French Military Engagement

Well the French finally had a military engagement where they DIDN'T surrender.

BRITISH and French nuclear submarines which collided deep under the Atlantic could have sunk or released deadly radioactivity, it emerged last night.

Amen, brother!

The silver lining for this 'Jimmy Carter II" administration is that there might be a 'Ronald Reagan II' administration in 4 years.

Even when the economy and the securities markets are sluggish, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s, when the Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who believed then, as now, that federal spending "stimulus" would restore economic health.

Inflation is the product of the demand for money as well as of the supply. And if the Fed finances federal deficits in a moribund economy, it can create more money than the economy can use. The result is "stagflation," a term coined to describe the 1970s experience. As the global economy slows and Congress relies more on the Fed to finance a huge deficit, there is a very real danger of a return of stagflation. I wonder why no one in Congress or the Obama administration has thought of that as a potential consequence of their stimulus package.

Israel launches air strikes on Gaza...

...and its about F'n time!

About the Bradley Effect

Back in 1982, the LA mayor Tom Bradley (who was black) ran for governor. He was ahead in the poles by about 9 points and he lost the election. The problem was that people would tell pollsters that they were voting for Bradley, but then voted for the other guy. Of course racism was blamed, and it was probably true.

This year, there are now concerns that the Bradley Effect may happen. If it happens, a lot of people will begin pointing fingers at who the racists are. I will just say this: Those that say they are voting for McCain probably will. Those that say they are voting for Obama may not vote for him. Those that say they are voting for Obama are predominantly Democrats. Therefore, if the Bradley Effect takes place, the racists are predominantly Democrats.

Now for the fun part: they can utilize the Kerry Effect and say 'well I voted for Obama (in the primary) before I voted against him'.

How's that Global Warming coming along?

Read this from John Hawkins. Picked from the Drudge Report headlines comes this:


In a few years, when we all begin to realize that the only man-made warming going on is centered around Al Gore's mouth, what will humanity do to heat up the planet again? I mean it will be a calamity when the growing season is cut short due to global cooling, less food means higher prices, more demand on fur coats, overcrowded ski resorts etc.

Should we stop being green and become brown? should we trade in our Prius for Hummers? should we plug back in our old light bulbs and start using aerosol sprays?

Was Robin Hood a Socialist?

Robin Hood is famous for 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor'. This, to most people is the justification for his greatness. Isn't this exactly what the Democrats are advocating from their tax policies... to tax the rich even more and give it to people who aren't even paying taxes? After all, everyone needs money to survive and everyone needs a fair chance at the American dream... right?

Isn't this exactly what Obama is advocating, when he had this exchange over the weekend?

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama just let slip his true colors by living up to the following statement: "from those with means to those with need". This is the central tenant of socialism as stated by Karl Marx. It sounds great with lofty ideals, but the reality is that it punishes those that are succesful and rewards those that are not. This creates a disincentive for those who are the earners, and creates an incentive for those who are not. In the end, there will be fewer and fewer people who are motivated to do well.... to create and grow businesses that hire people only to be taxed more and more as the succeed... to create wealth that will be confiscated to give to people who don't earn it. Just look at European countries with their high unemployment and very expensive governments.

My view is that Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich to give to the poor. What he did was take back from the tax collectors the punitive taxes leveled on the people, and gave back that money to those that really owned it... the people. Robin Hood was not a socialist, he was against an all powerful government trying to suppress it's people and he led a revolt against that government.

In modern day politics, Obama is not the Robin Hood, he represents the repressive government who will send out his tax collectors. Unfortunately, there is no modern day Robin Hood in American Politics. The GOP and DEM parties are both spending our money like drunken sailors and increasing the size and scope of FEDGOV to a point where they have to confiscate more and more of our earnings.

The Last Robin Hood we had in America was Newt Gingrich who led the GOP into power in 1994 and brought some sanity back to FEDGOV. He led the GOP to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending, reduced welfare and balanced the budget. Unfortunatly, that was short lived as the culture of Washington overcame these reformers. In 2006, Conservatives got tired of this and didn't come out to vote figuring that if the GOP was going to act like DEMS, then what's the difference?

