughter."( Hillary at a White House function, proudly tells some Muslim groups she is gaining a greater appreciation of Islam because Chelsea was then taking a class on the "religion of peace")

"F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."(Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?"(Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco)

"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"(Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

"A right-wing network was after his presidency...including perverting the Constitution."(To
Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)

"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!"(Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House)

"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum."(Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"(Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (Hillary in 1996)

"I can't worry about every under capatilized business" (Testifing before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care)

"God bless the America we are trying to create."

"We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word."

“Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” (on Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions)

“If I didn’t kick his ass every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.” (on Bill Clinton)

"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

"I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator." (on her presidential ambitions)

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."

One Week Until The Iowa Caucuses (and a movie review)

2007-12-28T00:05:00.000-08:00

We are once again going to talk about Hillary, and then I think we might take a couple of days off of politics before hitting them again as the Caucuses are upon us. Cindy and I are taking the kids up to Dublin, California near San Francisco for the weekend, and I'm going to try to have something non-Hillary to discuss tomorrow, but just in case I don't have time, I already have my next Hillary blog ready to go.

But before we discuss Hillary today, I want to give a quick movie review. Not so much a review as a reaction. Last night the missus and I went to see Charlie Wilson’s War. What I expected, considering that the film was written by Aaron Sorkin, was a liberal film, and an entertaining one, and I got both.

Sorkin is probably best known as the creator of The West Wing, and he also created what I consider to be the greatest show ever on television: Sports Night. The writing is always the real star of a Sorkin project. While Sorkin definitely has a liberal agenda in all of his projects, you can almost forgive it due to the sterling writing. As far as Charlie Wilson’s War is concerned, I just have two things to say about it. Number One, it is a highly entertaining movie – go see it. Secondly, for those of you who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, you MUST see this movie. I don’t think I’m giving anything away by sharing with you the quote from Charlie himself that closes out the film: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. Then we f@*%ed up the endgame."

And those same liberals calling for a quick withdrawal from Iraq are going to F-up that endgame as well. Some may see Charlie Wilson as the hero who defeated the Soviets. Others will see him (or more precisely, the government that refused to finish the job (sound familiar?)) as the one who gave the Taliban their start. I think this film does a fine job of showing how Liberal good intentions can lead to disastourus consequences. Which is a perfect segue into todays Hillary discussion:

Today we’re going to discuss Hillary and Education Reform. Bill Clinton was elected Governor in 1978, and during his first term Hillary began her career at The Rose Law Firm. Clinton lost his bid for reelection in 1980, but regained the Governors Mansion in 1982. During his second term, Hillary decided that she needed to move into the public policy arena, and she decided education would be the arena she moved into. Actually, it wasn’t so much that SHE decided on education, but one of the first things that greeted Gov. Clinton was a State Supreme Court decision declaring the states entire education-financing system unconstitutional. Of course Hillary fails to mention the court order as a motivation in her autobiography.

Anyhow, Bill was left with a choice: Cut aid to wealthy neighborhoods, or raise taxes to fund the poor ones. Since Bill lost reelection after his first term due to a tax increase, he was understandably gun shy. However, polling found out that the people of Arkansas would accept a full one cent increase in the state sales tax IF it truly led to improved education. At the time Arkansas ranked 49 out of 50 states, behind only Mississippi.

So Hillary led an education reform in Arkansas. Her reform was based on several ideals: Raising both test performance AND teacher pay, giving schools “report cards” based on student performance, getting additional help to the schools that did not meet standards and, if they continued to not meets standards, the school would be decertified and closed. In other words, Hillary implemented “No Child Left Behind” before Bush, almost word for word.

The benchmark of her program was to test all teachers, to offer training to those on the fence, and to get rid of the worst of the worst. After all, this is a state that had a teacher teaching her students about the horrific events of World War Eleven – That is how she read World War II.

When the teacher scores came in, Bill and Hillary were shocked. The teachers of Arkansas had failed miserably, and if the Clintons stuck to their guns – and their plan – they would have to fire greater than 50 percent of the teachers. And minority teachers took an even bigger hit. So true to form, the Clintons did what they do best – they took a poll. They polled the citizens of Arkansas to see what percentage of the teachers they would feel comfortable losing. Of course the REAL answer should have been any that didn’t meet the minimum standards. Their answer was 10%.

So true to form, the Clintons fired the bottom 10%. Hey, give them credit for at least doing that, but once again we have an example of Hillary (and Bill) “drawing a line in the sand”, and then changing the line based on a poll. The good news is thanks to Bill and Hillary’s “No Hillbilly Left Behind” strategy, Arkansas soared from 49th in the nation to 48th in only eight years.

The better news is that under eleven years of Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas now ranks 32nd in the Nation.And this is the women that so many people want to run our country.

I just don’t get it.

Hillary The Duck

2007-12-27T00:05:00.000-08:00

Greeting Lost Iowan Diary readers. I hope that everyone had a safe and Merry Christmas, but with one week to go to the Iowa Caucuses, it’s time to get back to business.

Prior to taking a couple day break for Christmas, we were discussing Hillary Clinton and her run for the White House. Now many of you may believe that my motivation for stopping Mrs. Clinton from becoming our Commander in Chief stems from the fact that I am a conservative, and it is my “duty” to stop a Democrat from becoming President. While it is true that I am a conservative, what I am NOT is a Republican, rather I am a Libertarian. So that means I am supporting the Libertarian candidate, right? Well, while Libertarianism is a growing movement in the American political scene, at the same time it is also a minor player in national elections. So therefore, my goal is to support the candidate that best embodies the Libertarian ideals AND has a chance at winning. In 2004, I did vote Libertarian for president, because I was (and remain) disappointed in GW Bush, and of course Kerry was an even worse option.

Who I will be supporting this time around has not been determined, HOWEVER I can say with certainty it will not be Hillary Clinton. And while I am not pleased with the options on the left – with the possible exception of Obama – I could live with a Democratic President in 2008 as long as it is not Hillary Clinton. And if it is Hillary, well then I will just have to live with that to, but I will be able to do so knowing that I truly worked to stop her election. When I started my “Don’t Vote For Hillary” campaign a few days ago, my goal was to alert you to some of her past actions, actions that prove she is not a worthy candidate. I assumed that this would take two or three days of my blog, but I have become convinced that not only is there enough “dirt” on Hillary to keep this blog going up to the Caucus, but probably up to the November election – without repeating a single charge.

Today, we’re going to look at Whitewater. Generally the call of the left is that Whitewater amounted to nothing – after all, neither Hillary or Bill were convicted of any wrongdoing. True, and O.J. was acquitted of murder, so I guess he is 100% innocent as well. Lets look at a few facts:

Here’s what Bill and Hillary got:
n Jim & Susan McDougal paid 91% of the costs associated with the deal, Bill and Hillary retained 50% of the Equity

n When the property began to lose money, the McDougals paid off the loan the Clintons took out to finance their downpayment

n McDougal hired Hillary at a retainer of $2,00 per month to represent Madison Guaranty S&L as it’s attorney

n Jim McDougal held a fundraiser that netted $35,000 for Bill’s gubernatorial campaign.

