Sick Horizon

My Take On All Things Palin: You Probably Didn't See This Coming.

2009-07-13T19:18:00.002-06:00

“It’s easy to take the quitter’s way out.” –Sarah Palin, in her resignation speech.

A lot of people are piling on Sarah Palin right now. They’re saying that she resigned because it’s the easy way out, that she doesn’t want to risk sagging popularity getting in the way of her next political campaign. They’re saying that she’s only interested in her personal political goals, that she doesn’t want to do the hard work of actually governing like she was elected to. They’re saying she’s just another politician who only cares about the next election and that this is a cynical attempt to free her up to campaign for the presidency in 2012. To these people I have one thing to say.

You are absolutely, one-hundred per cent ….. correct.

That’s right. I am one of those people. You can pretty much already cross her off my ballot for the 2012 Republican primary. Before I start listing reasons why I’d like to say a few things I do like about her.

-She gave a very good speech at the convention. The best I heard last year.

-She brings out the worst in the Left. At no time am I more cognizant of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the modern Left than when Sarah Palin is being discussed. (Sadly this is similar to one of my negatives with regard to Ms. Palin.) This is particularly true of the so-called feminist leaders. If you did still take them seriously (and I have no idea why you would after the last 20 years or so) their behavior toward Governor Palin should serve as a reminder that the line about “advancing women’s issues” is exactly that, a line of BS.

-At one time I thought perhaps she embodied the Jeffersonian/ Jacksonian ideal of the citizen serving their country as opposed to the idea of a permanent political class like we see in the stagnating nations of Europe, and increasingly the United States. This could be the case with Sarah Palin I suppose, but not for long. It certainly seems less likely to me than it did last September.

-She agrees with me on most political issues. Can she intelligently articulate to others why they should agree? I doubt it. She’s a lot like Sean Hannity to me in that I agree with his positions on most issues, but hearing him try to explain why makes me cringe and grip the steering wheel tightly.

-That’s it for positives. Now for what I don’t like.

-I once read a comment that Sarah Palin’s main qualification with the Right is that she didn’t have an abortion. This is somewhat blunt. It is also, I feel, accurate.

-Now that the emotion of the campaign is over, go back and watch the debate with Biden. There are more cringe-inducing moments than I remember back when I was watching it happen live. In many cases she goes into the old North Carolina four-corners “kill the clock” offense, throwing out a lot of meaningless phrases to fill the allotted time and avoid having to say anything of substance. If she’d been a man Biden would have lit her up like a Christmas tree.

-Gender cuts both ways. Has there been sexism directed at her? Absolutely. But she’s gotten some bounces herself from that one. Can you imagine a male candidate trying to wriggle out of questions by winking and saying something cute? I can actually. Bush took that route a few times. I didn’t care for it then either.

-Her hold on many of the crucial issues of the day was about as steady as the vertical hold on a 30 year old RCA television set that had been dropped down a flight of stairs. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is? That was straight up embarrassing. 90% of America could not have answered that question, but they weren’t running for Vice President. I’d bet my right eye that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are in the 10% or less that could answer the question. This would have been a softball for me to slam into the parking lot beyond the left field fence, but I digress.

-The sports references are really flowing tonight.

-In the past 8 months I really haven’t seen any development in terms of depth. Do you think if Sarah Palin were ugly she’d be allowed to slide by so many people? It is ironic how the two ends of the political spectrum mimic each other’s worse qualities. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have some of the same jokes being thrown around about them (you could include Mrs. Obama here too), the only difference is which end of the political spectrum they’re coming from, and whether the epithet used is “Nazi” or “Communist”.

-“She did a good job as governor of Alaska. Look at their economy.” Just for fun, look at how the Alaskan oil economy works. I remember a few months back when Glen Beck had an expert on Socialism on his show. I also remember the priceless look on Glen’s face when the expert told him that the real Socialist in the race was… that’s right, Sarah Palin.

-The behind the scenes political moves made during the late stages of the ’08 campaign (among other things Todd Palin telling major donors to hold their powder 2012) seemed to me to be indicative of political social-climbers of the worst sort. Is that what the rest of the pols do? Yeah, probably. So if she’s just like the rest, I’ll take one with a better resume and who can articulate the issues. Even though she does read “all of the newspapers”.

-She is another in a line of style-over-substance feel-good candidates. She seems more about hype and image than reality and hard work. This kind of fits the direction our society is going even further into. A kind of society where the average person under 25 takes like a thousand photographs of themselves every year doing absolutely nothing just to boost their online personas.

-This is why I’m leaning toward Newt for 2012

-Does it bother you how much people on the Right seem to love her more because they don’t view her as an intellectual? It does me. I don’t mean “intellectual” the way the left views it. They mistake academics for intellectuals on a daily basis, trotting out some professor who is incapable of dressing himself and telling me I should listen to this person without question due to what’s hanging on their wall, no matter how asinine the statements they make are.

- Michael Steele should get honorable mention in the “embarrassment sweepstakes”.

-Do you really think “being close to Russia” is foreign policy credentials? Be honest. I guess every governor of a border state can claim foreign policy experience.

-The left is doing her a huge favor politically by going after her family. With everything I just listed, (far from a complete list just what came to mind in the last hour or so) all they want to talk about is her daughter having a baby?

-These views are not set in stone. If she showed me some substance, some willingness to work hard and actually make me believe that she believes in something, that she has a vision other than advancing her career, I may change my mind. I’m not sure that can be done with speeches or fielding easy questions from sympathetic interviewers. She’s not going to have the easy road that Obama had in terms of media coverage. This actually could be a blessing in disguise if she manages to hold her own against hostile opponents. Anyways, you probably didn’t see that coming.

Summertime... and the Living is Greasy.

2009-06-25T15:43:00.003-06:00

It's been a while since my last post, and I thought I'd give you guys a look into how my mind works. This post is a collection of random, mostly work-related thoughts I've had in the last 6 weeks or so. This will be a rather "blue" post in terms of language and humor. Some concepts just would be funny without using any profanity (one phrase in particular). But none of you three that read this are particularly squeamish. Between working on construction sites, driving taxi cabs, college, fighting in a war, and working in youth ministry you guys have heard and seen worse.

This will be in no way political, and will kind of transition into a series of posts about the hits and misses (okay, actually just the misses) of my love life in my late teens and early twenties. Those are some very funny stories, many of which have only recently stopped being too embarrassing to relate. A lot of interactions with younger co-workers have brought these flooding back to mind over the past month or two. But for now, here is where we get to the bottom of this interesting sense of humor of mine.

-First, there is a topic we in this country need to have a serious "dialogue" about. Every American needs to take a few minutes, take a long hard look in the mirror and seriously consider the question, "can I really get away with wearing these shorts in public?” This is not directed strictly at women or fat people. I know damn well that no one wants to see my legs. I think some rules would be in order. I'll let someone else draw up the legislation but I want a provision about no short-shorts on men. My job has some fringe benefits in terms of scenery, but it really cuts both ways some times. A few weeks ago I wanted to walk up to a woman and say, "ma'am I will never be able to eat cottage cheese again as long as I live because of you. Seriously, I have the exact, literal opposite of an erection right now."

-I ran a lot of these ideas past Bob last night. We talked for like four hours. This is cool because I won't feel ripped off when I pay my cell phone bill this month. Last month, I used 3 minutes the entire month. Not even full minutes. That's just the smallest billing increment.

-I get to meet a lot of idiots working in a hardware store. But I'd say per capita in college than any place I've ever been except for Battle Creek, MI.

-I find Asian women have the hardest foreign accents for me to understand. Not sure why, but no other group is even close.

-German women are my least favorite customers to deal with. I actually got a full sentence out in response to a question from one once without being interrupted and I felt like I had just made a major accomplishment. It was probably a very short sentence.

-I heard that in France if you go into a store and don't speak the language they rip you off like crazy. Here you get to be angry at the employees because they speak the language of the country you snuck into illegally.

-Yeah, I said it. Someone's got to say it.

-I'm mainly writing these down so that I can remember them when I'm ready to write my book "Excuse Me Sir, Do You Work Here?" about my work experiences. This will be followed up by my book "Never Get into a Fist-fight Over a Woman You Haven't Slept With... and other dating lessons I learned the hard way." (That's kind of a working-title.)

-I never cease to be amazed how small of an amount of money people are willing to humiliate themselves in public over. "This is 2 dollars more than I thought. I'm going to make a complete idiot out of myself. That'll show 'em!"

-I love it when people argue with me over what brand of paint I sell. It's not like I would know having been there 40 hours a week for the last 5 years. A close second are people who say, "What do you mean you're out of it?” It takes every drop of self-control I have not to say: "What the fuck did that sentence sound like it meant?”

-Two quick non-work things: One of my least favorite phrases is "good eatin'", "eatin' good", or any variation thereof. Any time I hear this said, I'm half-expecting the person to be talking about road-kill. Second, the oddest pairing of songs I've ever gotten from having my MP3 player on random mode just happened. It was "Big Iron" by Marty Robbins followed by "The Beast and the Harlot" by Avenged Sevenfold. Talk about a train-wreck.

-I suggested to the manager of my store that if they put a few more things out on the sidewalk in front of the building people wouldn't be able to use the doors at all. Apparently this isn't the goal. The goal is just to make it so that people have to run a gauntlet of incoming traffic to get in. This way you know they're serious about spending money.

-Attention America: you and your plants are out of control. I can't even go near that area as a customer, let alone dressed like an employee. It's like the thunderdome in all honesty.

-A good deal of energy is spent by me trying not to have to help anyone else in other areas after closing. If asked if I'm done in my department the answer is always "no". There has only been one exception this year. Me and my co-worker Mike were closing when this manager, Fred, who is a nice guy but always looks a little overwhelmed comes over and asks us to go help outside after the store closes.
The conversation went like this:
Fred: Is there any way you guys can go help out in garden?
Me: No, I think we’ve got plenty to do to keep us busy over here.
Fred: It’s just that those girls are getting slammed out there and…
Me (interrupting): We’ll both go. You had us at “girls are getting slammed”. Wherever there’s a girl getting slammed I’ll be there.

-Did you catch the literary reference there?

-So I had typed out like 15 more of these and hit POST, only to have it disappear. Fucking Blogspot. So I’m skipping most of them only to re-type the Michael Jackson related ones.

-This just in. Michael Jackson is dead. I’m sure for the next several weeks you’ll hear a lot of “entertainer of the century” talk, as though Elvis Aron Presley never lived. In tribute I’ll say “Your legend burned out long before your candle ever did.”

-I should do a complete parody to be called “Candy-ass in the Wind”. Too soon? Too bad. There was no moratorium when John Denver died.

-You know he was doing those kids allegedly, right?

-If a woman told you you “kiss like a girl”, is that good? Bad? What the hell does that even mean?

-Some one just called the station I’m listening to to say “Michael Jackson touched every one in one way or another allegedly”. And the “another” is what I’d like to talk about right now.

-“Billie Jean’s not my lover….because I’m a homosexual pedophile allegedly”

-Now a grown man has called up taking it horribly. In the words of the Godfather “you can act like a man”. Pour yourself a shot of something and then go take a walk in the rain.

-I’m so pissed about having to re-type this. They were flowing one after another earlier.

-I’m waiting for someone to call in and say “ I lost my virginity to a Michael Jackson song… to my Little League coach in the 4th grade.”

-The song? Beat It allegedly.

-When I die make all the jokes you want. I won’t care at that point.

-Michael Jackson leaves behind three kids….who, to be brutally honest, are probably way better off this way. It's horrible, yes. But maybe now they can take the damn blankets off their heads.

-Now people are sharing their memories of Michael. My memory is him on MTV talking about having his penis photographed by the police. That was pretty messed up. Just his ultra-high voice saying "my penis" scarred my young mind allegedly.

-Anyway, mercifully those are all I can remember. Maybe I'll post more of the work related stuff but I'm not re-typing it again today. Oh well, lesson learned. Also, RIP Farrah Fawcett, who as far as I know was never accused of molesting anyone.

Interesting Day at Work.

2009-05-13T21:34:00.003-06:00

Some one got stabbed at my workplace today. This is a lot funnier that it seems at first glance. Here's a quick run-down of what I've heard.

-Two guys (we'll call them fat guy and skinny guy) are fighting over this woman (who I would be willing to wager any amount is not hot).
-Apparently she used to be with skinny guy but left him to be with fat guy.
-Fat guy and skinny guy just happen to run into each other at the lumber desk.
-Words are exchanged. (I'm sure the ebonics involved here were utterly hilarious.)
-Fat guy tells skinny guy something to the effect of "you couldn't satisfy her".
-Skinny guy plunges a knife into fat guy's belly. It was a short knife and a large belly, so apparently no major injury was done.
-Skinny guy proceeds to get on his cell phone and call (rumor has it) the police. He walks around holding the knife in one hand and the phone in the other until the police arrive.
-The police point guns and tasers at him and he complies. Unfortunately he was not tased, bro.
-I learn of this and am surprised that a stabbing occurred that did not involve parking lot behavior/parking space or people fighting over a potted plant in the garden center.
-News crews show up in mass. I counted 4 vehicles from channel 11, and the reporterette walks up to a number of customers leaving the building to ask them if they saw anything. Most of them would not have noticed if the building had been on fire the entire time they were shopping. I had invented a fanciful story for the media, but was not asked if I saw anything.
-15 minutes later, a van from News-First 5&30 (who were actually News-distant second in this case) arrives.
-For the rest of the day employees walk up to each other saying "you couldn't satisfy her" and pretending to stab each other. A nice change of pace, really.
- I drop $400 on an X-box 360 on my way home on a whim. I will have to cancel my weekly shooting trips for a few weeks.
-Anyways, kind of an interesting day.

Notes on Wing-Nuts.

2009-04-14T21:48:00.003-06:00

This is going to be a post about mass hysteria, particularly of the right-wing variety.
First, I have to mention two things. The CHOW lesson I taught on Matthew 24 was probably the best I've ever done. Second, when I heard that the Navy SEALs had taken out the Somalian pirates the image in my head is of Johnny Depp's character Jack Sparrow standing around doing something latently homoerotic as Charlie Sheen's character from Navy SEALs jumps onto the boat and blows his head off. Now on to the matter at hand.

Obama Derangement Syndrome on the far right has become every bit as bad ad Bush Derangement Syndrome was on the left. To start out, I don't think President Obama has done one thing so far I have agreed with. That said, our children our going to grow up thinking the word 'Nazi' is defined as 'someone who's politics you disagree with'. A few examples.

-It seems everyone is looking to create the Founding Fathers in their own image. Reading any internet gun forum will give you several examples. Usually a quote from a letter is ripped completely out of context and used to say "The Founding Fathers believed.....". Of course the Founding Fathers were a monolithic entity who never disagreed on anything :::rolling eyes:::.

-Give the secession talk a rest already. Most of the States that would do this are ones I wouldn't really miss.

-While I'm on the subject all the states claiming their "sovereignty" might want to look that word up in the dictionary and remember the definition the next time a hurricane or ice-storm rolls through and they want monetary assistance.

-People talking about armed revolution should remember that the American Revolution was the exception, not the rule. Every other armed rebellion I know of has been much more similar to the French Revolution, with it's blood-letting and genocide than to the American Revolution. Are there really Washingtons, Jeffersons, etc. around these days? People trotting out Jefferson's quote about a revolution every 20 years would do well to assess the nations that have actually experienced armed strife on a frequent basis and see how well it's working out for them. It would be a sad irony if, in hopes of avoiding European-style Socialism we wind up bringing about African-style chaos.

-These same types like to make vague references to "respecting the Constitution", which pretty much only means the Second Amendment (which I agree with them on) and a few other portions they like. Then some mention of not recognizing Obama as President or ACORN "stealing the election" may come up. Apparently people are not familiar with Article 2 of the Constitution, according to which it only matters who the electors selected and that that person is the president until 2/3 of the Senate says otherwise.

-What set this off is my futile quest to buy three boxes of ammo for my rifle. No bullets to be found at the gun store, none online. Honestly people, I just need a few boxes to go shoot my AK-47, then you can go back to getting ready for the impending Zombie Apocalypse.

-I heard an ad on the radio for "survival seeds", and how seeds that can reproduce (non-hybrid) may become more precious than gold in the impending Zombie Apocalypse, or whatever else people are terrified of. This is the largest AM station in my city by the way. Not late at night, at like 5pm. The ad, I kid you not, mentions how they could be valuable items for barter. Barter? Barter? WTF? Honestly. W.....T......F? If we come to a scenario where you're bartering you're going to have a million additional concerns too. Remember Civil Defense Myth #2: The Survivors Are the Lucky Ones.

-Anyways the anti-Obama zealots would do well to remember how pathetic the anti-Bush zealots were and try to argue their disagreements rationally without talk of Global Conspiracy, NWO, the Rothschilds, concentration camps, lizard people, etc.

Glenn Beck pwns the AG of CT

2009-04-02T14:49:00.002-06:00

param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/goNw7cu1G3g&hl=en&fs=1">

It gets good a minute or two in after he gets to the AIG bonuses. The first minute or two is just about Chris Dodd being corrupt, which isn't exactly news between his financial dishonesty and a sex life that would make Caligula blush. I love the look on this guy's face like "what is this 'law' you speak of? My job is to enforce my political agenda." This is kind of a microcosm of everything that scares me about both the current administration and the last one. Beck really goes after him like a shark in a goldfish bowl.

Thoughts on Matthew 24

2009-03-31T13:45:00.004-06:00

I've been looking through some of my books on the Olivet Discourse in preparation for this week's Bible stud. I'm going to teach Matthew 24 as punishment for last week, and because it seems to be a climax of sorts after the last few chapters. I spent the better part of a year studying the various prophetic texts during 05-06, but was hesitant to do a study on it but have kind of stumbled into that direction anyway. It is a passage that was important enough to be included in all three synoptic gospels. When I googled this passage I was able to find links to people using it to support their theories about Barack Obama, black helicopters, UFOs, socialism, and a super computer in Belgium that apparently can suck your brain out. In other words, things that could not have less to do with this passage. I don't know if anyone in my group is succeptible to this kind of sensationalism, but if so this might give them something to think about. Hopefully we can attach some spiritual principles to this rather than have it turn into me giving an hour-long lecture on the history of Roman involvement in 1st century Judea (but I'm prepared to do that if I have to). Here are some thoughts I've had refamiliarizing myself with this topic over the last week.

-I'll probably breifly summarize the events that immediately preceded this since a lot of people missed the last two weeks.

-I will start the actual study with 23:37, which looks like it would have been a better place for the chapter break.

-Note that "My Father's house" is now referred to as "your house". I think this sets the tone for the entire 24th chapter.

-There is a ton of language here that closely resembles the Old Testament prophets. This appears more in Matthew than in Luke. This makes sense since Matthew's Jewish audience would have been familiar with the OT, as opposed to the Gentiles Luke was writing to. This is why I'm using Matthew instead of Luke, because there is more that has to be explained.

-A lot of the passage, the spectacular stuff especially, is extremely similar to accounts of the Babylonian invasion, as well as the fall of Babylon.

-The "not one stone" prophecy is probably the most specific and easily verified prediction in the entire Bible. A lot of prophecies are not really understandable until after the fact.

-I don't think the disciples are asking about the physical second coming. They seem oblivious to a "first going" much less a second coming. I think the "coming" language is one of the bigger stumbling blocks in this passage. I may also tie in statements used in Matthew 10 and 17.

-The destruction of the temple and end of the age would not have been thought of as separate events by the disciples, in all likelyhood. I may need to get into the word aion and the word "age".

-verses 4-13 could apply to almost any period of history, hence they are always "being fulfilled".

-I'll need to point out Paul's statements as well as Luke 2:1 on the whole "entire world" (oikumene) thing.

-"the reader" will probably NOT understand the Abomination of Desolation thing. There are several theories about what this refers to, but I think the way it is stated by Luke makes it easier to understand. I have a parallel listing of the passage in all 3 gospels from one of the appendices of R.C. Sproul's book The Last Days According to Jesus that I will use in case I need to have 3 versions in front of me. Not sure if this will be necessary, but I don't know what to expect from a discussion like this.

-If I had to pick a song that this passage reminds me of, it would be "Run to the Hills" by Iron Maiden.

- I don't think verse 21 is literal, because from our perspective even 2/3 of the earth dying would not be worse then the flood. Similar language is used to talk about the Babylonian captivity. I'll probably also mention how Hezekiah and Josiah are both referred to as being "better than any king who came before or after". The same with 22, in regards to Babylon.

-I wonder if "vultures" or "eagles" is the better translation. Most modern ones use "vulture", I think it's cooler with "eagle" with regard to the Roman legions, but the metaphor works either way.

-The sun, moon, and stars language is something that occurs throughout the OT with regards to nations being destroyed.

-"coming on the clouds" is the same way". Easily confusing. Matthew 26:64 is a good one to use to explain the meaning

Flop

2009-03-25T21:43:00.002-06:00

Worst. CHOW. Ever.

It was one of those nights where I felt like I was talking to an oil painting. Most of our talkative people weren't there, so I was a little worried going in that I would ask questions and then hear crickets chirping. But I thought that with 5 other people there I could at least get some conversation going. Wrong. I taught Matthew 22:1-14 (Parable of the marriage feast) then jumped to chapter 23 where I did verses 1-12, 23-28, 29-36, (Jesus pissed at the Pharisees) and then 37-39 teasing the lead-in to Chapter 24. There is some seriously harsh stuff in here which you'd think would lead to some feedback. It went like this:

Me: Anything stand out to you in this parable?
Group: .........................(lots of tired eyes looking at me)
Me: The King kills them and burns down their city, any thoughts?
Group:.........................
Me: What does the king want here?
Group: ....long pause..... "to throw a party?"
Me: Yes, thank you.
Me: 'Strain a gnat and swallow a camel', thoughts?
Group:..................
Me: 'Brood of vipers', 'whitewashed tombs', 'work anecdotes', 'your house is left to you desolate', anything out of the ordinary?

That was pretty much the evening. Kind of goes to show how you never know how something will go over. When doing Romans, I had chapters that I absolutely dreaded but which led to interesting insights. This was a case where people were either tired or didn't have anything to say about the material. Everybody says "good lesson" afterwards, but it still feels like a complete flop.
So now I'm not sure where to go with it. I was going to do Chapter 24 next, but now I'm not sure. 24 is a very interesting chapter, and I've spent a lot of time studying it and have a lot of resources on it. This one would work well with a quiet group, because it would be a lot of Greek words, and how phrases are used in the prophetic sections of the OT. I think I can teach it without it being a "here let me push a theological system on you" situation. I was originally going to skip the entire section because of the hype that surrounds that passage, but it seems like a glaring omission since the last 2 or 3 weeks have kind of led up to it. Enough rambling. Anyways, you win some you lose some.

Round 2

2009-03-21T00:47:00.002-06:00

Okay, so I was 25-7 in my first round picks thanks to some late-night heroics from Wisconsin and Siena. I should have known better on Illinois. So here are my Round 2 picks. A little different format here than I used for Round 1.

Midwest

(1) Louisville VS (9) Siena
(12) Arizona VS (13) Cleveland State. Ignore my rule about schools with "State" in the name.
(3) Kansas VS (11) Dayton. Kansas has been known to make early exits, but I don't see it quite yet.
(2) MSU VS (10) USC. The Trojans are remembered fondly but people forget that, like Rocky, they lost their epic war.

East

(1) Pitt VS (8) Oklahoma State.
(4) Xavier VS (12) Wisconsin.
(3) Villanova VS (6) UCLA. Not really sold on the Pac 10 this round.
(2) Duke VS (7) Texas. Duke wins a close one before falling to 'Nova.

West

(1) UConn VS (9) Texas A&M.
(4) Washington VS (5) Purdue. Not sold on the Boilers either. This sets up Huskies vs. Huskies.
(3) Missouri VS (6) Marquette. Marquette very nearly made me look bad, so their uppance comes.
(2) Memphis VS (10) Maryland. Memphis was my pick to win it all last year, had they done so I could have won a McCain 08 fleece. They roll on.

South

(1) UNC VS (8) LSU. I'm picking UNC to win it all. That's what my gut tells me.
(4) Gonzaga VS (12) Western Kentucky.
(3) Syracuse VS (6) ASU. I'd like to make more interesting picks, but I'm just not feeling it for the Cindarellas
(2) Oklahoma VS (10) Michigan. I'd like to see them do it. I just don't think they've got the inside game, and Griffin was not thrown to the ground hard enough for that to be a factor. Best judo throw I've seen in a basketball game in quite some time though.

NCAA Round 1 Picks

2009-03-17T22:09:00.002-06:00

Okay, so it's that time again this year. Last year I didn't do too bad with my brackets, I would have done better if Memphis had won the Championship game but it was still respectable. Anyways without further ado, here are my round 1 picks

Midwest Region

(1) Louisville VS (16) Doesn't Matter --------------Louisville
(8) OSU Suckeyes VS (9) Siena ----------------------Siena
(5) Utah VS (12) Arizona-------------------------------Arizona (a 12 always beats a 5 somewhere)
(4) Wake VS (13) Cleveland State--------------------Wake Forest
(6) WVU VS (11) Dayton------------------------------West Virginia (I'll wind up regretting this one)
(3) KU VS (14) NDSU-----------------------------------Gee, let me think.....Kansas
(7) Boston College VS (10) USC-----------------------BC, I'm picking a lot of East Coast teams
(2) MSU VS (15) Robert Morris-----------------------MSU always plays well in the early rounds.

East Region

(1) Pitt VS (16) E. Tenn----------------------------------Pitt
(8) Ok St. VS (9) Tenn.-----------------------------------Tennessee pulls out a close one
(5)FSU VS (12) Wisc.-------------------------------------Wisc, haven't seen either so: 12-5 rule.
(4) Xavier VS (13) Portland State------------Xavier, as a rule if you have the word "state" in your name, but not the name of a state I don't pick you.
(6) UCLA VS (11) VCU---------------------------------UCLA, don't pick teams if you have to look up their abreviations.
(3) Nova VS (14) American-----------------------------Nova beats them up inside
(7) Texas VS (10) Minnesota---------------------------Tejas
(2) Duke VS (15) Doesn't Matter U------------------Duke

West Region

(1) UConn VS (16) Chattanooga---------------------UConn, been to chat. don't care for the place.
(8) BYU VS (9) A&M------------------------------------A&M, why not?
(5) Purdue VS (12) Northern Iowa-------------------Boilermakers
(4) Washington (13) Miss State-----------------------Miss. State in a shocking upset!
(6) Marquette VS (11) Utah State---------------------Marq. I didn't know there was a Utah State.
(3) MIZZ VS (14) Cornell-------------------------------MU
(7) Cal VS (10) Md.---------------------------------------Terrapins, see what I mean about East Coast?
(2) Mumphis VS(15) Doesn't Matter-Northridge Memphis

South Region

(1) UNC VS Radford------------------------------------UNC, Radford we hardly knew ye
(8) LSU VS (9) Butler------------------------------------The Butler did it.
(5) Illinois VS (12) WKU-------------------------------Illini buck the 12-5 theory.
(4) Gonzaga VS (13) Akron---------------------------Zags over Zips
(6)ASU VS (11) Temple--------------------------------ASU, I usually wind up regretting the 11-6 games
(3) 'Cuse VS (14) SFA-----------------------------------Orange(men)
(7) Clemson VS (10) Michigan-----------------------lets see.....Michigan. (My oldest neice was accepted to Michigan this week. She will be in their Nursing Program.)
(2) Choklahoma VS (15) Morgan State------------OU, (see naming rules)

Anyways, my lesson about Matthew 21 tomorrow night will suck because I've been working on this tonight, but it was worth it.

Bible Study Ideas.

2009-03-09T16:00:00.002-06:00

I'm leading my Wednesday night bible study group from now until Easter, and have been turned loose to basically do whaterver I want in terms of topics. (I'm not sure what they were thinking either.) I'm planning to teach on various aspects of the end of Jesus' ministry leading up to the crucifixion. I did last week's on the resurrection of Lazarus, because I was sick for several days and didn't feel like doing my normal prep-work. I also figured this particular story would be a very easy one to teach. I'm not planning to actually do the crucifixion or resurrection, but to end with the last supper. I figure all the professionals will be doing Passion related stuff during this time period and I want to be different. My tentative plan so far is as follows.

-3/11: Various Parables from Matthew 20 and Luke 14-16, picked based on what I think people will have comments about.