The GOP will remain in the wilderness until they can get their 'Robin Hood' soul back.

btw, who is john Galt?

What a frustrating game

I am a Giants fan. I don't think I have ever yelled at the tv more than I did tonight. Cleveland played a good football game and the Giants were playing cricket.

Not once did Jason Tuck's name get called. Not once did any defense player's name get called. Not once did the Cleveland QB get even touched... no sacks... no knock downs.... no pressure. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE AT ALL! You'd think they would have made some adjustments during halftime.

The Offense wasnt looking much better. Eli wasn't on his game and Burris wasn't on Eli's page.

It's like the Giants didn't prepare for this game. It's like they took the game for granted.

The Giants better get their act together this week or they won't survive Dallas... with or without Romo.

ACORN is the seed...

ACORN is the seed to this growing financial crisis. via Powerline

As John says "One of the common themes of modern American history is that liberals will create a problem by ill-advised government action, then benefit from it politically by proposing ever more intrusive government action to solve it. That appears to be happening again in connection with today's credit crisis."

Why can't the MSM do their job objectively?

Worst Case Scenario for GOP an Hillary

I usually agree with the Powerline guys. Their analysis is usually spot on. In this case, while I agree with the conclusion, I don't agree with the premise.

Here is the premise (the bolding is mine):

The worst thing is that the left-wing Dems are poised to take control at a time of apparent economic crisis, or something approaching it. History suggests that under these circumstances, the party that gains control keeps it for longer than normal. FDR's victory in 1932 was the start of 20 years of Democratic control. After Reagan prevailed in 1980, the Republicans occupied the White House for 12 years. Clinton came to power towards the end of a mild recession. But for a quirk in the electoral process, the Dems would have held the White House for at least 12 years thereafter.

Clinton came to power because Ross Perot took about 20% of the vote that otherwise would have gone to George Bush. Clinton may have won in the next election, however we'll never know.

Here is the conclusion that I think is spot-on:

It's not mysterious that canddiates and parties elected in bad times do well in subsequent elections. First, it is natural to give them time to "fix" things. Second, the business cycle, and the underlying strength of our nation, are such that we tend not only to recover fairly quickly from downturns, but to emerge from them stronger than before. Both the law of averages and the laws of economic suggest that our economy will be in significantly better shape in October 2012 than it is today. In that scenario, a President Obama would have a huge advantage over any challenger.

Weighing slightly against this analysis is the fact that voters today are, I believe, much more impatient -- i.e., spoiled -- than in the past. We certainly are not likely to wait five to ten years for a full recovery, as voters did in FDR's day. On the other hand, the gang set to take over power this time seems far more prepared to rely on Chicago-style machine politics, voter fraud, and perhaps additional anti-democratic methods than were their counterparts in 1980 and 1992.

This is why Hillary doesn't want Obama to win. She'll need to wait 8 years before she can get elected. However, she doesn't want a Republican to win either for the same reason outlined above.

Is this the year Capitalism Died?

20 years from now, when historians are writing the history books about this current time, will they mark 2008 the year capitalism died? When we tell stories to our grandchildren about a time when we individuals had economic freedom, freedom to purchase what we wanted, not just what we needed, a time when we had freedom to work where we wanted, not where society said to work, a time when American ingenuity drove the success of our nation, will we remember how we lost our freedoms? Will we remember the gradual loss of freedom, started by the New Deal and continuing to this day by ever increasing FedGov scope and size? Will we remember when FedGov began confiscating people's wealth and property in the name of a greater society and in the name of environmentalism? Will we remember when Fedgov began taking over companies like AIG, and began controlling Health Care, Insurance, Lending and other industries?

Will we remember who John Galt was?

It Sounded like a good idea at the time

This financial bailout is a major shit in the way we view America, and what America stands for. I don't think this bailout should be rushed, nor should anyone play politics with the bill.

We stand to lose a great deal of freedom and liberty if this bill is not done correctly. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon loose our ability to succeed.

After all of the reading about this, and I'm no financial wizard, it seems the root cause is that FedGov, in a time of economic surpluses, wanted to force the 'trickle down' allow home ownership assistance to those who may be in positions to really afford it. Thus, lending institutions were forced to make loans that were that much more risky. It sounded like a good idea at the time.