And Here’s what McDougal got:
n Clinton appointed McDougal’s close friend Beverly Lambert as Arkansas Banking Commisioner. McDougal also got “control” of the Savings and Loan board through several appointments he says he “arranged.” Clinton, McDougal explains, was “amenable” to his suggestions to fill these positions.

n Lambert approved McDougal’s purchase of a bank in Kingston, Arkansas. “It was good to have the right connection in state government,” McDougal said.

n Clinton named Beverly Bassett, McDougal’s candidate, as securities commissioner.

n Bassett allowed Madison to issue preferred stock to raise capital. Hillary was McDougal’s attorney on this deal.

n Clinton sat in on a meeting McDougal had with the state’s Health Department after a state inspector refused to grant septic permits to a subcontractor on one of his developments. McDougal got the permits. As the banker put it: “If I kept up my connection with Clinton, I would never encounter any bureaucratic roadblocks.”

Whitewater was an ill-timed investments, just as interest rates were starting to climb. “I felt responsible” McDougal said “for bringing the Clintons into an unprofitable deal and I decided to make the payments myself rather than ask Bill and Hillary for more money.”

The Clinton’s have always claimed that they never made money on Whitewater, but that misses the real point: Jim McDougal stopped them from losing their shirts. But McDougal didn’t lose HIS shirt, as the deals he made through his relationship with Clinton paid off. This is a classic quid pro quo – a largely questionable relationship between a governor and his wife and a banker/developer.

The Clintons have claimed that the final report of the Independent Counsel on Whitewater exonerated them, that the report found no wrongdoing? The facts are this: All the Independent Counsel said was that “the evidence was insufficient” to prove the Clintons did anything wrong. Why were they unable to find the evidence? Well, Jim McDougal was dead and Susan McDougal was jailed for contempt rater than cooperating with the investigation. Why not cooperate if there was no wrongdoing? Instead Susan waited it out expecting a presidential pardon, which she received. Who was left to testify? The IC’s report was a far cry from exoneration.

As a side note, when it was apparent that Susan McDougal might turn on the Clinton’s, good friend Hillary exclaimed “She’s such a Liar. She worked for [famous conductor] Zubin Metha and stole his silver. She’s crazy, unstable and totally dishonest. You can’t trust a thing she says” Susan was eventually acquitted of stealing for Metha.)

Sheesh, and this is how she talks about a FRIEND. Look, all I know is when you look at all of the facts, it reminds me of a saying my Uncle Clarence was fond of: “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” And Hillary quacks the loudest of them all.

God and 57 Cents

2007-12-26T00:05:00.000-08:00

I was going to resume my Hillary discussion tonight, but I just have too much of the Christmas spirit in me for that. I have a nice little story that I ran across recently that I wanted to share with you, but before I do that I would like to thank you dear readers for helping me reach an important milestone. Today I had my 1,000 visitor to my post, which is better than I ever expected to be at this point when I started two-and-one-half months ago. I think it's fitting that this even occured on Christmas, and equally as fitting that my 1,000 visitor was my good friend chris, aka The Red Hog, whose own ramblings at www.redhogdiary.com inspired me to start this blog. Thank you dear friends, I hope you have as much fun reading as I do writing.

And now, the story of God an 57 Cents:

A sobbing little girl stood near a small church from which she had been turned away because it was too crowded. "I can't go to Sunday school," she sobbed to the pastor as he walked by.
Seeing her shabby, unkempt, appearance, the pastor guessed the reason and, taking her by the hand, took her inside and found a place for her in the Sunday School class. The child was so touched that she went to bed that night thinking of the children who had no place to learn about Jesus.

Some two years later, this child lay dead in one of the poor tenement buildings and the parents called for the kind-hearted pastor who had befriended their daughter to handle the final arrangements. As her poor little body was being moved, a worn and crumpled purse was found that seemed to have been rummaged from some trash dump. Inside was found 57 cents and a note scribbled in childish handwriting that read, "This is to help build the little church bigger so more children can go to Sunday School." For two years she had saved for this offering of love.

When the pastor tearfully read that note, he knew instantly what he would do. Carrying this note and the cracked, red pocketbook to the pulpit, he told the story of her unselfish love and devotion. He challenged his deacons to get busy and raise enough money for the larger building.

But the story doesn’t end there! A newspaper learned of the story and published it. A realtor who read it offered them a parcel of land worth many thousands. When told that the church could not pay so much, he offered it for a 57 cents. Church members made large subscriptions. Checks came from far and wide. Within five years the little girl's gift had increased to $250,000.00—a huge sum for that time (near the turn of the century). Her unselfish love had paid large dividends.

When you’re in the city of Philadelphia, look up Temple Baptist Church, with a seating capacity of 3,300, and Temple University, where hundreds of students are trained.

Have a look, too, at the Good Samaritan Hospital and at a Sunday School building that houses hundreds of Sunday scholars, so that no child in the area will ever need to be left outside during Sunday school time.

In one of the rooms of this building may be seen the picture of the sweet face of the little girl whose 57 cents, so sacrificially saved, made such remarkable history.

Alongside of it is a portrait of her kind pastor, Dr. Russell H. Conwell, author of the book, Acres of Diamonds.

Goes to show what God can do with unselfish love for others and 57 cents.

Merry Christmas To All

2007-12-25T00:05:00.000-08:00

And Joseph went up from Galilee to Bethlehem with Mary, his espoused wife, who was great with child. And she brought forth a son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. And the angel of the Lord spoke to the shepherds and said, "I bring you tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:4-11)

"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by the stable. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.

"Besides," said a Sadducee who was with him, "there are no such things as angels, and telling a child that they're real will only hinder the child's emotional development."

"And I have to tell you," said the Pharisee, "this whole thing looks very much like a Nativity scene. That's a no-no, too."

Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.

"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."

Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?"

"Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.

Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped.

"We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary.

"Whatever," said the painter.

Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them.

"I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.

With the arrival of ten child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.

An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.

"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.

Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist.

Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"

"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.

The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!"

"Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi.

"Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.

A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world."

At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face.

The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"

Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?"

"That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."

"Let me get back to you," Mary said.

In the meantime the Magi had been asked by others how much their gifts had cost, and when told the price several protested and said the money could have been better spent on the poor and homeless. "Besides," said one, "what can a baby do with gold, frankincense, and myrrh?"

"You don't understand," said one of the Magi, "we brought these gifts to honor and worship this child who has been born King of the Jews."

Whereupon the child advocates protested that adults should not pre-determine a child's future. "It should be left up to the child to decide for himself what he wants to be."

One of the shepherds called out from the back of the crowd: "The prophet Micah wrote that out of Bethlehem would come a Ruler to shepherd God's people"

"That's just a myth," said the head of the Prophet's Seminar who had just arrived with his committee. "We scholars have determined that the prophet's actually said very little of what they are credited with saying, and everything they reportedly said about a Messiah was added years later by other writers."

"How did you determine that?" asked Joseph.

The most intelligent member of the Prophet's Seminar was chosen as spokesperson and replied, "We cast lots."