-3/18: More Luke parables or NCAA Basketball, whichever people are more interested in.

-3/25: Whatever I feel like doing from Sun-Wed. of Passion Week (skipping the Olivet Discourse). I may use the book of Mark for this one so I'll have done something from each Gospel.

-4/2: The Last Supper.

Finally Joined the 21st Century.

2009-03-05T15:53:00.002-07:00

So, I have finally broken down and gotten a cell phone. I have been without one almost uninterruptedly since right before Nick got married, a little over 8 years ago. As I recall, that one was shut off because I didn't pay the bill. Anyways, now I will be able to:

-Talk loudly about personal matters while standing in line in front of you at the store
-Leave it on so it can ring loudly in church.
-Send text messages while sitting in front of you at the movie theater, ensuring that my brightly lit screen annoys you for the duration of the film. (Yeah, I got the text messaging package too.)
-Send people gross images of whatever I happen to have seen on the sidewalk.
-Leave my phone on in my locker at work so whoever is trying to take their break can listen to my loud punk rock ringtone for several minutes if anyone tries to call me.
-Crash into your car because I'm distracted by talking and don't realize everyone in front of me has stopped.

And when football season rolls around I will probably add the mobile web service so I can follow college football even when I'm working (provided they have a college football season this year, since there WAS NOT ONE last year.)
Anyways, my new number is (719) 964-3813.

The State of the Union: Undressed.

2009-02-24T18:56:00.002-07:00

I'll be writing my opinions on The Prez's big speech tonight as they occur, but first I have a very important philosophical question. Who is crazier: the chimp lady in Connecticut, or Nadya "Octopussy" Suleman in California? I'm torn on this. Also, not all of the facts are out but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that "Chimp Lady" did NOT vote for John McCain. Let me explain. Both political wings have certain forms of lunacy. Tricking yourself into thinking a wild ape is your son Travis can be pretty easily classified in this regard.Without further ado, I got your stimulus package right here.

-As the Congress files into the room, I'm once again reminded that our country is ruled by the town counsel from "Footloose".

-I'm watching the ABC coverage which should be sufficiently reverent.

-Did you know Obama was named "Gun Salesman of the Year"?

-I hope Antonin Scalia is taking good care of himself.

-Is Biden's son in uniform there the son that is/was being indicted?

-A guy named "Chesley" has to be a bad-ass.

-Now comes the cabinet. Kind of crazy that Hillary passed the vetting process, but not Richardson or P. Dischle (formerly known as Puff Daschle). I won't be surprised if Hillary is his running mate in 2012.

-Can somebody tell me how racking up huge new debts is "change" from W? Debt is debt, regardless of your intentions.

-The president's goal is to go directly to the people funding the stimulus package, but unfortunately it is after 9 pm on the east coast and those people have already been tucked into bed by their parents.

-And the crowd goes wild. Remember that happy looking guy. We'll see how he looks as the years roll on.

-Jackson Jr in the house! Remember, no modern farce is complete without a cameo appearance from Jesse Jackson.

-The president has spent more money so far than any one save Pelosi's plastic surgeon.

-Think that's really water in Biden's glass?

-Is Biden texting?

-For a hope-monger he sure paints a bleak picture.

-Can someone please keep Chris Dodd's face and Barney Franks' voice off of my tv.

-He's laying the blueprint for the rise of disaster socialism.

-5 minutes in and nothing but platitudes.

-The idea that his economic agenda will bring down the deficit is so ridiculous only an intellectual could believe it.

-Everybody in Cuba has a job don't they?
-Cuba is still a Third World Socialist hell-hole isn't it?

-Without using the phrase "George Bush", do you really believe the stimulus will create the number of jobs he's saying? Be honest. With me and with yourself.

-The number of people who pay taxes is less than 95%

-"Wellfare as we know it" is back with a vengeance!

-If you've been going through tough times but have been paying your mortgage any way.... you are officially a sucker.

-The banks have really made a deal with the devil on this bailout. You don't pull a fast one on the Feds, the Feds pull a fast one on you.

-Does any one realize how ridiculous it is to claim that the Bush admin was too capitalistic?

-He doesn't get it. (Remember that line?)

-He gives a classic example of the Broken Windows Fallacy when talking about the need to "invest" in financial institutions.

-Government IS the solution.

-Mo' money, mo' money money!

-Here comes the "green jobs" crap.

-Listening to him talk about energy makes it clear that the moonbats really are in charge. There should be a law that you can't use the words "efficiency" and "government" in the same sentence.

-The automobile would never be invented today. Too many regulations.

-An American goes bankrupt from health care bills every thirty seconds. This is unacceptable. We're all going to go bankrupt paying health care bills. Keep in mind a government that goes broke under it's own debt can provide health care to zero children.

-Apparently you have the "right" to have your doctor bills paid for by someone else.

-We're going to spend a lot more on churning out kids with diplomas they can barely read.

-This just in. Our educational system is run by morons. Hate to be the one to have to point this out. From the Right trying to destroy science education to the Left trying to destroy the way History is taught, we've pretty well got our bases covered.

-Can you imagine if the government ran the only fast-food restaurant in your town? What do you suppose the food would taste like? How would the service be?

-Dropping out of high school is "no longer an option". "We need the skills of every American"? That sent a chill through my fucking blood.

-We're going to give kids more money. The colleges will say "Well, I guess these kids can afford more!"

-Brain tumor or not, Ted Kennedy can pound sand.

-Honestly, He KILLED someone. Am I supposed to be cool with that? Is Manson an okay guy now because he hasn't killed lately?

-Education might be the most over-priced commodity there is in this nation.

-We can't pass on debt? Let's at least wait for it to become history before revising it.

-Mentions "inheriting debt". Stay classy, moonbats. Remember "Change" means more of the same with regard to debt.

-I'd place a wager that he will not end farm subsidies.

-If he hadn't just signed a trillion dollar monstrosity, I might believe him. Apparently the Salt Water Marsh Mice will spend a lot of that money they got.

-Higher corporate taxes equal more jobs?

-We live in a Victimocracy at this point in our development so his "hose the rich" plan might be popular.

-Remember how Democrats cared when Iraq was costing so much money? They were right. (for more on the topic of debt, please read American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips) Once again, our children will not care why we put them into crushing debt, simply that we did it at all.

-Terrorists will not plot against us from safe havens half-way around the world- They'll do it from right here God-damn it! Not that Bush was any better about border security.

-Did he screw up the Git'mo thing or what? You've been campaigning on this since '04 and you're just now going think of an alternative?

-Nancy Pelosi's smirk is torture.

-There's a dead body in the room!!!! Oh, never mind it's just John Kerry.

-Did you know: The "Kool-Aid" at Jonestown was actually Flavorade?

-True story.

-Him trying to expand the power of government to unheard of levels and my opposition to it is neither petty nor trivial. The last guy did that too, and do you remember how bad that turned out? Remember Lord Acton's Axiom?

-Would you rather be water-boarded or have sex with Dianne Feinstein?

-How bad could it be?

-The water-boarding I mean. I think I'd have to say get the towel.

-Christopher Hitchens got water-boarded. He says it's torture.

-Have you noticed that I haven't personally insulted the president? Every one else, yes. President Obama, no.

-So there you have it. Huge spending and an incredibly vague claim about cutting "unnecessary spending" You may either keep reading for my views on this Jindal kid who I've had my eye on.
Or, you can go right to the comments section and call me a racist for opposing the president. (But keep in mind I'll do the same thing if he ever catches static from the left.) Line of the night: "I do not believe in bigger government". Does any one believe that?

-I agree with him about the war-budgeting thing. I also think some of the banking regulations will be a good thing. For good or ill, this is the beginning of a new era for this country. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hope this stuff works because it's going to happen either way. I don't want to be like the people on the Left who were so invested in failure they couldn't believe that Iraq was turning around no matter what actually happened on the ground. Would I bet on that outcome? Hell no.

-As he walks out I notice some school-girls. It is good to have a president you can trust around the young ladies.

-I liked the whole "death penalty for child-rape" thing they had going in Louisiana. Do it In My Name, I'll sign for it if necessary.
-Jindal pays tribute to Obama's blackness.

-Then he has to point out that he has minority creds too.

-Sounds like his dad should have gone to a socialist utopia.

-I like that Jindal is not lining up at the teat.

-Not sure bringing up Katrina is a great idea.

-I like that he's pointing out the bad side of government inefficiency.

-Is there anything sadder than seeing what's become of (formerly)Great Britain.

-Did you know that if you spent a million dollars a day every day from the birth of Christ until now, you still wouldn't exceed the amount of the "stimulus package".

-He needs to keep hammering them on the stupid stuff in this bill.

-We still need to drill for oil.

-Ten years from now, they'll be telling us that it will take ten years to get to the oil we still haven't drilled for. And make no mistake about it, we will still be enriching our enemies because we don't want to risk the lives of caribou.

-School choice is antithetical to everything Obama stands for. He mentioned it, but don't be surprised when it never quite materializes.

-Talk about the border please.

-The Federal Government has never led us astray before has it?

-He's talking about people being responsible for themselves. What a hate-monger! Doesn't he know some people are victims?

-I like Jindal. This will fall on deaf ears, but may help his standing in the party. Now please, tell me how bad Bush was some more.

Super Bowl Commercials.

2009-02-01T21:41:00.003-07:00

This won't be an extensive list, just the highlights and (mainly) lowlights.

-The Morons From PETA weren't allowed to show their commercial. I was hoping to see it because I wanted to um....research the moonbat mind...yeah, that's the ticket. I'll have to check the notes of our own (soon to be Colorado resident) Bob W. who has been doing some research in the area of vegetarian-moonbat females.

-I'd like to thank godaddy.com for reminding us that we as a society have completely worn away our knuckles and now it is our wrists that drag the ground when we walk.

-The Bud-Light commercial where the guy was thrown from the window made me chuckle a little.

-The Doritos snow-globe commercial was my favorite. Admit it, you knew it would hit the boss but weren't expecting the crotch strike. That had me and Nick cracking up. The one later where the guy gets electrocuted was a close second. I'm a sucker for physical comedy I guess.

-Hey Pepsi, we know what's going on with your new logo. As you can probably tell from my picture on this page I am not Hoping for Change. I can't be the only one to make this connection.

-None of the Clydesdale commercials did anything for me. I can't remember the last time I drank a Budweiser either.

-Hey So "G" is gatorade. I've been seeing those commercials for months. I've never wanted to buy a bottle of Powerade so bad in my entire life.

-The NBC commercials just made me realize how weak their lineup is. I think losing Scrubs was addition by subtraction as that is the worst program currently airing on television, gratingly unfunny and cheesy to boot.

-At first I thought I was having a seizure during the 3-D commercial. Then I thought "I hope people didn't have to pay for those 3-D goggles". Until I saw the blonde from Chuck crawling toward the screen. Then I thought "Man, I wish I'd bought some of those 3-D goggles".

-Hey, you knew what I was when you picked me up.

-What the Hell is the deal with truck commercials? Not just tonight. Every pickup truck commercial has flaming ramps, or truck bodies swinging from chains, or something equally stupid. And then we sit around asking ourselves why the Big 3 are about to go belly-up? (I realize the other manufacturers are just as bad, but when's the last time you saw a commercial for a truck that made you feel like it had given you a reason to buy it?)

-The Coke Zero commercial with Troy P. turned out to be better than I thought at first. It's hard for him to pull off the Mean Joe vibe with his Michael Jackson-voice. But it did turn out kind of funny. Coke and Doritoes did pretty well tonight.

-Today was one of those days where I wanted to punch a small animal. I could have done without the skimpy-underwear-guy though.

-Taco Bell- You call a woman two days after getting her number. No more. No less. Any quicker and she thinks you're desperate (which I am, but she doesn't need to know that), any more and she's pissed that you made her wait 3 days.

-I was too into the game to take notes on the later commercials.

-Wow, a MacGuyver (MacGruber) commercial in 2009! How timely! How hip! This commercial reminded me what my favorite show was in elementary school and how bad SNL has gotten at the same time.

-Anyways, those are the only ones I felt the need to comment on. Overall, it was a very good Super Bowl.

-James Brown is dead. I thought so, but couldn't remember when I heard Michaels mention him. I had to look it up on wikipedia.

The Stupid Bowl: A Steve's Eye View of the Big Game.

2009-02-01T20:17:00.005-07:00

Whoa. What a game. People forget that they didn't start having competitive games on a regular basis until like 1999. Before that they were usually like 107-14 final scores. Here are my witty observations on the game the Halftime show and the commercials in no particular order.

Game:
-I didn't like the way the bottom line flashed yellow at the end of every play. It made me think there was a penalty every play.

- #68 on the Steelers looks like Early Man from the evolution chart.

-This looked like one of those 42-10 games through the first 15:00.

-I'm not used to hearing Madden calling a game without asking if the last play was a horse-collar tackle on every play. And can we get rid of the horse trailer already?

-The weirdest moment to me was Al Michaels saying that James Harrison was "running like James Brown" during the INT return. I assume he means the time James Brown led deputies on a long car chase after getting "high on God" and waving a gun around at people.

-I wanted to hear the reporter ask Kurt Warner if he blamed Jesus for the INT. Admit it. You're sick of hearing guys thank God for how they performed in a game. The fact that you're alive and healthy is much more thanks-worthy.

-Is James Brown still alive? I thought he died, but now I can't remember.

-I love Scotch.

-During halftime I got to see Matt Millen. Thanks NBC! Millen already knows what he can go do with himself as far as I'm concerned. All that was missing was Joey Harrington or Charles Rogers on the set.

-Have you ever looked at pics of Mrs. Warner from when they met? Let's just say it's amazing how much better looking a person can get when their husband goes from grocery-bagger to NFL superstar. Granted, there's only one person I know of who's made that particular transition.

-Imagine how fast Troy P (not even gonna try on the spelling) would be without 25 pounds of hair to carry around.

-8-10 years ago, I'd have told you that NFL officiating was the best of the 4 major team sports by a wide margin. This is no longer the case. They may still win by default, but the decline in quality has been staggering.

-I saw a ton of Steelers fans today, but not any Cardinals ones. This is not surprising since Phoenix is a place people move to, as opposed to Pittsburgh which is a place you get the Hell out of as soon as you are old enough to do so. Not a knock here, census data pretty much backs this up.

-Larry Fitzgerald is not human.

-I can't remember the last time I saw a safety in the Super Bowl. I thought up 20-14 Pittsburgh should have taken a safety rather than punt from the back of the endzone. Didn't come to that because of the holding but it would have been an interesting choice if it had come to it on 4th down.

-Jesus strikes again with the last second fumble. I'm pretty spent at this point. That was a great game.

-I'm looking for an 0-16 commemorative shirt. Now that's making history.

-Do you think Broadway Joe had been imbibing? I thought maybe so when he came out with the trophy, but I noticed the sideline babes were nowhere near him. Probably a good way for NBC to avoid a lawsuit.

Halftime show:

-Thanks to Justin Timberlake we get over-the-hill rock and roll types for these events now. This may not be a bad thing since up until nipple-gate the league was trying to grab the "urban" demographic which meant hip hop with sleazy dancing going on. I don't mean "sleazy" in a good way either. A lot of that crap was about as erotic as a table dance from Trent Lott. They tried to go middle ground with Prince, sleazy and washed up all in one package, so maybe this is a step forward.

-I was remided of a few thanksgivings ago when they had the genius idea to have John Fogerty do the halftime show for all three games. I hope the person who said "hey let's get somebody most people under 40 didn't realize was still alive and fly him all over the country so the audience can watch him 3 times!" was either fired or beaten to death.

-The Boss kind of sounded like a TV preacher when he came out and started talking didn't he? He's like "Put down the guacamole.....and plant a seed-uh, a seed of faith-uh".

-How'd you like to be one of those guys in the front row with The Boss's crotch right in your face? You can't move back because of the crowd, and he just keeps coming closer and closer.

-Hey now I know what that's like because he came sliding crotch first right into the camera, clearly making contact. Now I know why people watch the lingerie bowl or whatever stupid crap they show opposite the game.

-Glory Days. First of all, sing it right. Nothing says "over the hill" like changing the song lyrics to fit the situation. Your friend was a baseball player back in high school. All though this performance certainly underscored the message of the song as The Boss's Glory Days sure have passed him by.

-Am I being a little hard on Springsteen? I guess after last year I should be greatful that it's at least a performer who solidly belongs to one sexual orientation or the other.

Next up......My take on the commercials.

Super Bowl Pick

2009-01-31T20:19:00.002-07:00

So, my heart says Cardinals, but I think the Steelers defense will be the major factor here with the offense contributing just enough big plays.
Final score prediction: Steelers 24, Cardinals 14.

Inauguration Musings.

2009-01-20T19:17:00.002-07:00

Okay, so here are my inauguration day thoughts and observations. Along with a few thoughts on the election.

-First, the best one-sentence (kind of) breakdown of the election I've heard was from liberal radio host Ed Schultz who said: (paraphrased) "We're in the middle of two wars and a recession and what do they want to talk about? Bill Ayers? Joe the Plumber? Lipstick? Middle names? And they wonder why they got their asses kicked? " This kind of sums it all up right here.

-I can say this now. I don't think Sarah Palin is a stupid person, but she certainly plays one convincingly on tv. It was pretty much all downhill after the convention speech. "I read everything, Katie. All of them." Bob mentioned wishing I were the candidate when they asked that question. I'd have said "well, I read Russian literature, far-left garbage that I hear recommended on Democracy NOW!, books detailing the history and formation of Al-Qiada (which you'd think I'd remember how to spell by now), books about violent predators/ crime prevention, and the Bible."

-The most disturbing quote I heard all year was President Obama responding to criticism of his mind-boggling spending proposals. He said "If we can afford to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq...blah, blah, blah". This disturbed me for a couple of reasons. 1) We can't afford it. That money is being borrowed, not "spent". This is one thing he and I agreed on. 2) Debt doesn't work on a "fairness doctrine". Bush put us deep in the red, so we should let the next guy put us deeper into the hole? That's a good way to go broke twice as fast.

-How the hell did that Blago guy get elected? The word "douchebag" comes to mind. Also, George Will's statement remains true that "no modern farce is complete without a cameo appearance by Jesse Jackson."

-I have had more than enough of Sean Hannity. I think he's a well meaning idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. Yeah, we know already... Bill Ayers. If I have to hear that name one more time I'm going to throw up. Don't get me wrong I haven't heard a single defense of Ayers that wasn't intellectually pathetic or solely reliant on some questionable moral relativist argument. e.g. "He did it a long time ago (up until the early 80's)" or "other people do bad things too". That said I don't care that Obama was tangentially involved with the guy. Anyways, on to today...

-Did you notice that this new president guy is black? Apparently a lot of people can't tell, so reporters are required to mention it at least once every three sentences. Like some one's watching at home going "Oh! OK. Now I see it! I totally hadn't picked up on that." Are we really that stupid as a nation? (note: since some people make a living off of calling people racist I feel the need to clarify this point. I'm not saying I have a problem with the President, what I am saying is that I resent the media treating me as though I'm too stupid to notice the obvious, or to recognize the historical significance of this event without the aid of a talking head.)

-I probably don't want to know the answer to that question.

-Am I the only one who thinks the Lincoln thing is a little overblown? I mean I wish the guy the best, but let's let him take office before we start blasting his face onto Mount Rushmore.

-I listened to the ceremony on the radio during my lunch hour, so I didn't get the visual of the enormous crowd until I saw the replay and damn, that's an impressive site. Imagine 2 million people of all walks of life united only by civic pride, hope for the future....and the fact that they were all standing ankle-deep in urine.

-How come Reagan gets no love when they talk about great speeches from the past? I don't have the borderline-gay Reagan obsession that a lot of people on the right have, but come on. Reagan is like, ya know, the Republican, ya know, JFK. ya know?

-Did you catch that reference, or do I need to beat it into the ground?

-Did you ever stop to think about Lee Harvey Oswald's contribution to getting the Civil Rights bills passed? Sounds incredibly offensive until you stop and think about it.

-Aretha Franklin sounded good on the radio. My personal favorite performance of hers was when she sang "America the Beautiful" at Wrestlemania III back in 1987.

-Joe Biden was my personal MVP of the campaigns. He was the most "human" of all the candidates. He just said whatever was on his mind. IMO, this is how McCain should have been. Biden will be a much stronger asset to the new president than all of the Clinton retreads.

-I'd be interested to read Dick Cheney's memoirs. I kind of wonder how his mind works.

-Speaking of the Clintons, I think the appointment of Hillary was a rather weak one.

-John Roberts was clearly not ready for prime-time.

-I'll admit it. I got goosebumps when "Hail to the Chief" was played right after the swearing-in. Not because of the man himself, necessarily. But when you think of how good we have it in this country that power is transferred peacefully without the bloodshed or chaos seen elsewhere, it should serve as a reminder of all the reasons we have to be proud of this nation.

-I thought Obama's speech was pretty weak, actually. Maybe it's just because I only got about 90 minutes of sleep last night, or maybe he's just set the bar pretty high, but I thought it was rather flat. I felt like he didn't say anything. The speech could be summed up as "things are tough, but we'll get through". There weren't really any specifics and the rhetoric was not as soaring as I'm used to. That being said at least it didn't scare the bejeezus out of me like Bush's second one. After that one I was thinking "I wish we were fighting a war for oil. At least that would be a bad man acting rationally, which is less frightening than a Manichean crusader who thinks he can use the power of the United States government to force everyone to have a better life and fix all the world's problems." hmm.

-Watching the First Family freezing while watching the parade, I appreciated the 65 degree January weather we're having right now. You'd think they could have some kind of heater that keeps the reviewing stand nice and toasty.

-All in all, it was nice to see people celebrating. Even the moonbats; they kicked our asses so they've earned it. I hope the new president does a good job leading the nation through turbulent times ahead and forces me to vote for him next time. I'm sure I'll disagree with him a lot but I'll do so in a fair and respectful manner. After seeing the way the Left lost its collective mind over Bush (or Bushitler as he's affectionately known to the "tin-foil hat"crowd) I vow never to act that pathetic or to abandon logic due to political disagreement. In all fairness the Right did the same with Clinton, and both were equally pathetic. So from now on, I won't call him Barry or any other derisive nickname, or call him a Communist, or anything of that sort. My criticisms will be reasoned, and will probably be boring to those who simply want to read a bunch of name-calling.

Finally. My Election Day Plans, Predictions, and Observations.

2008-11-03T23:49:00.002-07:00

This election season has gotten so bad that the other day I had two women come to my door and I was relieved that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. A co-worker today had twenty messages on her answering machine. I have enough mailers to, well, I'm not sure what one does with 500,000 sheets of paper. So without further ado, here's what's on my mind.

-My plan for tomorrow is to get up early, head to the polling place at 7:00 AM as soon as they open so I don't have to wait in line for 90 minutes like my roommate Becky did, or see a 4-hour long line wrapping around an entire shopping mall like my roommate Nick did. (I know I could have mailed it in, but it's just not the same.) Then I will come back home, read news and radio stuff until going to work at 10 AM. At 7, I will get off work and dip into my election night scotch bottle, in honor of my and Senator McCain's Scottish heritage. ( I'd drink something in honor of Obama too, but I don't know what they drink in Kenya or Kansas. Besides, I'm not a wine guy which he seems to be.) At this point I will most likely also talk Bob off of a bridge and get calls from people rubbing my face in the results (which is cool, because I totally deserve it).

-I expect Obama to win by 4 points. The electoral college will probably be a little more one-sided than this. I don't feel like doing the math, but I think McCain will hold Florida , lose Colorado, and Ohio and Virginia are toss-ups. I don't think North Carolina or Nevada will be quite as close as the others I mentioned. Obama will win Pennsylvania by a thin margin, but not razor-thin, I think 4-6.

-The exit-polls will once again show the race as being more one-sided than it really is.

-Hopefully Dan Rather will be on the air. He's always hilarious on these things.

-The Democrats will not reach 60 in the Senate, but they might as well. They'll have 58 or so, so for all intents and purposes it will be filibuster proof since it won't be hard to find 2 Republicans on most bills. I don't want either party to have a majority that big.

-If Obama loses, much will be made of the fact that he lost among white males. What will be ignored will be the fact that he will probably get a higher percentage among this demographic than Al Gore or John Kerry, two of the whitest individuals I have ever laid eyes upon. The last Dem. to win this group was (I believe) Jimmy Carter in 1976.

-McCain will take a slightly larger percentage of Democrats than Obama will of Republicans. This won't matter much because the raw number of Democrats has increased since '04 and the number of Republicans has either shrank or not grown as fast (don't remember which and don't feel like researching it).

-The big X-factor right now is that a lot of polls are showing 8-11 percent undecided. What is that? These polls were taken this weekend. Who still hasn't decided? I think McCain will take more of this slice of voters than Obama, but not enough to make up the gap.

-Look for both sides to accuse the other of either inflating or suppressing votes. Look for me not to believe either side until solid evidence emerges (or, more likely, doesn't emerge).

-Is the period supposed to go inside the parentheses or outside?

-I honestly don't believe "blood will run in the streets" in either scenario.

-Too bad about Obama's grandmother. Would have been nice if she'd have been able to see her grandson elected president. It's weird that Obama's parents are both dead with him such a young man, but McCain's mom is still alive and getting speeding tickets with him being an old geezer. Not a political thought, just one of those oddities of life.

-George Bush will be in bed by 10 PM whether the race is decided or not.

-Who the Hell let Dick Cheney out? To campaign in Wyoming? Wyoming? Honestly?

-Obama has a truly kick-ass speech ready to go, guaranteed.

-If McCain loses he'll probably be "uncensored McCain" for the rest of his life, the way Barry Goldwater was toward the end.

-Either candidate will wind up governing from the center-left.

-All day Tuesday right-wing radio will talk about the inaccuracy/ bias of polls. Left wing media will be in a celebratory mood, only to turn hateful if things don't go their way. If McCain loses, look for the right to blame his centrism and try to move the party further right with disastrous consequences the way the Democrats did between 2000 and 2004.

-I think McCain will do better among white women than Bush did, but not by much. The idea that women will be turned off to Palin do to her anti-abortion stance has been pushed in the media. This flies in the face of every study I've seen. Most show men as being 4-7% more likely to identify as "pro-choice" than women, and vice versa for the "pro-life" position. Actually now that I think about it I don't remember what percentage Bush got since the scotch is taking effect, but I think McCain will do a point or two better.

-Nobody ever went broke underestimating the youth vote. Everything tells me this year will be different, and I think that could be the difference between a 3-point squeaker and a 7-point walk in the park.

-The latest tape where Obama (apparently) says something about bankrupting anyone building a new coal plant did not come out soon enough to cost him Pennsylvania or influence Ohio. (note: I haven't heard the context yet, so this could be yet another case where he was pontificating about something only to have his words ripped completely out of context to make him sound like an evil godless communist.)

-I don't really believe he's a communist, but it's fun to joke about. If the left is allowed to call me a Nazi all the time, I should be allowed a little exaggeration of my own. It's all in good fun.

-My uncle will be torn. He always votes for whoever the UAW tells him too. They take care of him so he does what they say. He also doesn't care for black people all that much. (He's not genocidal, or a believer in segregation, just a run of the mill racist. This is a bad thing but I wanted to differentiate the degree of bigotry.) He will vote for Obama, but he won't want to be reminded about it. My dad will needle him about it, probably wearing the Obama shirt I bought him.

-My dad will be among the Democrats voting for McCain. He may be the only person in the country who believes Bush should be tried for war crimes, but is voting for McCain. As he jokingly put it, "I'm not voting for John, I'm voting for Cindy."

-Whoever wins will not do worse than Bush. I'm not going to say that they couldn't do worse, which is completely illogical, just that I don't think they will. I realize this is setting the bar incredibly low, but you have to take one step at a time.

-Anyways, it will be a historic day. Whoever wins has a big job in front of him and will need all of our prayers. Good night and may God continue to bless America (and, what the Hell, everybody else too, just this once.)

One Question.

2008-11-03T13:34:00.003-07:00

I was thinking lately: if I could ask each presidential candidate one question (and maybe slip them some kind of drug so I would be assured of an honest answer) what would they be? In my case each question would play to a strength of the opponent. Here they are:

-To Obama: "What is the most difficult situation you have ever been in? How did you get through it?" ( I realize this is 2 questions) Basically what I'd like to know is how would he deal with a crisis. He seems like a pretty calm guy, but most of what I've seen of him has been pre-packaged to say the least. So I'd like to know his thought process, how he's reacted to tough circumstances, etc. I'm wondering whether he's faced down adversity. Obviously, I wouldn't have to ask McCain this question. So...