Freddie and Fannie, being government enterprises, backed these loans. These institutions grew too large and didn't reserve enough cash to ensure these institutions would not fail in worse economic conditions. Now, We the People must make a choice, and it is not a good choice. We need to either spend at least 700 billion (and since when did any fedgov program not cost way more) to shore up the financial market by buying up the bad debt at a discounted price. If this is done right, all of the money will be eventually repaid by selling the assets at a higher price when the market goes up. If this is done wrong, we will not only eat the cost, but transfer so much power to FedGov that we may as well call ourselves the Peoples Republic of America because FedGov will have direct ownership of banks and lending institutions as well as Insurance companies (AIG).

The other option is for Fedgov to do nothing to bail out these institutions. Rather, they should rescind the legislation that was created in the first place that caused this mess. This may cause another stock market crash, and a real recession in the short term. However, the market will correct itself and we will be stronger for it. This is probably the right thing to do, but highly unlikely in an election year. Nor will our congresscritters admit that fedgov is the problem rather than the solution.

We don't hear press reports about the root causes. there is a very good reason for this: the press has an agenda that is to do no harm.... to Democrats. I have linked to video showing the history of the problem, and you see that Bush, GOP leaders and McCain has all said we need to fix the problem before it gets out of hand. Here is another link. Well, it is out of hand now thanks to inaction by the Donkeys.

No matter what congress decides, we are in for tough times.

Watch This!

If there is one thing you must do today, you must watch this:

PETH-etic

Holy Cow, Batman!

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking Ben and Jerry's to stop it's use of cow milk and substitute human milk instead.

VERMONT -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman."PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

So PETA would rather we stop exploiting cows, which incidentally were put on this earth so us humans can consume them (If god didn't intend us to eat cows, she wouldn't have made them out of steak), and begin to exploit humans.

Just for sake of argument, (like I really need to make one to show what a really stupid idea this is) we begin to milk humans for our daily dairy needs. A cow can produce about 19,500 pounds of milk per year. One human can only produce a tiny fraction of this. For the amount of milk that the world's population needs, it will take almost every human capable of producing milk to be constantly hooked up to a milking machine. What will the National Organization of Women think about this? How can a women perform in the workplace while she is hooked up to a milker? How can title IX survive when a women's soccer team has to stop every so often to milk their players? I can just see it now.... world leaders demanding we produce more girls to raise the overall milk production.

Meanwhile, happy healthy cows are wandering around in perfect bliss because we are not molesting them for their milk nor are we eating them.

For this reason, I am creating a new advocacy group called PETH - People for the Unethical treatment of Humans. We can call this idea pethetic.

Who's to blame?

Who is to blame for the current financial crisis?

Watch this:



From all accounts, President Bush has been raising this issue from almost his first inaugural. We see Alan Greenspan signaling problems, and we see John McCain sponsoring legislation to place some over site board over Freddie and Fannie. It looks like the Democrats had blinders on to the future of the GSE's.

It is no wonder harry Reid et al has no clue how to resolve this... they are the ones who allowed this mess to happen.

McCain's Gambit

Here we have a situation where Bush (who has a plan), Democrats (who don't have any plans), Conservatives (who are not fond of bailouts), McCain (who has also put forth a plan) and Obama (uh...if.. uh...uh...If I'm uh needed, I'll uh... come to uh... Washington) are all in desperate need of someone to pull it all together and get it done. What is needed is someone to take a leadership role. Enter John McCain.

McCain will go to Washington and meet with Bush, leaders of both parties and Barrack Obama to hammer out the details. The Conservatives do not want McCain lose the presidentsy, so they will eventually support (albeit reluctantly) whatever Bush and McCain hammer out. Democrats, who want to take action but don't know how, will also go along with the deal but they will try to add silly things to the bill so they can also claim victory. Obama is just window dressing as he has shown that he does not have a real voice of power at the table.

Only McCain can deliver the deal. Harry Reid and the Democrats knows this. If the Democrats then oppose this deal, they will look like obstructionists who will oppose anything the GOP does without offering any viable alternatives (once again...referring to an energy policy).