After much talking, the various advocates agreed to meet again at a later date in a place more suitable for them and continue their discussions about the child's welfare. Gradually they drifted out of the stable and left the shepherds and the Magi alone with Joseph and Mary and the child.

Mary took Joseph's hand and said, "Husband, tell me again what the angel Gabriel said to you about our son.

Squeezing her hand, Joseph answered, "He said that we should call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Mary looked down at her son and sighed deeply, and then said to one in particular, "I wonder if they will let him?"

Have a wonderful and safe Christmas, and if you are fortunate to have family around you, please enjoy all that they bring.

As if I Needed Another Reason To NOT Vote For Hillary...

2007-12-24T12:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, yesterday I started a series letting you know about Hillary Clinton’s past, and we will continue on that one today, but before I do that, I need to pause and give a hearty “Congratulations” to my friend The Red Hog. The Hog’s Chicago Bears dismantled my beloved Packers today in a rout. Sure, my Packers are heading to the playoffs while the Bears stay home and watch them on TV, but it still stings…..

Okay, lets get back to Hillary. Actually, before we go any further, let me address something. These “snippets” of Hillary’s past come from two main sources: The “mainstream” news (I am not repeating only Fox News), and secondly (and mainly) coming from sources close to Hillary such as Dee Dee Meyers, George Stephanopolis, and Dick Morris – All former Clinton “Insiders”.

U Deflecting the attacks directed at her for doing legal work while her husband was governor, she said “this is the sort thing that happens to women who have their own careers and their own lives. And I think it’s a shame, but I guess it’s something that we’re going to have to live with. “

But the criticism she attracted had nothing to do with the problem of juggling careers and a personal life. It had to do with a clear conflict of interest, and was a precursor to the gender card deflections we are seeing today.

U On Whitewater, Hillary claimed the “purpose of the investigations was to discredit the President and the Administration and slow down it’s momentum. Whitewater signaled a new tactic in political warfare: Investigation as a weapon for political destruction.”

The Republicans obviously pursued Whitewater to “slow down” Clinton’s “momentum.” That’s what opposition parties are supposed to do. But they never would have had the chance had the Clinton’s not entered into a shady real estate deal in the first place…..

U Many commentators – and not only those on the right – compare Hillary to Nixon, citing “enemies lists” and paranoia. Consider Michael Chertoff. Senator Hillary voted twice against the confirmation of Chertoff – once as chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, and again on his appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C.. What does Hillary have against Chertoff? He served as a special prosecutor to the Republicans on the Senate Whitewater Committee.

Now the fact that she voted against him twice doesn’t prove retaliation, even I know that. The fact that both times he was confirmed 99 to 1 – With Hillary casting the only “Nay” – is suspicious.

U Hillary rarely misspeaks, she is a VERY scripted person. At a January 3rd, 2004 fund-raiser in St. Louis, she invoked the great Indian civil rights leader, Mahatma Gandhi and then, in an attempt at a joke: “Mahatma Gandhi – he ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr Gandhi, you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station.” Excuse me?

Now this is not so much an indictment of Hillary, as it is the free pass from the press. Had you ever even heard of this? Probably not. But remember when George Allen called that volunteer for his opponent “Macaca?” Is that any more insensitive than Hillary’s comments? And yet Allen is derided by the press, ultimately costing him the Senate and a run at president. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Allen, that was a stupid and insensitive comment. But for Hillary to get away with what she got away with…. Can you say “Double Standard”

U Hillary studied law at Yale, and was a solid student. In the summer of 1971 Hillary took a job clerking for – as she describes in Living History – a “small law firm”, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein in Oakland, CA. However, TW&B was far from a small firm. It’s lead partner, Robert Treuhaft, and his wife, Jessica Mitford, were long-time members of the American Communist Party, with Treuhaft being the party’s lawyer. As a matter of fact, TW&B was known as Oaklands “Red Lawyers”.

Am I calling Hillary a communist? No, not at all, nor do I believe even in her youth she was. However, given her station at Yale and the fact that she had her choice of summer internships, the fact that she traveled 3,000 miles for THIS job tells you something of her orientation at the time. The fact that she glossed over this part of her life in her autobiography.

As a matter of fact, Hillary goes to great lengths to hide her leftist leanings of her twenties. Like the fact that at Yale Hillary was especially active in the defense of the Black Panthers. Eight members of the extremist group had been charged with the torture and murder of Alex Rackley, whom they suspected of being a government informant. Insight magazine describes how Rackley was “clubbed, burned with cigarettes, doused with boiling water and stabbed with an ice pick before being taken out and shot twice in the head by his comrades.”

Now keep in mind that Hillary VOLUNTEERED to help these people. The fact is, the Panthers were torturers and murderers of black people, and Hillary Clinton organized demonstrations to get them off. And again, it isn’t that Hillary was this left leaning. Heck, I even voted for Carter in 1980, but I don’t run from my past. I think the fact that I was that dumb back then just shows how far I’ve come. And at the time Hillary had a lot of company – Being a leftist radical in the sixties was more the norm than the exception. Times change. We change. She changed, but you’d never know it, because Hillary won’t let us see that side of her.

I will lay off of Hillary tomorrow because it’s Christmas, and no one needs to be reminded of Hillary on Christmas, that is unless you are watching How the Grinch Stole Christmas, in which case it is hard to not think of Hillary.

And you want to vote for this woman because….?

2007-12-23T00:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, the Iowa Caucuses are less than two weeks away, and New Hampshire is right behind. While I have yet to decide on a Republican candidate – most of them are “fine”, none of them outstanding – I know one thing for sure: A Hillary Clinton Presidency would be a disaster. Over the course of the next couple of posts I want to lay out some of the things that Mrs. Clinton has said and done in her past. Taken separately, none of these things is enough to derail her campaign, but taken as a whole I think you will really see a picture emerging that shows you who Hillary Clinton really is.

Please, if you know anyone who is considering voting for this women, direct them to this post. I have spoken to a few people who plan to vote for this women, although surprisingly not one of them could name an actual accomplishment other than “She’s a women” and “She was first lady”. Okay, but shouldn’t there be more?

Lets look at a little bit of Hillary’s past

U Even though Hillarys “landmark” Book, It Takes A Village was actually written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman Todd (based on interviews with Clinton), Hillary to this day refuses to give Todd any credit for a role in writing the book.

U Hillary doesn’t use “dirty tricks” like the Republicans. As a matter of fact, she says “Oh, you better be careful about that former drug use, the Republicans will pounce on that.” And somehow, this actually works. Then again, the number of Mensa members in the mainstream media is pretty low.

U Hillary told a group of New Zealanders she was named after famous New Zealander Sir Edmund Hilary, the first man to scale Mt. Everest. One problem: Sir Edmund climbed the mountain five years after Hillary was born, meaning she was named after a person no one knew on the other side of the world.

U Hillary told Katie Couric on the Today Show that daughter Chelsea narrowly missed being at Ground Zero on 9/11, having gone for a jog at the time of the attacks. In fact Chelsea, according to her own account, was “alone at a friend’s union Square apartment in Manhattan” and was unaware of the attacks until said friend phoned her. Could Hillary be mistaken? Well, we are talking about more than a week after 9/11, so Hill and Chels probably had talked since then.