-To McCain: "What is your vision for the role of the federal government over the next decade? And how is it different from that of President Bush?" (also 2 questions). This question is heavily dependent on the aforementioned drugging. I'm not even sure what kind of answer I'm looking for here, but I'm not talking about details like tax rates, etc. It's a question about his general philosophy; what would change fundamentally? This is an area he has been lacking in and it will probably doom his chances tomorrow. Again this question plays to Obama's strength which is his clear vision. This vision is of a Federal Government that is stronger and more active in every area of life. It is a vision is borne out in every policy position or proposal on his website. It is also a vision that scares the Hell out of me, since more power has never meant less corruption or greater accountability, and this is a vision that is diametrically opposed to my own. That being said, any vision beats no vision every time, especially in uncertain times like those we currently face.

Anyways those would be my questions, and as I've pointed out to people this is the one election where I will feel more pity for the winner than the loser.

My View on Colorado's Ballot Initiatives.

2008-11-03T11:58:00.004-07:00

I'm voting NO all but one ballot measure. Here's a brief rundown of why:

-Amendment 46: Banning Affirmative Action. My vote: NO
I'd be all for getting rid of any kind of racial preferences or quotas as I think they wind up hurting those that they are intended to help. This is not, however, something I'm particularly passionate about. If this bill passes it will most likely mean a long court battle culminating in the Supremes declining to hear it, having already ruled in the University of Michigan case, and the state will have spent a lot of taxpayer money in the meantime.

-Amendment 47: "Right to Work". My vote: NO
I don't believe the state should be allowed to tell unions and businesses what kind of agreements they can or cannot enter into.

-Amendment 48: Redefine "Person" to Refer to Any Fertilized Egg. My vote: NO
In my view this goes way to far, not just banning abortion but perhaps birth control, stem cell research, etc. Also, this will likely be struck down by the courts after a long, expensive battle as being in conflict with federal law. Couple this with the fact that we are about to elect a president who is somewhere to the left of Kruschev on this issue, and clearly believes in more control by the central government (I'm going by actions here, since his actions and words do not match each other on this issue).

-Amendment 49: Allowable Paycheck Deductions. My vote: NO
This one is intended to weaken the unions of public employees. I'm against this one because it can be argued that unions are even more necessary to public employees than those in the private sector since the government often faces no competition for the services it provides. This makes it more necessary for the employees to have a strong organization on their side. It's not like firefighters, police officers, etc. can go work for a competitor (not without relocating anyway).

-Amendment 50: Raising the Stakes Limits in Colorado's Gambling Towns. My vote: YES
I view gambling and lotteries as taxes on the poor and the ignorant, for the most part. This amendment will raise the betting limit on blackjack and other table games from $5 to $100 (There are other provisions, but all minor issues). If people want to lose their money faster, I'm all for it. The extra revenue will go to community colleges and the towns themselves, so it's win-win as long as people keep going up there to lose.

-Amendment 51: Raise Sales Taxes to Help the Developmentally Disabled. My vote: NO
I feel kind of like a heartless bastard on this one. However I'm used to it because one of the more fun things about being a conservative is being treated like you are evil (Nazi, racist, imperialist, etc.). Some people can't handle this but I enjoy it, particularly because of the absurdity of the claims, i.e. checking identities is racist, less government spending is racist, every other policy I support makes me morally equivalent to past practitioners of genocide, you get the idea. The real reason I am voting against this is in favor of a county measure just like this one, and voting for both would be a larger increase than I'd favor. The county measure is a bigger increase but goes towards public safety and a new jail. As long as there are people who need to be locked up, I will support funding the facilities needed to do so.

-Amendment 52: Using Severance Tax Revenues for Highways. My vote: NO
This is a detailed measure that would shift money to highways from other areas. There are about 5 or 6 pages of details that don't hold my attention. For that reason, and because it could lead to less flexibility in spending, I'm voting no.

-Amendment 54: Limiting Contributions from Government Contractors. My vote: NO
Why single out one group of corrupt political contributors?

-Amendment 58: Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. My vote: NO
This one would raise taxes on people customers of the oil and natural gas industry. It says it will raise them on the companies, but those taxes (just like all business taxes) will be paid by the customers. Since I don't view the prices as being too low right now, I am voting no.

-Amendment 59: Education Funding and TABOR Rebates. My vote: NO
Again, I'm evil so I have to vote against education and for tax rebates. I agree TABOR has been a major disappointment, but one thing that annoys me lately is the unwillingness of some to call a tax increase a tax increase. The preferred euphemisms are "end tax breaks" ,or "close the loophole", or whatever phrase is most useful to obfuscate what is really happening. This amendment would raise taxes by not giving taxpayers rebates, but would use the money on education (P-12) spending. So, combining the tax increase factor with the bad wording of the amendment, I can't vote in favor of it.

Upcoming Posts.

2008-10-30T22:18:00.002-06:00

Over the next week or so I plan to start getting back to blogging on a regular basis. Here are a few things I'm thinking about blogging about.

-I am taking a paid holiday from work next Wednesday and will post my post-mortem on the election. This will most likely be several posts to include: my analysis of the numbers and what they mean, the key turning points of the campaign, and most likely separate posts about how Obama won and how McCain lost.

-After the election is over, and I'm no longer fixated on the horse-race aspect, I'll probably find myself moving a little closer to the center. The campaign season (I think do to the competition factor) seems to push people a little further to the poles, and I have been no exception.

- I am going to continue to pretend that they are not having a college football season this year.

-I'm working on a post about the difference between fairness and equality, how the two are not the same and in certain instances can be antithetical to each other.

-I'm planning to post pics of my new AK-47. If Obama follows through with his plan to bring back the "assault weapons" ban, I hope to sell it at some point in the future for a tidy profit.

-I'm looking for some kind of widget that will show a tally of how much money I've saved, how much I've prolonged my life, etc. since I quit smoking 2 weeks ago.

-I intend to write about my political journey over the past year or two, how I went from far right to center to inching leftward to moving back to somewhere a little right of center.

-I'm going to try to right about things that aren't overtly political, but that piss me off about our "post-adulthood" society in general.

-If McCain wins I will be insufferable and you should consider yourself lucky you don't have to be around me. If Obama wins, I will take credit for predicting it in the very first post I wrote on this blog in either late December or early January.

Debate BINGO II

2008-10-14T20:20:00.002-06:00

I'm doing this in a little different format this time. I've got 12 phrases or words from each candidate, and will pick 16 of them to put on one card. (these may be any combination 8-8, 12-4, etc.) So here is my list.

Obama:
-"Failed policies of the last 8 years"
-"Al Qaeda"
-"Renewable energy"
-"Regulation"
-"Tax on health care benefits"
- "Government that works for you."
- "Middle-class"
- "$250,000"
-"Scare tactics"
-"Hope"
-"Working Americans"
-"Warren Buffett"

McCain:
-"Judgment"
-"Reach across the aisle"
-"Petraeus"
-"Liberal"
-"Corruption"
-"Reform"
-"Fannie Mae"
-"Ronald Reagan"
-"KGB"
-"Earmark"
-"Capital Gains"
-"Ebay" (I just have a feeling about this one.)

My Debate BINGO cards.

2008-10-07T00:13:00.003-06:00

This is something I'm going to do to keep myself entertained during tomorrow's Presidential debate. The momentum all seems to be headed in Senator Obama's direction. I'm about 75% sure he'll win at this point, barring something good happening economically for a change or McCain being able to jump-start his campaign again. This doesn't look like it will happen given the recent focus on Bill Ayers, a strategy which seems very likely to back-fire. I'm also sure there will be nothing new revealed to me about either candidate. (I've listened to them, researched their voting records, read all of their books, etc.) I've decided to keep the debate interesting by playing debate-BINGO. So I've made a card for 16 of each candidate's most overused phrases and will check off a square each time they say one. I'm interested to see who fills their card first.

These are McCain's:
1)"maverick"- This one was used up a long time ago.
2)"naive"- I will count it if he says "naivete" as well.
3) "surge"- This one of course will only count if used with regard to Iraq.
4) "General Petraus"
5) "clean coal"- I'm going to confess here. I have no idea what the difference is.
6)"voted against funding the troops"- This one won't have to be word for word. If the first three are used, but with some other term for our armed forces, I'll still count it.
7) "reached across the aisle"- I like it when he uses this phrase because I can always hear teeth grinding to the right of me.
8) "on the job training"- Because he doesn't need it, and the other guy probably does, get it?
9) "country first"
10) "earmark"- I'm actually going to do a word-count on this one.
11) "nuclear"- How cool is it to actually have a Republican candidate that can pronounce this word? It's been a while.
12) "reform"- Another one I will be keeping a word-count on.
13) "my friends"- I kind of like this one actually. Makes him seem like a really bad-ass version of Mr. Rogers.
14)"liberal"- People on the right say this word with as much scorn as people on the left say the word "oil".
15) "experience"- Hey, why not? If you look at the last 50 years, the less experienced guy hardly ever wins .
16) "second highest corporate tax rate in the world" -Did you know the United States has... well, I guess you do now.

Now for Obama.
1) "change"- This one was so obvious I almost left it out. I will do a word count on this one, only counting it if it appears more than 5 times.
2) "hard-working Americans"- This is my current least favorite political cliche'. It has replaced the terms "middle-class" and "working poor" which actually, you know, meant something.
3) "failed policies of the last 8 years"-This is the phrase that will most likely carry him to the big 270. I will also be keeping a word-count on this one
4) "tough diplomacy"- This one is so vague as to be absolutely meaningless, but people seem to be buying it. I see saying that you'll "use diplomacy" to solve the Iran crisis as being about as helpful as saying you'll "use economics" to solve the mortgage crisis.
5) "from the bottom up"
6) "3rd term"- No need to re-invent the wheel here, just keep running against Bush.
7) "top 1%" -An evil group of people, aside from Hollywood celebrities and Warren Buffett.
8) "green jobs" - We will also accept "5 million new jobs". Hey why not promise 10 million? or 100 million? People who believe government creates wealth, rather than just moving it around will probably be even more impressed.
9) "ethics reform"- At which point I will laugh. A searchable database to see all the ways our money is being pissed away? How did the Republic survive so long without this guy?
10) "Dick Lugar"
11) "hurting"- as in "people are hurting" or "hard-working Americans are hurting"
12) "corporate greed"
13) "regulation"- I will only accept this if it is specifically referring to the mortgage/financial crisis.
14) "NATO allies"- A cooler sounding way of saying "Europe".
15) "tax cuts"
16) and no list would be complete without the obligatory "opposed this war from the beginning"

Ultimately, this winds up being one election where I feel sorry for the winner. I also want to throw in a plug here for Bob's new blog, it looks promising so far.

Quick Hits 10: A Star is Born.

2008-09-08T16:25:00.004-06:00

Here is my semi-complete rundown of my take on the events of the RNC week. And what a week it was.

-We started off the week with many on the left and in the media drooling over the prospect of Hurricane Gustav wrecking the Gulf Coast and ruining the RNC. The sense of disappointment on Monday night was palpable. It was sad and amusing at the same time.

-Bobby Jindal really seemed to be on top of things in the few days leading up to the storm.

-That picture of Governor Palin holding the M-16 is probably the hottest thing I've ever seen in my life.

-On Monday afternoon I went to cnn.com to get the latest info on the storm. The top 3 stories on the web page were about Bristol Palin's pregnancy. The fourth was about the hurricane. No ideological agenda there. It's too bad the baby's father isn't John Edwards. If that were the case the mainstream media would have declared that it "wasn't news" and the LA Times would have banned any discussion about it on their website.

-I'm not sure if the McCain campaign was laying an ambush for the Obama campaign, hoping that they'd rail against Palin's inexperience, but if it was they walked right into it. I thought it was funny that Obama supporters of all people cared about experience, and I knew she would probably address this when she spoke, but I was completely unprepared for the devastating manner in which she did so.

-The press release from the Obama campaign deriding the fact that she was the "mayor of a town of less than 9,000" was probably ill-advised given the earlier comments Obama has made with regard to "guns and religion" as well as the statement that Americans embarrass him because we can't speak more languages. I for one would like to see the U.S. government run more like that of a small town. You know, with spending restraint, priorities, etc.

-I'm glad my parents' professional lives don't hinge on what my judgment was like at age 17. Aren't you?

-I liked the fact that Obama seemed genuinely pissed off when he told the reporters that peoples' children should be off-limits. Of course he was completely ignored by the press, who apparently decided they still haven't sucked enough blood yet.

-Now, on to the convention itself. I thought the three-day format actually wound up being better. The major speakers were kept but there wasn't nearly as much filler material. This made for much better television, in my opinion.

-I noticed that they didn't do a lot of fake-diversity stuff like they have in the past few. In the 96-04 conventions it seemed like they had every black republican in the country sitting within 50 feet of the stage, in an effort to make the party look more diverse. Black voters, however, were not fooled by this. This time they just said "ah screw it. Let's just put all the hot chicks up front." Which brings me to my next point.

-I thought it was a very good-looking crowd. It seemed like every crowd shot had some very attractive women in it. By contrast, a lot of crowd shots in Denver reminded me of the bar scene from Star Wars. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It's just the kind of thing I notice.

-Another contrast was the people being celebrated. Nearly every speaker or video was celebrating achievement. They had videos of past presidents, Medal of Honor winners, etc. and a lot of the speakers were people who've built successful businesses. The Democratic convention, on the other hand was a celebration of victimhood. It seemed like every other person to get up there was somebody who'd lost their job, gotten sick, or lost their health insurance. I understand that victim status is the highest honor the Left can bestow, but after that you'd think the unemployment rate was 30% and there was no such thing as "health insurance". Are we in rough times economically? Yes. Are we living in some kind of Dickensian nightmare? No.

-I was hoping the Bush appearance would get canceled entirely and we would only see Laura. I was also glad that Dick Cheney was not seen, heard from, or mentioned the entire week. Hopefully this keeps up until the election.

- Fred Thompson's tub-thumping speech on Tuesday was the best I've ever seen him give. He wasn't that passionate when he was the one running for president. The part about taxing businesses was funny and on-target at the same time.

-Liebermann better hope there's a cabinet position waiting for him if McCain wins.

-I felt sorry for the woman trying to speak when Papa Bush walked in and the crowd cheered for several minutes before she could start speaking.

-Mitt Romney did absolutely nothing for me in his speech. He sounded like his party was the one that had been out of power for 8 years. Huckabee was good as always.

-I knew beforehand that Rudy was going to be coming after 'em. Rushing the passer, if you will. He did not disappoint. "nothing. nada." His shots on Obama and Biden were a hit with the crowd. I thought he would be a pretty tough act to follow, and that Palin would have a hard time topping him. I couldn't have been more wrong.

-After several days of talk about her inexperience and people on the left questioning McCain's judgment, I expected that Governor Palin would give a pretty good speech and hit on some of the areas where her resume' matches up pretty well to Senator Obama's. I was not prepared for what came next. She gave the best speech of the convention season. That's right, better than Obama's. And it was perfectly set up by all of the inexperience talk. This allowed her to go on the attack without coming across as being quite as mean. I remember thinking during Obama's speech that there were a few softballs he left hanging over the plate that could be hit back if the GOP was on it's game, like the line about him and Biden "fighting for you". She hit all of them out of the park. She was very conversational, not preachy. She came across as very confident, and from everything I've gathered over the past few days, she has absolutely electrified the base. For example, the next morning Michael Reagan wrote a column entitled "Welcome Back, Dad." Yeah, that's what we're dealing with here. I can't believe the Obama people didn't see this coming with all the inexperience talk. I also found it ironic that the Obama people are now saying that it's not about personality. If that were the case Hilary would be the nominee.

-I also like the fact that she talked about her family and the media, but didn't come across as whining.

-They made a big deal about the Bush speech writer, who I'm sure was thrilled to finally write one for somebody who can actually speak.

-There has been a run on the Kawasaki 704 glasses frames that Sarah Palin wears.

-I saw an article in an actual "respected" newspaper criticizing the way her hair was done for the speech. I'm not going to claim a double standard or anything, but the morning after Biden spoke I don't recall reading the phrase "hair plugs" one time in any newspaper story.

-I was afraid going in about overdoing the Vietnam stuff, and it was mentioned by every speaker, but I'm not sure you can tell the McCain story without talking about a formative experience like that. I mean five and a half years is longer than I've lived in Colorado, which seems like a long time.

-Senator Graham actually did less for me than Mitt Romney.

-Pawlenty wasn't bad. "Who voted against securing loose nukes in the former USSR?" (paraphrased). That one passed unanimously as I recall as well.

-I would have done more to point out the details of those 2 ethics reform bills Obama touts. One had 47 co-sponsors and passed the Senate unanimously. The other had 18 and passed 96-2, with 2 senators not voting. Not exactly tough legislation that has to be rammed through. If Obama had vehemently opposed them it would have made zero difference. Zero.

-The Cindy McCain video was very moving. She is clearly not a professional speaker, and I think the speech was not written very well in terms of being easily delivered. There were too many multi-comma'ed sentences. That said, the actual content about her charity work over the years in some of the most miserable places on the planet was incredibly touching. I can't help but contrast this to Mrs. Obama who was excellent in delivering her speech but whose biggest applause came because she doesn't hate America. I think a lot of the Michelle stuff has been unfair, but the way this went off kind of reminded me of her earlier statement.

-McCain started off kind of slowly and looked a little distracted when all the idiot protester stuff happened at first. It's kind of funny that to some people on the left, trying to interrupt and shout down a man while he's giving a political speech is actually considered an exercise in free speech. I wonder if a persons brain can atrophy to that level simply from lack of use, or does it require ingesting narcotics on a constant basis for a long period of time? Liberalism will always bare any burden to defend your right to agree with it. Okay, maybe it isn't fair to blame liberals for this one instance since most of the people I saw were from a Communist front group known as Code Pink(perhaps best known for donating $600,000 to the families of Fallujah insurgents).
It still makes me regret not carrying out my plan to disrupt the Obama speech. I know I wouldn't have been able to sneak a sign in, but security has no way of knowing that someone's going to get naked and try to run around the stadium. Missed opportunity, I guess.

-Would you be in any hurry to tackle a naked guy? I can't say I would.

-Anyways, back to McCain. I thought he got a lot better as the speech went along. Some of the domestic policy ideas mentioned in the middle of the speech sounded interesting and will hopefully be rolled out in detail once we get into debate season. This is one area where I think the Democrats are the ones living in the past. They'd like to try to stuff the Globalization Genie back into the bottle and go back to a time when manufacturing jobs were the back-bone of the economy. So would I. It just isn't going to happen, I'm sorry to say. His speech got better and better the closer he got to the end. When he ended with the call to service with the crowd going absolutely nuts and multiple shots of crying people, it was the best imagery I've seen from the right in a long time.

-All in all I thought the convention was well done, but without as much economic focus as I would have liked to see. It was also strictly about McCain and Palin as opposed to the party as a whole. This was kind of weird as well. Whether the enthusiasm can sustain itself remains to be seen, but it looks like another long night November 4th.

A Big Week For Bob.

2008-09-08T15:09:00.002-06:00

In addition to being a huge political week, last week was also a very big week for our very own Bob. He was able to get on the air with Rush Limbaugh (not an easy feat with an audience that size) to discuss the media's apparent fear of Sarah Palin. Then on Friday he went to the huge McCain-Palin rally in Sterling Heights, Michigan. When he asked if they had any "Veterans for McCain" signs they let him sit on the stage behind the candidates. He also got to shake hands with both McCain and Palin and even got Governor Palin to sign his poster. So congratulations, Bob, on a big week for any political junkie.

The Speech.

2008-08-31T18:19:00.002-06:00

Here are my random thoughts about Obama's speech Thursday night. First a few notes about the warm-up acts and the overall atmosphere.

-I tuned in an hour early to see Algore warming up the crowd. I expected him to put everyone to sleep, but in the last 8 years he's become a more passionate, dynamic speaker. He compared Obama to Lincoln more than once, the validity of which remains to be seen. Like a lot of the Obamamessiah stuff I thought it was a little unfair to the Senator to put that kind of expectation on him. I'd settle for a Taft at this point.

-The set looked a lot less gaudy than I expected from the descriptions I'd heard. All day on talk radio they'd been describing it as some kind of pagan temple. It looked very subdued when I actually saw it.

-The larger stadium crowd wasn't quite the visual I thought it would be. This may be because I'm used to seeing crowds that size at sporting events, or it may be that on tv a crowd of 20,000 or 80,000 are more similar than they would be in person.

-There were about 30 minutes of "ordinary people" speeches. The ordinary people were a little too ordinary. The one that stuck out most to me was an auto worker from Detroit who said: "Working class families were doing fine in Detroit until the Bush administration took over". Bullshit. I laughed out loud at that line. (Because Detroit was heaven-on-earth when I lived there in the mid-nineties) Detroit has been in a free-fall for about 40 years now. In that time the state and federal governments have been controlled by each party and the nation has had its ups and downs, but Detroit has only been run by one party and there haven't been too many "ups" to speak of.

-as to the speech itself, I thought it was very good, not quite as good as the one he gave in '04, but it served a different purpose. The '04 speech was soaring and inspirational, while this one had to be more workman-like.

-I thought the most effective part was where he directly addressed the "celebrity" stuff. This was important to show that he identifies with "hard-working Americans" (which may be my least favorite political buzz-word these days).

-For a lot of the speech I got the impression he was running against Bush. Not a bad idea, but they've been trying to tie McCain to Bush for about 6 months now, and I've seen no signs that it's working with the electorate so far. McCain's maverick reputation (rightly or wrongly) may very well be too entrenched in the minds of the public to be reversed.

-He's definitely a "big picture" guy rather than a policy wonk.

-Make no mistake about it. We are a nation of whiners. Remember how much whining ensued when Senator Gramm said that? They kind of proved his point.

-Both candidates are promising to end our dependence on foreign oil... and both will fail to deliver if elected.

-I thought he left McCain some openings to counter-attack by claiming McCain doesn't know what "ordinary" people go through, etc. Also this makes it a little easier for McCain to attack Obama without looking too mean-spirited.

-Overall, I thought it was a very good night for Senator Obama. I'd give the final night an A, and the rest of the convention a B-. It was kind of unfocused as Democratic Conventions usually are when compared to the absolute "message-discipline" that permeates Republican conventions. The high points for me were the speeches of Biden and Obama, as expected.

The Speech: Media Reactions.

2008-08-28T17:28:00.003-06:00

Tonight is Barack Obama's long-awaited acceptance speech, which I'm sure will be very good. I will be posting my thoughts on the speech tomorrow, but I'd like to look at the media response first. Now, of course the media response hasn't really happened yet but it isn't all that hard to predict. So here are some words and phrases you're almost sure to hear in the next few days.

-"He hit it out of the park tonight!"
-"The greatest political speech of my lifetime!"
-"Moving"
-"Inspirational!"
-"Transformational!"
-"Visionary"
-"Electrifying!"
-"How is McCain going to comeback from this?"
-" A knockout punch"
-" His poll numbers will go through the roof!"
- "This speech got him X-million votes!" (This will, of course, be impossible to verify until November.)
- "Substantive"
-"I was spasming uncontrollably the whole time!"
-" I want him to hope all over me!"
-"Wow!"
-"Historic"
-" I cried during his speech."
-"Eloquent"
-"Articulate"
-"He wrote most of it himself"
-"Answered the doubters." ( this will make me laugh the hardest. As one of his "doubters", his abililty to read a teleprompter was never something I doubted.)
-"Dr. King"
-" I am speechless!"
-"Inclusive or inclusionary"
-"Meteoric rise"
-"Changed the face of politics for a generation" (a bit soon for that, but I have a feeling I'll read those words.)

There will be a lot more fawning I'm sure, but this list is just the phrases I expect to read tomorrow. There will also be the usual gushing about how smart, compassionate, etc. he is. If the past several months are any indication, news articles from the left will sound mostly like they were written by teenagers describing someone they have a crush on, with some containing so much metaphysical New Age language that they read almost like an astrology reading. It should be fun. I'll be interested to see how much the speech and the convention do to boost his sagging poll numbers.

Vacation Musings.

2008-08-01T23:37:00.002-06:00

I'm currently in the middle of a week-long vacation, visiting my family in Michigan. It's been fun so far. I will be posting plenty of pictures (probably after I get home since the dial up connection here makes uploading pictures a very slow process). Some thoughts so far:

-Six A.M. is not such a bad time for a flight (especially one jumping a few time zones ahead), provided it's from a small airport that you can get into relatively quickly.
-This was the first time in the history of me flying that I actually spent the better part of a flight talking to the woman sitting next to me. I'm usually next to the snorer, the person who is freaked out, or the large coughing guy.
-O'Hare is a pretty nice airport. Which is good, because I will have four hours to kill there when I fly home next Wednesday. I like the fact that you are never more than 100 feet from a Starbucks, the adequate placement of moving walkways, and the fact that it doesn't smell nasty, which brings me too...
-Is there a nastier airport anywhere than Detroit Metro? Usually when I arrive and the entire terminal smells like the inside of a french-fry vat and there are leaks in the ceiling and peeling paint, I know I'm home. (I usually know by the inordinate number of veiled women as well)
-I'd forgotten how crappy humidity can be. Colorado Springs at 90 degrees isn't so bad. Michigan at 90 degrees means I need to change my shirt every time I come in from outside. The air just feels thick. I did feel like it was easier to do extended walking though, probably because I've gotten used to not having any oxygen in the air.
-I visited my Alma Mater today, and it looks way different. Buildings going up everywhere and all of them look way more expensive than they need to be.
-I drove through a few areas I hung out in when I was in college and took some pictures. They look really different too. The shack I used to rent surprisingly seems to have some one living in it, meaning it must not have been condemned like I expected.
-I went down to the beach to take pictures. Those will be up before long.
-My folks cooked me a very large steak tonight that has to be seen.
-Someone on the radio said it was getting kind of dry here. I laughed at that since they have this weird green-colored grass here rather than the normal brownish-yellow I'm used to at home.
-Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to actually post some of the pics I took of sailboats, steaks, my dog, etc.

The Power of Imagery

2008-07-23T14:46:00.002-06:00

I've been too busy to blog much lately, but I've been following all the latest political developments. I think the best move made by either candidate so far is Obama's decision to move his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field. This will allow the speech to be delivered to a crowd of 70-80,000 people rather than the 19,000 or so who could fit in to the Pepsi Center. The image of a huge crowd going wild during the entire speech (which I'm sure will be as eloquent and inspirational as it is vague and platitude-laden), will help to further the image of Obama as a political phenomenon. It should stand in stark contrast to the more typical, boring McCain acceptance. This could have a greater impact on the electorate than the boring political positions of the candidates or their governing philosophies, things I like to call "substance". This kind of thing could go a long way toward making up for his inexperience, doctrinaire leftism, and utter lack of legislative accomplishment.

CHOW Outline for 7/09/08

2008-07-08T15:36:00.002-06:00

(note: this is the one I was really looking forward to teaching. I took a bare bones approach to the outline because I like the way the message tells the story and needed room on the page. I like to throw a little Hebrew at them early on to establish my credibility. As such I'm going to ask several questions and throw in some background that I didn't bother to print on the handout. I thought i'd throw the Hitchens quote at them in order to rile up the room a bit. I'm also going to spend some time going into how this story is viewed differently in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I was able to pull a lot of good quotes from all three from the book: Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths, by Bruce Feiler.)
The Akedah

Genesis 22:1-19 (MSG)
1 After all this, God tested Abraham. God said, "Abraham!""Yes?" answered Abraham. "I'm listening." 2 He said, "Take your dear son Isaac whom you love and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I'll point out to you." 3-5 Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took two of his young servants and his son Isaac. He had split wood for the burnt offering. He set out for the place God had directed him. On the third day he looked up and saw the place in the distance. Abraham told his two young servants, "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I are going over there to worship; then we'll come back to you." 6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and gave it to Isaac his son to carry. He carried the flint and the knife. The two of them went off together. 7 Isaac said to Abraham his father, "Father?" "Yes, my son." "We have flint and wood, but where's the sheep for the burnt offering?"
8 Abraham said, "Son, God will see to it that there's a sheep for the burnt offering." And they kept on walking together.
9-10 They arrived at the place to which God had directed him. Abraham built an altar. He laid out the wood. Then he tied up Isaac and laid him on the wood. Abraham reached out and took the knife to kill his son.
11 Just then an angel of God called to him out of Heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Yes, I'm listening." 12 "Don't lay a hand on that boy! Don't touch him! Now I know how fearlessly you fear God; you didn't hesitate to place your son, your dear son, on the altar for me." 13 Abraham looked up. He saw a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. Abraham took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 Abraham named that place God-Yireh (God-Sees-to-It). That's where we get the saying, "On the mountain of God, he sees to it." 15-18 The angel of God spoke from Heaven a second time to Abraham: "I swear—God's sure word!— because you have gone through with this, and have not refused to give me your son, your dear, dear son, I'll bless you—oh, how I'll bless you! And I'll make sure that your children flourish—like stars in the sky! like sand on the beaches! And your descendants will defeat their enemies. All nations on Earth will find themselves blessed through your descendants because you obeyed me." 19 Then Abraham went back to his young servants. They got things together and returned to Beersheba. Abraham settled down in Beersheba.