This is clearly a win-win for McCain, and a lose-lose for Obama. How many more times can Reid, Pelosi get snookered? I don't know, but it seems that it is very seasy to do.

McCain suspends campaign

John McCain suspended his campaign so he can focus on the upcoming votes for the economic bailout plan. He is also asking to postpone the Friday's debate.

Although this shows us that the country comes first in his mind, he still must realize he is running for president against someone who will destroy this country's economy by his Liberal policies. This should be his number one focus. Also, a President, facing a crisis somewhere in the world, simply cannot suspend his Presidency on all other matters he/she faces. this is not an option for a President.

If McCain feels it important enough to be apart of the Senate deliberations, that's fine. He should do his duty as a Senator. But, he needs to delegate to the rest of his staff, especially Sarah Palin, his campaign duties until he can focus once again on the campaign.

If I were McCain, I would tell Obama "I must focus on this crisis in the senate. If you feel the same way, please join me in postponing the debate. If you do not feel the same way, I will send Sarah Palin to debate you". That oughta scare the bejeebies out of Obama.

In Fact, all of the Senators should be in DC for the senate deliberations. Palin then would be the only one available to campaign.

SNL Skit by Al Franken

Apparently Al Franken helped write the opening skit for SNL featuring a spoof on John McCain. I saw the skit, and it wasn't funny, thus I conclude that Al Franken indeed wrote it.

Where are the adults?

Achmud Imadinnerjacket is probably the most dangerous man in this world. By his own words, he means to destroy a sovereign nation by any means possible. If this madman gets a nuclear device, he will most likely use it against Israel.

This madman deserves to be ridiculed, ostracized and demeaned in any way possible. His stay here in the UN should be made as uncomfortable as possible.

Rightly so, the NJDC is organizing a protest, and in an act of common values as Americans, invited influential people of all political parties to the rally. This should have been a no-brainer to show our united front against terrorism and extremely bad behaviour.

So what happened? As soon as Hillary Clinton found out that Sarah Palin (A sitting Governor, a VP candidate and strong proponent of Israel) would be there, she bagged the event. What a childish thing to do. It should serve to show us that she has absolutely no moral compass when she cannot bring herself to share a stage to show a common American Purpose. For her, it's Party first, and then Country. Actually, Its HRC, Then Party and only then Country.

So, the NJDC reached out to other Democrats, and none of them would attend. Who exactly is making this a political thing? Where are the adults in the Democrat party? They are all acting like badly behaving kindergartners.

Then, to make matters worse, the NJDC rescinded their invitation from Palin saying well if we can't get any Democrats, then we can't have any Republicans. As a Jew, I am ashamed of this group's behaviour. They acted almost as childish as the Democrats.

This should have been an American event... non-political and non-partisan. Instead, the Democrats and this lame Jewish group turned this into a joke. This rally will not get the attention it deserves because they denied national voices to attend. 'It's my ball, and I'm taking it home'. WAAAAAA!

HillaryCare Conspiracy Theory

ok, I have no proof, nor any links (yet). I just want to put this out there.

Isn't the goal of liberals to have a massive Federal government control our health care and to provide cradle to grave insurance? Wasn't this 'HillaryCare' and is this not what Obama is now pushing?

I would think the only way to accomplish this goal is to have a government run/owned Insurance Company and force everyone into it... or at least those that cannot afford their own health care... which is to say just about everyone.

Now we have the Federal Government owning 80% of one of our nations largest insurance companies, AIG. Is this Step #1 towards their goal? For Hillarycare, this was probably the hardest and most complex part to accomplish in building the infrastructure to provide the products needed. In one fell swoop, this has been dealt with.

Step #2 is perhaps convince the public that we should maximize FEDGOV'S investment by saying something like: 'Now that we have this insurance company, we should use it to insure everyone, especially the children (it's always about the children as if us parents can't raise them ourselves)?'

Step #3 is to pass legislation in the liberal controlled congress and have the liberal president sign it.

In other words, by this time next year, HillaryCare could be a reality, while we all scratch our heads and wonder how this could have happened so fast.

On the Media

There once was a time that you tuned into the National News programs in the evening, or read a newspaper like the New York Times, and you got the news. There was no Internet, or blogs or other avenues for gathering information about what was going on around our world. The perception of the venerable news sources was that they were trusted and conveyed news without opinion... just the facts.