U Hillary’s campaign “plants” questions at her own press conferences (not to mention Republican debates). And if you think this was a “one time thing”, watch the video of Grinnell college student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff – the girl who asked the planted question – explaining how she was approached. This was a well organized plan that was surely used more than once. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/clinton-aides-plant-question

U In a 1997 race-relations forum for teenagers in Boston, Hillary revealed “the pain” of a “childhood encounter”: “During a junior high soccer game a goalie told me ‘I wish people like you would freeze’” Stunned, the future first lady asked how she could feel that way when she did not even know her. “I don’t have to know you” the goalie shot back “to know I hate you”. Wow, that must have been devastating, or at least it would have been if it had happened. Problem is, there was no girls soccer in Chicago until 1972 – Hillary was in junior high in the 60’s. Kind of reminds me of Bill claiming how sad he was at the burning of Black churches in Arkansas during his youth – until a reporter turned up the embarrassing fact that there were zero Black churches burned in Arkansas during Clinton’s youth.

U During Bill Clinton’s first run for reelection as Governor of Arkansas, The Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to follow Hillary around on the campaign trail – considering Hillary was a Chicago native. After a day of campaign stops and chicken dinners, a women came up to Hillary and handed her a handmade pair of earrings, shaped like Razorback Pigs – The University of Arkansas mascot. Once the women walked away, Hillary turned to the reporter and said “Do you see the kind of shit I have to put up with?” Poor Hillary.

Now none of these examples are enough to discount Hillary as a candidate, and maybe all of them together aren’t enough. Heck, it’s not like she was caught with the FBI files of 900 Republicans or something like that. What’s that? She was? Oh well……

But I do think that these examples start to paint a picture of who this women really is. But tomorrow we will start to fill that painting in, showing you even more of the real Hillary.

And one thing to my liberal fans – okay, fans is probably not the right word – before you start defending these lies, and defend them if you want, would any of you let even one of these lies go if it was George Bush we were talking about, and not Hillary? I didn’t think so…..

A RUSH To Judgment

2007-12-22T12:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, so a couple of days ago AP releases a photo of Hillary Clinton looking, well, looking like I am sure Hillary would not want us to see her looking like (see right), and all of the sudden it’s an international incident. I have two things about this whole thing that bother me. First of all, would this even be an issue if they had released a photo of Romney, Guliani or Huckabee? I’m not even going to put Fred Thompson in that group, because he always looks like that. And what do those three have in common? Sure, they’re all Republicans, but today that doesn’t matter. Today, that group represents MEN.

Look, campaigning, especially in the last two weeks before the Caucus, is grueling work, and it takes it’s toll. But because Mrs. Clinton is a women, the rules need to change. Once again, we have pulled out the gender card. Look, Mitt, Rudy or Mike would rather not have an unflattering photo of them hit the newspapers (Maybe that’s why they stay out of tanks and don’t put on helmets – ah, nothing better than a twenty year old reference), but if it happened, they’d move on. Somehow we’re picking on Hillary.

The other issue with this whole photo business is the once again piling on Rush Limbaugh. In case you haven’t heard (and if you haven’t, you haven't been listening to the news), the MSM has been jumping all over Limbaugh because he said this: “So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?” Wow, what an evil, sexist bigoted homophobe. Okay, I know there is nothing homophobic about this remark, but I think it’s the law that you can’t call Limbaugh – or any conservative for that matter – any name without throwing “Homophobe” in the mix.

Now taken by itself, that comment does seem kind of mean spirited. However, if you read the entire transcript of what Limbaugh said – Available at: http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/12/rush-limbaugh-others-debate-hillary.html - You will see that Limbaugh was actually sticking up for her, and taking on American culture and it's obsession with looks. Limbaugh even goes so far as to preface his comments by saying that the left – Media Matters in particular – will misquote him, and misquote him they did.

This, from Huffington Post: "The comment that Rush made about Sen. Clinton's looks made him appear oafish. It seems that he can't attack her on her political positions, so he must revert to sexist remarks."

And at http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/12/18/cold-old-and-tired-ii/ they go so far as to cherry-pick Limbaugh’s comments while then coming to the same conclusion Limbaugh came to – but they are too dumb to realize that their “enlightened” conclusion is the same one Limbaugh has already espoused. And this idiot headlined his article “Cold, Old & Tired II”.

This from “Radar Online”: “Spinning off a Drudge report on Hillary Clinton's haggard looks, E.D. pill-gulping tubby Rush Limbaugh sounds off on our appearance-obsessed culture. If it's any consolation, Rush sounds like a bloated windbag, too.”

And what’s worse is reading the comments attached to these stories. It shows the overall I.Q. of the readership of these sites and what there target market is. Let me give you a hint of what that I.Q. is: If it were the temperature in your house, you’d turn on the heater.

Remember when Bubba ran the first time. Remember how his weight ballooned on the campaign trail, and the press jumped all over him? Remember that great Saturday Night Live skit where Clinton is out jogging and runs into a McDonalds to schmooz with the normal folk, all the time finishing their meals as he talked to them. Classic. So why should it be any different with Hillary, or any women candidate.

Remember Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State during the 2000 elections? The press, as well as Lettermen, Leno and the like, slammed this women because of the amount of makeup she wore. Was she fair game? Well, it was mean-spirited, but as a public figure that comes with the territory. But the difference here is that Harris was a Republican, and we all know Republicans are fair game.

Look, I think I’ve been pretty above the board as far as Clinton (Hillary) is concerned. I have never tried to hide my distrust and dislike for this women, but I have kept my attacks on her policy and actions, not on her personality. Okay, one time I did say it looks like she shops at the Lane Bryant Outlet, but look at her …. she does. And to that I am going to add one last personal comment, which I consider to be a fact, not an attack: Since Hillary left the White House, I estimate that she has packed on at least 40 pounds. I state this, because if during that same period of time G.W. had packed on 40 lbs., we would have heard about it. It seems there is a double-standard at work here folks, and if we have to tip-toe around this issue, how many other formerly acceptable topics are going to be taboo in a Hillary White House?

And the thing I find most interesting of all is that all of these people bashing Rush for being insensitive to Hillary’s looks – even though he didn’t – had no problem whatsoever bashing Rush for HIS looks. Typical Liberal Double-Standard.

Putting Sicko Behind Us Once And For All

2007-12-21T12:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, lets wrap up this Sicko thing. It might be (okay, it will be) a longer post, but that beats dragging this horse into a fourth day. If you haven’t read the last two posts, you may want to before reading this one. Go ahead, I’ll wait……..

When we last left off we were talking about the costs of healthcare in the U.S.. According to “Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries” (see link at end of post), health care costs increased at 4.4% from 1980 to 2003, and 3.6% from 1990 to 2003. Lets meet in the middle, and say that since 1980, healthcare has increased about 4% per year. Remember yesterday I talked about my first new car? During the same period of time that healthcare increased 4%, automobile prices increased at just over 5% annually. And what about housing. I know I live in an area (California) where housing costs have risen faster than average, but between 1996 and 2006, houses here increased at over 12% annually. That’s THREE TIMES the rate that health insurance increased.