· What is your first response to reading this story?
· Consider the following quotes:
· “"It is the strongest illustration of faith, undoubtedly, which has ever been evinced in our world."-Albert Barnes
· “… celebrating a father who puts a knife to his son’s throat because that’s how much he loves the dictator. I find that wicked.” -Christopher Hitchens
· I think all of us in this room would agree with the first quote, but on first reading the story, does Hitchens have a point or has he missed the point of the story?
· All three monotheistic religions share this story, but with different emphasis.

Read Hebrews 11: 17-22 (NIV)
17By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned”. 19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. 20By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future. 21By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph's sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff. 22By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.
· Does this passage change your initial view of Abraham’s ordeal?
· How about Isaac’s?
Read Romans 4:13-25
· If you had to sum up the meaning of this story in one sentence what would it be?

I forgot to include a question about similarities between Isaac and Jesus, but will hit that point when I actually do the lesson.

CHOW Outline For 7/02/08

2008-07-03T19:56:00.002-06:00

(This was supposed to be my outline for a Bible study I tought, but I messed up and didn't have it printed out. So I was forced to go from my notes and memory. I wasn't sure how well it would go, but we got a lot of good discussion out of this passage. Next week is the one I am looking forward to. It's about the time Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac.)

The Heavenly Hope- Hebrews 11: 13-16

Hebrews 11: 13-16: All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

· What were the promises referred to here in verse 13?
· Does your faith ever make you feel like an “alien and stranger”?
· How is this experience the same today as it would have been for the patriarchs and the Hebrew believers this was originally written to? How is it different?
· Does the fact that they didn’t receive the promises make them a stronger example for us?

Read Hebrews 11:39-40: Not one of these people, even though their lives of faith were exemplary, got their hands on what was promised. God had a better plan for us: that their faith and our faith would come together to make one completed whole, their lives of faith not complete apart from ours.
· We, along with those this letter was first written to are a continuation of their legacy. Do you find that encouraging? Or is it kind of scary?

Read Psalm 39:12. What stands out to you about David’s words here, considering who is saying them?
· Verse 14 (and the end of 13) suggests that they embraced their uniqueness, their “foreignness”. (Genesis 23:4) Does the church do this too much today? Too little? The right amount?

Read II Corinthians 5: 6-9
· Verse 15 is reminds us that they could have given up at any point, and that they were volunteers.
· They knew there would be hardships ahead. (Gen. 15:11-13) Wouldn’t giving up have been the much easier option? Especially in light of the fact that they personally would not live to see the fulfillment of the promises mentioned in verse 13?
· How does going back to our old ways work out for us when we try?

Read Mark 8:38, Romans 1:16, and II Timothy 1:8
· In verse 16, we are reminded that ultimately they weren’t just promised an earthly nation, but that ultimately their goal was the same as ours.
· Given some of the things they did, wouldn’t God have every right to be ashamed of them? Doesn’t that go for us as well? I find it encouraging that God was willing to over-look their boneheadedness as long as they sincerely trusted Him and tried to follow him, even allowing Himself to be known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Read Habakkuk 2:3-4, and Hebrews 10:35-39

What About 'the Children'?

2008-06-26T18:20:00.003-06:00

Apparently five members of the Supreme Court have not completely lost their minds. By a (frighteningly close) 5-4 vote the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") actually means that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The other four either a) believe that the amendment actually meant that the rights of the militia to bear arms or b) do not care what it says. Scalia dealt with the militia argument in his majority opinion (some highlights here and here). The case in question was with regard to Washington D.C. ( many parts of which I wouldn't care to visit, armed or unarmed) which had placed a complete ban on handgun possession within the city. Of course this only affected those who are inclined to obey the law in the first place. What amused me the most today were the reactions to what seems to me an obvious verdict. In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens seems to show open contempt for the Constitution saying the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons". Mind boggling. Yeah, that's absolutely the choice they made. Limiting the "tools" "available" to the State is kind of the purpose of the entire document. Have we learned nothing from the last century about the danger of governments with too many "tools available" to them? If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, ( Jefferson in particular) they tend to be way more extremist than me on this issue. What's more disturbing in that statement to me is the "over 200 years ago" part. He seems to be implying that because the Constitution was written a long time ago, it shouldn't really apply. There is a system in place for dealing with obsolete portions of the Constitution. It's called "amendment", but that would require actually trusting the people and our elected representatives to do something right; much easier just to legislate from the bench. The mayor of D.C. in full-blown histrionics said "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence". I mean think of the street gangs. What are they supposed to do now that someone might be able to shoot back? Aren't we too moral of a society for this? Isn't the civilized thing to do if someone is kicking in my front door to call the police and ask them to send another young man over to put his life on the line while attempting to capture the person(s) who murdered me in the ensuing ten minutes it took the police to arrive? I mean we've banned certain narcotics and now nobody can get ahold of those. I have no reason to believe a gun ban isn't equally effective.
The fact that four justices didn't see it this way gives me more reason to want to keep the Obamunists out of power this fall.

Quick Hits 9: When the Oceans Started Receding.

2008-06-15T23:21:00.003-06:00

I haven't posted anything lately because work has left me completely exhausted for the past few weeks. So here are a few things on my mind lately.

-So were finally down to two candidates. I find myself agreeing with George Will on a couple of points he has made about the upcoming election. He stated that Obama is the more volatile a choice than Hillary would have been. Hillary would have gotten between 48% and 52% of the vote pretty much regardless of what transpired between now and November. Obama, on the other hand, could rise as high as 55% or sink as low as 46% depending on what happens. He also said that this election really isn't about McCain. It will wind up being a referendum on Obama. McCain is a known quantity, so people pretty much already know where they stand with regard to him.

-If I were advising Obama, I would have him take a week to do nothing but sleep, with maybe a few radio interviews and other low intensity campaigning. Last week I heard him give an answer to a question (a couple of them actually) that was almost Bush-like in terms of verbal ineptitude. At one point he continually groped for the word "ventilator", at one point saying "breathalyzer" before settling on "inhalator". I can only assume this was due to the physical exhaustion of all the months of a grinding campaign schedule.

-If McCain has gained any traction in the past few months, I haven't seen much evidence of it.

-The Obama's Witness/Obamamessiah phenomenon seems to be returning after seeming to wane during all the talk about his nutty pastor. I can't decide if this is just the result of people wanting to believe in something so badly that they'll put this guy up on a pedestal, the result of the ongoing dis-enlightenment (a phenomenon I believe is perfectly summed up in a lot of the utterly meaningless and anti-rational language used in this article), or something he is actually working to cultivate. His speech after the last primaries makes me think that the latter may be the case. The lofty rhetoric about when we started "caring for the sick", receding oceans, etc. probably rallied the faithful, but left me chuckling and shaking my head. He does mention that he's not a miracle worker often enough, but which part do you think sticks in peoples' minds? Also whenever he says (paraphrasing) "it's not just about me it's about you" I feel like completing the sentence by saying "it's about your ability to elect me". This carries a risk of disillusionment if he is elected and doesn't bring about rapid economic growth, universal health care, or "end the war" (something he seems to me to be trying very careful not to promise).

-For all the talk of McCain not having any new ideas, I've heard two that interest me. The "League of Democracies" idea seems to be one that could be a good idea. And I really like his idea about having the president have to go before congress on a regular basis to get grilled the way the British Prime Minister has to in the House of Commons.

-If I were the Republican National Committee, I would pay for Howard Dean to be on one of the Sunday talk shows every week. The last time I saw him on there he dealt the race card at least 4 times in the course of 10 minutes. If the Dems want to alienate the electorate, screaming "racism!" for the next 5 months would be a good way to do it. I think they should save that for cases of, you know, actual racism. But I don't know if that's in there DNA. I guess it's one of the dangers of building an electoral coalition on identity politics and grievance-mongering.

-I read Barry Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative recently. Having been written in 1960, some parts were dated but the majority of it is just as true today as the day it was written. Many of the principles he talks about have been completely repudiated (to their detriment) by the current Bush-led GOP. For example he says spending cuts need to come before tax cuts. The current plan is tax cuts and increased spending based on the ideas of Laffer, etc.

-I read an article that said the home town of Ernesto Guevara, tee shirt model and executioner for Castro, has built a bronze statue in his honor. Maybe Charles Manson's home town should build a statue in his honor. Okay, maybe that's not fair. Guevara was involved in a lot more deaths than Manson was. "Go ahead and try them tomorrow morning- but execute them NOW!"

-Gore Vidal reminded us this week (again) how a steady diet of ideological extremism can atrophy a person's brain when he suggested that perhaps John McCain wasn't really a POW in Vietnam. This seems odd to me given the fact that the North Vietnamese used him for propaganda videos, took pictures of his capture, and built a monument at the spot where he was pulled out of the lake. The odd part is not that Vidal would say something stupid (he's made a lucrative career out of that), but that he would actually disbelieve the claims of a communist regime. I guess there's a first time for everything.

-The tribute to Tim Russert on Meet the Press was very well done. I wonder who will take over hosting that show. I hope it will not be Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann, both of whom are way too obnoxious for that show.

-Finally, I was talking to my mom last night about her recent trip to Europe. At one point while in Bavaria her tour group went to the site of a mansion that had belonged to Adolf Hitler. I cracked up when she told me that. The thought of my mom touring something associated with Hitler was hilarious, because I can't imagine two people farther apart on the spectrum of human behavior than Hitler and my mom.

May's Books.

2008-06-03T15:48:00.002-06:00

May was a busy reading month for me. Here's the list.

-1776, David McCullough. ( A description of the first full year of the Revolutionary War. I was stuck by the youth of many of the key figures involved: General Nathaniel Greene- age 33, Colonel Henry Knox- age 25. I was also struck by how low the casualty figures of most battles were compared with the Civil War.)

-The Rage and the Pride, Oriana Fallaci. (This critique of Islam and the decline of Europe got her charged with a "hate crime" in France. She was one tough lady.)

-The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci. (She wrote this one shortly before she died of cancer and takes on the same subject again.)

-Why We Want to Kill You, Walid Shoebat. (He says he's a former Palestinian terrorist and that all of them want to kill all of us. I'm not sure I buy his story. I also found this book to be a little over the top. He seems to present all Muslims as though they are mindless followers of the most radical elements within their religion. I think a larger number are willing to follow those elements than we would like to admit, but not to the degree he describes.)

-A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn.

-No Name on the Bullet: A Biography of Audie Murphy. (Murphy was the most decorated soldier of WWII, winning every award for valor his country could bestow. The book follows him through his career in Hollywood and details how he was never really able to escape the way the war haunted him. He fought through the entire American campaign in Europe (no troop rotations back in those days), personally killing some 300 people. Some of the things he did couldn't be included in the movie (To Hell and Back: the Audie Murphy Story, starring Audie Murphy as Audie Murphy.) because they would seem to far-fetched for the viewing audience.)

-Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How Holy Rollers and Neo-cons destroyed the GOP. ( Not as good as I'd hoped. It was a very broad overview of the same failures that have been outlined in like 15,000 other books.)

-The Anti-Chomsky Reader, David Horowitz. (Pretty much what the title implies)

-The ProFessors, David Horowitz. (A look at how far out on the lunatic fringe a lot of college professors are)

-America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn. (This was a good book. Steyn is currently on trial in Canada for the book being a "hate crime".)

-A Brief History of Crime, Peter Hitchens. (He details the slow painful death of law and order in Great Britain, and of Great Britain in general.)

-A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, Christopher Hitchens. (One of the few "liberal hawks" who has stuck to his guns for the past 7 years, Hitchens (here and in his writings since) lays out the best case in favor of the war I've come across so far.)

-Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription, William F. Buckley. (Some of the more interesting letters National Review has received over the years, with responses by the always pithy Buckley.)

-The Woven Figure: Conservatism and America's Fabric, George Will. (A collection of his columns from 1994-1997.)

-With a Happy Eye But..., George Will. (A collection of his columns from 1998-2002.)

-South Park Conservatives. (South Park "anti-liberals" might have been a more appropriate title.)

There could have been a few more, but A People's History really slowed me down.

A Dying Breed.

2008-05-30T21:01:00.003-06:00

I've recently been reading some books by George Will (The Woven Figure) and William F. Buckley (Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription), in reading their writings I can't help but be struck by the contrast between the tone and approach to political thought taken by these elder statesmen of the conservative movement and that taken by most of the popular political writers today. The late Mr. Buckley's style was one of laying out rational arguments for his worldview. This is a far cry from the current crop on the right and the left. It seems that the entire conservative movement has become a moral crusade, while the left is driven by a guilt-based crusade. A good percentage of the political books I've read in the last year have consisted of attacks on the morality (or intelligence) of the other side rather than a comprehensive case for the author's own political views. There are exceptions, like Christopher Hitchens, but he's persona non grata on the left due to his unflinching support for the Iraq War and the right probably isn't crazy about his anti theism. There are still intelligent people in both movements, but it seems that raw emotion is the driving factor in the political discourse. I find this to be one of the more disturbing developments in politics over the last 15 years or so.

Worst Book 3: Return of the Moon Bat

2008-05-24T18:48:00.004-06:00

Part 3 of our Marxist tour guide Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

-The biggest characteristic of the section of the book covering the period spanning from the late-1970's to present is the repeated and (of course) unsourced use of questionable statistics. I'm not going to go into too many of those since by the time I got to this section I had spent about two weeks on this book and wasn't about to spend hours researching each claim. So these (along with what I've presented so far) are by no means the only inaccuracies of the book. Some weren't interesting enough for me to include here and I'm sure others slipped past me unnoticed. Other parts don't fall into the category of "inaccuracy" but seem to me to be distorted by ideology.

-On page 573 he attacks the U.S. for its opposition to various "revolutionary movements" in the Caribbean. I think "Soviet and Cuban backed terrorist movements" might have been a more accurate term.

-On page 578 he claims that "Unemployment grew in the Reagan years". This is the exact opposite of the truth, unless when he says "grew" he means "dropped". When Reagan was inaugurated in January of '81 the unemployment rate was 7.5%. When Reagan left office in January of '89 the unemployment rate was 5.4%. Read it and weep.

-On page 585, Zinn praises the accomplishments of "a popular Sandinista movement" in Nicaragua and tells us how good they were for that country. He claims that the opposition Contras "seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua". I guess he's hoping none of us remember what happened when free elections were finally held in 1990. He also makes no mention of Soviet or Cuban military assistance to the Sandinistas. Apparently he feels the foreign interference was only on the part of the United States.

-He gives Reagan no credit for the end of the Cold War. On page 592, he tries to give the credit to Kruschev due to his "liberal reforms" enacted in the late 50's/early 60's. I guess this is kind of a relative argument but sandwiched between Stalin and Brezhnev pretty much anyone would look like a liberal reformer, even "the Butcher of the Ukraine".

-On page 638, we get one of very few mentions of Soviet Communism. He states that the "false socialism of the Soviet system had failed". Remember, the first rule of Socialism is that Socialism that exists in reality is "false Socialism". Conversely, Socialism that exists in one's imagination is "real Socialism".

-On page 646, Zinn implies that the FBI started the Waco fire that killed the Branch Davidians. He's smart enough not to state "the FBI started the fire". Instead he implies it, saying: "the FBI attacked with rifle fire, tanks, and gas resulting in a fire...". This clearly insinuates that the fire was not started by the cultists inside the compound. He then quickly transitions into a gruesome description of some of the bodies. Anyone who makes it this far into the book should realize that it is not your intellect that is being appealed to. It is the reader's emotional response that matters to the author. It is imperative to his "social aims" that you view America (and more importantly capitalism) as a force for nothing but evil in the world and the biggest threat to mankind.

-On the very next page he talks of the need to release people from jail, and states "violent crime continued to increase" during the 90's. Again this is the exact opposite of the truth. The 1990's saw a historic drop in virtually every category of crime. Explanations as to why this happened vary, but to claim that it didn't happen is nothing more than a politically motivated fantasy.

- U.S. military intervention in Somalia was wrong. The U.S. not intervening in Rwanda was wrong .(pp. 654,655) He's trying to have it both ways. You can't cry "imperialism" in one case and call for the same thing in the other (unless it could help your political agenda I suppose).

-In keeping with the "left-wing despot love-fest" he states on page 657 that Cuba "had no bloody record of suppression". I'm sure a lot of folks in Miami would beg to differ. As would these human rights groups.

-Can anyone explain to me why the far-left is so in love with people who murder police officers? As I should have seen coming, on page 668 Zinn talks about cop-killer (and hero to fringe leftist morons everywhere) Mumia Abu Jamal. Zinn states: "Jamal was a respected black journalist who had been tried and sentenced under circumstances that suggested his race and his radicalism, as well as his persistent criticism of the Philadelphia police, were the reason he now sat on death row." Actually, the reason he now sits on death row is because he is more guilty than OJ and Mike Tyson combined. Like most Jamal supporters, Zinn shows no interest in the facts of the case. I will briefly describe them. Far from being "a respected black journalist", Jamal had been fired from a local radio station for poor attendance and was driving a taxi at the time of the murder. On the night of the murder, officer Daniel Faulkner was trying to arrest Jamal's brother when Jamal saw the scuffle and ran over and shot officer Faulkner in the back from about 12 inches away. Before officer Faulkner fell, he shot Jamal in the chest (also from about a foot away). Jamal then shot Faulkner 3 more times while he (Faulkner) was lying on the ground, before finishing him off with a 5th shot which struck officer Faulkner between the eyes, killing him instantly. Jamal then staggered over to a sidewalk a few feet away and sat down. When more officers arrived less than 90 seconds later, they found Faulkner dead, Jamal sitting on the sidewalk wearing and empty shoulder holster, and Jamal's brother yelling "I ain't got nothin' to do with this". Laying on the sidewalk next to Jamal was the murder weapon, a .38 special revolver legally registered to Mumia Abu Jamal and containing 5 empty shells in the cylinder. 4 eyewitnesses also testified that Jamal had killed Faulkner. So yeah, sounds like he totally got railroaded to me. He later became a left-wing celebrity due in large part to radio interviews conducted from prison. If you've never listened to one, he talks in this mellow, deep voice about the injustice of the white man's legal system and his sympathy for all the oppressed people of the world. So this gets played on college radio stations where black militants, delusional leftists, and spoiled little white girls here it (who by this point would no doubt be willing to have the guy's baby) decide they need to do everything they can to keep him from getting the lethal injection he so richly deserves.

Now that the history is out of the way we come to Zinn's vision for the future. This chapter is titled The Coming Revolt of the Guards. He lays out a vision of a Socialist utopia where we all rise up and "seize the reigns of power" (exactly what the hell that means and how it is accomplished are for someone else to figure out). By this point he wants his readers to feel so guilty about their nation's history that they're willing to embrace anything, even an ideology as destructive as Marxism. He never gives a good reason to embrace the only ideological system (political, religious, economic, etc.) in human history that can claim responsibility for 100,000,000 deaths in one century. The reason for this is that there isn't one. He merely spits out Socialist cliches so fast and furious that it seems as though they're being fired from a machine gun. A telling passage about the delusional nature of his goals is this one. "Work of some kind would be needed by everyone, including people now kept out of the workforce-children, old people, "handicapped" people. ... Everyone could share the routine but necessary jobs for a few hours a day, and leave most of the free time for enjoyment, creativity, labors of love, and yet produce enough for an equal and ample distribution of goods. Certain things would be abundant enough to be taken out of the money system and be available-free-to everyone: food, housing, health care, education, and transportation." The word that comes to mind is "fantasy". This kind of seems to rehash the old Communist canard that it hasn't worked because "it hasn't been tried by the right people". That's because the "right people" are a figment of your imagination. It always has started with grand visions and ended with famine, shortage, and brutal repression. This is lost on today's "Libertarian-Socialists" (a term that makes about as much sense as "carnivorous vegetarian"). But then, you see, people like Howard Zinn are luxury-Socialists who live in nice houses, have cushy jobs, and make big dollars speaking about the need to redistribute (presumably other people's) wealth. Practical Socialists, on the other hand, do the redistributing themselves and wind up in jail. These are the more consistent ones in my view. Not the ones who live in the fantasy world of Acadamia. If you'd like to see what this ideology does to people check out these pictures of a gathering in a large, (sort of) American city, and remember each face in these pictures is one family's tragedy.
I am now in search of a new "worst book". I'm not sure where I'll find something worse, maybe a Noam Chomsky book, or some 9/11 "truth" garbage.

Worst Book: Part 2

2008-05-18T17:49:00.002-06:00

Part 2: "You say you want a revolution?"

-On page 421 he states that "more than 100,000 people died in the fire-bombing of Dresden". The actual number is between 25,000 and 35,000. I guess that wasn't startling enough, hence the need to multiply it by 4. In my research I came to the conclusion that most people pushing a figure of 100,000 or higher were doing so to push a leftist agenda. And that anyone claiming over 200,000 is a Fucking Nazi.

-The World War II chapter was probably the worst in the book.

-His section on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is particularly bad. (pp 422-424) He paints a picture of a Japan that has been trying for months to surrender, and were already about to do so when the A-bombs were dropped. He also scoffs at the notion of how many lives an invasion would cost (as he gets ripped apart for here). I realize there is debate on this, but I haven't said anything truly inflammatory since I started this blog, so I'd like to take the opportunity to do so right now..... If ever there was a society that earned the right to have 2 nuclear weapons used against it it was Imperial Japan. Japan used chemical and biological weapons against China, killing somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 with biological agents, also evidenced by over 700,000 shells containing various chemical munitions they left behind in China that are still killing people. Hiroshima prefecture was the home of a poison gas factory (this gas was used to kill around 80,000 Chinese), and they were doing things that would almost make even the Nazis cringe. (for more info, google the phrases "unit 731", "unit 516","rape of Nanjing","Bataan death march","Japanese treatment of POW's", "comfort women", "Okunoshima", "battle of the Philippines", "Japanese forced labor", etc.) Also, given the most recent example the Allies had, the battle of Berlin in which the combined casualties on both sides exceeded 200,000, they had every reason to believe that an invasion of Japan would be just as brutal. Zinn claims that the only condition for the Japanese with regard to surrender was the continued rule of the emperor, omitting the other 3. 1) No occupation 2) No handing over of war criminals 3) They would be in charge of their own demobilization. Needless to say these were unacceptable. The Pottsdam declaration also contained a warning and terms of surrender, but it was rejected by the Japanese. Another thing that always stuck out to me in this debate is that generally if someone's already going to surrender...they probably would surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The fact that there even had to be a second bomb leads me to believe that they may have been willing to fight it out until total societal collapse was inevitable. If they had surrendered within a few months, how many Chinese, Koreans, etc would have died in that time frame? Does this make the bombings morally justified? Maybe not. But in my opinion it made them absolutely necessary. I understand and to some degree sympathise with those who disagree with me on this issue, but when facts are distorted or omitted from the argument that tends to fall flat with me. To frame this issue as innocent civilians dying in massive numbers vs. no innocent civilians dying is also inaccurate; the only question here was whether they were dying in Japan or in China, Indochina, Korea, etc.

-Also, on page 424 he states "the bombing of Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped". He seems to think it was because the U.S. wanted to use Nagasaki as a guinea pig for the "fat man" bomb design (even though this design was very similar to the one tested in New Mexico). Actually Nagasaki was not the intended target when Bock'scar left the ground that day. The target was Kokura, but due to cloud cover they diverted to Nagasaki. Perhaps he means that the idea of a second bomb was scheduled well in advance but without citing any documentary evidence he doesn't back up this claim at all. As to why it was dropped, I think maybe it was because they didn't surrender after the first one was dropped. So again, we can debate Hiroshima but they had no one but themselves to blame for Nagasaki.

-His views on the Korean War plumb new depths in terms of delusion. He presents it as if the Chinese were just minding their own business until forced to enter the war. (p.428) One would be well served to remember who invaded who.

-On page 439 he tells us what a great guy his friend Fidel Castro is (was?). He set up "a nationwide system of education, of housing, of land distribution to landless peasants". No mention of firing squads or secret prisons. At this point it becomes obvious that he doesn't think it's enough just to bash the U.S. (which again is fine with me, he has the right to say any stupid thing he wants) but he has to glorify our enemies simply because they are our enemies, no matter how horrendous their crimes. More on Cuba still to come.

-His love for Ho Chi Minh seems to be unconditional. On page 469 he tells us about the Vietnamese declaration of independence (written by Ho) states that "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator....(you know the rest)" And I have no doubt that Zinn actually believes Ho Chi Minh believed in those things. The true hallmark of a "useful idiot".

-On the same page he states that the U.S. made "a maximum military effort" against a "nationalist revolutionary movement in a tiny, peasant country". Maximum military effort? Not even close. I would also point out that at the time Vietnam had a population of around 75 million, making it one of the 20 largest nations on earth. Here we see the first appearance of a pattern of using the word "revolutionary" to refer to Communist dictators. In Zinn's view a group of revolutionaries who implement a Constitutional government are dictators, but Soviet-backed dictators are "revolutionaries"

-Still on the same page he says " it was organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won." At this point I laughed so hard I almost dropped the book. The only human beings who "won" were the ones who escaped the living hell that country was when the "revolutionaries" took over. This chapter had a lot of promise. You'd think that a person writing an anti-American book would have a lot of good material to work with when it comes to Vietnam, but his unvarnished cheer leading and apparent glee over that regime's victory (rivaled only by fellow moonbat and left-wing totalitarian apologist Noam Chomsky) makes it hard to take him very seriously. The phrases "reeducation camps" and "boat people" appear no where in the text. The North Vietnamese are portrayed as true believers in freedom, justice and equality who never committed any atrocities. This makes it very hard for me to view the author as a guy who just wants peace.

-He spends about half the chapter (the "revolutionaries"=good half, not the U.S.=bad half) telling us how much better the Communists made life for people in the North, so I was kind of surprised when we reach the end of the war and he doesn't tell us how wonderfully things turned out once the "imperialists" were driven out. No mention of how happy people were, or the reconciliation and era of plenty that ensued. One can only dream about living in such a Socialist paradise I suppose.

-On page 551 he tells how an American cargo ship was captured in 1975 "in Cambodia, where a revolutionary regime had just taken power" He then describes how friendly they were to the crew. He doesn't say anything else (literally, not one word) about these "revolutionaries". He doesn't tell us how they were a group of nice people called the Khmer Rouge, or that they were led by a wonderful man named Pol Pot. They were true underdogs, unable to afford things like bulldozers or lots of bullets. Still they persevered. They made people dig their own graves and used iron bars to "club their brains out like baby seals". They overcame these disadvantages and managed to cause the deaths of somewhere between 1,200,000 and 1,700,000 people in just 4 years! That is an amazing accomplishment even by communist standards considering the short time frame and the fact that there were only 7.5 million people in the country to begin with.

-On page 554, he states as a fact that "[the CIA] had introduced African swine fever into Cuba in 1971, bringing disease and then slaughter to 500,000 pigs." I assume he means literal pigs, not capitalists. I had to search for hours to find any reliable source on this, one way or the other. After viewing about 500 Marxist, pro-Castro, and "CIA created AIDS" type websites (and the CIA "family jewels"). I finally found that this claim had been pretty much debunked in a study by Raymond Zilinskas. It was published in a paper called "Cuban Allegations of Biological Warfare by the United States: Assessing the Evidence" in Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 25:3 (1999) pp.173-227. So the question is who do I believe? 500 wack-job websites or one peer reviewed scientific journal? That's a pretty easy choice. The only thing I found to back up the claim was the word of Castro (always reliable) and an interview from the San Francisco Chronicle in the late seventies with an anonymous person who claimed to have worked for the CIA and delivered a vial of this stuff to some Cuban dissidents. I've got news for you. This nation's mental hospitals are full of people claiming they work for the CIA. To pass off this claim as though it were an established fact in an alleged history book seems to me, at best, negligent.

