choice between bad or worse

So, John McCain looks like he'll be the GOP nominee. Oh well. Another election that we will hold our noses and pull the lever for the least objectionable person. The last time this happened, it was Dole vs Clinton, and the time before that is was Bush Sr. vs. Clinton. McCain will get more votes from those who are voting against his opponent than those who actually are voting for him. The reason for this? There is only one thing worse than electing McCain, who has no executive experience and knows nothing except compromising from his Senate experience; and that is electing _______ (fill DEM candidate here).

This time around, there will be a President who knows nothing of leading, who has never run a major organization and who has never once created a single job.

My prediction is that this will be a one term president, no matter who is elected.


Be an Informed Voter

I came across the following website a few days ago


It has the voting records for Congressman and Senators over the last few years. Take the time and look up the candidates and see how they voted on issues that are important to you. One of the best indicators as to what someone will do when the are elected is what they did in the past.

Remember the Childrens Health Insurance Reauthorization Bill that was in the news a few months ago? It would not only reauthorize this program but expand it and increase tobacco taxes to help fund it. It was big news when the Democrats accused Bush of being a child hater when he vetoed it. Well, guess how Hillary Clinton voted on this when it came up in November. She didn't vote at all. And in October, there was a bill to prohibit funding to groups that perform non life threatening abortions. How did Hillary vote? Once again, she didn't vote.

I am getting tired of hearing people say they are going to vote for Clinton because she is a woman, or McCain because he is a war hero, etc., etc. You should vote for the candidate that you feel will be best for the country, not who has the best hairstyle. I can stand up in front of an audience and say that I'm going to fix health care, lower taxes, help the poor and end the war in Iraq. Does that make me a good candidate for President? I'm honest, so why wouldn't you vote for me? OK, so maybe my hair isn't nice as John Edwards, but remember, actions speak louder than words. So check your candidate's voting record to see if they are telling you the truth or just telling you what you want to hear.

Executive Order

While wired up the other night, I was listening to President Bush's State of the Union speech. The last thing I heard prior to shutting it off was that he will sign an executive order directing his agencies to ignore any earmarks that were not voted on in Congress.

He said he'd do this yesterday. Did he? Yes he did!

Now if he had done this 7 years ago, he would still have a republican congress.


Tax Rebate Deal Reached II

If Federal Government was really serious about stimulating the economy, they have a perfect opportunity to do so right now. All they need to do is raise the standard deduction threshold, below which is earnings not taxed, to a level where more people would not pay any income taxes, and make it retroactive to 2007. This will put money directly into the pockets of taxpayers now by simply having them not send their money into the IRS. Simple. Straightforward. No room for pork-barrel add-ons to the bill. Cheap because now the Feds don't have to spend a dime in printing and mailing checks. Logical.

By having a 'rebate' implies we need to send the IRS our money, and by a 'gift' from FedGov, we get a check back and feel real good the government is taking care of us. We are then supposed to thank Nanna Pelosi and Uncle Reid for their generosity.


Tax Rebate Deal Reached

Congress has reached a deal with the white house to give tax rebates to taxpayers. Inside the linked article is this little gem:
Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those couples with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.
oookay.... So how does someone who pays NOTHING in taxes get a rebate? Not only that, they just increased their pay by up to 10%? If they didn't pay any taxes, where is this $300 dollars come from? Oh yeah.. silly question... from MY pocket of course.

So I walk into Best Buy and say to them ' I want the rebate for this DVD player I'm not going to buy'. What do you think their response will be (after they pick themselves off the floor from the laughing)? This is why we don't trust the government, because logic waved bye-bye to them a long time ago.

January Poll

In order to really understand the readers of this blog, I have placed an in-depth, all-encompassing, and completely telling Poll. Please vote.

You can use this as an open thread to promote your choice. This poll will close at the end of the month.

NPR Has Selected the GOP Nominee

NPR has selected the GOP nominee. Now we don't need to go to the polls. Thank you NPR, now we can tune out and not pay any more attention to the selection process. What a relief.

Oh yeah, the winner is..... John McCain!

NPR is busily and happily attacking Romney for his Mormonism (forget that he was a governor, succesful businessman and the Head of the Olympic Committee with real life experiences). He is a Mormon 1st and formost, and each time NPR mentions Romney, it's like '.... Mitt Romney (R-Mormon)'.

NPR is also busily and happily attacking Rudy Giuliani because the fallout from 9/11 made the air somewhat hazardous, but didn't communicate this adequately (forget about his being a US attorney who took on the mafia and won, or his being Mayor of a dying city and turning it around completely).

This is all you hear from NPR. Not a negative peep about John McCain. The reason for this is that McCain has not been in any position of authority which NPR can attack.

Thanks again NPR for helping me narrow my selection. Because NPR is for the guy means I can now eliminate him from my consideration.


Libs vs Reagan

It has been fun and highly entertaining watching a) Obama singing the praises of Ronald Reagan and b) Having him get slammed for it by Hillary Edwards.

What Obama said of Reagan was very true: Reagan was an agent of change when this country needed it. If you grew up in the 70's and witnessed first hand the Jimmy Carter economy, you should remember the gas rationing, 18-20% Mortgage Rates, high unemployment, 70-80% top marginal tax rates and a general 'malaise' about life in America all generated from liberal lofty (and expensive) but unrealistic policies which amounted to a strangle hold on the economy. These policies centered around 'energy independence' (sounds great) but these were government mandated and not market driven.

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis?, instead of freeing the hostages using America's might, he created an 'oil embargo' against Iran which further exacerbated the world oil market. After 444 days of captivity, the hostages were freed because Carter signed the Algiers agreement brokered by Warren Christopher out of fear and weakness. Reagan would not have signed this crappy agreement.

Reagan changed all of this by attacking the root causes of America's Malaise. Reagan attacked the root cause of the economic downturn by cutting the tax rates significantly and removed other federal interventions on growth. What resulted was an incredible economic upturn that we are still enjoying today. (Yes, deficits went up, but this was due to overspending by the democrats in charge of congress; tax receipt also went way up as well) And he ended the cold war by standing up to the USSR in their backyard and said'... Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'

Liberals think Reagan's actions were wrong and took America in the wrong direction. I guess they like the long gas lines, high unemployment, high taxes and high interest rates and feeling the malaise of the 70's because that is exactly what they are advocating by attacking Ronald Reagan and proposing their government mandates upon businesses.


Go Giants!

I am a Giant Fan (as well as a Steeler fan). Nobody, and I mean NOBODY had given the Giants any thought that the Giants would reach the Superbowl, including myself. I thought they would beat the Cowboys, but lose to the Packers in frigid Green Bay. From all of the analysis, Eli Manning could not play in cold weather. I bought into this as well.

What I saw last night was astounding: A quarterback playing as if it was 50 degrees while the other quarterback played as if the cold was the worst thing (this is not the astounding part); the astounding part is that it was Favre who played to the cold and Manning who ignored it!