So why aren’t we talking about national housing? Or national transportation coverage?

Okay lets talk about those evil pharmaceutical companies. In 2002 (the last year I have figures for) the thirteen largest U.S. pharmaceutical companies allocated their sales revenue to particular objects of expenditures and profits as follows: cost of goods sold, 25.3 percent; selling and administration, 32.8 percent; R&D, 14 percent; taxes, 7.3 percent; and net after-tax profits, 20.6 percent.

Now I know a lot of companies would love to have 20% annual profits. Then again, this would be a huge drop for other companies. And how much profit should these companies make. 5%? 10%? Really, I have no idea, tell me. Lets say that we decide they should only make 10% profit. And lets say you have a horrible disease that requires $600 a month in med’s. Now it’s only $540 a month. Does that make a huge difference? No. Sure, it helps, but we have people saying these drugs should be basically free. The problem is, few people are going to continue to develop drugs that cost them $500, and then charge $20.

Consider this: These days it takes 15 years and over ONE BILLION DOLLARS (yes, that’s billion with a “B”) to bring a new drug to market. Roughly 20% of that cost is in pre-clinical (developing the drug),and 80% of the cost is in post-clinical (testing the drug). Lets say on the average that the first five years are spent developing the drug, and then 10 years testing (in reality, it’s usually a bit longer to test a drug). Suppose we relax the FDA rules a bit, and now we cut that testing time in half. But that would cause thousands of unnecessary deaths? Would it?

How many of these drugs are tested hundreds of times in the first five years with zero problems, only to be proven fatal at the last minute? Probably not a lot. And don’t you think that trimming $400 million off of that one billion would lower the cost of a drug? Also, consider this. Lets say that I run a drug company, and I come out and say “Hey, here’s our new drug Xythphobical, and this drug will save 20,000 lives a year.” But lets say that the trial we just finished shows no different results than the trials we finished five years ago. That means what I, as the spokesperson SHOULD be saying is this: “Hey, here’s our new drug Xythphobical, and because the FDA required us to overtest this drug, 100,000 people we could have saved have died, and not as many of you that we can help will be able to afford this drug.” Think about it.

“But Bob” you say, “That means that unregulated and lethal drugs will sneak onto the market” Maybe, but remember that I am not advocating abolition of the FDA, just injecting it with a little common sense. And think about this, even with the outrageous testing required today, some bad drugs slip through. Also, lets go back to Sicko for a minute. Remember how all of those insurance companies will vilified in the movie for letting people die because they wouldn’t pay for experimental treatments. Well what exactly do you think those experimental treatments are? They are treatments that are still in the FDA testing process.

Look, I’m probably not going to take an untested drug for my heartburn, but lets say I have leukemia, and I have a month to live, and there is a drug company that has a new drug that might save my life, but it won’t be ready for human testing for three more years. Screw that, I don’t have three more years. Why not let me, at my own risk, try the drug. Worse case is I die, but hey, that was guaranteed to happen anyhow. But lets say it works. Not only is that great for me, but how many millions of dollars have I saved the drug company, and maybe helped bring a valuable drug to market a year or two sooner, saving thousands of lives.

Look, take lawyers out of the equation, and you can probably slash medical costs by 50% in a single day. But no, that’s not even a focus of the politicians, especially the democrats who are firmly in the pocket of the trial lawyer association.

Now lets talk about coverage. We already know that health insurance costs way too much, and while the politicians give that lip service, what they really are screaming about is the need for 100% of Americans to be covered. So how many people don’t have coverage right now?

Well, according to the latest poverty data, 47 million people in America are without insurance. But lets look at those numbers a little more closely. The median household income in the U.S. is $48,200. Were you aware that 38% of the uninsured – almost 18 million people – have incomes higher than $50,000, with 20% of all uninsured making $70,000 a year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we need a government welfare program for folks making $70,000. Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.

One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage. That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens. Now I know I have friends that disagree with me on this, but I do not feel that we should be paying for insurance for those in this country illegally. I know Mr. Moore doesn’t think it’s a crime for Americans to go into Canada and lie to get health care, but the bottom line is that any American doing that is breaking the law, and any undocumented person in the U.S. is also breaking the law.

So far we have identified 30 million of that 47 million who are either able to pay for their own insurance, or are in this country illegally. We are down to 17 million people without insurance in America. And it is estimated that 20% of those 17 million uninsured are between jobs, meaning they are only temporarily without insurance. Now we have 13.6 million unemployed. Add to that the fact that as many as a third of those 13.6 million are eligible for public health programs don’t even bother to apply.

So now we’re talking about somewhere around 10 million uninsured. Sure, that’s a lot of people, and we need to address a way to help those people, but the bottom line is we are talking about 3.3% of the population. So we are willing to totally destroy and (hopefully) rebuild a system to help 3.3% of the population. And the bottom line is that the cost to do so will be probably 100% more than if we just gave the 3.3% full insurance benefits. Ludicrous.

If I had to point to one thing in Sicko – and in almost every liberal discussion of nationalized healthcare I have read – is the use of the word “Free”, as in “Oh no, healthcare here is free”. Hey Rainbow McDolphin, let me clue you into something – IT AIN’T FREE. We are all paying for it higher and higher taxes.

Last Sunday my local paper ran a story about a women who has kicked a meth addiction, and is getting her life back together, and more power to her. I’m thrilled that this women beat this awful drug, and it’s a story we don’t hear often enough. But consider this line, which a quote from the story: “She has worked at the deli at Von’s Supermarket for 16 months and gotten off all government assistance, except Section 8 housing assistance and Medi-Cal government health insurance.” Oh, is that all? And how many thousands of dollars a year is that?

Look, I’m not picking on this women, hers is truly a wonderful story. But the fact that this writer, and way to many on the left, simply toss this off as no big deal, means a great deal. If you have to pull that cash out of your pocket, you know what you are spending. If that cash never makes it to your pockets, you haven’t a clue what the real cost is. Every time I hear one of those Canadians or French in Sicko say “Oh no, it’s free” I cringe. It’s like hearing a battered woman say “Oh no, he really loves me and I know I can change him.” Sure, the two have nothing to do with each other, but they are equally clueless.

Like I said yesterday or the day before, I don’t rule out that national healthcare could work, but I can’t give you a solid answer on that because no one has bothered to lay out a detailed plan that shows all the costs involved. And like I said, even if we don’t nationalize health care, we still have a lot of work to do to correct the problems. Where to start? Well, it was Shakespeare who said “First, we kill all the lawyers.” A little harsh Bill, but I think you’re on the right track

U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10

The cost of bringing a drug to market is over a billion dollars: http://www.unav.es/english/news/105.html

Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Continuing On Our Sicko Journey

2007-12-20T00:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I pointed out some of the more interesting facts in Michael Moore’s movie Sicko. Like I stated yesterday, I actually enjoy Moore’s films, I find them amusing as long as you don’t buy into his one-sided propaganda. However, I did not find that to be the case with Sicko, which was all propaganda and no style.