-The last point I will include in this section is this: on page 570 he rips Jimmy Carter because he "opposed federal funding to poor people who needed abortions". Needed? or wanted? This one wouldn't have bothered me in a book that wasn't being used in high schools across the country. But again, this at least pretends to be a history book. (Although the pretext becomes flimsier and flimsier the further the book moves along, by the time we reach the modern era it's painfully obvious that this is a run of the mill Marxist tract. And not a very good one at that.)

That's all for part 2. The next section will run from 1980 through our Socialist Wonderland future.
And believe me, it's equally inaccurate, but with more nuttiness thrown in.
In the mean time check out this parody of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky doing audio commentary for the first Lord of the Rings movie.

The Worst Book I Have Ever Read.

2008-05-18T13:26:00.006-06:00

(Note: this is another massive post. But it's not every day that I read a 700 page Marxist tract. For that reason I have split it into three parts)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts."-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I have recently read A People's History of the United States, by Comrade Howard Zinn. I may have read a worse book at some point in my life, but I would be hard pressed to think of one. I normally wouldn't waste my time with something this far out of the mainstream, but since this is a very popular text in the political indoctrination centers we call public schools I thought I would check it out. I want to point out up front that my problems with this book don't stem as much from the author's politics as they do from the approach he takes toward history. I have just as much objection to revisionist historians like the ones found in the religious right. My objections also don't stem from patriotism or a naive belief that the U.S. has never done horrendous things. My objections mainly have to do with presenting a Marxist (not liberal, Marxist) political tract as a history book. Dr. Zinn admits this in the opening chapter of the book and makes no apologies for it, believing that it is more important to "inspire social change" than to deal accurately with the events of history. He fits in with a common postmodern dis-enlightenment school of thought that objectivity is a myth, and thus it is okay to bend events to suit your ideological predispositions rather than vice versa.(People have always done this, they just don't even bother to pretend any more.) He also presents all historical events as being caused by class struggle, thus finding a simple overarching "magic bullet" theory to explain even the most nebulous and complex historical events. Events are virtually never placed in context, are often distorted, opinion is presented as fact, and in several cases factual claims are made that are patently false. Every formal logical fallacy I know of makes an appearance in the book: reductio ad absurdum, appeal to popular opinion, straw-man, false dichotomies, etc. I should say that this could have been a good book if he had been willing to leave well enough alone. The chapters on the civil rights movement, and some of the sections on slavery were very good, and I found the section about the American war against the Philippines to be pretty good. Also, before ripping the book I should give credit where credit is due and say that I appreciate Dr. Zinn's work in the civil rights movement, dating back to before most Americans knew there was a civil rights movement. I also appreciate his service to the nation in World War II. That being said here is a list of things I didn't like about the book. (This is by no means a complete list. Only the things that jumped out to me enough to write them down and research them.) I am also including a number of links to resources that refute some of the various claims, and wherever possible I have chosen sources from the left side of the political spectrum. All page numbers are from the 2003 edition of the book.

- The major problem that appears throughout the book (and one which is, to me, unforgivable) is the complete absence of source citations. Often something is claimed as a fact with no support whatsoever. If I had handed in a paper like that during my days as a poli. sci. major at Western Michigan I would have received a big fat F. Dubious claims and statistics are presented throughout the book in this manner with nothing to back them up. This is probably more confusing to the reader who is not very familiar with American history (which honestly seems like the type of person this book is targeted at), when coupled with the way his opinions are consistently presented as fact no matter how outlandish. This also made researching the claims that were questionable enough to jump out at me much more difficult. I spent more time researching dubious claims than I did actually reading the book. (I've been exposed to more moonbat websites of communists, Fucking Nazis, aids-conspiracy types, etc. in the last two weeks than in my entire life.) Almost the only time he tells where he got certain information is when he directly quotes another author (The authors he quotes are overwhelmingly Socialists). There is a bibliography which reads like a who's who of leftist whack-jobs (Chomsky,etc.), but he doesn't ever tell what claim came from whom. For example, on page 49 he says "A historian" concluded that "in 1770 1 percent of Boston owned 44 percent of the wealth". Really? What was the name of the historian? What was the specific source material?

-Throughout the book "the rich" and "the powerful" are portrayed as a monolithic entity responsible for all of the ills that fall upon "the people". This oversimplification really sums up the message of the book as a whole.

-Prior to the American revolution, nothing happened except slavery and genocide. No decisions were made by anyone apparently that did not have slavery and genocide as the intended outcome. And of course, slavery and genocide spring from capitalist greed.

-On page 59 he states that the founding fathers "created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times" when referring to the constitution. He presents the constitution as a document designed to protect the interests only of rich white men as well. This is sheer idiocy and crosses over the line into delusional. The best way to control the population and expand the power of government is to write a document limiting the powers of said government? It would have been far more effective to point out the ways in which the constitution has not been lived up to over the years, but instead he indulges in conspiracy theory. He pretty much restates the position of early 20th century socialist historian Charles Beard, which is pretty well dismantled by progressive author and Air America host Thom Hartmann here (he bashes Bush at the same time, so this article has something for everyone).

-On page 85 he states "George Washington was the richest man in America." Nope. He wasn't even the richest man in Virginia. It would fit in great with Marxist mythology if he was though, wouldn't it?

-In a chapter about the treatment of women in the early 1800's he makes no comparison between the U.S. and other societies of the same era. Sexism is presented as being almost unique to the United States. Where comparisons are made they are made between the America of 200 years ago and the America of today. He also seems to be linking sexism to capitalism, as though non-capitalist societies do not oppress women. Some of the stories are interesting though.

-Lincoln gets no credit for freeing the slaves. The Civil War was all about greed.

-An entire chapter expounds on the horrors of how some people became rich in the late 1800's (of course because they all exploited "the people". On page 263, philanthropy is presented as a way for the elite to strengthen their control by producing an army of middle-men who would protect "the system". It is a recurring theme that any time the government does something good it is just a desperate measure intended to shore up its control of the proletariat.

-He suggests that the shelling of Veracruz in 1914 was a ruse to divert the nation's attention from labor unrest, including a miners strike that was going on in Colorado at the time. (p.357) Again all events must be connected by a unifying force and any events occurring simultaneously must be directly related.

-On page 387 he states that the onset of the Great Depression showed that the capitalist system is "by its nature unsound" and "a sick an undependable system". As opposed to the plan of starvation that is Marxism, of course

-I'm not sure if the chapters got worse as I got closer to the modern era, or if it just became easier to spot inaccuracies and unsound logic as it got into events I was more familiar with. In the next section I look at the WW2- Vietnam eras. In the mean time check out this hilarious site.

This is pretty funny

2008-05-06T11:10:00.001-06:00

Cultural Extinction

2008-04-30T13:56:00.002-06:00

I've just finished reading the book: Anti-Americanism, by Jean-Francois Revel. In the book, he lays out the case that the reflexive anti-Americanism of Europeans (with a particular emphasis on his native France) is often simplistic, self-contradictory, ill-informed, and counterproductive.
The most interesting section of the book to me was a chapter about cultural protectionism. The thrust of his argument is that it is impossible to protect a culture by building a wall against outside influences. He specifically argues against the French trying to protect their culture from American influence, but I think the lesson is to be heeded in this country as well (a similar cultural protectionism, or more accurately isolationism is sometimes evident in this country, particularly in certain movements on the right side of the political spectrum). Revel states: "The idea that a culture can preserve its originality by barricading itself against foreign influences is an old illusion that has always produced the opposite of the desired result. Isolation breeds sterility. It is the free circulation of cultural products and talents that allows each society to perpetuate and renew itself." Put another way, building a wall around a culture nearly always leads to cultural stagnation. An example of this cross-pollination of ideas is the rise of existentialism. Nietzsche was influenced by the ideas of the French moralists, and in turn his writings influenced French philosophers like Sartre, Camus, etc. during the following century. Other examples are endless. I think this is a concept often forgotten in times like this when nativism seems to be on the rise.

My Reading List.

2008-04-25T18:30:00.002-06:00

Mainly for my own reference (so that I don't accidently check a book out from the library only to realize that I've already read it) I'm posting a list of all the books that I can remember reading since I started my reading binge about Easter of last year along with my short takes on some of the books.

Non-Fiction:

The Theocons, Damon Linker (a who's who of the religious right)
God's Politics, Jim Wallis (God's Politics are a lot like Wallis' politics)
The Jesus I Never Knew, Phillip Yancey
The Jesus Machine, Dan Gilgoff (a lot more balanced than the title suggests)
James Dobson's War On America, Gil Alexander Meagerle (very disappointing)
Tempting Faith, David Kuo (an inside look at the Bush White House)
Fiasco, Thomas Ricks
America Against the World, Kohut and Stokes (a lot of dry polling data as I recall)
The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Frank Rich (deception in the run up to Iraq)
State of Denial, Bob Woodward ( a very in-depth look at the failures made in Iraq)
My Fundamentalist Education, Christine Rosen (a familiar story to me)
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter ( he mentions "Camp David" 9,000 times)
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, Bruce
Bartlett
The Great Deluge, Douglas Brinkley ( an analysis of Hurricane Katrina)
Utter Incompetents: Ego and Ideology in the Age of Bush, Thomas Oliphant (exactly what the title suggests)
Flim-Flam, James Randi (a look at ESP, Bermuda Triangle and other hoaxes)
The Assault on Reason, AlGore ( a pretty good read)
Disaster, Christopher Cooper ( a look at how the federal government failed during Katrina)
The Iraq Study Group Report; Baker, Hamilton, et al. ( the one always mentioned by politicians, whether they have read it or not)
The Starfish and the Spider, Brafman & Beckstrom (another good one)
The J-Curve: A new way to understand why societies rise and fall, Ian Bremmer ( a good study of societies in transition)
The World is Flat, Thomas Friedmann
The Basic Writings of Nietzsche (He was one of the few philosophers who was not a boring writer)
The Writings of Keirkegaard
American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips ( a VERY good book, I highly recommend it. I read it twice)
The Silence of the Rational Center: Why U.S. foreign policy is failing, Halper & Clarke ( another one I recommend, reviewed in earlier post, I read it twice)
How Would a Patriot Act?, Glenn Greenwald
The One Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind
A Tragic Legacy, Glenn Greenwald (reviewed in an earlier post)
The Price of Loyalty: The education of Paul O'neill, Ron Suskind ( An insider's look at the way the Bush White House is run)
It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian peril in the age of Bush, Joe Conason
Will They Ever Trust Us Again?, Michael Moore (that's right, I read a Michael Moore book)
Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich (this was very entertaining, especially her stints working as a maid and at Wal-Mart)
Bait and Switch, Barbara Ehrenreich (this was even more depressing as she infiltrates the white-collar job-seeker world)
Adventures in Missing the Point, Tony Campolo & Brian McLaren
Speaking My Mind, Tony Campolo
Evil and God's Justice, N.T. Wright (there may have been another word in the title. Good book)
Why the Religious Right is Wrong, Robin Meyers (conversely, the religious left is a-ok!)
Conservatives Without Conscience, John W. Dean (He basically says conservatives are just nazis without any balls)
Religion Gone Bad, Mel White (he's here, he's queer, he's a preacher, get used to it!)
Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics Magazine (It won't convince the moonbats, but it destroys most of their fantasies about the gov. being behind 9/11)
American Fascists, Christopher Hedges ( at some point all these religious right books started running together in my mind)
Sex God, Rob Bell (not as racy as it sounds, it's about sexuality and Christianity)
They Like Jesus, But Not the Church, Dan Kimball ( a pretty good read)
The Apocalypse Code, Hank Haanegraaf (sp?) ( a good look at "exegetical eschatology")
Kingdom Coming, Michelle Goldberg (another religious right expose')
F*U*B*A*R: America's Right Wing Nightmare, Seder & Sherill ( this was a poorly written hatchet piece, I only like well-written hatchet pieces)
Confronting Iran, Ali Ansari (the title speaks for itself)
Blinded by the Right, David Brock (He was a right-wing hatchet man, now he's a left-wing whiner)
When the Press Fails, Bennett, et al (how the press failed in the run-up to Iraq and since)
The Republican Noise Machine, David Brock
The Gulag Archipelago, Solshenytsen (sp?)
The Federalist, Jay, Hamilton and Madison
Faith of My Fathers, John McCain (some of the prison-camp stuff is indescribable)
The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama (would have been a better read if I wasn't familiar with his voting record, still not bad. Very much aimed at post-moderns)
Writings, Thomas Jefferson
Writings, James Madison
The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture, Hipps (a look at post-modern culture)
While Europe Slept, Bruce Bawer
Londonistan, Melanie Phillips (not as good as Bawer)
How Democracies Perish, Jean-Francois Revel (another good book)
Anti-Americanism, Jean-Francois Revel (currently reading)
several books critical of pre-millenial dispensationalism whose titles I can't remember.
61 that I can remember.

Fiction:

1984, George Orwell (the best love story I've ever read, seriously)
It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis (the hell it can't)
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut (This was another damn good book)
Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
The Idiot, Fyodor Dostoevsky ( "Beauty will conquer the world." This was the book that turned me on to Russian literature)
2 books of short stories by Chekhov
Demons, Dostoevsky ( everybody dies)
War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy (this one should count as 2 books)
The Death of Ivan Illyich and other short stories, Leo Tolstoy (he was the master of the parable)
Notes From Underground and other stories, Dostoevsky
Dante's Inferno
The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky (Dostoevsky's magnum opus)
The Stranger, Albert Camus
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche
Candide, Voltaire (some monkey-lovin' going on in this one)
17 total

#1 NFL Draft Pick

2008-04-23T00:18:00.002-06:00

The Miami Dolphins have announced that Jake Long, Offensive Tackle from the University of Michigan will be the top pick in the NFL draft this saturday. I think this is a great pick, not just because he's a Michigan guy, but because I like the idea using top picks on positions like O-line or the defensive front seven. The risk factor seems somewhat lower. With a quarterback, running back or reciever a lot of times you don't know how the player will adapt to the pro game or whether they'll pick up the system. In the case of Long, I don't know if some of the other top prospects can pick up the pro game quickly, overcome injury problems, or stay out of trouble with the law; but I do know that on week 1 Jake Long will still be a six-foot seven-inch, 320 pound road-grader who opens holes for the running backs and keeps the QB's jersey clean.

A Journey to the Land of Make-Believe!

2008-04-18T00:28:00.003-06:00

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it......Clearly a society that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."-Jean-Francois Revel

em-pire (em'pir') n. Abbr. emp. 1. A political unit, usually larger than a kingdom and often comprising a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority. 2. The territory included in such a unit. 3. Imperial dominion.

I stumbled on to this anti-American propaganda a few weeks ago and thought I'd give a few of my thoughts on the video and the larger problem it illustrates. As we progress further into this post-modern age of dis-enlightenment, I expect this kind of historical revisionism (cherry-picked facts mixed with half-truths and outright falsehoods wherever necessary to support a preexisting ideology) to become the rule rather than the exception. I also find it necessary to view garbage like this occasionally to remind myself that the political right does not hold a monopoly on idiocy. For anyone who couldn't stomach the entire video, it was made to promote Howard Zinn's book: "A (delusional) People's History of American Empire", appropriately released on April Fool's Day. I'm going to point out some of the problems with this video and the ideological movement behind it. This will be a long post because it's amazing how much misleading can go on in an 8-minute video. I also want to say up front that I am not writing this because of patriotism or because I believe that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. There are many historic examples of this. I am writing it because I view the Manichean, black/white view of the world presented in this video is every bit as dangerous as that espoused by many neo-cons who believe the United States is perfect, that we need to have war all the time, etc. In this respect, Zinn is merely the other side of the same ideological coin that looks to turn history and the current state of the world into a morality play with simplistic, ideological explanations for everything.

Now, on to the video itself. First, let's give a big round of applause to Viggo Mortensen for reminding us that people who make their living by portraying emotions on screen are not to be relied on for rational analysis of anything. (There are exceptions of course, but as a rule celebrity should not be confused with authority.) Second, am I the only one who thought the cartoon version of Zinn was a dead-ringer for Ron Paul? The first substantive issue I have with the video is, what is the motive behind it? Anti-imperialism? Pacifism? Anti-Americanism? This is a little easier to answer if we have some background on Mr. Zinn. First, the motive is probably not anti-imperialism because of Mr. Zinn's long history of support for Castro, who according to Zinn had "no bloody record of suppression" and other tools of the Soviet Empire (which WAS an empire in every sense of the word) and his reference to communism as an "exaggerated threat". The motive also cannot be pacifism given Mr. Zinn's gushing praise for Chairman Mao, who butchered more people than Stalin or Hitler (I guess it's okay as long as you keep it within your own borders) Regarding Mao's regime, Zinn stated it was "the closest thing in the long history of that ancient country to a people's government"(the people that survived that is) Also, Zinn is a Marxist, and Marxism is violent by definition. Redistribution of wealth can only be accomplished through violence. For example anyone wanting to "redistribute" my "wealth" will most likely have to either: a)kill me and take it or b) be killed by me while trying to take it. The motive we are left with is anti-Americanism specifically, and anti-capitalism generally.

Does the word "empire" fit or is he simply using it as a pejorative term? Well going back to the dictionary definition at the top of the page, let's look at some examples: Cuba, the Philippines, France, Germany, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Italy, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. All have been invaded by the U.S. (or had large U.S. military presences operating within them) How many fall under U.S. dominion today? Zero,as in zero. Secondly, how many empires take over countries then re-build them into independent states (and economic rivals to the "empire") at great cost to themselves? The answer here is also zero. So with this in mind I'm going to address some specific misleading points from the video. (I didn't notice any glaring lies in the video, Zinn saved these for the book, where they are numerous.)

The intro about the genocide of American Indians, and the actions with regards to Cuba and the Philippines are accurate and I have no problem with them. I'm not trying to gloss anything over here. The part about the Mexican-American war was also generally accurate, albeit presented in an over-simplified manner. However, they are most likely included to make the viewer think that the wiping out of the Indians is in some way related to later U.S. actions like entering World War 2. This is not explicitly stated, but planted in such a way that the viewer gets the impression that if the U.S. commited genocide in one instance that must be the driving force behind everything it does. We get to the major twisting of history once we reach the period beginning with World War 2 and the Cold War. Note the complete lack of any reference to the brutality of the Japanese empire or any consideration of how many lives an invasion would have cost both sides. We then come to the claim that the U.S. was trying to maintain it's dominance of Europe and nuclear monopoly right after World War 2. So, the U.S. strategy of removing it's troops from all the conquered European nations except Germany and rapidly demobilizing it's military is a sign of imperialism? The complete unwillingness to challenge Soviet domination of East Germany (or any other European nation for that matter) wasn't exactly the way an empire with military superiority and a nuclear monopoly either. It was only after the Europeans called for assistance that the NATO alliance was formed in 1949. Again, this is a far cry from the cartoon in the video showing the U.S. as an octopus trying to stretch across the world, with no mention of the U.S.S.R. This reversal of history is shown again with regard to Korea. Apparently the war was "not about fighting communism" but about "establishing a foot-hold in Asia". So apparently the two are mutually exclusive in Zinn's mind. Secondly, it's hard for me to see where the U.S. expansionism is here. Is resisting another power's expansion the same as imperialism? Perhaps only when it's done by a capitalist society. The Cold War followed this pattern a lot, communist expansion leads to American resistance which is then "imperialist", this kind of communist propaganda persists in a lot of people's worldviews to this day. Just the other day I heard the old Warsaw Pact referred to as a "military alliance". It boggles the mind. It seems to me like an "American empire" would have backed more groups that were doing the invading rather than those who were being invaded. But this kind of fact-twisting is necessary to tie all previous wars neatly into the overarching theory and make them seem exactly like the occupation of Iraq.

We then come to the shocking revelation that the Vietnam war had economic causes! I'm shocked. That would mean that that war was just like every other war in human history. Again, note the simplistic portrayal of a complex historical event as having a single simple cause that nicely dovetails into a preexisting Marxist view. And it was brutal? You're kidding me. Apparently the fighting c Who knew wars were brutal? I'm not trying to sound "pro-war" here, I view war as the second worst thing imaginable. Fortunately, partly through the work of Zinn and others like him, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam and Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were spared the fate of post-war Japan. Think of all the new phrases like "killing fields" and "year zero" that we wouldn't have gained in our lexicons. I don't say any of this to excuse U.S. behavior with regard to certain aspects of the way the war was fought (I'm not the one with the Manichean world view here.) But when the overall narrative presents one side of history and presents it as anything other than an indoctrination, I have a problem with that.

Note the simplistic A to B logic with regards to the first Gulf War. Events are portrayed as flowing together in a simple, logical, unambiguous fashion. There can be no extenuating circumstances or considerations not involving class struggle. If something happened involving U.S. involvement in the middle-east in the 40's and 50's then that must be directly causing the events of the early-90's. The CIA helped overthrow Mossadeq so it must be behind every event in that part of the world. (As an aside, the idea of Mossadeq as the "democratic leader" is greatly exaggerated. He had just dissolved the parliament, violating the constitution, and did away with secret ballots on his way to winning 99.93% of the vote. Yeah, that's a democratic election.) This is the nice thing about being driven by ideology, you get to mold the facts rather than let the facts mold you. This is probably why revisionist history is so popular at both ends of the political spectrum.

Then we mercifully come to the end with Viggo asking us "have we not reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way where we expand not our military power, but our humanity?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a reference to ingesting narcotic substances to me. (I'd like to study the subject of socialism to learn when it first became infused with new age psycho-babble like this) I can only conclude that he means we must embrace socialism. I'm sure he means "real" socialism, the kind that exists only in utopian fantasies that inhabit some theoretical plane in the far-flung reaches of the imagination and produce equality and happiness; not the "phony" socialism which exists in the real world and has almost always produced misery and famine. So in conclusion, I can't help but feel sorry for the people duped by this world-view, particularly kids being forced to "learn" this in schools. I think anyone watching this should ask themselves, "What would the world look like if there had never been a U.S.A.?" What kind of places would Europe and Asia be? So, now I'm going to read the book this is based on (once I can get a copy from my library, because God knows I'm not spending any money on this stuff) and will probably post a few thoughts on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short next time. I've only thumbed through a previous edition of the book and saw a few statements about historical events that were the exact opposite of the truth. So I should find it interesting. (For anyone looking for a more eloquent response to stuff like this video, especially with regards to the Cold War and the concept of U.S. imperialism I would recommend reading the book How Democracies Perish, by Jean-Francois Revel or checking out one of his articles on Anti-Americanism at the link above.)

Quick Hits 8.

2008-04-15T19:17:00.004-06:00

I thought I'd post some pictures of a Bible and my guns. ( well, not technically my guns but pictures of the same guns I found on the web. My Magnum is more tricked-out than the one in the picture) I did this for two reasons; to tie in to my first item and to pay homage to Charlton Heston.

-So I was cleaning my guns while reading my Bible the other day when I heard the Obama quote about fear, guns, religion, anti-trade sentiment (?), and xenophobia the other day. And I gotta tell you......he's got a point, at least on the xenophobia front. Lumping guns and religion in was a bit of a mistake, one that I think could hurt him a little bit in Pennsylvania. But, I think he was right in some cases. Also, I don't tend to judge people as harshly for off-the-cuff remarks (unless truly egregious) as I would if they say something more deliberately. So this wasn't a huge issue to me, but then I'm not what you'd call a fence-sitter and I am familiar enough with his voting record to know where he stands on most issues at this point.

-I'm going to move on to three things that pissed me off in the past week. We'll start with Senator Jay Rockefeller talking about how John McCain can't possibly know what common people go through. Because when I think of ordinary, hard-working people I think of the Rockefeller family. I'm sure Rockefeller had plenty of contacts with "ordinary people" growing up: chauffeurs, gardeners, nannies, window washers, etc. But that's not the part that pissed me off. Why is it that McCain can't identify in Rockefeller's view? Spending close to 30 years in government? Marrying into an incredibly wealthy family? No. It's because he served his country in Vietnam! "He was flying fighter planes dropping laser guided bombs on people from 35,000 feet. He was never around to see what those bombs did.(paraphrased)" This was absurd and offensive to me on two levels. First, I'm not the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anything, but "fighter plane", "laser guided bombs (in 1967, no less)", "35,000 feet"? Secondly, yeah actually McCain did see what those bombs did to people when he was nearly killed in the U.S.S. Forrestal fire, in which he was wounded by shrapnel and 134 of his fellow sailors lost their lives. According to his book it made him re-think what he was doing, but ultimately he decided that he had to do his duty and continue.

-Rockefeller then went on to talk about Obama having the good judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning. I for one find this far less impressive in light of the fact that he had spent about 16 years going to a church that denounced "American Imperialism" on a regular basis. Also, Rockefeller spoke in favor of the war and voted for it. He supported it until people started dying. What the Hell does he think war is? Did he think he was voting to authorize a tug of war? Because those can be dangerous too.

-The second thing that pissed me off is how some people (media and otherwise) used the death of Charlton Heston as an excuse to take shots at the guy for being the president of the NRA. The same people don't bring up the fact that Charlton Heston also marched with Dr. King at a time when it was not cool in Hollywood to be seen marching with Dr. King. That actually took some courage. It's not like today where you have idiots like George Clooney rushing to get in front of a camera for whatever the trendy cause is lately like raising "awareness" for Darfur. Those people don't need our awareness (which has done them a Hell of a lot of good so far), they need guns. Also, I for one don't find the fact that Charlton Heston was devoted to protecting my right to bare arms to be a bad thing. I believe a prohibition of guns (or "war on guns") wouldn't be every bit as successful as the prohibition of certain narcotics. I mean, marijuana is illegal and now no one can get a hold of that, right? I also recalled an interview with Heston talking about how some of his Hollywood liberal friends called him up during the LA riots back in the early-nineties wanting to hang out or borrow guns.

- Also, there is not a "pregnant man". There is a pregnant woman who wishes she was a man. I saw the headline "pregnant man" and thought it was some kind of deal like that Schwarzenegger movie. No it turns out this is a woman. But she likes to think of herself as a man and pump herself full of male hormones (which I'm sure is really good for the fetus). "But Steve, can't people choose to be what they want to be?" NO. There are certain things in life that you just can't change ( like your age, your race, your gender, your species, your parents, etc.) Mutilating your genitals doesn't make you a different gender, just like gluing hair to myself, eating bananas, and swinging from trees wouldn't make me a monkey. To make this worse, the politically correct thing to do is to enable these delusions. To anyone who disagrees, I'm sorry if biology offends you.

-I've noticed that radical leftists have been crawling out of the woodwork at a rate I haven't seen since I started following politics back in 1992. This is a good thing in my opinion. The best thing that could happen to the right is stronger opposition. This is my "free market of political ideas" theory that the more competition, the better. When the left imploded as a political force in the late-80's/early-90's, the right became unfocused because there wasn't enough of a struggle to force us to keep refining our ideas.

-I had to laugh at the Obama sound-byte where the questioner accidentally asked him about how he would go after "Obama Bin Laden". It had to be way more embarrassing for the questioner than for Obama, who handled it very well.

-Does anybody really think Hillary is a hunter and gun enthusiast from way back? I'd like to see all the candidates in each election gather to see who can shoot the best. (Who do you think would win in a "shoot-off" between Bush and Kerry? I think Kerry might have won that one) Maybe a shooting contest would not be as entertaining as it sounds but there seems to be a desire among voters for some kind of "macho factor". I think there should be a talent show, a macho test, and perhaps a dance off. (There should NOT be a swim-suit competition, which Obama wins by default.) I think certain candidates like McCain, however, would be exempt from the "macho" competition.

-I've begun studying 1st Corinthians. My plan is to go through all of the New Testament epistles, spending a week or two on each of them. I also cashed in my change jar and ordered a bunch of study-helps (concordances, commentaries, dictionaries, books on exegesis, etc.) on Amazon. It's been pretty interesting so far.

-James Dobson still won't support McCain. Thank you, doc. Keep up the good work reminding people that McCain is not like you.