Manning played yet another near-flawless game. during the regular season, Eli was almost written off as a mediocre (at best) qb that will never reach the ranks of his older brother. Give the guy some time. From the last few games, he has showed us something bordering on greatness.

On to Arizona and the Patriots. As the saying goes... '...any given Sunday'. GO GIANTS!

Chavez, Meet John Galt

Hugo Chavez really needs to read Atlas Shrugged.


We Won't Get Fooled Again

There was a commenter on our brand new shiny blog which got me thinking (btw, thanks for the comments, please continue) about the inner screaming I was doing several years ago. Liberals have a mantra of ‘Bush Lied’ or ‘where are the weapons of mass destruction?’, and now that I have this blog, please allow me to re-tort.

These people have completely forgotten the history behind the Iraq Wars. You see, we didn’t just start this war; we are finishing what we started back in 1991. The first Gulf War did not end with a peace treaty; it ended with a cease fire with many conditions set upon Saddam Hussein.

For instance, Hussein needed to allow UN inspectors to have unlimited access to his country. During the subsequent years, he continued to play cat and mouse games with the inspectors making it seem he had things to hide. By the time Bush was in office, everyone including Bill and Hill Clinton, John Kerry, most of the democratic leadership as well as most European heads of states all were saying the same thing. All of the information available at that time pointed to the same conclusions that Bush came to. Since Liberals claim that Bush Lied, the only person that today’s liberals agreed with was Saddam Hussein (this must make sense in the world of loony liberal logic). We know Hussein had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on his own people. Where are these weapons now? This is a very good question that still needs to be addressed.

Hussein was restricted to where his military could go. There were Northern and Southern No-Fly zones, which Hussein regularly broached. He placed our military in danger by shooting at us and continuously breeched the cease-fire agreement. After 9/11 awoke this sleeping giant, USA was in no mood to have our brave men and women be Iraqi target practice without the ability to eliminate the threat once and for all. After dozens of UN resolutions ranging from ‘please’ to ‘pretty please’, to ‘we mean it this time’ to ‘or else’ (knowing full well the UN has no backbone for the consequences of the answer ‘or else what’), America resumed hostile actions against Iraq saving the UN from extinction. We then proceeded to eliminate one of the world’s maniacal leaders.

As for the claim that Hussein had no links to 9/11, my answer is simply: Duh! No one said there was. But to say Hussein had no ties to Al Qaeda is ludicrous. There was plenty of documented contacts between AQ and the Iraqi government, but not yet a ‘collaborative relationship’ as per the 9/11 commission. That was just a matter of time if we allowed things to continue. It is no coincidence that our primary foe in Iraq is AQ called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’. It is AQI that has been stirring up troubles and prolonging this conflict.

AQ’s primary weapon is propaganda, and they are very willing to take the words and utterances of the liberals in this country as a sign that their strategy is working, and not only that, to use these same liberals as useful idiots for their cause to foment unrest in our own country. Osama Bin Laden can sit back and watch our liberal left perform his work for him.

In conclusion, Liberals believe Saddam Hussein was the only one telling the truth and that they are doing the work of AQ. So, dear commenter, exactly who is getting fooled?


Bush Prepares Arab Leaders for Action Against Iran

What does a country have to do before we will actually decide to bomb them? I’ve spent 29 years looking at Iran and asking myself this question. The subject first came up in 1979 when Iran broke international law by invading the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They actually took embassy staff and U.S. military personnel HOSTAGE! Let’s also throw in the fact that the Iranian government sponsored daily rallies where the willing population joyfully shouted “Death to America”. History will show that the only thing that saved the Iranian regime from destruction was the fact that we had the most inept president in U.S. history occupying the Oval Office. To this day, we are still paying for the foolishness of Jimmy Carter.

Since that time, we have seen terrorist organizations openly establish corporate headquarters in Tehran. Iran has subjugated Syria to their will, using them as a terrorist safe haven, which further resulted in the enslavement of Lebanon.. Iran has directly and indirectly attacked their neighbors. They have harbored, funded, trained and exported terrorism around the world. They have announced their intentions to destroy Israel and the United States. And they are actively seeking to build nuclear weapons to carry out these aims.

United Nations economic sanctions or even direct military action can only come with the blessing of the Security Council, so Iran has effectively bought the protection of Russia and China. China needs cheap oil for their economic expansion to counter U.S. influence, and Russia is pocketing any money they can get by providing Iran with nuclear material. Knowing that Tel Aviv or New York City would be the primary targets of any nuclear attacks, other UN members can comfortably sit back and advise diplomacy, figuring that a defeated Iran would make the U.S. unacceptably more powerful – and if they are wrong, oh well, at least it’s not their cities that got nuked.

At best, it is 50/50 on whether or not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the next president. Can they be counted on to take action against Iran in time? Would it be unfair in blaming Mr. Bush for not doing it while he had the chance?

George W. Bush has finally decided that the end has come for the Iranian regime. We can no longer risk having New York, Los Angeles or Washington, DC turned into a smoking hole because we tried appeasing the UN, our “allies, “moderate Arabs”, and “the World Community” with endless and pointless negotiations. Iran has proven itself to be a country that can’t be negotiated with, and will do anything to achieve our destruction. This remains a goal that they continue to clearly and openly announce to the world.

In 2002, President Bush had decided that the U.S. was going to go to war with Iraq. Back then, he naively believed that it was in the interest of our country to be very clear as to our intentions. As part of his efforts to get the support of neighboring Arab countries, Mr. Bush dispatched Vice President Cheney to the Middle East to meet with local leaders informing them of our intentions, and asking for whatever help they could offer.

As it turned out, this did not work for a number of reasons. First, leaders of Arab countries simply do not have the intestinal fortitude to publicly stand up to murderous dictators of neighboring countries. They can’t admit that they themselves don’t have the nerve to take such an action, and certainly can’t admit that they need the United States to do it. They also can’t be seen as supporting the destruction of fellow Arab Muslims by a western power, when the destruction of fellow Arab Muslims is something they view as their job. They may have wanted Saddam to go, but not if it meant they had to publicly support someone who was clearly horning in on their action.

Additionally, such a public display of our intentions allowed detractors of the impending invasion to oppose us in an equally public way. For example, France wanted to derail an invasion. They had billions of dollars of oil contracts with Iraq. So, they dispatched their foreign minister to shadow Mr. Cheney on his trip, with the intent of derailing any agreements he was able to arrange.

Mr. Bush has seemingly learned from past mistakes. Sometimes a job has to be done by the top guy. Instead of sending Dick Cheney this time, Bush decided to make this Middle Eastern trip himself. During this ten country trip, there was no fanfare about ginning up support for action against Iran. Instead, we were all given the politically correct smokescreen that he was trying to solve the age-old Israeli / Palestinian issue.