I guess success has gone to Moore’s head, and he no longer feels he has to mix propaganda with humor to sell his point, rather that we will simply all bow and pray at the alter that is Michael Moore.

And like I said yesterday, I am not trying to make light of the subject of Mr. Moore’s film. We have serious healthcare issues in America, and they need intelligent debate to find solutions. And ladies and gentlemen, Sicko is not intelligent debate. Sicko is snake oil.

You know what, I’m not even opposed to a national single-payer healthcare, if that in fact is the right answer. Of course, I am not yet convinced that that is the right answer. Granted, the system that we have right now is not the right answer either.

The way I see it, there are two things that need to be discussed: Coverage, and costs. And we will discuss that in just a minute, after I discuss a couple of other points that Moore brought up.

First of all. At one point Moore tells us that “Every year 18,000 Americans will die simply because they don’t have health insurance.” And that’s the end of that argument. No proof, no citing where this information came from. But if Michael says it, the left believes it.

We are treated to several stories of individuals who were denied certain procedures because they were “experimental”, and some of these individuals later died. The conclusion that Moore reaches is that if the insurance company had just approved the procedure, those people would be alive today. The simple truth is that even if all of those procedures were approved, almost all of those people would have died. But Mr. Moore conveniently left that part out.

The widow of Tracy Pierce, the man who died from end-stage renal cell carcinoma, discussed in Sicko how her late husband was denied numerous treatments for his cancer. Presumably, his oncologist wanted to experiment with cancer therapies not commonly used (or approved) to treat his type of cancer. Many of the newest therapies are very expensive - a regimen can cost $50,000 - yet have little clinical evidence to suggest a benefit against a cancer they were never proven to treat.

In Moore’s movie, we’re told that Tracy’s Dr. claimed that if they could find a donor, “there were promising bone-marrow treatments for beating Tracy’s cancer.” Now go back and reread that sentence. If I, as a doctor, told you that, wouldn’t you feel hope. The truth is, while some studies show promise in developing bone marrow transplants to cure kidney cancer patients, that kind of medicine does not yet exist. In other words, as hard as it is to take, Tracy was going to die with or without the transplant.

The truth is American health care system treats serious diseases more aggressively than national health systems. The health care systems in Canada, Britain and France would not routinely cover this experimental therapy either. But again, Mr. Moore fails to mention this.

When Moore speaks to a Canadian who states that the system should look out for all, Moore asks him if he is a socialist. He responds that he is a conservative, and asks Moore “is that bad?”, to which Moore responds, “No, It’s just a little confusing?” That’s right Michael, because we all know that conservatives want nothing more than to build a great big bonfire made out of the bodies of the poor, while maybe using gays for kindling. Sheesh…

Look, We all know that healthcare is a mess, and if you could convince me that national healthcare would give me the same coverage for the same cost without losing anything, I’d be all for it. But the truth is, all of the talk of national healthcare during this election cycle has left out one tiny thing: The Details.

I can give you several examples of why health insurance costs so much more than it used to, and yes greedy insurance companies pay a role, but the main reason is advancement in technology. Look, when I was a kid we had a family doctor – Dr. Penly. I would visit his office on College Hill, and in that office the most advanced piece of technology was probably the scale he weighed us on. Nowadays Drs. load up on the latest and greatest equipment at the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then to justify that equipment, they use it. My daughter recently fractured her risk, and when the cast came off she was still in pain. The doctor’s recommendation: She needs an MRI. The cost? About $3,000. We decided to wait (even though our insurance would have covered the MRI), and a week later she was fine.

I wondered what Dr. Penly would have said to my parents if I complained that, having just had the cast taken off from my fractured wrist, my wrist hurts. He would have said “Of course it hurts, it’s been fractured and immobile for four weeks. Heck, take a healthy wrist and immobilize for a month and it’s going to be sore. Just take it easy at first, and if it still hurts in a week or two, let me know.”

When I was a freshman in college I bought my first “new” car, a 1979 Chevy Monza, for about $3,300. It wasn’t the cheapest car available, but close. That year I could have bought a very basic Chevette for $2,595. Today, the cheapest new car out there is a Chevy Aveo, for $10,595. Now if you put those two cars next to each other, the cheapest car today is much better than the cheapest car from 1979. The gas mileage is better, there are airbags in today’s car. Even the stereo is better. My point? Prices are going up because the product is getting better, and today we are paying for equipment, drugs, and other things not available 30 years ago, and the result is we are living longer. And yes, it costs us more.

But that doesn’t mean that were getting what we paid for. When I was a kid, people had insurance, but not like we have today. We had catastrophic insurance, which was to say we had insurance to cover major illnesses and hospital stays, but everyday medical costs, from physicals to a Dr. visit when you had a cold, were paid for out of pocket. Yes, this means out of pocket costs are higher, but insurance was much, much cheaper.

Today a family of four pays about $12,000 a year for insurance (in most case your employer pays the majority of this). Assume that I offered you catastrophic insurance for ½ that price, and you covered “regular” expenses. And assume that seeing the doctor averaged $200 a visit. Now that’s a hell of a lot more than a $10 or $20 co-pay, but your family would have to visit the doctor THIRTY times to spend the same money that you are spending now. Assuming that everyone in your family visited the doctor twice a year, you could save $4,400.

Look at it another way. Right now you have auto insurance on your car, and lets say you pay $600 a year to cover your car, with a $500 deductable. And if you are like me, you hope that you never have to use that insurance. Now lets say I come along and offer you a new kind of car insurance. It will still cover the things your old plan did, but at the same time it will cover oil changes, tires and breaks, and any other maintenance needed. How much do you think that insurance would cost? And if you had it, how much would you use it.

There are a ton of reasons – both good and bad – that we pay what we pay for insurance. And I’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg. As for coverage (who gets it and who doesn’t), that will have to wait until tomorrow.

Putting "Sicko" On The Operating Table

2007-12-19T00:05:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I promised my friend Chris, aka The Red Hog, that I would watch the latest Michael Moore film, Sicko. Now there is very little that Michael Moore and I agree on, yet despite that I truly do enjoy his films. I find most of the information in them questionable, but despite that I find him entertaining. That is, until I saw Sicko.

Let me start by saying that the American Healthcare System is broken. I understand that, and even though I am going to slam some of Moore’s findings in this film, I AM NOT saying that there is nothing wrong with healthcare in America today. There is a lot wrong, but we have a choice. We can sit down and look at the problems logically, and act upon those findings. Or we can overreact to the worst case scenario examples sentimentally put forth in this film, and implement knee-jerk reactions that end up making the system much worse than we started with.

I can tell you right now, there is no way to respond to the lies and allegations – as well as the truths – put forth in this film in a single post. This is going to take two days at least, maybe three. Lets break down some of the things we see in this film.