-Rush Limbaugh had this whack-job guest host on Friday talking about the need for less regulation of airlines (and everything else). His argument was "let the market handle it". Let them have crashes, get sued, lose reputation, go out of business, etc. I prefer the option that doesn't involve letting a bunch of people die so the "free market" can sort it out, but looks to prevent the crash in the first place. I've grown used to hearing some wacky stuff on Limbaugh, like when he talks about his love for oil (seriously he is literally in love with oil) and how he works himself into a lather while talking about how great oil is, but this guy was even more out there.

-Speaking of "out there" I saw Ted Turner on Charlie Rose a week or two ago. Man, talk about a nut-job. He was talking about how global warming will cause all of us to either die or become cannibals. I agree it's a problem, but cannibals? He also talked about how we should rid the earth of all nuclear weapons. Right. There's only one way to get rid of all nuclear weapons, and the solution is much worse than having the nuclear weapons. I've also noticed how whenever Charlie Rose has a guest who is not a white male he interrupts them constantly (I mean even worse than Sean Hannity).

-I saw an interesting passage in the Bruce Bawer book I was reading about how the European media loves to point out anything bad that happens in the U.S. He mentions how the French media went on and on about how terrible the U.S. government was because of the roughly 1,200 people who died in Hurricane Katrina (which was an absolute disgrace, I don't disagree), when over 11,000 people died in France that same summer during a heat wave. A heat wave! You don't have to call out the 82nd airborne to keep people from dying in a heat wave. You just need to set up some fans and open some fire hydrants.

-I was listening to a clip from the "compassion forum" this weekend where one of the social-justice preachers asked the Democratic candidates if they would pledge to cut poverty by half in the next 10 years. What this question overlooks is that nothing could be farther from the interests of the Democratic Party than the elimination of poverty. To do this would be to destroy one of their core voting blocs. It's in their interest to make people's poverty a little less grinding, but if people are brought out of poverty and actually start paying taxes they might become Republicans. It's a lot like asking oil companies to try to get people to use less oil. This also explains why government aid programs are often designed to subsidise poverty rather than to create wealth.

-I read a New York Times article about Prince Harry in Afghanistan and how this relates to the dilemma if McCain gets elected in regards to his two sons, Jimmy and Jack, who are currently in the military (and thus can't relate to real people). It's an interesting situation, because on the one hand they would be prime targets for the insurgents. On the other hand, one of the things I respect most about Senator McCain is that he's not a politician calling for American involvement in the Iraq war to continue without his family making a contribution. Put another way, when he talks about the need to stay the course, he isn't just asking other people's kids to put their lives on the line, he's also including his own flesh and blood in this. The article also mentions that given McCain's history as an admiral's son and POW, he is uniquely familiar with the idea of being a very valuable target for the enemy, and as such is uniquely qualified to make this decision.

-Lastly, this week an anonymous person paid 1.5 million dollars at auction for a Marylin Monroe sex film. I think I may know who it is, and I have just one question. "Isn't that money that could have gone to a good cause, like using it to help your wife's presidential campaign?"

All joking aside, I bet it was Hugh Hefner. He paid a ton of money to be buried next to her when he dies, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was him.

Went to the Dentist.

2008-04-09T12:12:00.002-06:00

Nope, this isn't another post making fun of Obama. (although I'm considering doing a "dentist" metaphor to make fun of McCain 'cause I've got some funny ones there.) In this case, I'm talking about a literal trip to the dentist. Shortly I mocked Obama, he saw fit to strike me down like he was the prophet Elisha or something. Only instead of angry bears he used horrible pain in one of my wisdom teeth. It drove me nuts for about a week before I finally decided to have it looked at. So today I finally went to the dentist even though the pain is gone. The first question they asked was "how long has it been since you've seen a dentist?" My answer: "not sure of the date, but I remember there was a Dole-Clinton debate that night". (which is not an exaggeration) I knew what was going to happen; it was going to be like when you take your car in to have one thing fixed and they find 8 more problems. The dentist looked at the teeth for about 45 seconds before saying "yeah, these need to be liberated". (need to remember that line if I wind up doing a McCain/dentist post). Then when the hygienist did the x-rays she found 2 cavities and noticed that one of my canine teeth is permanent and the other is a baby with the big one behind it protruding from the roof of my mouth (it's not as bad as it sounds). Then she stabbed my gums repeatedly with a poker and discovered that I have the gum disease known as (in deep-voice) GINGIVITIS. (Mouths are pretty disgusting). Then she probed around more and told me my plaque is too thick for a regular cleaning so I have to come back twice (once for each side of the mouth) and be numbed so she can go to work with the pliers and the blow-torch. Then she asked me "when you run your tongue along the backs of your lower front teeth, you can't feel separate teeth just one solid wall right?" I hadn't really thought about it but, yeah its pretty gross. Then she showed me an extreme close up picture of this area on a tv screen. I was like "I kiss people with that mouth?" That makes the black hole of Calcutta look like Disney Land! I half-expected to see little indigent villagers picking through the rubble. Then I wondered: "could you email me that pic so I can post it on my blog?" But I decided not to ask that. So, in conclusion, my mouth is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but other than that she said I have good teeth. (and that I should quit smoking)

Book Review: While Europe Slept, by Bruce Bawer.

2008-04-07T17:03:00.004-06:00

(note: this is a long one, so get a beverage. This is a book I highly recommend and I only scratch the surface here, I don't really lay out much of the book's argument here, just parts I particularly liked.)

I recently read the book While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, and found it to be an interesting look at the European mindset. I saw Mr. Bawer interviewed on Bill Moyers' Journal a while back and had been meaning to read this book for a while. After reading some articles in European papers, I decided to finally check this book out. To give some background, Bruce Bawer is a gay Catholic who wrote the book Stealing Jesus, a critical look at the Religious Right in America back in the mid-nineties. In 1998, he moved to Europe to live with his Norwegian partner and to get away from the anti-gay attitudes he experienced from the far-right in this country. At first, he found living in Amsterdam to be a refreshing change. He could walk down the street holding hands with his partner without getting so much as a funny look from passers-by. However, he soon discovered that the outskirts of that city, like many large European cities contained large populations of Muslim immigrants that didn't share this "live and let live" attitude. In the book he talks about the ever-growing number of radical Muslims living in Europe, the ideologies of hatred being spread in the mosques, and the utter inability of the European elite to acknowledge, much less take steps to solve, this problem. I'm willing to bet that he is probably considered far-right in Europe, but on the American political spectrum he falls on the left side of the spectrum. (he seems like more of a Hillary or McCain Democrat than an Obama backer reading some of his articles) I think this is the part of the post where I'm supposed to give the politically correct disclaimer. ("religion of peace", "hi-jacking of Islam", "tiny minority","poverty causes terrorism", etc.) Well, sorry you won't get any such wishful thinking from me. We're always told about how the vast majority of Muslims hate the actions of the extremists, but for the last 7 years their silence has been deafening. I believe their are a couple of reasons for this. 1) This minority is not as small as people believe. Most estimates I've seen give a number around 10-15%, I'd be inclined to believe the number is a little larger. I have no evidence to back this up, so it's only speculation on my part (and should be taken as such), but I find it hard to believe that a "tiny" minority would be able to either frighten or influence those in the majority to remain virtually silent. 2) I think that many people around the world (the Muslim world in particular) may not care for the ideology of the Bin Laden's of the world, but hate the United States worse and view it as a bigger threat. With that in mind, a lot of people are probably willing to look the other way since it's for "a good cause". Just had to get that off my chest.

The book begins with Bawer's description of the problem of Islamic radicalism in terms of violence, sharia law, non-integration with native populations, etc. (This was worse than I'd imagined, but it wasn't really a shock. What came as a shock to me is how the European political elite is not only unwilling to acknowledge or deal with the problem, but in many ways are acting in ways complicit with the destruction of their own cultures.) At this point in most of 16 to 20% of children are Muslims. This number will only grow since the average birth-rate among native Europeans ranges from 1.2 to 1.8 (since it takes 2 people to make a baby, and since not all children will live to adulthood, the number must be at least 2.1 for a population to break even) while the birthrate among the Muslim immigrants is much higher. The open-borders policies in a lot of these nations has exacerbated this. These numbers wouldn't be bad if newly arrived Muslims were integrated into the cultures of the countries (as is the case in the U.S.), but there doesn't seem to be much desire for that on either side. In a lot of cases you have 2nd and 3rd generation native born people who don't speak the language of and have little or no loyalties or connection to the nation of their birth. America has an advantage in that being an American is not about your ethnicity or skin color as much as political philosophy and buying into our system of government. The elites don't seem to understand why this is a problem in part, Bawer claims, because of the secularization of Europe. In other words, in America we have enough religious extremists to recognize that it can be a dangerous thing. In Europe, they have no "Christian Right" to scare them. This has left them vulnerable to an even more dangerous form of extremism. As Bawer puts it "Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me." He also states: "I was beginning to see that when Christian faith had departed.....it left the Continent vulnerable to conquest by people with deeper faith and stronger convictions. What's more, no longer able to take religion seriously themselves, many Europeans were unable to believe that other people might take religion very seriously indeed". I've never thought of the religious right in this country as something that inoculates us from something worse. He also discusses this weird dichotomy where people don't want other races to integrate into their cultures, preferring to let them live in ghettos where extremism breeds like bacteria, but on the other hand don't want to be looked at as being racist so they won't speak out about any violent act carried out by Muslims. Here's one chilling example:

On September 6, 2001, it was reported that 65 percent of rapes in Norway were
committed by "non-Western immigrants" (a term that in Norway is essentially
synonymous with "Muslims"); asked to comment on this alarming statistic, Wikan
(a prominent professor) said that "Norwegian women must take their share of
responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress
provocative......."Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural
society and adapt to it."

This is a common thread that runs throughout the book. Radical Muslims do something bad, so the government issues a report about how the victims basically deserve it, due to the inequalities in those nations. That said, many of these same "impoverished victims" are paid taxpayer dollars not to work (and, I should add, they are paid more money per month by the governments than I make). The prevailing idea among the left in Europe, as in this country is that terrorism's greatest root is poverty. This may be true of Palestinians, but doesn't hold up when looking at 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the 7/7 attacks in London, etc. There is a connection in all of these instances, but it's the one we're not supposed to talk about. Examples of this mind-set in Europe make appearances all through the book. At one point to summarize this difference between Americans and Europeans he says (paraphrasing) "Americans were taught to believe that their opinions about the world should (ahem) have their foundations in the world's sociopolitical reality, many Europeans were taught to be "sophisticated"-which meant holding opinions that had little or no connection to observable reality. (later) For them, the Milosevics of the world, however monstrous, are also, quite simply, a fact of life. They think of themselves as realists-but this isn't realism; it's fatalism. And it can shade into a strange, disturbing respect for dictators." No where is this more evident than in the romanticisation that has occured with regard to communism. Bawer powerfully illustrates this by recounting his experiences in Berlin. He took a train ride to East Berlin shortly after the wall fell. When he crossed from West to East, he saw a transformation from a vibrant modern city to a dilapidated place where many buildings sported 50 year-old bullet holes and looked untouched since the fall of the Nazis in 1945. Even more stark was the contrast between the people. The East Germans all looked gaunt and gray with hopeless looks on their faces. Another passenger on the train flinched at the sight of a man in a uniform, who turned out to be the conductor checking tickets. Fast forward 15 or 16 years. This same spot is now one of the most beautiful areas in Europe. He is sitting at a Starbucks near the Brandenburg gate. Gone are the gaunt, gray faces. A group of teenage boys walk by who must have been infants when the wall fell. He thought: "This is what it was all for. It was for them- for the sake of these then unborn young people- that the West had stood up to Communism for so long and at such risk and expense. It was for them that JFK had come to Berlin and said, 'Ich bin ein Berliner'; it was for them that Reagan had come and said 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Yet what had these kids been taught about that history?" Right after thinking this Bawer got his answer as a bunch of them were wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. (For those of you who don't know, Ernesto "Che" Guevara was a murdering thug who was Castro's second in command and presided over firing squads along with founding Cuba's "labor camp" system, he is now a romantic hero to leftist morons the world over.) Bawer soon realized that a souvenir shop next to the Starbucks carried a huge assortment of Che T-shirts. Some of which also had red stars on them or read "Hasta la victoria siempre" (ever onward to victory), in Berlin of all places, home of one of those nightmarish victories. Bawer then relates a story about a friend of his in junior high school whose father had been a journalist under Batista. "When Castro and Guevara came to power they arrested Jose's father, tortured him, and put his eyes out." He talks of the first time he met Jose's father in his home and concludes: "Ever since then, every time I've seen a Che T-shirt on some clueless young person, I've thought of Jose's father sitting in his living room, surrounded by books he could no longer read." Damn.

Here are a few more (but by no means all) quotes from the book that stuck out to me.

-"...for Islamists there are no nuances. In a war between people who had rock solid beliefs and people who are capable of nuancing away pure evil, who has the advantage?"

-"After Israel did the world the favor of getting rid of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, the British House of Commons observed a moment of silence in his memory. He was repeatedly referred to as the 'spiritual leader of Hamas' which is rather like calling Hitler the 'spiritual leader of Nazism'."

- When talking about the motive for terrorism: "Such acts are not a normal reaction to desperation and poverty. There are people in China and India and South America who are far poorer than most Islamic terrorists but who would never do such things. Atrocities on the scale of Beslan are the result of intense indoctrination in a life-despising ideology."

- In the wake of the London bombing "Tony Blair named Tariq Ramadan (banned from the U.S. and France and Inayat Bunglawala (who'd called Osama Bin Laden a "freedom fighter") to a task force for tackling Muslim extremism."

- "That a silent majority of Europe's Muslims believed in democracy and despised terrorism was by now a truism. Observers found themselves thinking, however, that if that silent majority existed at all, it had to be one of the most silent majorities ever."

- "It's the absence of a patriotism as powerful as America's- the absence that is, of a life-or-death belief by individuals in their country's essential goodness and in their people's future- that's helping Western Europe to slip toward its doom"

- "In the end, Europe's enemy is not Islam, or even radical Islam. Europe's enemy is itself- its self destructive passivity, its softness toward tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease, and its uncomprehending distaste for America's pride, courage, and resolve in the face of a deadly foe."

He concludes by pointing out that Europe's problems require some common sense solutions about immigration and how to integrate Muslim populations into the various countries. Public opinion is starting to turn around and some (minuscule) reforms have taken place since the book was written. But given the fantasy-world the political elite live in, it's likely that the problem will continue to get worse and either a) nothing is done until it's too late. b) the people will revolt and put in far right nationalists, which could involve a lot of brutality on both sides, and probably won't work due to the shifting numbers. He ends by asking where the leaders are who will lead them out of this mess. And he quotes Churchill (which is what I'm about to do, 'cause you've made it this far and since when does a guy need an excuse to quote Churchill?)

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and liberation of the old.
Bawer concludes:"To read Churchill's wartime speeches is to experience an attitude and a
rhetoric that, in today's Europe, seem alien or antique...the stark
difference between the unwavering moral conviction that led to Allied victory in
World War II and the unprincipled spirit of compromise and capitulation that is
guiding today's Europe, step by step, to the gallows."

The future of NATO and Europe.

2008-04-04T20:47:00.003-06:00

I've been sort of following this week's NATO summit and thinking about the future of America's involvement in the defense of Europe. This week I've also been reading the book While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, and have been perusing some articles and comments written on the subject by members of Europe's political/media elite. From all that I've read I'm left with one conclusion as to what our policy regarding the defense of Europe (Western Europe in particular) should be: abandon them to their fate. This may sound a little callous, but I think it's the kindest thing we could do for Western Europe and I'll explain why. There's an old principle in conservative orthodoxy that says "once you let the government do something for you, you'll never be able to do it for yourself again". This is exactly what has happened over there. For the last 60 years they have lived under the umbrella of U.S. military might, and this has now allowed them the luxury of drifting off into a leftist fantasy-land where no one is looking to harm them, freedom is a meaningless concept, and everything would be okay in the world if it weren't for "American Imperialism". The removal of the Soviet threat has only hastened this decline. If you don't believe me, read some articles in European newspapers or blog posts about the reasons the West won the Cold War. A popular (albeit non-sensical) view is that it had nothing to do with men like Kennedy and Reagan who were unwilling to roll over for punks, but were willing to draw a line in the sand to contain a ruthless aggressor. No, these guys were the problem; it was the "international peace movement" (also referred to as the "peace racket" in this article, which I recommend) and "enlightened" leaders like Gorbechev. Besides, the communists weren't all that bad and wouldn't have bothered anybody if not for the provocations by the U.S. (which I'm sure would come as a complete shock to this kid) There are endless examples of this mind-set among the European elite, a few more of which will be listed when I write up my next book review. I would hope that the small dose of reality leaving them to fend for themselves would provide will do them a world of good. Besides, given demographic trends, in another generation or two Europe will have a majority population that will not bow to Russia or any other potential aggressor. The downside is that they will be bowing towards Mecca.
The other major issue at the summit was the proposed "missile defense shield" in Eastern Europe. This program is designed to renew the arms race with Russia.( well maybe that's not the goal, but it will be the result) This is a system that is ridiculously expensive, has never succeeded any tests that weren't carefully rigged, and is supposed to counter against a threat that does not exist. The idea is that these missiles would shoot down an Iranian missile launched at Western Europe. Putin has many flaws, but I doubt stupidity is one of them. He knows damn well who's missiles this thing is supposed to be a deterrent to. The idea that Iran would be driven by religious extremism to launch a missile at Europe also fails to account for the fact that the forces of radical Islam are using a more powerful weapon to gain control of Europe, the womb. All in all, I don't think it was that great of a week for Bush other than the announcement that France is sending additional soldiers to Afghanistan.

Video Review: Jesus Camp.

2008-03-31T19:54:00.002-06:00

(note: this is probably the least political -in the sense of elections- post I've written so far. But this is kind of the cultural, philosophical, etc. direction the blog will go in the future, particularly after this election cycle ends. A lot of that, I'm sure, will be me trying to apply some degree of rationality to subjects where clearly none exists or is in short supply.)

I've finally gotten around to watching Jesus Camp, I saw it on Youtube over the weekend. A quick aside to anyone who feels the need to leave a comment on a Youtube video: if you are going to claim intellectual superiority or belittle anyone else's intelligence based on their belief system, feel free to at least be able to cobble together coherent sentences decipherable to people familiar with the English language. Other wise it's going to be difficult for people like me to take you seriously. (I'm not talking about misspellings here, I'm talking about a frontal assault on the basic concepts of language and communication.)

Now with that out of the way, this was a very interesting film which was both amusing and saddening at the same time. The film documents the training of small children in an incredibly radicalized form of fundamentalist/pentecostal Christianity. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who haven't been exposed to this kind of movement probably found this film incredibly frightening. Having grown up in a somewhat tamer version of this movement, I wasn't particularly surprised on the whole, but there were parts of the movie that took me by surprise. I think this is because of the complete lack of politicisation I experienced growing up in this movement. I'm not sure if that's because this wasn't as prevalent when I was growing up or if I was just not immersed in it because my father (who was my pastor as well) is a Democrat, who never wanted much to do with the religious right. Most of the kids in the film remind me of some of the kids who attended the Assembly of God-run school that I went to as a child who were brought up to be radicals, far-right Republicans, fundamentalists, and Christians. (and they were taught these traits in exactly that order of importance)

The film starts out with the leader of the camp, whose name escapes me at the moment ( and I really don't feel like looking it up) a seemingly friendly woman who clearly has a gift for working with and connecting to children. It quickly becomes obvious that she is more interested in training up an army of activists than in teaching Sunday School. We start with a meeting at (presumably) her church where she's promoting her summer camp to the kids in attendance. This seems perfectly normal until they bring out the children's "worship dance" team. This struck me as funny since dancing and fundamentalism (which this brand of Christianity falls under the branch of in my classification, though a lot of official Fundamentalist groups would probably bristle at given its fusion with Pentecostalism, but I believe the overlap here is too significant to overlook) have often been seen as natural enemies. I assure you that there was no "worship dancing" in a choreographed sense when I was growing up in the early nineties. The boys seem to be dressed up like soldiers waving sticks around to some of the most un-danceable music you've ever heard. Once this is done with she says to the crowd "let's pray in tongues". This was odd to me because I never saw glossolalia on demand growing up. I heard plenty of people "speaking in tongues" but it was always a spontaneous occurrence. It was also always somewhat unnerving to me as well, but I knew better than to express that opinion at the time. After the service ends we go to a few segments where we meet the kids who will be attending the camp (including one with a horrendous mullet that needs to be seen to be believed. On a tangent here, there should be a law that if you allow your child to get a humiliating hair cut you should be forced to get one too. That's the kind of change you'd see if I was president. We meet the children's families as well. We see one family in the dining room/home-school classroom. The weirdness doesn't take long to start here. While saying grace for their meal they ask God to end abortion and advise Him on what kind of people to put on the Supreme Court. I guess nothing whets the appetite like talking about any kind of surgical procedure. (We will be coming back to abortion many times by the end of the film) After this we see the boy with the mullet "learning" his science lesson from his teacher/mother. Like most of the children in the film he is home-schooled.We see him "learning" that the earth is 6,000 years old and that global warming is not a problem since the "rapture" will happen soon and the "anti-Christ" will take over the earth.( just like the bible does not say.) His text books reminded me of some of the ones we used in the Christian school I went to for 5-years (many of which were put out by Bob Jones University). The scientific illiteracy these kids are left with is not the most chilling aspect of this to me. If you were to destroy all scientific knowledge it would eventually be re-discovered in the distant future. What frightens me is the revisionist history taught to these kids, because if the lessons of history are forgotten then they will all have to be re-learned in a much more difficult fashion. We then cut to another child at the bowling alley where she is seen commanding her bowling ball to make a strike "in Jesus name". Sadly, the power of Christ is apparently no match for this particular bowling ball as it veers off to the right. She then is seen reading a Jack Chick tract! If you're a connoisseur of all things crack-pot you absolutely must take a look at this guy's stuff.

At this point the children are ready to head off to camp. It has also become obvious to me that these kids are being taught radicalism more than they are being taught Christianity. I believe they for the most part will either grow up to be radical fundamentalist Christians or radical Atheists. (perhaps "radical" is not the right word, because there was very little that was moderate about the man from Galilee. I think "militant" is probably a better word.) I'd be interested to see what percentage of the kids in this film would profess any form of Christianity in 20 years. My guess is that there will be far more who become disillusioned with religion than those who stay with this particular movement. The militancy will still be there, because that's what they have had drilled into them, but the faith aspect is not stressed nearly as much it would seem. It also becomes clear to the viewer by this point that these kids are repeating slogans that they have no clue as to the meaning of like "terminal generation", "spiritual warfare", etc.

As we pan over the camp grounds we notice that a) this camp makes the one in the "Jason" movies seem bright and cheery by comparison and that b) the camp is named "Kids on Fire!". I don't know about you but when I hear the name "kids on fire" I don't think of kids who love Jesus, I think of that picture from Vietnam of the girl who'd been napalmed. I also think that an accurate name for most summer camps would be "Kids Being Molested". Seriously, if you're ever bemoaning the fact that your child hasn't been molested yet, send them to summer camp. One last joke here, I want you to picture in your head what kind of logo you'd draw up for a place called "Kids On Fire". As we progress through the week of the camp, we see a lot of more of the kids repeating what they have been told about "reclaiming America for Christ", etc. with no sign that they understand what that means (I don't know what that means either). What we never see show up is actual biblical learning or any mention of how Jesus lived and taught us to live. This could be because that was edited out of the documentary, but I wouldn't be surprised if this weren't the case. I won't lay out everything that is shown from camp, but a few things really annoyed me. At one point we get an interview with the camp director talking about how she has the "skill" of being able to walk up to a group of 5-year olds on a playground and convince them to accept Jesus. Now, I don't make a habit of walking up to kids on playgrounds, (people tend to be on the lookout for that kind of thing, or at least they should be) but my uncle Gerald had a "skill" of being able to convince kids that age that he could pull his thumb off and put it back on. So convincing the kids to repeat a prayer is not nearly as impressive to me as being able to teach them how their religion says they should live their lives. That is a gift; scaring the bejeezus out of them is not.
A while later we come to the most well-known scene from the film. At the end of one of the services a card-board cut out of George W. Bush is brought out and the kids all reach their hands towards it and begin praying and crying and carrying on. The creep-o-meter really went off the dial here. I realize that they were praying for Bush and not to Bush but it's still a jarring visual. The Bible does say to pray for the leaders of your nation, but somehow I doubt anything like this would have happened if Bill Clinton (or Obama, McCain, Hillary, etc.) were in the White House. After recovering from this we go to the last night of the camp where the children are treated to a guest speaker. At first I'm kind of leery of him because as a rule I tend to distrust skinny preachers. But he seems nice enough and tells the kids how he has something to share with them. At this point I'm optimistic thinking "alright maybe he's going to tell them about Jesus; how he lived, what he did, what he told us to do, because it's off-base to expect anyone to "know Jesus" in an abstract sense when they don't know who the guy was". I'm also thinking "I wonder what's in the case he's holding". He opens the case to reveal......plastic dolls of fetuses at different stages of development! Apparently Christianity is all about being an anti-abortion activist! (note: I refuse to use the euphemisms "pro-life" or "pro-choice") I remember being given a plastic fetus from some group or another when I was in the 6th or 7th grade. Apparently people feel that if kids see the doll, they'll never be able to have an abortion. I happen to know for a fact that this view is a crock. Eventually the kids gather around the speaker and pray and then chant "Righteous Judges!" over and over again in the most creepy manner possible. I'm left to wonder if any of these folks see the irony in this. You don't want your kid going to a public school because of sex ed so you home school them at home like a good percentage of the kids in this film. You don't want your teenager to know about condoms but it's okay to teach 5-7 year olds about abortion in the most graphic possible terms? How can these views be reconciled? Don't any of the kids throw up or ask how the baby got there in the first place? I realize I'm probably expecting too much thought here.
As a bonus feature, we get to watch the kid with the mullet go listen to Ted Haggard ham it up for the documentary cameras from his pulpit. In an unfortunate coincidence, Ted is talking about homosexuality being wrong. I'm not going to go for the easy joke here, other than to point out that he looks very relaxed, yet very energetic at the same time. Overall, I think the incongruity in this instance was a microcosm of the film as a whole.

A More Perfect Union?

2008-03-23T15:48:00.003-06:00

Barack Obama's speech this week on race was honest, thoughtful, moving, and I fear, an unmitigated political disaster. I think he knew all along that it would become necessary at some point during the campaign to give a speech like this with regard to some racial incident arising during the campaign. I believe, however, that he expected it to be necessary at a later date in the campaign in response to some kind of race-baiting carried out by the Republicans. (I hope an incident like that doesn't occur, but sadly I am fully expecting it from some 527 group) I don't think he expected it to become necessary in response to an uproar over the outrageous statements of his own pastor.

The speech itself was one of the best I've heard from any politician on the subject of race. He dealt with causes of resentments on both sides and spoke from the heart in my opinion. The results of the speech are where I see some problems arising that may come back to haunt him in the fall. The idea that we need a national dialogue of some sort on issues of race relations is something I think is absolutely true. But here's the rub. (Read the next sentence two or three times because if I had to some up my view of politics in one sentence, by which I mean elections not actual governing, this would be it.) Politics is not about saying what is true; politics is about saying what people want to believe is true. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I don't think most blue-collar white voters (who will decide the election in the key rust-belt states) want to have a dialogue on race. For one, it sounds like the kind of conversation that could lead to someone getting their ass kicked. Secondly, as a nation our preferred way of dealing with major issues is to ignore them and hope they go away. For example, I had a conversation with a blue-collar white man the other night who said: "I just don't see racism as a problem. I think it's a waste of time to talk about". This was amusing to me on one level because racism wasn't a problem for us white men in 1960 or 1860 for that matter. But I think this is indicative of many people who saw Senator Obama as kind of a Tiger Woods of politics up until now, but now view him as "the black candidate". The white people who do realize need for such a dialogue are more likely to be educated, up-scale, and politically liberal. This also happens to be the heart of Obama's constituency. As Obama noted in his speech, less wealthy whites are largely immune to the "white guilt" phenomenon and are less likely to support Obama in the fall. These are the voters who have been the ones staying with Hillary in large numbers, even prior to the Wright stuff. This group not only is less likely to suffer from white guilt but are the most likely to experience the opposite phenomenon, a (hopefully small) portion of this group are the people I believe are fuelling the surging nativism in this country, blaming their economic woes on minorities. This is a voting bloc that would otherwise be tailor-made for a Democrat running for the White House in the current economy. I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day who was going on about how the economy is bad because of Iraq and how Bush just wanted the oil,etc. (which I wish was true, that would be less frightening to me than the reality that he believes he's on a mission from God.) So this guy should be someone the dems could bank on in November. But he ended the conversation by saying: "but we're gonna have a race war if that LaBamba gets elected!" There's no way of knowing how many people like this are out there and I hope it's a small number but I have a nagging suspicion otherwise. Fortunately for the Obama campaign all this happened in March and not October. The sooner he can get back on message and have us talking about hope and change rather than black and white, the better. I don't want to see him lose the election because of the race issue, I want to see him lose the election because his solution to this issue laid out at the end of his speech is the same as his solution to every issue: throwing more money into failed government programs. In a forthcoming post, I'll lay out what I would do to rejuvenate America's poor inner-city communities (and at the same time the large black and Latino populations therein) and how McCain can make up some ground in these areas.