The genius of this is that Mr. Bush’s political opponents are too heavily invested in solving the Palestinian quagmire to object to a presidential trip purportedly taken on its behalf. The open secret is that there has been no reason to believe that either side is any closer to coming to terms, and Mr. Bush has been loudly skeptical of the whole idea since he took office. More likely, his conversations in Saudi Arabia went something like “boy, we’d sure like those Palestinians to get their own country, and oh, by the way, we’ll be bombing the snot out of Iran soon, so do you think you could pump a little more oil in the meantime?”

Dumb things to do

Here is a list of dumb things to do:

  • Drink and then drive
  • Cut up peppers and then rub your eyes, especially when wearing contacts.
  • Cut raw chicken and then cut veggies with the same knife (Salmonella sucks hard).
  • Put on Bengay and then piss.
  • Protest Global Warming on a cold, snowy day
  • vote for a liberal


NJ Budget woes are Solved!

There is a new and improved focus on generating revenue for the state of NJ. On the NJ Turnpike between exit 11 and 14, there is an HOV lane that is restricted at certain times for the day (6-9am going Northbound and 4-7pm going Southbound). This lane is restricted to those with 3 or more persons in the vehicle, all buses and hybrid vehicles (because NJ is a liberal state that wants to control it's citizen's behavior).

Since NJ is a commuter state, very few people live near where they work, and even fewer people are able to carpool, thus only buses, an occasional Hybrid and families on vacation are able to use this lane.

Anyway, During the past several days, there has been a major focus on handing out tickets to those who use it anyway. There was no less than 8 cop cars (all unmarked) pulling motorists over. I can only imagine this is Gov. Corzines way to bridge the budget gap.

The result is that now us commuters know they are there, we have stopped using the HOV lane (for now), so Corzine's revenue source will dry up. It's just like placing additional taxes on heavy construction equipment, then spending the anticipated revenues only to find that they have taxed the industry to a point that they all moved to Pennsylvania (This was a Florio fiasco, but dems never learn). The other result is that there is now much more traffic and congestion, causing more pollution due to more cars moving much slower in denser areas.

Texas Town Won't Build a Wall

Eagle Pass is town on the southern border of Texas. It's mayor is highly critical of the plan to protect America from illegal intrusions into our country, and now the federal government has filed suit against the town.
The federal government sued Monday to get on land owned by a Texas city whose mayor has been highly critical of a planned U.S.-Mexico border fence.

The lawsuit was filed by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton against the city of Eagle Pass, Justice Department spokesman Andrew Ames said.

The city's mayor, Chad Foster, serves as chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. The coalition consists of several border mayors, business officials and residents, and has been fighting the Homeland Security Department's border fence construction plans.

Members say the agency has failed to sufficiently consider concerns about the effects on environment, residents' property and the binational way of life along the border and ignored local officials' suggestions for alternatives.

Let me make this simple for Mr. Foster. Ive even drawn pictures:

As you can plainly see, the other towns should proceed with building the wall and if Eagle Pass doesn't, it will become a funnel town for the illegal invasion, which will have a more devastating effect on the wildlife, and local economy. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Update and bump: Via Wizbang, The judge ruled in the feds favor. It only took a day to decide.


Stupid People

The dryer in my apartment wasn't working the last few days. The coin slot was jammed. When I came home from work this evening the maintenance guy was trying to fix it. There were 2 dimes and a nickel wedged in the slot, even though there is a big sticker above the slot that says QUARTERS ONLY.

To make matters worse, he couldn't get one of the coins out and has to call the dryer repair man, who can't come until Friday.

To top it all off, when this dryer was put in 6 months ago, the programming was wrong. It would run for 60 minutes for 50 cents instead of the $1.75 listed. According to the maintenance guy, that will be fixed also. Thanks Stupid Moron in Apartment 4. You screwed it up for the rest of us.

Edwards was for it before....

John Edwards said in the debate last night that although he voted for using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage facility, he now does not support it. His reasoning? ...'because there is new technology'.

So, because there is new technology that may reduce the amount of waste that needs disposing, Edwards is against it???

Argonne’s spent-fuel recycling may reduce nuclear waste storage shortage.

Argonne’s new approach to recycling spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors could help solve an expected international shortage of repository space for disposing of nuclear wastes.

In a single step, commercial fuel, which is a ceramic, can be converted to a metallic form for processing with Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology. This technology can greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal in a repository.

To someone in the world of loony liberal logic this makes sense.


Nor'easter Today

We got hit with snow today but not the doom and gloom that was predicted. Coming into work this morning wasn't a problem. All the schools were cancelled as of yesterday, well before the 1st snowflake was anywhere near Boston. After the December fiasco, I guess people just stayed home. In December normal 30-45 minute commutes took 4-7 HOURS.

I heard that Governor Deval Patrick told all non-essential government employees not to report to work today. In a related note, the Governor's stayed at home.

Proposed Toll Hikes in NJ

As I mentioned in an earlier post titled 'Tough Love Indeed", Governor Corzine (D) has proposed a 488% hike in the tolls we pay. He realizes this is very unpopular so he has added some sweeteners to the proposal like: commuters will get a break from this hike. How he plans on doing this or how he expects me to keep track of the tolls I pay is beyond me at this point (more on this when his plan is more detailed).

The reason for my post is that Corzine is now having 'town-hall' style meetings around the state to talk about the toll-hike plan that he still has not detailed yet. The problem with these meetings is that you have to RSVP! They want to know who will be attending and you need to give a lot of personal information before you can register.

Here is a clip from the Sentinel, which is our local weekly newspaper:
The details of the meetings including locations, dates and times can be found under the Town Hall listing," Corzine wrote. "If youwould like to attend you must RSVP (emphasis added). You will find the registration formunder the link Town Hall RSVP."

Say what? Why would anyone have to RSVP to attend a public meeting? Is that even legal?

Let's take a look at the state's open meetings law. Anything in there about mandatory RSVPs? Nope, not a word.

Corzine is apparently making it up as he goes along. He wants to know who plans to attend these public meetings, and he wants to know as much about them as possible.

I couldn't say it any snarkier than Greg Bean.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again: unbelievable.

What the Weatherman knows

The weatherman knows one thing, and one thing only: it will snow on Christmas. Other than this, they are guessing.

It was predicted to snow last night. All news shows on tv and radio were leading off with the 'BIG SNOW STORM' predicting mayhem everywhere: (From Accuweather)

I was out and about yesterday at around 4pm and took a whiff of the air (I know, I live in NJ so I take my life in my hands when I do this, yada, yada, yada) and I could tell there would be no snow.

What Happened? NOTHING!!! These weatherpeople need to get out more.


She's No Katrina, But Hillary Is Still a Category 4

The Harvard Business School has the Rule of Four. This blog humbly submits Steve’s Rule of Five for gauging a presidential administration’s historical impact. To help paint a mental picture, consider a new administration as a boat at the confluence of three rivers. The boat can go straight with the prevailing current, branch left over a deadly waterfall, or branch right to a garden paradise.