I used to listen or watch the news for the weather reports. All I really needed to know is what I need to wear for the day... do I need to bring an umbrella... do I need a jacket... can I wear shorts? there was a time the weather man will give you a percent chance of rain. Nowadays, he/she will pinpoint exactly when it will start raining, how heavy the rainfall might be etc. They are usually wrong in that they always try to sensationalize the weather. they will tell you it will potentially dump 5 inches of rain, and flood out major roads when in fact it just drizzled. The reality is that it does not matter how much rain is expected, only that I have to bring my umbrella. They sensationalize the temperature by adding a 'wind chill factor' in the winter and a 'heat index' in the summer. Does it really matter that it is 20 degrees Fahrenheit, but the wind chill (defined as what it feels like being naked, as if I'll be running around naked outside) says 10 below... I'll still need my winter coat, gloves and hat. Does it really matter that it is 90 degrees but the heat index is 110?

I don't listen to the weather man anymore because what they tell us is nonsense.... I get a better weather report by looking out of my window. They don't tell me just the facts anymore.

The news that is presented to us is just like the weather report... they try to sensationalize it as well as try to tell a story. The story is what the editors want us to think about the facts they are presenting. Because the facts are going through this kind of editing, we do not get the overall picture anymore. Since there are now so many avenues of information gathering and presentation due to the Internet and blogs, we can now get a better picture of what is actually happening. There are tons of news sources at our fingertips, and many people sifting through these to find different perspectives on the same set of facts. In a lot of cases, finding facts that were either overlooked, not reported or not found by the Media. This is a problem when editing to tell a story in that you will usually be proven inaccurate and unreliable. If the media just stuck to the facts without editorial comment, they would be a lot better off. If the media was consistent in the treatment facts, they would be a lot better off.

Case in point: The media has dug into Governor Palin's accomplishments, life and family to a much higher degree that they did with Biden or Obama. Granted they have not had as much time to do this digging so it was compressed into a few short weeks. They had about 16 months to dig into Obama's history with William Ayres ( a known terrorist), but they have not. They had enough time to dig into Obama's pastor for 20 years, who weekly lectured to his congregation about racist and Anti-American ideals while Obama and his family sat and listened. It was only until conservative talk radio did the job of the Media that Obama left that pastor. For all the hammering that Palin is getting about being qualified, has the same hammering happened to Obama or Biden?

On Odd Couple quote applies here: 'Do you want speed or accuracy'? The Media has sacrificed accuracy for speed. Remember the 2000 election when they called the election in Florida for Gore an hour before the poles closed in a part of the state? If they hadn't sacrifsed accuracy, there would have been more Bush votes from the more conservative pan-handle, thus there wouldn't have been cause for Gore to try to steal the election.

The bottom line is that the Media, in trying to tell a story, rather than telling us the facts, has lost their direction as to why they are important to us, and they need to get their compass re-aligned. It is no wonder their viewership and readership is declining. It is no wonder alternative media readership is expanding.

I would watch a news program or read a newspaper, even if their articles were a day behind, as long as the facts are accurate and well researched.

Oil Drilling

I have a few questions for Congress:

1) Why don't we drill where there is oil? It seems to me that setting artificial and arbitrary boundaries limits the effectiveness for obtaining the oil thus increasing the cost of extraction and delivery. For instance, if there is a large oil source that is out of bounds, but smaller ones that are in bounds, it would take more oil rigs to do the extraction, as well as having to lay down that much more piping to get it to shore. The more oil rigs there are, the more potential risk to the environment (this makes no sense in the world of loony liberal logic).

This arbitrary restriction is like saying that we can't build a wind farm in the windiest places in America because it would wreck someone's view, so build wind farms where the wind isn't as good or consistent.

2) Why is this even a Federal issue at all? Each state should govern what happens within their property. Granted, it can get dicey when dealing with state boundaries off-shore, but I think an easy solution can be reached: just draw a line from the state boundary due east (or due west for left coast states). Easy.