March Madness: Round One.

2008-03-21T23:35:00.002-06:00

I'm currently sitting at 23-9 in my first round NCAA brackets. Not bad, but not good enough to win me the McCain 2008 fleece. The leaders are currently sitting at 29-3. I'm tied with Senator McCain with 23. The South region was kind to me with no upsets so I went 8-0. I was 6-2 in the east because I tried to get cute picking George Mason and Southern Alabama. The Midwest was also 6-2 because Gonzaga and Vanderbilt went down. I can make up ground in this region if 'Nova and Kansas State make the Sweet 16. (The points for each correct pick go up exponentially each round) The West really killed me though. I only got the top 3 seeds right going 3-5 in this region. I had Arizona moving on, because I forgot about the crap with their coach (one of my rules is to avoid teams that have weirdness going on with the coaching situation, despite historic exceptions like Michigan '89). The others could have happened to anybody (c'mon San Diego, Western Kentucky?) In order to make up any ground in this region, I need Xavier to knock off Duke in the Sweet 16. Oklahoma knocking off Louisville and Marquette taking down Stanford in the second round might help get me back up into McCain-swag territory too.

quick hits 7: RIDIN' DIRTY!

2008-03-15T18:24:00.004-06:00

Good Lord, what a week it has been for interesting news items.
-The Jeremiah Wright videos have really made my week. I have several observations about this, but first I'd like to give my first impression and the thing that really stuck out to me about these videos. (and you have to see the videos, transcripts or audio clips don't do the guy any justice) Can this guy PREACH or what!?! Damn, talk about bringing the fire! I'll guarantee you nobody fell asleep during those sermons. My favorite in terms of crowd reaction was the "Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a nigger" sermon. Half the audience is standing up, yelling. Two guys run up and high-five each other behind him while he's preaching. A woman in red appears to be giving the old sieg heil salute. I've probably watched it 15-20 times over the last 3 days. I've heard a lot of commentators ask people: "would you go to a church like that?" My answer is unequivocally YES! I'd be there every week sitting in the front row with popcorn and a soda thinking "I can't wait to hear what he says next".
-My favorite line out of all of it is when he says: "He did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky! HE WAS RIDIN' DIRTY!!!" I was rolling on the floor laughing. The thought of Bill with contraband in his vehicle puts a smile on my face, I guess.
-You know, a lot of the stuff the guy said was true.
-I think he could have at least waited until the bodies were cold before talking about how America deserved 9/11. He may have had a valid point, (I don't think he did,when talking about what nations "deserve" you are trying to speak on behalf of the Almighty which I don't think any of us is qualified to do. And I can guarantee you that when I stand before God on judgment day, I will not be asking Him to give me what I deserve. Justice is the last thing I want in that case.) but seriously 5 days after the attack was not the time.
-I couldn't care less what color Jesus' skin was.
-To correct an inaccuracy Wright committed: yeah, actually Barack Obama is rich and privileged.
-I'm trying to imagine the reaction at my church if the pastor said "shit" or "God damn". It's a pretty funny mental picture.
-Did you catch the part at the end of the sermon where government agents storm the building, shoot several congregants, drag Rev. Wright off to prison and burn the church building down?
You're saying "Steve, that never happened". Yeah, and do you know why it didn't happen? Because Reverend Wright is fortunate enough to live here in the good ol' "U.S. of KKKA" where he has the freedom to get behind the pulpit and criticize the government or say any dumb thing he wants without fear of persecution. Just thought I'd throw in a little perspective there.
- I heard Jack Kemp talking about this situation and he echoed my thoughts exactly. I don't want Obama to lose the election because of what people around him are saying or anything stupid like that. I want to see him lose the election on the issues, fair and square. At this point, though, I'm increasingly suspected that he's a good man who happens to be surrounded by whack-jobs. I guess now we're going to see how strong that Kool-Aid really is.
-This is not a joke. I swear this is true. I checked a copy of Senator Obama's book The Audacity of Hope out from the library yesterday. I got about 30 pages in and noticed 2 pages stuck together. True Story.
-The producers of Nightline, in their infinite wisdom decided that the night the Eliot Spitzer story broke we viewers needed to hear Heidi Fleiss' opinion on the situation. I was relieved because all day I'd been thinking "man, I need to get an ignorant whore's perspective on this story". Way to go, Nightline!
-Word to the wise; if you're a public official who likes him the whores follow Sam Kinison's advice. Make sure it's some Cambodian girl fresh off the boat who speaks no English and couldn't pick you out of a police line-up even if it was you standing between 2 midgets wearing hats. And just because you're in a different city doesn't mean you're less likely to get caught.
-If you need to throw up, check out the latest issue of Rolling Stone, their puff piece on Obama was what prompted me to write that "dentist" post. Apparently his middle name is the key thing that will get the Arabs to like us. I guess their problem wasn't our support for Israel or troops in Muslim holy lands (both of which President Obama would continue), no, it's all about names. I mean, it's not like people with Arabic names are killing each other every day in that part of the world.
-I'm trying not to let this become strictly an anti-Obama blog. I like the guy, I really do. But this stuff just seems to be what holds my interest. I'm also trying to come up with some non-political stuff to keep from getting burned out.
-I read a good article by James Carville this week about how thin every one's skin on the left has gotten. Quit calling for peoples' resignations every time they say something mildly hurtful to you already. So what if you got compared to Kenneth Starr or called a "monster"? Grow up already.
-I don't have a problem with the fact that Samantha Power called Hillary a monster. I have a problem with the fact that Samantha Power was a Senior National Security Advisor in the first place. Let's see, a 37 year-old who did some reporting from the Balkans, wrote a couple of books, and tries to be "edgy" in interviews to show how cool she is. Sounds qualified to me. This is one reason I'd rather have Hillary as president than Obama. I'll take my chances with "Straddlin' Madeleine (sp?) Albright and Wesley Clark over Samantha Power and Tony Lake (who Clinton fired for being too dovish and who resigned during the Nixon admin. because Nixon had the gall to bomb North Vietnam while fighting a war against North Vietnam). Yes, I know the Clintons are corrupt as hell. I know there will be scandals that embarrass the nation. But at least I'd feel like she had adults to rely on for foreign policy advice. Not only that, I can guarantee that no foreign leader would go into a meeting with Hillary and think "now here's somebody I can steam-roll". I pity them if they do. This may seem odd given previous statements I've made, but there's a difference between being a better person and being a better president. Jimmy Carter, for example, is a great human being.
-Seat the delegates!
-SNL had a pretty funny McCain sketch last night. It was an NBC "breaking news" piece where they issued the shocking revelation that John McCain is officially.....OLD. It was hilarious. Their evidence was security camera footage of him going into Bob Evans for dinner......at 4:30 in the afternoon! Darrel Hammond does a great impression too.
-If Hillary comes back, it'll be thanks to SNL.
-I read this week that the "Bible Code" says Clinton will get elected....maybe. Maybe? You know there's a long list of words I can't imagine God using. "Maybe" is at the top of that list, right ahead of "fo'shizzle".
-I bought this memory foam mattress pad this week and I'm expecting big things from it. Well, maybe not big things but it'd be nice not to wake up with bruises from a mattress spring digging into my hip.
-I heard on the radio that they were sweeping the congressional chambers to make sure there were no bugs planted to spy on congress debating the surveillance bill. Yeah, cause I'd hate to have anyone eavesdropping on congress while they debate about eavesdropping on us.
-Lastly, remember every time you see a picture of a hippie you're looking at one family's tragedy.

Race and the Race for the White House

2008-03-15T14:45:00.003-06:00

Geraldine Ferraro touched off a firestorm this week by stating that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position....And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position." She also stated that he's very lucky to be who he is. The first thing that strikes me as ironic in these statements is that she's offering them while campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Imagine for a second how people would respond to a man running for president on the strength of his spouse's accomplishments. He would be laughed off the stage. The same is probably true of any person who had a similar history to Senator Clinton but who was not Hillary Clinton.
Much of the controversy over Ferraro's remarks in my opinion is not over what she said was true, but the reason she felt the need to say them in the first place. First, what she said is partly true. Let's pretend for a minute that instead of Barack Obama, you have Barry Dunham a white politician with similar credentials. He announces his run for the presidency in early 2007 after two years in the senate. His claims to fame are a great speech 3 years prior and a vision of helping the nation move beyond the divisions of the past. He's a great speaker who talks of "hope" and "bringing people together". Would he have generated the same kind of buzz at the outset of the campaign? Would young voters be energized and inspired by him? Maybe, but I doubt it. He wouldn't have had the same credibility when talking about moving beyond the things that divide us. So in this aspect his race did work to his benefit. I maintain that much of his original appeal sprung from the fact that white people do not find him threatening the way they did with Jackson or Sharpton. So from that standpoint Ferraro's comments were accurate.
However, that is not the reason Obama is beating Hillary. His race got people to pay attention at first due to the novelty factor, but it is his skills as a candidate (the ability to deliver speeches that connect with and move people in particular) that have put him in the front runner position. From the very beginning he has made sure not to allow himself to be pigeonholed as "the black candidate" which had it happened (as it may now be due to the Jeremiah Wright/Louis Farrakhan stuff) would have been the undoing of his campaign. The failure to come to terms with the strengths of Senator Obama as a candidate last December/early January are what doomed her campaign (and it is doomed, at this point I think she's trying to get McCain elected so she can run again in 4 years instead of 8). The correct approach for Hillary to take would have been to fire all of the over-priced cronies running her campaign in the wake of Iowa and to change her message from the fraudulent claims of "35 years of experience" it is based on to a more future-based message. This would have been the honorable way to go. Instead she has done what she does best: divide and (not quite) conquer. She has gone out of her way to fracture the Democratic Party. The strategy has been to play groups against each other: young vs. old, rich vs. poor, black vs. female, black vs. Latino, black vs. Jewish etc. The ugliest aspect of this has been the way her surrogates have played the race card from the bottom of the deck (not the least of which being her husband), so in this context Ferarro's comments make perfect sense. Try to make it a question of who have been victimized worse in our society, white women or black men.(by the way, by almost any standard you can use to determine quality of life in our society, white women have it way better than black men on the whole. It's not even close) The mistake Ferraro made was being too obvious about it. So for all Senator Clinton's talk about Republican dirty tricks, she's done a good deal of their work for them. I'll close by saying this: if I had to pick one standard-bearer for my race/gender, I'd take someone like Barack Obama over someone like Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

My Ideological Ranking...yeah.

2008-03-10T21:43:00.002-06:00

This was my score on the test at ontheissues.org. I think I'm a bit more right than this, but they don't have a way of determining which issues are the most important ones to me.

quick hits VI

2008-03-08T18:56:00.002-07:00

A rather bizarre week all around. I'll jump right in.

-Last Saturday it was 73 degrees and sunny. Sunday was 30 degrees and snowed all day with strong winds. That was kind of a sign right off the bat that I was going to see some weird stuff go on in the world this week.
-Did you ever think you'd live to see the day when Hillary Clinton of all people would bring up the fact that someone else had an associate who was being indicted? Yeah, 'cause it's not like there are any shady characters she's been associated with (or married to) over the years. I'm not going to research the exact number but I'd be willing to bet she's had her share (and your share, and my share....etc.) So yeah, the only FLOTUS ever to be subpoenaed is trying to smear someone else's ethical judgment.
-I managed to catch 60 minutes last Sunday. One of the more interesting signs that there's some residual anti-Hillary bias in the press was when she was asked for her opinion on the asinine "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail going around. Hillary should have responded: "Oh really, there's a false rumor about him going around on the internet? Just 7,958,322 more and we'll be even". A lot of people don't know this but the first e-mail message ever sent right after Al Gore invented the internet claimed that Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I mean honestly, let's keep some perspective here.
-I have a great deal of respect for Senator Russ Feingold. I probably don't agree with him on a single issue, but I like the fact that he's a man who sticks to his principles and doesn't pretend otherwise.
-If Hillary were president and the red phone rang at 3 A.M. it would be for one of two reasons: 1) a girl calling looking for Bill or b) Bill calling to say not to wait up for him.
-A little free advice to the Clinton and Obama campaigns. National Security is probably not the best issue to tear each other apart on since it's the one issue McCain consistently polls ahead of either of them by double-digits. This really plays into his hand.
-I read an interesting article earlier this week about how Obama should not go negative on Hillary. The gist of the article is that Hillary wants a knife fight while Obama has gotten this far by staying above the fray and being "a fresh alternative". If he loses this advantage, he risks becoming just another politician, a first-termer at that.
-A lot of people think that dealing with the Clinton attack machine will be good practice for dealing with the republican attack machine. I beg to differ. You see, the Clintons are still using the old Model 92, which was good in its day but is no comparison for the new state-of-the-art MX47-6 machine we republicans are using. The old model 92 had clumsy handling, left deep tracks, and had a motor which emitted the most annoying whining sound you have ever heard in your life. The one we use now is at the cutting edge of attack machine technology. It features:
Self sharpening blades, larger payload bay, the ability to change directions on a dime, a radio jamming device, stealth technology, run-flat tires, the ability to alter or even reverse reality for a few months at a time, and a guidance system so easy to use that it was driven all the way to the white house by a man viewed by many Americans to be functionally retarded (twice). Sadly, the engine still doesn't sound great. I've probably said too much.
-I'm sick of the fake outrage. All week I listened to Sean Hannity pretend to be so angry about Michelle Obama's statements. Come on, every body knows that when he heard that he didn't get angry, in fact he probably felt a sense of glee bordering on sexual arousal. So can we all please get over ourselves and save the outrage for things that actually matter?
-Third parties would have a lot more credibility if they would build up from the bottom, win a few congressional seats, maybe even a governorship before trying to run someone for president. That would be much harder work and far less quixotic, which is probably why it doesn't hold appeal for them.
-If any liberals should stumble on to this blog: You know Nader's working for us, right? I mean we're just using him to suck away the hippie/leftist-crusader-want to consider myself a radical-but don't want to actually do anything in life that doesn't involve narcotics or wearing camouflage pants and an old army surplus jacket that smells like pot- types. I mean come on, no one really talks like Nader in real life, do they?
-I've never written out a hyphenated reference before so maybe I was supposed to use hyphens between each word rather than just the concepts.
-At some point this week I must get my hands on one of those "John McCain is my homeboy" tee-shirts. They had another one with Mac and Hillary on the front that said "bros before hos" which was tacky (not to mention old) but still made me chuckle. The one with Mac and Obama had a similar rhyming theme, but I didn't find it funny at all. Plus this particular shirt would probably not be safe to wear unless you lived in Utah or Idaho.
-20% of the democratic primary voters in Ohio said race played a factor in their vote. 20% in 2008! This group went overwhelmingly went for Hillary. This doesn't mean 1 in 5 primary voters may harbor some racial prejudices, this means that number were HONEST about it. Makes me wonder how many others voted against Senator Obama because of the color of his skin but weren't honest about it. I hope this helps lay to rest the myth that racism only exists on one side of the political spectrum. I'm not claiming that liberals are any more likely to be racist, I'm saying that racism sadly exists at all points on the political spectrum and runs much deeper than just a person's politics.
- I read the first 40 Psalms this week and I was thinking that if King David had had a myspace page and posted stuff like some of the ones where he's really depressed and I were his father, I'd definitely be taking him in to see a mental health professional. In some of the Psalms it's like he's the original emo kid (only way more popular with the ladies).
-Finally, I heard Karl Rove on the Hannity show yesterday talking about what McCain needs to do in the next six weeks. Rove said that he needs to show voters who John McCain the person is. People know about Vietnam and the whole maverick thing, but voters want to know the man himself before they'll elect him. Rove then told the touching story of how the McCains adopted their daughter Bridgette from Mother Theresa's orphanage back in the early nineties to illustrate McCain's character. I'm familiar with the story so there was nothing new to me there. What was weird was hearing it come out of the mouth of KARL ROVE! I'm like isn't this the same daughter you ass-holes used in a smear campaign against McCain in South Carolina 8 years ago when she was like 9 or 10 years old? Just bizarre. And no, no one will ever convince me that the Bush people didn't have their hands dirty on that one. I also read that over the next few weeks McCain will be visiting some hot-spots around the world just so people know that he's the foreign policy guy in this race. He is expected to visit various European allies and probably Iraq or Afghanistan. If I were him I'd also visit Israel in case he does wind up facing Senator Obama, who seems to be having trouble with the Jewish vote. (this is the only explanation I can think of for a poll I saw earlier this week had McCain and Obama in a statistical dead heat with Mac up a point or two in mother f'ing New Jersey!) He is also planning major economic and domestic policy speeches in April which they are promising will be specific and bold. There had better be more there than just the corporate tax thing or else I will be disappointed.
-That's all for now. Next week I will be talking about environmentalists being tempted to use (gasp) capitalism to solve a problem and whatever else I feel the need to get off of my chest from the coming week.

Looking For a Dentist.

2008-03-06T18:15:00.004-07:00

So, I find myself in need of a dentist. There are several interesting ones out there. But here are the qualities I am looking for:
-I need a dentist with "an overwhelming sense of dignity and majesty".
-A dentist with "an overwhelming sense of hope"and "a deep and compassionate understanding of the human condition"
-I want a dentist who can unite all the teeth and move the mouth forward in a positive direction. Some one who opposed drilling from the beginning and feels comfortable putting his hands in any kind of mouth. That's very important, "bringing all the teeth together, because there are no yellow teeth or white teeth". And I'm willing to trust them on it. I don't need to see a history of doing it in other mouths. Saying they'll do it is good enough for me.
-Some one with "a deep hope for the future of my mouth". A dentist who understands "that there is a hole in my soul and he is the one who can fill it." (Whether they can fix the holes in my teeth is beside the point.)
-I want to be proud of my mouth for the first time in my adult life.
- I feel that "our emerging, post modern society needs a dentist who's imagination is not bounded by past experience. (My teeth) require imagination, innovation, bravery, and an explorer's heart." I have no clue what that means either, but that doesn't really matter. I feel good about it, damnit!
-I'm tired of the old dentistry. The dentistry of fear belongs in the past. All I've ever heard is how the plaque is looking to destroy my teeth. This is as bad as the misguided "War on Cavities". Did any of the proponents of dentistry as usual ever stop to think that maybe if I had a different dentist the plaque wouldn't feel threatened and would therefore have no need to attack my mouth and kill my teeth? It's just a matter of talking to the plaque.
-I want to leave the chair feeling inspired.......to do something, anything.
-I sense "a spirit of movement" and "a rising sense of community" towards "an evolved dentist" who "is not operating on the same plane as ordinary dentists and in many ways transcends the entire dental profession".
-I want to feel like 400 years of racist stupidity on this continent are completely wiped out because I chose this particular dentist. Wouldn't that be a nice feeling to have? It wouldn't be true, but I'd like to feel like it was.
-I'm not concerned about whether they have very much experience in dentistry. I don't care if they've done any hard work to solve serious tooth-related problems. That's "the thinking of the past". I'm not concerned with how specifically they plan to do it or whether it costs more ( I'm talking a LOT more).
-I know some people are skeptical; you're saying "Steve, that's no way to pick a dentist! You need someone with a clear track record, experience and a good deal of training." I say that that's the kind of thinking that got my mouth into the shape it's in right now. Teeth are hurting and they need change. To those who say we can't choose dentists that way, I say Yes, We Can! I mean, it's not like I'm choosing a President of the United States here.

The Playbook....or, How to Stop This Man.

2008-03-02T21:18:00.003-07:00

I was going to hold off on this until Senator Obama formally won the nomination, but I am now convinced that he will win Texas and Ohio this coming Tuesday so I thought I'd go ahead with it. I am going to outline what I think the republican strategy for the general election should be. I've spent some time analyzing the candidates' positions and reading hundreds of comments from voters, so here is what I think needs to be done both by Senator McCain and those of us trying to get him elected. I've taken a few ideas advanced by Newt Gingrich, Tony Blankley and others and added some of my own. I'm going to list some details along with some more general ideas on how to take on Senator Obama and how to try to win over some fence-sitters. This could go on a while so grab a drink and a notepad.

First a list of what McCain shouldn't do.

-Don't try to make the entire campaign about Vietnam. Mention it of course in passing but never let it eclipse your vision for where you want to take the country. John Kerry did this in part because he needed to remind people of his military service. John McCain doesn't have to. To put it another way, in terms of public perception John Kerry is a Vietnam vet, John McCain is the Vietnam vet. The single biggest thing that killed the Kerry candidacy is that he was unable to put forward an alternative that resonated with voters. And while people respect him for this it probably won't translate into wooing too many undecideds. McCain should stick to subtle references like the one about woodstock.

-Don't continue harping on experience. It hasn't worked for Hillary, and it won't work for McCain. Candidates with markedly more experience in government than their opponents do not have a great track record over the last 50 years or so.

-Don't try to out-inspire Obama with speeches. Obama's speeches are inspirational, but McCain's life is inspirational. He needs to talk about issue-specific accomplishments and why they matter today.

-As Newt Gingrich pointed out, the worst thing McCain can do is pander to the right. His strengths with voters are his independence from his party and willingness to take a position regardless of the consequences. Losing this advantage would be fatal. There are still 8 months to go. The stragglers will come on board. The talk radio hosts will shift their attention to how liberal Obama is and bring their people on board.

-As Tony Blankley pointed out this week, it's not enough to tell people that Obama is an orthodox liberal, you have to show them.(paraphrasing) "This is a guy who makes Bill Clinton look slow-footed and forthcoming. It needs to be a consistent, specific daily thing from now till November 4th. You can't just lob the 'liberal' hatchet at him it has to be more like a scalpel slicing a way small pieces at a time."

-Don't make the mistake of simply pointing out Senator Obama's lack of substance. His supporters will reply that he lays out all of his plans on his website (which a lot of them have never read, but I have and so should you). It will be far more effective to attack the plans themselves.

-Don't expect the press to make Obama answer the tough questions. It hasn't happened so far and may not happen at all. When it does happen, he will dance around the issues by talking in generalities so vague they will make candidate Bush look like a hard-core policy wonk.

There are more traps that need to be avoided, but a lot of them are obvious enough that the McCain campaign is smart enough not to fall into them. The general population, however, is another matter. So, in addition to the ones above these are the things McCain supporters need to avoid.

-Don't use the word "Hussein" over and over again and don't "slip" and say "Osama". At best this will take people's attention off of whatever you're talking about. At worst it will make you look like a racist (and justifiably so).

-Don't repeat ridiculous rumors. Unless the person you are conversing with is a moron who believes everything that turns up in their in-box (like the mother of a friend of mine who recently informed him that "the constitution says the president has to be a Christian" that's kind of what it says only the exact opposite) not only will this make anything else you say seem suspect, but it could have the effect of softening any legitimate scandal that may turn up. In other words if something legit turned up it could be lumped together with the "Obama as Muslim" crap.

-I would leave the women and children out of it. (this goes for any candidate) I've read some nutty stuff Michelle Obama has said lately but to harp on it, unless it is way out of left field, takes the focus off of any point you're trying to make about Barack. Bill Clinton and John Kerry were not hurt that much in '92 or '04 by having controversial wives and I would expect that to continue. A lot of people didn't like the wife, but voted for the husband anyway.

-Don't let yourself be backed into the corner of having to defend Bush. If the person you are talking to keeps coming back to Bush as though he represents all republicans be sure to draw contrasts between Bush and McCain, giving examples that are both policy related and with regard to the character of the man himself.

-Don't assume that the average Obama voter knows what he stands for in terms of policy.

There are more but you get the idea.

What Senator McCain should do:

-As I heard Newt Gingrich suggest, McCain should invite Obama to do a series of town-hall meetings with him across the country taking questions from undecided voters. Preferably these would be in cities like Detroit and others where far-left ideas have failed so radically.

-I think this is a good idea since McCain's campaign is going to be run largely on a strategy of getting him talking with average voters as much as possible (kind of a New Hampshire on steroids). One caveat I would add though is be careful to make it look like a friendly invitation. Don't act like you're begging for debates. That looks desperate. Gore did it in 2000. Hillary has done it for a month or more to no effect. Maybe begin each meeting by pointing out that you invited Senator Obama to be there (because I think there's no way in Hell he'd actually agree) and leave it at that.

-You can't beat something with nothing. Every attack on Obama's policies should be immediately followed by your own position on that issue.

-Press the advantage on foreign policy. By this I mean don't let every Iraq discussion focus on the past and whether the war was worth it. There are a lot of people like me that believe it was a major mistake, but that the important question at this moment is what happens next. The consequences of withdrawing need to be clearly spelled out. I would also point out that ending American involvement in the war is NOT the same as ending the war. I can't emphasize that one strongly enough. While on the topic McCain should expand the discussion to other foreign policy issues (Kosovo, Russia, South America, etc.) to fully press his advantage on this one.

-McCain needs to acknowledge the problems Americans are facing economically and offer solutions. The left generally has two advantages over the right in this area: 1) They tend to be better at diagnosing the problem. If you look at Obama's speeches, the amount of time he spends laying out how bad things are is a much larger problem than that proposing solutions. 2) Generally liberal solutions are much more easily grasped by the population at large. It's much easier for people to understand the benefits of massive spending than it is to understand capital gains taxes and the like.

-Don't allow Obama a foot-hold as a centrist. The country in general is a center-right country and McCain has a natural advantage there. Point out that there's one guy who talks about bi-partisanship and one who actually has a record demonstrating it.

-NEVER appear on a stage with George W. Bush. Continue appearing with centrists and if at all possible get some younger people on the stage so it doesn't look like an AARP meeting.

There are numerous others that I will point out at a later date.

Now for what we as supporters need to do.

-When dealing with many Obama supporters you shouldn't assume that they know a great deal about their candidate's positions (many don't care). I find that it works best to ask them questions. This is better than just bashing the guy because it plants doubt and doesn't cause them to just tune you out. Here's a typical example. ME: What do you like about Obama? OBAMA'S WITNESS: I just like what he stands for and the fact that he can get us past the partisan politics and move us forward. ME: Well what does he stand for? OW: Well he wants change and he wants to be more fair etc. ME: How specifically will he do that?...... You get the idea. This way you get them on the defensive. Ask the questions nicely as though you're not trying to trap them. You may hear a lot of quasi-religious language. The key there is to say something like "What do you mean by that, exactly?" In an upcoming post I will deal with these kind of responses in detail using actual quotes I have collected over the past few weeks.

-Learn to spot myths when you hear them. A lot of people think Obama is someone who doesn't "toe the party line" on every issue. Actually, he does. It's incredible how many people have projected their own beliefs onto him. Usually I ask if they can name one issue he disagrees with the party platform on. There are none (I can name 12-15 off the top of my head for McCain). He votes with the majority of his party 96.5% of the time. That means that (according to a database maintained by the Washington Post) he has voted against the majority of his party 42 times as of 2/8/08.

-On 13 of these votes I concluded that his vote was more liberal than the majority of his party.

-19 votes were procedural/housekeeping measures or issues that seem apolitical to me (e.g. motion to table amendment regarding regulations regarding regulations regarding federal hopper dredges)

-That leaves just 10 votes in 3 years where I would consider his position more conservative than the party majority! And I was generous in this regard. 2 votes were on the same bill and others I included just because they included opposition to some kind of spending regardless of on what.