Category 1) Just Float - This administration chooses not to change course in any fundamental way. Fires will be put out and few will be lit. Small things are blown large (gays in the military, school uniforms, Kosovo), and large things are diminished (the USS Cole bombing, the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings). Maintaining high public opinion is the primary goal. This was successfully done by Clinton and Eisenhower, unsuccessfully by Herbert Hoover.

Category 2) Steer Toward the Garden (with engines off) – This is an administration able to recognize a worthy goal , but lacks the will to commit fully. Actions are taken half-heartedly and left unfinished. This was superbly demonstrated by George W. Bush's administration regarding the removal of state-run terror. Actions were taken against Afghanistan and Iraq, but threats from Iran, Syria and North Koreal were allowed to grow. John F. Kennedy was another president who fell into this category.

Category 3) Steer Toward the Garden (full speed ahead) – This is an administration that sees the goal, and dedicates a total effort to getting there. The results are positive and measurable. The two best examples of these types of presidents are Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.

Category 4) Steer Toward the Falls (with engines off) – This is an administration with either a lack of vision, or a vision that causes negative effects. Incompetence and a lack of effective follow through are the only things that limit the damage. Dithering by Woodrow Wilson’s administration prolonged WWI by an extra two years. Wilson’s ineffectiveness caused the world adopt his League of Nations concept while his own senate rejected it, and his strategic blindness made World War II spring from the Treaty of Versailles.

Category 5) Steer Toward the Falls (full speed ahead) – This is an administration that also has a lack of vision or a vision that causes negative effects. But unlike the previous category, an administration in this category has the singular gift of being able to create disaster in the fastest possible way. Jimmy Carter surpassed even James Buchanan with this talent. While Buchanan lost half of the union in his four years, Carter shattered the U.S. economy, ceded entire regions of the world to the Soviet Union, and allowed an Islamist Iran to be born, with their avowed goal of destroying everything else.

What category would President Hillary Clinton fall into? What can you say about Hillary Clinton that hasn’t been said before?

How about this: She’s warm, loving, honest, friendly, and is the most genuine person you would ever want to meet.

Well, you have to admit – those things haven’t been said about her before……

Do we really need a president to have those traits? Look to your own experience and consider this: Have you ever had a boss who was cold, deceitful, unfriendly and untrustworthy? Assuming the answer is yes, let’s look at that boss’ “effectiveness”. Did the work environment they created live up to its full potential? Who went out of their way to do their best when they knew their reward would be backstabbing derision coming down from above?

A presidential ogre can still be considered “effective” if you define things narrowly enough. Even if Mrs. Clinton proves herself to be a world class witch, at the conclusion of her presidency the IRS will still be collecting taxes, 50 states will remain in the union, and we will still have November elections.

At this point, the fourth category is where Mrs. Clinton is most likely to fall. Ironically enough, it is her very unlikeability that may save the U.S. from her speeding us over the falls at full power.

This is Cool!!

Now this is cool!!! I gotta get one. Who's up for a battle?


Obama to Run For Jimmy Carter's Second Term

We live in a dangerous world, so it is important to look at how our presidential candidates view foreign policy, and how they would be inclined to act as president. My stock broker may say that past performance is no indication of future results, but Barack Obama is not running for stock broker.

How do you critique a foreign policy record that hardly exists? He was elected to the U.S Senate in 2004, started serving his term in 2005, and began his run for president in 2006. In terms of experience, I have a high school-aged son who has logged more hours bagging groceries than Mr. Obama has had as a senator in Washington.

The loudest and clearest Mr. Obama has been is when talking about his opposition to the U.S invasion of Iraq, which was conveniently for him, a vote that occurred before his election.

When it came to a vote on classifying Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, Mr. Obama could have taken an unambiguous position by voting yes or no. Instead, he decided that demonstrating political cowardice was the better way to go and opted to avoid the vote altogether.

He insists that he will vigorously prosecute the war against Islamist terrorists, and as an example, suggests that he would invade our Pakistani allies (see my post :Between Barack and a Hard Place).

In summary, he has shown that his foreign policy positions will vary depending on their time frame. Issues that pre-date him he will second guess, issues of the present he will avoid, and issues of the future he will make worse.

In Defence of...

Hillary. She is doing what any other political campaign will do: pick on the other guys (or gals). So blacks are getting upset because she is picking on Barack Hussein Obama. Why are they getting upset, is it because they are playing the race card by trying to play the victim?

Those on both sides say watching the battle unfold in the Palmetto State, where black voters could cast half of the votes in the Democratic primary, won’t be pretty.

“To some of us, it is painful,” said state Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Clinton supporter.

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., had pledged to remain neutral as Democrats competed for votes in the state’s primary.

Is Hillary picking on Obama because he is black? No... he is her political opponent and as such, he is fair game. Just as Hillary shouldn't complain about being picked on herself, after all, she is also an opponent 1st and foremost regardless of her sex. Message to both: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.

It seems to me that if blacks really want perceived racial tensions to ease, they should not continue to find cause to have tensions. (Oh yeah, this will never happen as long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton continue to be the 'leaders'.)

the same goes for any 'victim' group out there. I'm getting very tired of 'victimhood' politics.

As for me, I don't see things as black vs. white. We are all various shades of the same color: tan.

Update: Brendan Loy has the same thoughts, but is actually doing something about it. (ht: Instapundit)

Update II: Michelle Malkin has a great roundup (as usual).

Boston Firefighters Union - Fighting to Kill it's Members

A few months ago, 2 Boston Firefighters were killed while battling a fire. It was later determined that one had cocaine in his system while the other one had a BAC of 0.29! Now, there is a proposal by the City of Boston to implement random drug and alcohol testing for firefighters, but the Firefighters Union vehemently opposes it. Being that unions still have a lot of clout on Boston, it looks like random testing won’t happen for firefighters. How can the union leaders be against something that could save the lives of their members and possible the general public?

I would like to know who allowed someone with a 0.29 BAC to enter a burning building, or for that matter, how could someone who is that drunk even stagger into the building in the first place. Why didn’t the other firefighters on that call have the drunk guy “watch the truck” or something? But so far, there has been no word of disciplinary action (or better yet, criminal charges) against the supervisor(s) that allowed these guys to go into the burning building. I guess the union is protecting them as well.

I believe that the vast majority of people have high degree of respect for people who put their lives in danger to protect the public (myself included). But it’s actions like this by the Boston Firefighters union that will erode that respect.

75 years ago, unions were needed to protect workers from greedy industrialists. Who will protect today’s workers from greedy unions?

Its the little things

Today, my eldest gave me directions while driving. Its the first time
she's done this, and we got to our destination without any problems.

This is remarkable due to her ADHD and short attention span. She
concentrated for a full 1/2 hour on this task.

Its a little thing most people would take for granted but I'll cherish it.


Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

New England Patriots - Tough Choices

The longer I live in the Boston area, the more I dislike the NE Patsies. Well, not so much the team (with the exception of Belichick) but the "jump on the bandwagon" fans. In the not too distant past, the Patsies couldn't even sell out all of their home games, now everyone is a "long time" fan.

Worse, yet is that these so called fans don't even know football. I was wearing my Steelers jacket prior to the NE/PIT game in December when someone commented that the Steelers were a bad team. After a few comments where exchanged, Captain Moron said in a smug tone,"Well we won 3 SuperBowls, how many have the Steelers won?". (5 for any Patriot fans reading this). I'm tired of hearing about how great Belichick is and how the NFL was so unfair to penelize him for the Video Cheating scandal.

So, now comes my problem. I'll win $80 if the Patsies win the Superbowl. Do I cheer against the Belichick and the Patsy nation or do I cheer for a few bucks in my pocket? Should I stick with me true feelings or prostitute myself for the cash? Being able hold my head up high or buy a great bottle of scotch and some good beer?


Go Patriots

(I feel so cheap and used)


Marion Barry (part 2)

I think 6 months is too lenient. She cheated and lied, she embarrassed her teammates but what is worse, she embarrassed the USA by representing us at the Olympics.

Using drugs to enhance an athletes performance is extremely unfair to all of the athletes who compete against that person. It completely tilts the play field. Those athletes who DON'T take drugs but witness it should be screaming very loudly, even if they are teammates.

  • It is like racing with a motorcycle in a bicycle race;
  • Using a powerboat in a sailboat race;
  • pitting a professional hockey team against a high school team;
  • Using a heavy beach ball for bowling;
  • taking a gun to a knife fight;
from comments:
  • Like playing football against the Jets
Please add any more analogies in the comment section. I'll put them up into this post.

Marion Jones

Marion Jones was sentenced to 6 months in prison for taking steroids and lying about it. I also heard about it on so-called NPR this morning (but I can't find the audio on their site yet). In the so-called NPR report, her lawyer asked that she doesn't get prison time because 'she has suffered enough' because she had her Olympic medals stripped and because she went from national hero to national disgrace. The Fox News item I linked to makes no mention of this.

Here is Point #1: There are many ways to present a story. What so-called NPR fails to realize is that they always slant the story towards their view of the world. So does Fox, but I feel Foxnews attempts to report things right down the middle.

Here is point #2: In the world of loony liberal logic, it matters not what you did but who you are that should determine the consequences of your actions.

Satisfying Commute today

As anyone who has driven with me knows, I am a driver, not a commuter. I view the car not as a means of transporting myself but driving myself from here to there. I can also get somewhat competitive on the road, but I don't let my ego drive my car, which means I stay within certain safety guidlines; I always use my signal, I don't cut people off and I generally don't drive overly aggressive. If someone else is on the road with me who is also competitive, once that person does something overly aggressive, I terminate the game.

Yesterday, there was another driver who was making the moves and passed me by, so I engaged in the game. Once I got back in front, I stayed in front, right up to my exit. I pulled into the exit ramp behind the truck, the other guy saw an opening and in a beautiful move, also took the exit but in front of the truck. He won the game because I didn't keep the pressure up thinking he wasn't exiting. I 'tipped my hat to him' at the toll booth.

Today was an ugly day, pissing rain which always causes undue traffic on the NJ Turnpike, so I was taking it easy, but still making the moves. And guess what?? There he was right in front of me! I made a move to get next to him. He saw me, but didn't recognize me until I pulled in front of him. GAME ON! Bottom line is I got to the toll booth about 1/2 mile ahead of him by using a bus pick and roll into clear space.

Very satisfying, but I hope to play again as the score is now even.



Barack Obama's campaign was officially doomed this morning when Senator John Kerry endorsed him.


Hillary Clinton says she's going to "get" Mr. Obama, "and his little dog, too."

A Solution to Man-Made Global Warming

You first Mr. Gore! (ht: conservative grapevine)

read more | digg story


Tough Love Indeed

I Live and work in New Jersey. I commute every day up and down the NJ Turnpike, so I pay tolls every day. Yesterday, our Governor (D) announced a new proposal to raise revenue to balance the state budget, which is grossly in debt, as told by the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Under his plan, fares would be raised by 50 percent every four years between 2010 and 2022, as well as by an additional cumulative amount of perhaps 3 percent annually to reflect inflation. The inflationary hikes, plus the 50 percent increases, would be bundled together and phased in together only at the four-year points.
Unbelievable. Here is what Corzine had to say about this:
The Democratic governor said the toll hikes would be controversial and a form of "tough love."

In the article, they actually calculated a typical commute:
Under the plan, a typical car driver on the New Jersey Turnpike would be charged $2.05 in tolls in 2010 for a trip that costs $1.20 now. In 2014, the driver would pony up $5.85. Such a driver would take a 23-mile daily trip on the turnpike, the administration said.
My current one-way trip costs $2.10 so in 2014, I'll be paying $10.25. That's an increase of about 488%.

In the world of loony liberal logic, 'tough love' will never take the form of cutting spending, reducing the size of government, reforming government waste and fraud:

Nor, Corzine said, could the state cut its way back to fiscal health. To do so, he said, would "impossibly damage" New Jersey's ability to fund schools, cushion local property taxes, and protect public safety and welfare.

By Corzine's account, the state can only turn to the highway tolls, more than half of which are paid by truckers or out-of-state drivers, as the governor noted.

Unbelievable. Who can even afford to live here anymore? Only those who SHOULD be a recipient of tough love.


The Politics of Hope

The politics of dancing
The politics of oooh feeling good
The politics of moving
Is this message understood
What exactly is "The Politics of Hope"? Since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Barack Obama has thrown around the phrase like he has it trademarked and will receice a nickel for every time someone else says it.
Politics is defined as "the practice of conducting political affairs."
Hope is defined as "the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best."
Therefore, the Politics of Hope (cha ching!) is the practice of conducting political affairs to further the feeling that events will turn out for the best.
Mr. Obama wants to take us away from the bickering about whether or not tax policies will help or hurt the economy, or should we actively oppose those who would actively try to kill us. He believes that hoping for the best should be the national policy of the United States of America.


Above and Beyond

The Medal of Honor is awarded to those serving in combat whose actions rise above and beyond the call of duty. My experience over the past several weeks leads me to believe that there should be an addition to this rule. Anyone who buys the PC game Medal of Honor should get the Medal of Honor. Doing so would help limit the growing debris field that must be forming below the windows of former computer owners.

Case in point: This past August I bought a desktop computer. Was this because I had to have the latest and hottest machine available to wanna-be Googlers like me? Nooooo. I bought a new computer because the one I had started acting squirrely. I brought it in to CompUSA, the store I bought it from a couple of years ago, and had them take a look at it. Their diagnosis was that the motherboard fried itself. Fried itself? That’s what the guy said. I had the first recorded case of computer suicide. This should not be confused with, compucide, an act I am now contemplating. Anyway, time to buy a new computer.

