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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Happened?

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

My Lunch With Bob, Part II

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

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

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

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

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

Gore's response: "probably 2%".

Now that's scary!

My Lunch With Bob (and Breakfast With Jenna)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just thought you might find that one interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then Thom wrote this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get Well Uncle Ted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigate CEO Pay? Investigate Others, Too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Sowell:

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

It means demanding that ignorance override knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s nice to dream, isn’t it?

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

Lets Give Politics A Break....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And about five hundred more.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or perhaps it isn’t surprising at all.

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

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

Randi Rhodes Is At It Again

Two posts in two days! Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classy. And again, no suspension.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bumper Sticker Philosophy From The Left....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You Eliot Spitzer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Birthday Chris, And Other Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Birthday My Friend!!!

Thank God some things never disappoint....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Not Easy Being Green

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

What Being Green Means To Me by Robert Parkhurst

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

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


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