Once the boundaries have been drawn, each state can decide what to do with their oil reserves, with the Federal Government acting as a customer. Each state can decide how to lease the land to the oil companies, and each state can decide how to divvy up any royalties paid to the residents of that state. This is basically the Alaskan model set up by Governor Palin. If a state doesn't want to have any drilling, that is their prerogative. When that states residents sees their neighboring states' residents getting tax breaks or reduced prices at the pumps, I'm sure they will put pressure on their state's government to change their minds.

We know the answers to these questions. It is because the Federal Government has grabbed too much power over the states and will not let go, even though what they are doing is constitutionally questionable. We also know that Liberals are more interested in control over our daily lives. I know this is a bold statement, but it is born out by the fact that they do not want us to have money in our pockets by keeping tax rates and energy costs high... and money = freedom, thus less money = less freedom. To a liberal, competition is verboten unless they can control it, thus they do not want states to compete for energy solutions.

Remember, the energy platform of Liberals is BANANAs -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

Sarah Palin's 'Interview'

How stupid does ABC think we are? I guess they are banking on the fact that most people will only see what ABC showed us regarding Charlie Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, and then move on. My guess is that most people think that was the entire interview, uncut and un-edited. Further to this guess, people will not have time or desire to find out if there was more to the interview and if there was, what was in it.

So ABC releases the entire transcript of the interview (via Marklevinshow.com via hotair.com). It is fascinating to see what was not aired. If you have time, read the whole thing, especially the things that were left on the cutting room floor. Here is an example. The bold letters is what is on the floor:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

As you can see from this example, it shows that Palin has experience in negotiating with foreign countries, including Russia. It shows she has a whole lot more practical contact with foreign affairs than Obama ever had. It shows she is way more prepared than both Obama and Biden combined in meeting with and negotiating with foreign dignitaries. She has sat at the table, made the deals and had the authorization to sign the treaties on behalf of her state. Because this does not fit into ABC's portrayal of Palin as a Foreign affairs dolt, it was edited out.


I can understand editing the interview to eliminate non-editorial issues like external noises, Gibson farting or Palin's shirt opening up (thankfully neither happened). But editing the interview to change the meaning and context is unforgivable.

This is the first interview and first real chance for us Americans to hear Sarah Palin speak in an unscripted setting. For ABC to edit her answers (and Charlie's questions) is beyond the pale. It is no wonder the media has very little credibility any more.

September 11

I was in NYC yesterday for a job interview. The prospective employer is downtown in the Battery. I commuted the best way I knew how.. took the train to Newark and switched to the Path to the WTC station. I live in NJ, not too far away from NYC, but I don't go to the City very much. Although I have been to the City a number of times since 9/11, This was the first time I was downtown. Not that I have been avoiding this, I just never had to occasion.

It has been 7 years since Islamic terrorist assholes attacked us, and life has long since gone back to normal for most people. The event, although never forgotten, was not at the forefront of my mind at the time. I was focusing on the interview, and very little else.

The last time I was downtown, I took the Path to the WTC station. As I remember the trip, once entering the tunnel from the Jersey side, you don't see daylight again until after you exit the train, go up the escalators and walk outside.

My concentration on the interview was completely shattered when the Path train broke out into daylight about 1/4 mile from the station. You can look up into the sky and see buildings, cranes, workers and construction. The Path station itself was partly outdoors. Needless to say, I was deeply moved by this, and as I made my way up to street level, I realized I was feeling the same emotions I felt 7 years ago to almost the same intensity.... sadness for the victims and their families, anger at those assholes who now are cowering in caves like the worms they are... amazed that in this information age that those on flight 93 we instantly alerted ... and finally pride in Americans that those on flight 93 took action like the true heroes they are.

Once I got to street level, I began walking downtown. There were tourists with cameras gawking at the site all over the place. There were a few streets blocked off and stands being erected for 9/11 ceremonies. I don't know if any of them had the same emotions I was feeling. It didn't matter. I hope they take a lot of pictures and show them to a lot of people. I feel that we should be showing pictures of the towers before during and after the attack to make sure we do not forget...ever. Our complacency is our enemy's advantage.

When I was growing up, I watched those towers being built from the treetop in backyard. I would come home from school and climb my tree and count the number of floors. I watched the towers crumble to the ground. If I get this job, I will watch the new buildings built. I hope I get this opportunity.