As with most computer buyers, I found myself being guided around the store by someone who I like to think of as the Head Geek, or HG for short. HG was hired by CompUSA out of Central Casting – pimples, oily messed up hair, thick glasses – you know what I mean. It is always oddly comforting to have the various merits of their computer offerings pointed out to you, accompanied by a product description that seems to be in English, but simply does not translate when the sounds reach your brain. HG, oblivious to this, happily proceeded from one machine to the next.

“Look, HG, I want to get a computer that will get the internet, isn’t slow as molasses, can run word documents, store pictures and music and run the occasional game. I also don’t want to have to be back here in six months because it’s broken or obsolete.”

So HG shows me the computer I’ve described, which after translating from geek-speak, is equivalent to upper mid range. He also sells me a service contract so I can have HG come over my house and fix it if I ever smell smoke.

Fast forward five and a half months and I buy Medal of Honor Airborne as a present for my son. He’s thrilled when he sees it, so I figure daddy did good and all will be well. This is where the proverbial fun begins. After installing it, my new hot-stuff, Vista-based machine tells me that it and Medal of Honor aren’t getting along. It seems the video card (what’s a video card?), is not hot stuff enough to run the program. I call the Medal of Honor people and they give me a list of every $200+ video card that will work with the program.

Couple that with the fact that there’s no sign on the outside of my computer tower that says “tape new video card here”, so I’m now glad that for the first time in my life, I’ve bought a service contract that will actually come in handy. All I have to do is go to the store, buy the card, and have HG come over and glue it in.

Upon arriving at CompUSA, I find HG, and he tells me that CompUSA is going out of business, and that no, they are not allowed to fix computers now that they are in bankruptcy. However, it’s “easy” to install, and he’ll show me which video card I need. What a guy. We find the right card, and just when I’m about to pay for it, he smacks himself on the forehead, says something about checking the “power source” on my PC, and discovers that I need a new and bigger one to run the card (presumably with a four barrel, supercharged DOHC thingy). Add another one hundred bucks.

Now I have to get all of these things bolted inside the computer, so after bringing everything home, I did what any reasonable person would do, I asked my girlfriend’s 17 year old son to do it for me. Good thing, too, because when he was done, eight out of ten wires weren’t plugged in, and apparently didn’t need to be. Assuming that I would have been able to figure out which ones were supposed to be plugged in, I would have spent the next week trying to figure out where the other ones are supposed to go – which was nowhere. The inside of a computer is something that most people should not even be allowed to look at.

Now the game works, but the movements are occasionally jerky, and as a new trick, sometimes the computer shuts itself off. HG says that the 1gig of memory should probably be two gigs. It seems the computer doesn’t like to work too hard, and needs “space”. Back to the store I go and trade HG two gigs of memory for a $100 bill.

My $600 computer is now a $1000 computer, HG is unemployed, my kid would rather watch South Park reruns on You Tube, and if this computer so much as beeps, I’m gonna pop a cap in it.

I should have gotten him a dog.

Nobody died when... My car lied?

There is an interesting article I just read that there may be driverless cars on the market within 10 years (hat tip to Drudge). It's a good article so read the whole thing. But there is one paragraph that struck me as funny:

The Defense Department contest, which initially involved 35 teams, showed the technology isn't ready for prime time. One team was eliminated after its vehicle nearly charged into a building, while another vehicle mysteriously pulled into a house's carport and parked itself.

I'll bet that someone told the car to 'go home', but the database told the car to pull into the person's old address because the database wasn't quite up to date so the car reacted to the most current information it had available to it. In the loony world of Liberals, this is considered a lie. Thankfully nobody died when the car lied.

So-called "NPR"

NPR is running a series of reports over the next few days analyzing President Bush's speech delivered almost a year ago by Tom Bowman.
One year ago this week, President Bush outlined a new strategy for Iraq.

In a nationally-televised speech from the White House, Bush unveiled the so-called "surge" in U.S. troops — and more American economic aid. Bush said the government of Prime Minister Nuri al Malaki pledged to do more to heal his country's divisions.

Since then, some of what Bush envisioned has been accomplished, and some remains to be done.

Let me begin this fisking of NPR's fisk and point out that they still call this a 'so-called surge'. In fact, NPR still calls it the 'so-called War on Terror'. Perhaps I should start calling them 'so-called NPR'.

What Bush did in his speech was to lay out his strategic vision and goals for this operation. I'm sure Bush has also communicated these goals and strategic vision to those who will be implementing the tactics to support them, namely, General Patraeus, Ryan Crocker and Condaleeza Rice. Bowman then goes on to compare the results of these tactics to the strategy. This comparison is almost useless.

So, the president sent in 30,000 more American troops, most of them to Baghdad. And he said the Iraqis would boost their own troop levels.

But a year later, the number of Iraqi brigades has dropped in Baghdad from 18 to 15. Some of the units have been sent by the Iraqi government to other hotspots. Many National Police units are still linked with Shiite death squads.

What Bowman doesn't report on is the actual need for Iraqi brigades in Baghdad. If Baghdad doesn't need all 18 brigades, what does he think we should do with those un-needed troops, leave them there so 'President Bowman' can make a case that he was correct in a speech 1 year ago? Unknowingly, Bowman makes another unintended point: Violence in Baghdad has been reduced significantly while there is also a reduction in Police Brigades. This is true progress.

Here is another example of why leading by committee will never work, although I'm sure Bowman had a different point to make:

"They have a lot of very, very serious issues within the National Police," former Washington D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He was on a high level panel looking at the Iraqi security forces. In September, the panel recommended disbanding the National Police.

"They need to be refocused because currently they are not performing at an effective level, and if what you want is a police force rooted in democratic principles, the National Police missed the mark," he said then.

American commanders in Baghdad refused to disband the National Police. They instead chose to retrain them and to replace corrupt commanders.

So, the Washington panel made a recommendation, but the commanders in Iraq chose to follow other recommendations. There is no mention of these other panels. You see, in so-called NPR's world, any DC panel's recommendation must be followed or else. Forget about the fact that these same Iraqi police are stepping up to reduce violence and becoming much more effective. Don't let results get in the way of the story line.

Bowman goes on to show how on the political side, progress is much slower. We already know this, after all, democracy is not a fast process. By definition, it is a slow process because in a democracy, there must be debate, influencing an argument to get support because there is not one person making grand decisions. Go ask Nancy and Harry who can't get any of their legislative priorities passed, and their priorities aren't as grand as oil sharing, or constitutional issues associated with a start-up country. The only thing Bush can be accused of here is perhaps setting the time frame too aggressive.

Here is my analogy: We are the home team and it is the bottom of the fourth with the score 7-0 in our favor. The 3rd inning took 1 hour due to all of the scoring we did and the pitching changes the other team had to do. So, according to so-called NPR and the democratic party, we should walk off of the field and forfeit the game.