First we see an elderly couple forced to sell their home and move in with their kids after declaring bankruptcy due to health care related expenses. We are told that Larry and Donna Smith. Larry and Donna actually had health insurance, but they couldn’t keep up with the out of pocket expenses. Donna was a newspaper editor, Larry worked for years as a union machinist. But then Larry had three heart attacks, and Donna got cancer. To add insult to injury, on the day they arrived at their daughters house, her husband, a contractor, was leaving to work in Iraq because work was slow in Denver.

Now lets address a couple of things. Why aren’t we addressing the fact that Larry's employer, A UNION, failed him. I don’t know the facts (Moore doesn’t give them to us), but I know most insurances cap the amount of out-of-pocket expenses you would be forced to pay. Mine does, apparently Larry’s did not. Why did the union provide Larry with substandard insurance.

And we are told that Larry had a heart attack, then another, then another. Did Larry follow his doctors advice after the first heart attack, or did he continue to live a non-healthy lifestyle that lead to his second attack, and then his third. Now I don’t want to pick on Larry, but how many people in this country have health care issues precisely because of the poor choices they make. Hey, I include myself in that group. I’m a diabetic, and while that disease controls my diet, I do not follow that diet 100% of the time.

And isn’t it sad that Larry and Donna’s son-in-law had to go to Iraq to find work. It’s a shame that a gun was put to his head forcing him to take that job….. what’s that, there was no gun put to his head. Look, it’s winter in Denver. Is it a surprise that there is a slowdown in construction jobs in Denver in the winter? Where is the happiness that Dad is still able to provide for his family? Look, having to take temporary work in Iraq is not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination, but I would gladly do that before not being able to provide for my family.

Later, after an American is caught breaking the law by trying to pass herself off as a Canadian, Moore responds thusly: “Yes what Adrian was doing was illegal, but we’re Americans, we go into other countries when we need to. It’s tricky, but it’s allowed.” Allowed Mr. Moore? By whom? It should be noted at this time that my liberal friends claim A) we should provide medical care for those in this country illegally, and B) We should have a health care system like they have in Canada. And yet in Canada, they do not allow coverage to those their illegally. Hmm…..

In order to put to rest all those claims that Canada’s health care system is not up to par with America’s, Moore’s start witnesses are: his Canadian relatives, Bob and Estelle. Don’t get me wrong, Bob and Estelle seem like very nice people, but if Moore chooses to address a very legitimate concern – that Canada’s state-run healthcare is subpar to U.S. healthcare – I’m sure he could find a more convincing expert than Bob and Estelle. Then again, maybe he couldn’t. Oh well, if you can’t fight them with substance, dazzle them with sentimentality.

Which brings us to one of my favorite arguments in the whole movie, that Hillary Clinton was not successful in implementing her national Healthcare Plan because she is “Sassy, smart and sexy” and “some men (cut to shot of Newt Gingrich) couldn’t handle it.” There it is folks, the bottom line: We do not have nationalized healthcare because Hillary Clinton is just too darn sexy.”

Look, I’ll give you the fact that Hillary Clinton is Smart. Sassy? Well…. I don’t see it. Sexy? Are you kidding me? No, seriously, are you kidding? Moore doesn’t even mention the fact that most feel that Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care task force failed due to the secrecy that shrouded it. The task force held it’s meetings in private, despite the fact that Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees (and as First Lady, Hillary was a non-government employee) to have open meetings. Moore fails to mention the fact that these meetings included a sprawling crowd of more than 500 people, including a pile of nongovernment employees from liberal foundations and even big insurance companies.

No big deal? Consider that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Hillary and her health care “Mentor” Ira Magaziner had “intended to deceive the court” when they asserted in sworn statements that only federal government officials were members of the task force. Judge Lamberth called their conduct “reprehensible” and wrote “The executive branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of this court.” Those consequences included a $285,000 fine for misconduct.

But those actions were inconsequential, and they had nothing to do with dooming Hillarycare. The fact is, the lady is just too damn sexy.

More on Sicko tomorrow…….

Some Wacko’s Are Armed With Guns, Other Wacko’s Are Armed With Lies

2007-12-18T00:05:00.000-08:00

U You know, I was reading an online report yesterday documenting the services at the Colorado “Mega-Church” on Sunday, one week after the shooting by an anti-Christian nut who was later shot by an armed guard, And I was surprised that it had only been one week since the shooting. It was news for a couple of days, and then it went away.

Usually after a Church/Mall/School shooting, we have weeks of debate and attempts at legislation that will make us all safer, and yet after this shooting the news has been oddly silent. Apparently the debate has been settled, an armed and trained public is the solution that seems to work.

U SMEAR CHANNEL RADIO: You know, I’m a big fan of the left’s ability to get to a story first. Maybe because that’s because they don’t let things like facts stand in the way.

For nearly a week, a baffling series of posts by so- called "progressive" bloggers have claimed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is set to purchase Clear Channel Communications and install his own "neo-con" regime inside its talk radio and television stations.In fact, it is Romney's former firm, Bain Capital LLC, that is leading a leveraged buyout of Clear Channel, teamed with Thomas H Lee Partners LP. The deal has been delayed for a number of reasons, including the need to obtain regulatory approval.

At first, the headline seemed so silly, it was easy to mistake it for a spoof or prank. Days later, however, this 'Net myth has spread so far and wide across the left side of the blogosphere that it seems clear many liberals have been duped.

Worse, some may intentionally be spreading misinformation: even when commenters point out that Mitt Romney left Bain Capital before taking over the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, most "progressive" blogs have failed to retract the bogus story. Even if he remains a retired shareholder, Romney is most certainly not calling the shots at Bain.

From the beginning, it has been set in stone that Clear Channel's current management team would remain in place after the deal is finalized. Because that has never been in dispute, there is simply no way Mitt Romney could take over the company's programming, even if he did remain in an active role with Bain Capital.

So far, only the Huffington Post has run a clarification, but it merely added to the inaccuracies.

Below are links to some of the bigger liberal blogs. See how they are reporting this story:

Blatherwatch: http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2007/12/romney-buys-cle.html#comments
My DD (Direct Democracy): http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/16/134450/66
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/14/romneys-bain-capital-buy_n_76801.html
Firedoglake: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/bain-capital-founded-by-romney-buys-clear-channel/
Randi Rhodes Show: http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t107831.html
DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/21/141627/161

So how did the blogosphere's left side cook up this smear campaign? It has been difficult to determine who started it, but appears to have been triggered by the AP story about the deal's extension into 2008 as a result of regulatory delays. That gave somebody on the left the idea to insert Romney into the story and from there it spread like wildfire.

Don't hold your breath expecting a series of retractions: the tin foil hat crowd has never met a conspiracy theory it didn't lovingly embrace.

Cheesesteak & Fraud......

2007-12-17T00:05:00.000-08:00

1) A close adviser and chief fundraiser to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted on fraud charges. Yet if you read the story in either the Chicago Tribune or the L.A. Times, you won't read which party the governor belongs to. That's right. Blagojevich is a Democrat, yet the Trib didn't bother to include this fact in their piece. I have a nice prize for someone who can find me an article in a major U.S. paper of a republican scandal where the word “Republican” is conveniently left out. Any takers? I didn’t think so.

2) Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, was in court the past week defending his “English Only” ordering policy in his Philadelphia restaurant. A small sign that asked customers to order in English has sparked a huge controversy with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint against Joe.

Some people are calling Vento’s actions racist, but Joe himself said the signs were posted because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform, and the increasing number of people from the area who could not order in English.

"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language," Vento told the commission. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."

The thing I find most interesting about this case is that first of all, Joe is not being sued by an offended customer, but rather by the “Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations”. However, Paul M. Hummer, an attorney for the commission, testified that the sign is not about political speech, but about "intimidation," and that it suggested business from certain individuals was not wanted.

Now I know a lot of business owners, and even the most racist among them – of which I do not consider Mr. Vento to be – are really only interested in one color: Green. To suggest that Mr. Vento would prefer to lose money is outrageous, especially since no one could come up with any supporting evidence that these were Mr. Vento’s motives.

In typical over-reaction from the left, Camille Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, testified that Vento's signs harkens back to the "Whites only" postings of the Jim Crow era. "The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," Charles said

Let me ask you this Ms. Charles: Suppose that Joe served what he THOUGHT a customer was asking for, but instead served them something different, and because of a rare peanut or shellfish or whatever allergy, that person died. Would you be rushing to Joe’s defense then.

I think Joe’s words: "This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language", are brilliant. Sure I think it’s annoying as a merchant myself trying to figure out what a non-English speaking patron is looking for, but imagine if you are that person who can’t speak the language. How many employment and just normal day-to-day transactions are closed to you because of the language barrier.

Sure, dealing with people who don’t speak English is a minor annoyance to some, but it is a huge barrier to these peoples advancement. By continuing to deny the fact that immigrants to ANY country need to learn the language to prosper in that country, makes those on the “pro-immigrant” side responsible for these immigrants slower assimilation into society.

TP'ing The Christmas Tree

2007-12-16T00:05:00.000-08:00

It’s Sunday, and as usual I have a few random thoughts to share.

U I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio saying she is an “Agent of Change”, and you know what. I believe her. Look at all of the Clinton staffers that she’s changed into Obama staffers.

U Every now and then you run across something in the paper that just makes you giggle. I shouldn’t, but…. Like this article from The Des Moines Register:

Butts declared incompetent in toilet paper theft case
Marshalltown, Ia. -- A woman charged with stealing toilet paper from the Marshall County courthouse has been declared incompetent to stand trial.Suzanne Butts, 38, was arrested in June after a courthouse employee saw her taking three rolls of toilet paper from a supply closet. The judge said Butts could still face charges if her mental condition improves. Butts could have faced up to two years in prison for the toilet paper theft.

Okay, it could be the obvious humor involving a person named “Butts” and the theft of toilet paper, but what really blows my mind about this case is that it ever became a case at all. The fact that someone could go to jail for two years for stealing three rolls of toilet blows my mind.

U Last Tuesday the house passed Resolution 847, a bill introduced by Steve King, Republican from Iowa. I am extremely proud to be from Iowa, and while I am a proud conservative, I’m not that proud of Mr. King. Resolution 847 passed 372 to 9, with 50 either voting “Present” which is a no vote (No as in “I choose not to vote”), or not there to vote at all. What is Res. 847? “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith!”

Don’t get me wrong, I certainly recognize the importance of both Christmas and the Christian faith, but I’m not sure this is the kind of thing our legislature needs to be dealing with. To me, this is pandering at its worse, especially given that we have actual important work that congress could be doing. But, given that they are not bothering with that, I guess they need something to do. Here is some of the text of this resolution:

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;

Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;

Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;

If you wish the entire text of the Resolution, it can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-847

Thank God Representative King and his co-sponsors (can you believe there are 60 of them) passed this, otherwise we wouldn’t know that on December 25th we observe Christmas, or that it is celebrated annually.

If I were a Congressman, I would have been one of the “Present” votes. I certainly wouldn’t have voted “Nay”, because there is nothing in the bill that is objectional. And yet nine Representatives did vote “Nay”, and not surprisingly, all were Democrats.

But the one thing I found most amusing, Steve King – the resolutions author – missed the vote.

Kid’s Say The Darndest Things…..

2007-12-15T00:05:00.000-08:00

I have my friend Tamara to thank for today’s post. File these stories under “Why we love children”

A kindergarten pupil told his teacher that he’d found a cat, but it was dead. “How do you know that the cat was dead?” she asked him. “Because I pissed in its ear and it didn’t move.” Answered the child innocently. "You did WHAT?!!” the teacher exclaimed in surprise. “You know,” explained the boy, "I leaned over and went ‘Pssst!’ and it didn’t move.”

A little girl goes to the barber shop with her father. She stands next to the barber chair, while her dad gets his hair cut, eating a snack cake. The barber says to her, “Sweetheart, you’re going to get hair on your Twinkie.” She says “Yes, I know, and I’m going to get boobs, too.”

An exasperated mother, whose son was always getting into mischief, finally asked him “How do you expect to get into Heaven?” The boy thought it over and said, “Well, I’ll run in and out and in and out and keep slamming the door until St. Peter says ‘For Heavens Sake Dylan, come in or stay out!”

It was that time, during the Sunday morning service, for the children’s sermon. All the children were invited to come forward. One little girl was wearing a particularly pretty dress and, as she sat down, the pastor leaned over and said “That is a very pretty dress. Is it your Easter dress?” The little girl replied, directly into the pastor’s clip-on microphone “Yes, and my Mom says it’s a bitch to iron.”

When I was six months pregnant with my third child, my three year-old came into the room as I was preparing to get into the shower. She said “Mommy, you are getting fat!” I replied, “Yes honey, remember Mommy has a baby growing in her tummy.” “I know,” she replied, “but what’s growing in your butt?”

One day the first grade teacher was reading the story of Chicken Little to her class. She came to the part where Chicken Little warns the farmer. She read, “….and Chicken Little went up to the farmer and said ‘The sky is falling!’” The teacher then asked the class. “and what do you think the farmer said?” One little girl raised her hand and said “I think he said ‘Holy shit, a talking chicken!’” The teacher was unable to teach for the next 10 minutes.

And finally, I have one of my own stories to add. I wish it wasn’t, but this is a true story.

When my son Blake was about three years old he was getting into playing army and cop’s and robbers with his friend Kenny, and we never discouraged it because we weren’t all that P.C. with regards to raising our kid. However, we did tell him not to use the word “Kill”.

So we we’re at the video rental store looking for a movie, and this women came in with her two boys, about 5 and 6 years-old. These two were maniacs, and they were running around the video store screaming and yelling, and shooting each other with pretend guns. One boy was screaming “I KILLED YOU, I KILLED YOU” at the top of his lungs, and my three year-old calmly walked up to them and yelled “HEY!”. The boys stopped in their tracks and Blake said calmly but very sternly “DO NOT SAY KILL”, to which the older boys, both perplexed, replied “Okay”.

Pleased that the boys had actually listened to him, he continued “And don’t say shit or godammit!”

Oh, the pride!!!