Update: Unfortunately, I will not have this opportunity.

Barrack is channeling Bobby Riggs

I remember watching the Bobby Riggs vs. Billy Jean King Tennis match. I was just a kid at the time but what a great show. here we had a guy so pumped up on himself that he was carried into the stadium on a litter with pole bearers reminiscent of a Roman emperor. After all of the pomp, Billy Jean went about whooping his ass playing tennis. It was great theater as well as one of the best things that could have happened to the woman's rights movement at that time.

Now, Barrack Obama, who is struggling to find something he is better at than Sarah Palin, wants to challenge her to a basketball game. (ht to John Hawkins)

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: The rivalry between the Democratic and Republican tickets for president could shift from the ballot box to the hardwood if Barack Obama has his way.

In an exclusive interview airing this morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the Democratic nominee for president said he would be open to going one-on-one in basketball with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

"You know, I would play her a game of horse," said Obama. "She looks like she’s got some game."

Palin was a standout high school basketball player whose skills on the court earned her the nickname Sarah Barracuda. But Obama said he doesn’t fear her.

"On the basketball court, I think I’d stand up pretty well," he said.

I would love to see this. It would be great theater, and it will do wonders for Palin's (and McCain's) election.

Palin

Just a quick note on the presidential candidates and their VP selections: Between Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin, there is exactly 10 years of executive experience, and they ALL belong to Sarah Palin. She served 8 years as a mayor and is now serving as Governor of her state. She is the ONLY one among the 4 people who has ever been in a leadership position.

In my humble opinion, she is the ONLY qualified candidate this year. Unfortunately she is the VP pick, not the top spot.

and in other news, liberals are now realizing the predicament they are in: If Obama wins, then we are against women, and if Obama loses, we are all racists. This is the dangers of identity politics that liberals have created for themselves.

the good news is that no matter who wins, there will be a first, so we'll never have to go through this again.

Olympics Part III

I don't follow or watch basketball (I'm a short white guy.... can you blame me?). While flipping between NBC channels this morning, I was left with 3 choices.... watch the interviews just after USA won the gold in women's soccer; watch women's basketball or watch rhythmic gymnastics (girls hopping around with jump ropes... this is a sport?) the only reason I didn't turn off the tv was that the Australian women's basketball team was wearing skin tight uniforms rather than the baggy things team's usually wear.

The only reason women's beach volleyball is so popular is because they wear those skimpy bikinis while performing extraordinary feats of athleticism bringing out the best voyeurism in all us guys. When May/Walsh won the gold, they were very exited (in more ways than one). It was good tv.

So, I watched the Australian women trounce the Chinese in basketball for the simple reason of what they were wearing. If the WNBA wants more butts in the seats and more viewers, they should look up the uniform designers from Australia. Near the end f the game, the Aussies were up by almost 30 points. they kept on pouring it on by not letting up nor were they trying to run the clock out. In any other circumstance I would have thought this in poor sportsmanship and I would have lost a great deal of respect for them... but for the fact they were playing the Chinese who deserved this treatment due to their overall hubris during these games.

So (back to sports and to my next point) the Aussies won sending them to the gold medal round with America, and China will face Russia for the bronze. The question is (and not that I really care) who should I root against more fervently to lose the bronze?

Olympics Part II

In track and field, There was a time when all of the athletes were introduced. They had a cameraman walking down the line so we can see the faces of the men and women who were about to race. It was interesting to see the countries who qualified for these races. This time has apparently passed.

Last night, the women's 100 meter qualifier races were on (as an example). NBC only introduced those athletes who would eventually qualify. If you were blind, you wouldn't know there were 6 other athletes in the race. What was worse, there was one heat that they introduced the Jamaican and the American, but the Russian won. You never once heard the Russian's name mentioned. Not once. Again, if you were blind, you would not know who actually qualified to move to the next round. At the end of each race, I had to say 'Gee, what a surprise' because the winners were the only ones NBC mentioned (except if there was an American in the race).

I realize these races took place at least 12 hours prior to it being aired, so NBC has plenty of time to produce and edit what they will show us. I just wish they'd play it straight and show us the races.