Random Ramblings

  • It's a new year and time to get back into the exercise mode. I hate to jog, but enjoy eating and drinking so I can either cut down on my calorie intake or exercise more. I'm running out of excuses, it finally warmed up around here, the ice is mostly off the sidewalks, and my pulled hamstring finally healed. And, there is only so long I can write this blog. I'll still have to dodge the snowbanks and fine Massachusetts drivers but I'll soon be plodding 1.5 miles around the neighborhood.
  • Too many ups and downs during the Steeler game last night. Now I'll be stuck listening to "Bandwagon" NE Patsy fans at work tomorrow.
  • I think Bill Belicheck is a great coach but he still acts like a jerk. All the more reason to hope they lose.
  • The bad thing about living close to New Hampshire is being subjected to all of the political ads. Radio had been crazy for a few months but it now hit the Boston TV stations. During the post game show after the Redskins/Seahawks game, I was treated to Hillery, Edwards and Romney, back to back to back.
  • Too bad Newt Gingrich got in trouble. We could use another Contract with America


Scrubbed the Stove

I scrubbed the stove today. This task wasn't even on my radar screen to do today, nor this week, or even this month. In fact, there was absolutely no reason to do this except one.

My neighbor came over with his kid so the kids can play. He's a real nice guy who talks too much and doesn't listen at all. After about 20 minutes of saying 'uh huh', I had to do something, so I got up and cleaned the stove. I figured he'd get board of watching this. It didn't work, so I continued cleaning other things. He finally left, but my kitchen is clean.

My Primary predictions

Im going to go way out on a limb and make my predictions of the Republican and Democrat Presidential nominees.

The democrats will select a tax and spend liberal, and the republicans will select a 'no new taxes' and spend conservative wannabe.

any further out and I'll break the limb.

Moving Outer Screams to Inner Screams

I now sit in front of my computer taking deep breaths and waiting for my blood pressure to lower to triple digits. My son, who is now locked in is room and acting like an inmate who is banging his coffee cup across the bars has gotten me thinking. Why is it that punishment goes from corporal punishment to capital punishment? Somewhere in between there should be a lieutenant colonel punishment, or at the very least, a sergeant major punishment. Perhaps further discussions with my son on this subject will help clarify my position.

My inner geek

I have supressed my inner geek for way too long. I work with technology on a daily basis in my work life, but not in my personal life. Well that ended a few days ago.

I'm sitting in a diner reading my favorite blogs via Google reader and posting to my blog via gmail. If I get lost or need directions, Google maps can really help. I've been Googled.

With the right device, I probably can probably post video and pictures.

Anyway, technology is getting to a point where it is becoming useful no matter where you are.

In case your curious, I'm having eggs Benedict and my little one is having spaghetti and meatballs with a chocolate shake.

Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Fountain of Useless Information

To paraphrase Sportswriter Peter King of SI; "Things that may not interest anyone but me":
  • Actress Melinda Dillon, who played the Ralphie's mother in the movie "A Christmas Story" also was in the classic hockey movie "Slapshot". She did a topless scene while in bed with Paul Newman.

Something to think about when TBS shows the movie for 24 hours on Christmas next year.


The Sky is Falling!

There was a rise of three tenths of one percent increase in the unemployment rate which now stands at 5%. According to Bloomberg,
"Since 1949 the unemployment rate has never risen by this magnitude without the economy being in recession,'' John Ryding, chief U.S. economist at Bear Stearns Cos. in New York, said in a note to clients. "We now put ourselves on recession watch.''
Until recently and as a result of Reagan's tax policies, (Bush I, Clinton and Bush II didn't change this policy much) this rate has never been below 5%. Prior to Reagan, a 5% unemployment rate was considered full employment. I gotta believe the old rules don't apply anymore, but watch out, the sky is falling!

For real context, read Jayson Javitz at Wizbang.

Don't See - No Country for Old Men

From a top 10 list of 2007 movies


2. No Country for Old Men
Cormac McCarthy's throat-gripping bestselling novel, about empty men who chase one another across a parched 1980 Texas landscape of drug trafficking and dead-eyed murder, provides a clear blueprint for any filmmaker up for the challenge of adapting distinctive literature. Something in McCarthy's tersely powerful prose has certainly reinvigorated brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, who temper their own taste for genre with a new maturity and allow the mute landscape to speak for itself. And what we hear is the hush of sorrow. Trusted to make the most of that silence, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Javier Bardem devise memorable variations on a theme of masculine emptiness — the two-bit corner cutter, the disillusioned lawman, and the twisted killer.

Sorry, but I was really disappointed. Terrible ending. The 'silence' was good, but you need a little more dialog to tell the story. Brolin and Jones were very good as 'men of few words" characters but that left no one to tell the story. Not quite sure if I liked Bardem but his character was different.

It's a good thing we have smart movie reviewers to tell us what is good. I guess I'm just a simple minded person without enough intelligence to understand a great movie. I think I'll skip the book

Endless minutes of entertainment


My 9 year old nephew showed this to my kids over New Years. It's addicting.

Superbowl Predictions

Here are my Superbowl predictions:
Wildcard Weekend
Steelers over Jaguars
Chargers over Titans
Giants over Bucs (Ronde who?)
Redskins over Seattle

Divisional Playoffs
Patriots over Steelers
Colts over San Diego
Giants over Cowboys (3rd time's a charm)
Packers over Redskins

Conference Championships

Colts over Patriots (Can't win 'em all)
Green Bay over Giants (too cold for Eli)


Green Bay over Colts (What a great way for Favre to retire)

Doctor in Training

Our shipping clerk should have been a doctor because no one can read his handwriting.

Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Sarah Connor

In case you haven't heard, they are making the movie Terminator into a tv show called "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles". How do I know? Because on every other bus on my commute has the advertisement with a picture of the new Sarah Connor.

Let's compare and contrast shall we?

See the differences? There is no contest between Linda Hamilton (left) to Lena Headey (right). Linda: Tough and cute; Lena: tough and dikey. Linda: MILF; Lena: no way.

But I can see the virtues of Lena in this role. After all, there was another very succesful show called 'Alias' that had a similar bodied actress in Jennifer Garner (below) who is also tough/cute/MILF.


Voting in Iowa

I came across this description of how the Iowa caucus process works:

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention.

When it comes to voting, you can do it in one of two ways: secret balloting, or non-secret balloting. I’ll admit that I’d never experienced firsthand the “pleasure” of non-secret balloting. I’ve done it the old fashioned way - by walking into a curtained voting booth and reading the list of names. Then there’s some buttons to press, switches to flip and levers to pull. Done. I’ve voted and no one has a clue who I voted for. Secret balloting.

Non-secret balloting in its simplest form would have you walk to the polling place, show your I.D., and then tell the old lady who you’re voting for. She then writes it all down for you and sticks it in a box.

Iowa has decided that non-secret balloting wasn’t bad enough, so they added the requirement that you not only tell a room full of people who you are voting for, but you then have to spend an hour or so justifying to them why you are voting that way. Next, the rules actually encourage everyone to torture each other about their intentions until everyone is firmly set in their ways, pissed off, and wishing they'd brought pepper spray or baseball bats to help them vote.
In all fairness, I have to admit that voting in Iowa sounds much more exciting than the way I've been doing it. I now have to question whether my love for secret balloting is outweighed by my love for arguing with people.

Between Barack and a Hard Place

As the primary season kicks off, our thoughts turn to the presidential candidates, and how they would lead the United States through the horrors of a dangerous world. We only need to look at the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan to reaffirm that the terrorist threat is still very much with us. So let’s take another look at one candidate in particular - one who seems to have foresight that I had not previously credited.

Much was written about Barack Obama’s suggestion several months ago that we should invade Pakistan in search of Al Qaeda. On the surface, the thought of 15,000 members of the 82nd Airborne darkening the skies over one of our allies seemed na├»ve at first, or even breathtakingly insane. But upon further reflection, including a look at some recent worldwide poll numbers, I have now come to believe that we may have in Mr. Obama, an intellect of the first magnitude, and perhaps our best hope in making the United States the unchallenged leader in public opinion polls.

As an expert in history, Mr. Obama has taken the results of a poll showing which countries around the world are best liked, and crafted a truly inspired strategy to improve our standing by using tried and true methods. In this poll, those with a positive opinion of the United States varied, ranging from numbers in the teens to some in the 70 percent neighborhood. However, one must look into the regional numbers to get a glimpse into Mr. Obama’s brilliance.

He first realizes that it is safe to discount the high end, where countries like Uruguay or Ghana, while nice that they like us, just don’t have that certain something we should get all excited about. Like Massachusetts, Europe runs around 50/50, and was Canada even listed? Anyway, the real linchpin of the strategy centers around the Middle East, where our approval ratings run around 20% among those who were able to take some time away from their busy day of jihading and answer a few questions. This in and of itself is only half of the story. Russia simply blew us away in these polls. They just love the Russians!

Now you may ask yourself why the Russians are so loved, and if you do have to ask, you are clearly not a strategic thinker in the class of Barak Obama. For years, while in control of the Soviet Union, Russia regularly invaded their allies. In fact they did it every ten or fifteen years or so – Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Afghanistan in 1979…..I mean, there’s an actual list. Whenever one of their allies was thought to be slacking off a bit, the Russians would roll the tanks. After all, nothing says love like a fully mobilized armored division crossing your border.

However, the one point that I must disagree with Mr. Obama about his choice of implementing this strategy in Pakistan. For one thing, when it comes to invading allies, we must be honest with ourselves and admit that without any prior practice, trial and error in Pakistan would be a costly affair. The terrain is mountainous, the infrastructure is almost nonexistent, we only have a few thousand troops nearby, and most importantly, we’ve never been there before. Why Pakistan? To make this strategy work, we don’t really need Pakistan. Any ally will do when it comes to sending this kind of message. Therefore, I am going on record and making the case that we invade France.

I know, I know, you say that France is not really an ally. But I think that with the right p.r., we can probably make a case that there’s still some lingering goodwill left over from all of that World War II business. Now let’s look at the facts: first of all, we’ve definitely been there before. I’m sure even Mr. Obama has watched Patton on A&E. Also, we know that we can beat the French. Heck, the Germans did it, and look what we did to the Germans. And speaking of the Germans, we’ve still got armored divisions in bases all over Germany. Armored Divisions! Remember the Russians?

The more I think about it the better this gets. Half of Congress wants to redeploy our troops in the Global War on Terror. Why practice this in Iraq where people are shooting at us? We can redeploy from Germany into France in perfect safety. You know they won’t shoot back. And think what this will do for our poll numbers!

Movie Commercials

The most annoying radio and tv commercials come about this time of year. You know these commercials when they put on the big music and talk in a big voice extolling the greatness of the movie, but they never tell you what the movie is about only that it is great and how many awards it might win. Jeez, who are they advertising to, those that may want to see the movie or those who will award it?

The Pursuit of Happiness

While listening to NPR during my morning commute there was an article regarding today's Iowa caucus. During the article, Hillary Clinton had a sound bite the went like this:
"I wake up each day thinking about how Government can help people better their lives."
Most modern-day liberals believe this and pursue this ideal with a passion. This sounds great, but let's dig a bit deeper into this. It is this attitude that brings health care to everyone, childcare for everyone, social security and essentially cradle to grave coverage of anything a human can need or want provided for by the government. It is the ideal that protects us from ourselves such as gun control and environmentalism. It is this ideal that brings us tax regulations that acts to control our behavior such as tax breaks if are this type of person, marry and have x number of kids, etc.

In a nutshell, it is this ideal that acts to guarantee our happiness. Of course, 'happiness' is not defined by us individuals but what these politicians think will make us happy.

It is this public policy that brought us Communism, Marxism, Socialism, and yes, the Third Reich. It is this public policy that brings the world each and every tin-pot dictator because each one believes he knows best what the people will need to make them happy. It was this same exact attitude of politicians that led this great country to our American Revolution and caused the phrase
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
to be written into the Declaration of Independence.

This phrase tells us that while there is no guarantee of happiness, you have the unalienable right to pursue it in any way that doesn't impede others from doing the same. Each person derives happiness in his/her own way that cannot be government defined. This is the American ideal that has made this country great and is the cornerstone of America's democracy.

This is why modern-day Liberals are so wrong, because they believe government can provide a guarantee of happiness, when in fact, they actually impede our individual rights to pursue it. John F. Kennedy had it exactly right when he said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"
What happened to the democratic party that now has them essentially saying:
"Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what can your country do for you"


Chris Dodd for President in 2056.

Did you know the Chris Dodd, democrat candidate for President, has moved his family to Iowa in the last year? They moved there to give him a 'home base' for this season's campaign. In an interview with his wife on NPR the other day, she was asked why. Her answer:
"When you're living in a place, versus coming in and spending time in hotels, you actually get to know a little bit more about it," she tells Michele Norris. "There are some candidates who fly in and fly out again."

So the way I figure it, Now that he has lived in Connecticut and Iowa, he has another 48 more years to go before he is truly qualified to be President. I look forward to voting for Mr. Dodd in the 2056 election.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to everyone!

Just a few random thoughts from watching the tv for only 15 minutes (10 minutes before and 5 minutes after)

  • Why is there a british actress hosting the most American event (New Years Eve at Times Square in the heart of NYC)? They couldn't find an American hot babe for this?
  • Where was Dick Clark?
  • I didn't recognize any of the bands. Jeez, Am I getting too old?
  • What was Mariah Carey wearing, and who thought she'd look good in it? Someone who put on that kind of weight shouldnt be dressed in scanty clothes on New Year's Eve.
  • Why was Alex Rodriquez on the stage at the stroke of midnight? He should have been interviewed, and then shown the exit to make room for some infobabe.