- If you know a candidate's policy positions (as well as those of your candidate) and their supporters don't, this will be a major advantage and might even overcome some of the "personality cult" aspect. And it helps if you can talk up your guy at the same time.

-Don't be afraid to inject reality into the equation. Tearing down peoples' dreams and Utopian visions is actually good for them.

-Dispel the notion that all of the new spending programs will be paid for by "ending the war" (which of course we know simply means "American involvement in the war"). Senator Obama, between tax incentives and new funding for domestic programs has proposed $214 billion annually in new spending. This is roughly twice what the (direct) costs of the war in Iraq amount to annually.

This has gone way longer than I expected so I'll stop right here and give more suggestions later. And I'm sure I will be going into each issue in detail I'm sure over the next 8-months. So congratulations on surviving the longest blog post in recorded history. And oh yeah, Mac is back bitches!

Back off Obama already!

2008-03-01T20:26:00.001-07:00

Back off Obama already!
I must say I am sick of hearing people ask Senator Obama about the specifics of his plans, or to question him about his position of Foreign policy, or to actually have the nerve to bring up his supposed "lack" of experience. Hello he's in the Senate and has been since January of 2005 that's over 37 months! Let me be crystal clear on his people. President-elect ( cmon its a formality ) Obama is intelligent, charismatic, and my word what a speaker. He makes us feel good, he uses the words "Hope, Feel, and Believe" regularly and that is what matters. He gives me the tingles, that's is after all what I am looking for in a President.However for those that are still skeptical let me make this point. Oh the area of experience, hello Obama works with Republicans 3.5 % of the time and on issues that have broad bipartisan support and are not continuous! He also is willing to work with Republicans and be bipartisan when they agree with him. After all, what it will take is for Obama to talk to them, smile at them, make them feel warm and fuzzy and they will vote for the over 2 trillion in spending, a rolling back of tax cuts for the rich ( who deserve after all to be taxes, hello their rich which means they did something bad to get that way!) they will vote to provide health care for all Americans by putting the control of health care where it rightfully should be in the hands of the Government. Now all this will only be necessary if the American people fail to elect along with President Obama at least 60 Democratic senators, which will of course happen because that's what he wants and we don't say no to our Glorious President-elect. Second he will have plenty of time to learn the ropes as President, hello he makes people feel good.Also on Foreign policy, this idea that he is naive or dangerous is silly and I think Racist. Hello he will meet with America's enemies, talk with them, appear in photo's with them, understand their concerns. This I know will have the effect of disarming North Korea, and opening up their society. Iran will come to the table and after the warm and fuzzies start it will not be long before they recognize Israel, allow free elections and religious freedom, and open up to the west. After all the main reason for these nations opposing America was George Bush and he will be gone. President Elect Obama will express to them that he understands that there opposition to us did not stem from an ideology but from the fact that Bush was a warmongering idiot that didn't make them feel comfortable. I believe that within months of the inauguration we will see a wave of peace break out all over the world as people feel good and wrap themselves in this mans lovely words. As for Iraq, we will begin pulling out in 90 days, again President Obama will meet not with the current government as they are corrupt ( they were supported by President Bush after all) but with the misunderstood insurgents, after apologizing for the election of Bush and after making them feel good about themselves with the use of words like hope, believe, and feel, they will throw down there arms and Iraq will become a bastion of peace. This idea that experience in government and foreign policy is necessary is silly and racist.Also lets talk about President-elect Obama's so called opponent ( the voting at this point is a formality that must be observed). First he is not a baby boomer, anyone over say 47 years old is obviously too old to be President. Second this is a man who had to get elected to the House of Representative and reelected before getting elected to the Senate, obviously not eloquent enough to be an effective President. Second he has served in the Military, over 22 years this was time he could have been attending lectures at Harvard and supporting Barack Obama and he WASN'T! This is a man who understand war, that means he actually thinks war might be necessary when we all know that simply talking to ones enemies and making them feel good will keep the peace. Second this man works with the other party almost 15% of the time. That means he actually gives in and is not a good enough speaker to convince them to do what he wants. He also has at times been willing to risk the nomination of his party to support unpopular causes, again making people feel good and talking smoothly is all it takes. This man has too much experience, he has almost 30 years and 22 years experience in the military it is time for a new generation that can be eloquent and talk in generalities, in broad strokes, with almost a religious zeal and little substance that my friends is what America needs. The choice is clear in November, ( although cmon we all know its in the bag) a man who has served his nation his entire adult life, who sacrificed for his country his freedom, comfort and blood, a man who has worked across party lines to get things done, who transcends party, and has a moderate voting record, another words a hack. Or a man who speaks with words that make you float on air, painting a mural of words in bold colors,not to be bothered with filling in the lines, someone who uses the power words, "Hope, feel, believe" someone who votes with his party 96.5 percent of the time ( as he should ) someone who believes that if you can simply put him in a room with America's enemies ( created by George Bush of course) then he can charm them into liking us. A man who has 37 months experience on the world stage, before that working as a legislator in Illinois and as an organizer in Chicago. That is our choice, what do we answer "YES WE CAN" after all we have never been burnt by a candidate long on Charisma and short on actual experience before have we? So stop all the prattling about specifics, and qualifications, sit back, put on some Obama speeches and let the politics wash you a way to the world that we would wish for rather then the one that actually exists. Yeah man! Obama '08

Quick Hits 5

2008-02-29T14:11:00.002-07:00

-I'm kind of torn about the upcoming Ohio and Texas primaries this Tuesday. On the one hand I'd like to see Hillary win to keep the chaos going in the Democratic primary for a few more months. On the other hand, if Obama can wrap it up I'll feel like one of those orcs in mordor when that green beam shoots up and they can finally march on Minas Tirith. Because Hillary is right when she talks about how tough the republican attack machine can be.
-I don't think Ralph Nader will prove to be anywhere near the threat to Obama that he was to Gore, because Gore was far more centrist than Obama. Obama is also strong amongst college students and hippies which seemed to be Nader's strongest constituency. If you've got a few bucks burning a hole in your pocket, it still may not be a bad idea to send him a check. You know, in the interest of "fairness".
-I think this is the most interesting pair of (presumptive) nominees in a very long time. You have a guy with a fascinating life story, who would make history if elected, doesn't toe the party line, transcends party in a lot of ways, has shown a willingness to bring people together to get things done whether it's popular or not.......and on the other side you have Barack Obama.
-I think if I were a midget I would prefer the term "midget" over "little person". Little person sounds more demeaning to me.
-Howard Dean has announced plans to sue the McCain campaign on financing. Now without getting into what Howard Dean can go do with himself as far as I'm concerned, I'm just shocked. That's so unlike the left to go around suing people.
-While I'm on the subject of people who belong in straight jackets, people who get their children humiliating hair cuts should be looked into by the authorities. It's 2008 people. I should not have to see a 4-year old boy walking around with a freaking rat-tail.
-I'm also kind of sick of conservatives complaining that the media picked our candidate. I could have swore he won because he got the most votes, but maybe I'm just being naive there.
-If I may play Andy Rooney for a moment: why is it that a job that really blows is referred to as a "suck-job" but when somebody su......you know, never mind. I'm not gonna go there.
-I noticed looking at the websites of both McCain and Obama that neither of them list crime in their list of issues at the top of the page. This seems like an area where McCain could make some inroads if he were so inclined.
-I watched a couple of youtube videos of Reagan speeches this week. Now there was a guy who could give any kind of speech. We may never see that good of a speaker again. He wasn't just good at firing people up he could do it all (oratorically). One of my personal favorites was the one from the night of the Challenger disaster " they waved goodbye, then slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God." I got goosebumps just typing that.
-I've spent the last few days analyzing Senate voting records. A few weeks ago I questioned the claim of Obama having the most liberal voting record over the last year. I now stand corrected.
- In my city we have laws against aggressive pan-handling near the entrance to a business. Why are the girl scouts exempted?
-I heard some air-head caller on Air America radio the other day say in response to the Obama/patriotism flap that "running for president is the most patriotic thing you can do". So if someone's running for president they must be a patriot. (I don't care about his patriotism one way or the other, I'm more concerned with his socialism so I'd respond the same way if a McCain supporter had said this) Really? What's more patriotic than running for president? I don't know, maybe dying or being grievously wounded on a battle field in anonymity far from home during the prime of your life, sacrificing whatever future you may have had for people you don't know or a cause you may not even believe in? No, not at all. Trying to become the most powerful (and probably most famous) person on earth is way more patriotic.
-I thought the clip of McCain accidentally referring to himself as a liberal yesterday was pretty funny.
-And lastly, the other night I was listening to the radio and during one of their half-hourly "news" updates the second thing they mentioned was that Eddie Money is going to launch a career in country music. Now that's news in 2008! The only way Eddie Money should be mentioned in news would be a story that involves the words "dead" or "arrested for murder".

Quick Hits IV

2008-02-23T23:54:00.003-07:00

More oddities from this week:

-Ralph Nader is expected to announce that he is running for president on meet the press tomorrow. I strongly support this development. Somebody needs to siphon off a few far left votes, give 'em hell Ralph! I want him out there touring with all of his classic hits: "Republicrats", "both parties are the same", "evil corporations", "capitalist pig-dogs", "imperialism, imperialism, imperialism!"
-If you're going to use a public restroom, I'll thank you to refrain from moaning while you urinate.
-I remember thinking six years ago when I had to write a research paper (and participate in a 60-minute round table discussion) on the subject of Kosovo that it would be a major headache when they declared independence. Without going into details the Serbs view this region as their Jerusalem and it's just one more way to rattle Russia's cage.
-Darfur continues to be a great example of how "awareness" has never stopped people from killing each other. I think a better idea would be to arm the people being persecuted. When they show up at the UN aid station say "here's your sack of wheat and here are your AK-47's".
-What's the deal with these chicks fainting at the Obama rallies? I've seriously got to go to one of these things. I'll bet they leave feeling all hopeful and euphoric. Perhaps willing to "reach across the aisle" for a little "bipartisanship", if you follow my train of thought.
-I saw the NIU shooter's girlfriend on the news. wtf? girlfriend? When's the last time a guy who shot a bunch of people had a girlfriend, but didn't kill her when he did the shooting? That struck me as odd.
-You don't change Washington. Washington changes you.
-Jimmy Kimmel was pretty funny talking about this McCain/NY Times thing. He said that for every year you spend in a Vietnamese prison camp you should be entitled to one extra-marital affair. So in his book McCain could have up to five and it would still be alright.
-I think pretty much any candidate who gets elected will have at least one situation come up while in office that makes them say "this is the toughest situation I've ever been in"........except one. The capitol could be burning down and McCain would be like "this still isn't as bad as the time I was in the middle of a fire that killed 134 guys on my ship, or the day I got shot down, broke three limbs and was bayoneted twice, or the time they stuck that live leach up my ass".
-I should add that the leach thing is something I made up, unlike the other 2.
-I couldn't care less who there is a picture of hanging in one of the Obama campaign offices.
-Did you ever notice how every Democratic nominee is vilified as probably being the "anti-christ" except John Kerry? I heard Glenn Beck mention this and I was like "yeah, Kerry should be very offended". He should be like "do they think I'm too boring to be the six-hundred three-score and six?" Just not beastly enough I guess.
-We've got two alleged centrists likely to face off in November. One (McCain) votes with his party 87.3% of the time (according to a database maintained by the Washington Post) and another in Obama who votes with his party 96.5% of the time.
-Shouldn't a guy who's major theme is his ability to reach across party lines to find common ground and consensus on major issues be able to point to ONE time he's done so? (Don't give me "ethics reform" or "nuclear non-proliferation" either those were slam dunks.)
-According to an article I read this week, apparently it's "disguised racism" to suggest that a candidate with very little experience has, you know, very little experience.
-I've just finished reading the book Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky (my favorite writer) and while it's impossible to describe, he to some degree foresees the totalitarianism and blood-shed that would come to his motherland in the 20th century. Despite being written in the 1870's it kind of predicts how Marxist ideology would grow into a movement worse than the problems it was trying to fix. It was also very screwed up. There's "screwed up" and then there's "screwed up even for Dostoevsky". This was the latter. At the end it's like: "I hope you weren't too attached to any of the characters". I've read enough Russian novels to know better than to expect a happy ending, but I expected at least one protagonist to survive the book besides the narrator.
-I thought McCain's speech Tuesday night talking about Senator Obama and his "eloquent, but empty call for change" and going on to point out how liberal he is was pretty good. The way McCain needs to go is to stay on the issues and not try to get into a personality contest.
-Somebody else mentioned how fascinating the Obama story is. Which confused me because if you want fascinating life stories, Clinton and McCain's lives would both make for a far more interesting movie than one about Obama. Better special effects in the McCain story. More sex scenes in the Hillary story. The Obama movie would be one of those "guy goes to the hood and teaches the gangstas calculus" snoozers.
-I've been studying Senator Obama's proposals for what he would do as president along with his senate voting record. There is plenty of substance there. He has a ton of ideas. There are specifics every where. I'm torn now. I wish I could go back in time and ...........DONATE MONEY TO HILLARY CLINTON! Seriously, if my economic plan called for almost $2 Trillion in new taxes I don't think I'd be bringing it much on the stump either. I'd stick to the "hope" and "change" talk too. I'm sure I'll be bringing this up again constantly for the next nine months or so.
-I hope this isn't lost on the McCain people. Don't waste time talking about "experience" because if you look at the past several elections where the White House has changed hands, the less experienced candidates have had a decent record (Kennedy v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Clinton v. Bush, Junior Bush v. Gore to name a few). And don't waste time talking about 'Nam because War Veterans have lost the last 4 presidential elections. (yes, I consider Gore in this group because, while he wasn't strangling people with piano wire or locked in a Hanoi-pit-of-Hell, he was in-country with the military during the war.) So with this in mind I was very happy to hear a McCain advisor say last week about Obama: (paraphrasing) "He was just named the most liberal member of the Senate for 2007. I don't think most of these moderates and conservatives coming out for him know that... but they will."

My Short list for Obama runningmates

2008-02-23T00:04:00.004-07:00

(Bob is back with his suggestions for Obama VP. This is a list of 4 strong candidates and 1 dream running mate.)
My Short list for Obama runningmates
by Bob Wells
As promised I have compiled a list of the those people that I think would make the best runningmates for Barack Obama in this years Presidential election. I tried to put aside my endorsement of McCain and my membership in the GOP and make this list according to which Democrats would most benefit the Obama campaign. I know I said that I would do a list for both Democratic candidates however after eleven straight primary victories by Senator Obama it is becoming increasing unlikely that Senator Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee there for I will not be writing a list of possible runningmates for her. However if she manages to pull an upset and win in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania I will of course write a list for her. Oh also my choices do not take into account which candidates the choices endorsed in the primary. Some of my choices may be people who endorsed Senator Clinton.
1) Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) Age 67
The reason the Governor makes the first spot on the list is because he is from the state of Ohio a swing state that has gone Republican in the last few elections cycles but by no more then a few points. He is extremely popular, was elected in a landslide and would I believe make it much harder for Senator John McCain to carry the all important Buckeye state. He also has experience not only as an executive but as a member of congress for over ten years. While he endorsed Senator Clinton I believe Senator Obama would do well to choose the governor, as a OBAMA/STRICKLAND ticket would be very hard to beat.
2) Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Age 52
The Senator, a moderate Democrat would appeal to independent voters, as putting the state of Indiana in play. Senator Bayh is a former governor and arguable one of the most popular elected official in the state and possible the only Democrat that could put Indiana, a state that has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate in decades into play. He is also a policy wank that would bring some much needed substance to the Obama campaign. He also brings executive experience to the campaign. The only short fall is that he has been know at times to have the charisma of a stump, when he gave the key note address at the 1996 Democratic Convention some pundits said it was like "watching paper mache dry" however this is not to much of a problem as Obama has more then enough charisma for this campaign.
3) Bill Nelson (D- FL) Age 66
The senator is again from an important swing state, he also has a rather moderate voting record in the senate which would help to appeal to moderates and independents. He is also considered by some to be a policy wonk who would again bring much needed substance and experience to the Obama campaign.
4) Bill Richardson (D-NM) Age 61
This choice brings the most experience and knowledge of government to the ticket. Governor Richardson is not only from an important swing state out west, but is also extremely popular. He has served in the U.S. House, As secretary of Energy under President Clinton, Ambassador to the U.N. and now as governor. He was the candidate that I believed and still believe would have been the best choice for President and had I been a democrat I would have endorsed him.He also brings a lot of experience and credibility to the Obama campaign.
5) Former Vice President Al Gore ( D-TN) Age60
Possibly the most popular Democrat in America, he would bring all the experience and credibility to the campaign as well as give the press joygasms and ensure nothing but great coverage. He would also energize the Democratic base even more. I also choice him because it would be very interesting

a Pall on Truth and Reason.....

2008-02-21T21:13:00.003-07:00

(Warning: the following post may be considered offensive by some readers. It contains profanity, sex, and may be offensive to barnyard animals or the animal husbandry profession as a whole.)

I normally don't read the tabloids very often. I find their writings to be to ridiculous to pretend they are actual news while at the same time not subtle enough to be good satire. Today's New York Times hatchet piece on Senator McCain caught my attention however. Apparently this "news" organization decided that it had not humiliated itself enough this decade between the Jayson Blair fiasco and the shoddy reporting done by Judith Miller and others in the run-up to the Iraq war. I think the comment I heard today from a left-wing caller to a left-wing talk show sums up my feelings the best: "he could be screwing goats for all I care". But, I'm getting ahead of myself. For those of you who have not read the "story", allow me to sum it up.
Two anonymous (meaning "lacking the balls to speak up in public like a man") former aides who've become "disillusioned with the senator" (What the hell does that mean? Were they fired or something?) claim that 8 years ago an affair may or may not have happened between Senator McCain and a young blond lobbyist. They claim advisers met with the senator to tell him not to be around her due to the "appearance of impropriety"(due to the lobbyist thing? because people might think there's an affair? we're not told and apparently the "reporters" had very little interest in finding out.) The story then re-hashes the Keating Five scandal that happened when I was in grade-school. That's about the entire story.
My first reaction to this piece of "news" was that it was the flimsiest story I've read in quite some time. The headline should have read "Two Guys Think McCain Might Have Had an Affair....Maybe". I mean shouldn't a story like this one present one piece of oh, I don't know.....evidence? Maybe a recorded phone conversation or a semen-stained dress or a line of countless women coming forward with allegations would suffice. The whole story seems carefully worded so that it doesn't go beyond rumor, innuendo, and speculation into stating a claim that could be considered libelous. I mean we're talking ZERO evidence here. Nothing even pretending to be evidence. I've heard Barack Obama speeches with more substance than this. Of course that didn't stop the "journalists" from jumping all over this shit. I've probably heard the term "raises the question" 50 times today. I've got a radical idea here, rather than "raise the question" repeatedly how about DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB and looking for any kind of corroboration before giving your opinion on what is rumored to have happened 8 years ago? "Well we're just giving both sides of the story". The problem with this line of reasoning is that the truth is often one-sided. If you're going to drag some one's name through the mud at least look for some hotel receipts or notes or something better than "they rode on a plane together" or "she showed up at fundraisers". I think if I was running the campaign I would use every means at my disposal to make the people at that paper think heaven is falling. I wouldn't stop until every one involved is fired. The reasons for this are two-fold 1) you can't let these things go unchecked as John Kerry learned 4 years ago. You need to clear your name for the sake of your family. 2) From a hardball politics standpoint, you need to make an example out of someone. This way if a shaky, poorly sourced story pops up in September or October people will think twice about running with it.
I know some people will ask me the following questions. Didn't the New York Times endorse McCain? Yeah, when he was running against OTHER REPUBLICANS. Now it's a different story. The other question is "what if it's true? Do you care about politicians having affairs?" The answer is no. I was 18 when the Clinton-Lewinsky thing happened and was too obsessed with getting laid myself to care who else was. My feelings now are that these matters are between a person and their spouse. Thomas Jefferson was banging slaves for crying out loud. As far as I'm concerned if you can balance the budget, uphold the constitution, and not use government property in the commission of any lewd act you can fuck goats for all I care. Yep, that's right, good leadership entitles you to a "goat-fucking license" as far as ol' Mr. Haircutt here is concerned.

(see that's what I mean about subtle sarcasm. Am I joking? Am I insane? Hard to tell isn't it? But I bet you weren't expecting to read the phrase "goat-fucking license" today.)

Bad Choice of Words

2008-02-19T20:21:00.002-07:00

I think Michelle Obama's statement today "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" was nothing more than a poor choice of words. I'm willing to bet that she meant to say "never in my adult lifetime have I been this proud of my country". Sorry, but I don't believe she hates the U.S.A. And if she does hate this country I think she is far too smart to say so publicly. I don't really consider this to be an issue but I'm sure people are jumping all over it. That said, I will continue to work towards her husband's defeat in November.

Short list for McCain running-mate.

2008-02-19T14:20:00.002-07:00

(Bob has submitted to me his list of people he would like to see as John McCain's running-mate. I like the fact that these are not necessarily the names I hear being thrown out in the media right now. Some are more likely than others, but they are all people I would give serious thought to. Especially Powell, but I think he's pretty much enjoying his retirement these days.)
Short list for McCain runningmate
By Bob Wells
Ok here is my short list of possible runningmates for Senator McCain I will give them in order of preference first through five. Later I will give a list for both the Democrats but it is becoming more apparent that Senator Obama is likely to be the nominee.
1) Lt Governor Michael S. Steele (R-MD) Age 49He is my first choice because his brings the most benefit to the ticket. He is young and vibrant, he is from a blue state and has been a proven vote getter. While he lost his 2006 Senate race I would point out that he took nearly 45% of the vote in a very Democratic state in one of the worst years for the GOP since 1974. He will not only appeal to conservatives and help sure up the base but he may also put Maryland into play, at the very least he forces the Democrats to spend money there instead of in a swing state. He may also appeal to minority voters him being an African American. He would if necessary make a fine President.
2) Mike Pence (R-IN) Age 49He is again very young and vibrant ( this is an important issue because of McCain's age), he is from Indiana which while a solidly conservative state could be in play if Evan Bayh is the V.P. nominee of the Democrats. He is a favorite of the conservative base, he is also a very principled conservative who is a fine speaker and is a champion of a return to small government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and less intrusion into peoples lives. Finally I just like the guy, he has good political sense and midwestern sensibilities I think he would make a fine Vice President.
3) Former Congressman J.C. Watts (R-OK) Age 51He too is young in political terms, he is a very good speaker ( important after the Bush years) he has always been a great champion of conservative ideas and thought. He would bring energy and excitement to the McCain campaign. He would also again help McCain to appeal to minority voters. One of the other major benefits of Watts as a runningmate is the fact that while he has political experience he has for the last six years been out of elected office. He has worked in the private sector and is untouched by the current brand-tarnish of the GOP. He would make a fine Vice President and would I believe be able to if necessary set in and fill the Office of President if need be.
4) Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) Age 44She is young, articulate, attractive, and so far very affective. For the record I am not picking the Governor simply because she is a pretty women, while it helps there is substance there. Her appeal would be I believe to younger voters, to young upwardly mobile women many of whom are not as the media proclaims all raging liberals. She is from a very conservative state and is herself a respected conservative, although her appeal to independent voters is still unknown. She is also a relatively fresh face and would help a great deal to rebuild the Republican brand. She would also be an important voice on the importance of domestic exploration for oil. I believe that Governor Palin would do well under President McCain she would not only be a good Vice President and champion for the administrations agenda but would also be a possible successor for the Presidency in either 2012 or 2016 should McCain decide to serve only one term.
5) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell While he is of the same generation as John McCain, a more moderate Republican then John McCain he makes the list for one reason. HE IS COLIN FREAKIN POWELL. His record as Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to mention the fact that he has nearly universal name recognition and his integrity is second to none. While Secretary Powell would not help McCain with conservative he would more then make up for it with the massive amounts of Independent and even democratic voters he would bring to the ticket. I believe to spite the harpings of a few on the far right a McCain/ Powell ticket would amount to a perfect storm in politics and would give McCain this election by at least 15 points.

Obama's Witnesses

2008-02-17T08:54:00.004-07:00

I am now christening the cult-like followers of Senator Obama the "Obama's Witnesses". So if media types start using this term, you heard it here first. I don't have a problem with people passionately supporting their candidate, but the pseudo-messianic aspect is what I'm referring to here. (I am currently collecting quotes related to the Obama's Witness phenomenon and will post them once I've got a good collection to illustrate exactly who I'm referring to.) As one article put it this week, "we have a senator from New York who was born in Illinois running against a senator from Illinois who was born in a manger". I'm half expecting to hear him say "I will unite the country; I will draw all men unto me". So, by all means support your candidate. Donate to him, campaign for him, work the phone lines. Tell me why he's the best guy, but save the metaphysical new-ageish language for someone other than me.

quick hits 3

2008-02-16T16:19:00.002-07:00

-I was thinking the other day about how much I've changed in the last 8-years. In 2000, I was an agnostic nihilist who got drunk every day and screwed anything that moves. But I voted in lock step with the religious right. In 2008, I am a Christian who is a lot more moderate politically and views the religious right as the scariest force in American culture. Kind of a weird transformation.
-I have and will continue to point out reasons I don't support Senator Obama's candidacy but I will point out things that I like. I like his health care plan better than Hillary's. The fact that his plan does not use the power of government to force people to buy health insurance the way hers does. I've never sat around thinking: "I wish the government would force me to do more things. That's the problem these days, too much control over my own life."
-My sense is that Hillary is done, but I'm not sure "her legs are protruding from under the house" yet.
-According to the Wall Street Journal, Senator Obama has proposed $800 billion in new federal spending so far. This doesn't sit well with me. I view borrowing as the biggest threat to the long term survival of the republic.
-The History Channel should change it's name to The "Marching Nazi" Channel.
-Bill Moyers' Journal continues to be my favorite television show. I like the fact that people actually come on there and talk about substantive issues for longer than 3 minutes. Bill also reminds me of my father, between the southern accent, the way he looks at people while they talk and the fact that he used to be a minister.
-The headline on www.johnmccain.com currently reads "Ready to Lead on Day One". Uh oh, hey John that slogan hasn't really worked for Hillary so far. I'd try something else if I were you.
-I do believe that most of the coverage I see at this point is biased against Hillary and for Obama.
-Quote from Obama's Super Tuesday speech: "Nothing in this country has ever happened except somebody, somewhere, was willing to hope." You know, hope is nice. Action is better. Hope didn't kick out the British, free the slaves, or destroy Hitler. Even in Obama's own life story where he talks about hope, it seems to me that actions had a much bigger hand in his rise above his circumstances. The fact that he worked hard, studied hard and did everything in his power to make himself a better life resonates more with me than the ad-nauseum appeals to hope. I wonder if this would be as powerful of a message with the electorate at-large, though.
-I saw this video called "No, You Can't" based on the Obama "Yes, We Can" stuff. It was an attack on McCain which is fine with me, but they took a shot at Cindy McCain's addiction to prescription drugs in the 80's and early-90's. Word to the wise: 1) Let's leave the families out of this. 2) It would probably not be a good idea to make mention of anyone else's past drug use if you're trying to help Obama. Otherwise, a-holes like me are going to go out and constantly remind people of the days when Barack was doin' something back in the neighborhood. I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book. So let's try to stick to the actual issues involved with who we want leading the nation for the next four years.
-Two funny things I saw on Jimmy Kimmel's "fun with unnecessary censorship" segment last night. 1) Obama speaking: "They come up to me and whisper 'Barack, I'm a republican but I support you.' And I say '____ you!'"
2) McCain speaking: "I am f___ed up and ready to go!" Hillarious.
-I can't begin to tell you how much I wish McCain had beaten Bush in the 2000 primaries.

Huckabee runs amuckabee

2008-02-14T20:47:00.003-07:00

According to the current delegate counts I saw today in an e-mail from the McCain campaign (which doesn't take today's Romney stuff into account), John McCain needs 35% of the remaining delegates to wrap up the nomination. Mike Huckabee would have to win 123% of the remaining delegates. That means it's past time to call it quits Mike. I realize Huckabee's base is southern evangelicals, who probably can't call science (and by extension math) their strongest subject and are inclined to believe in miracles, but it's time to pull the plug. It has been fun, what with the jokes about flag-pole sodomy and getting to see Chuck Norris make an ass out of himself someplace other than an info-mercial or Mountain Dew commercial, but for the love of God let it go already.

Enough Already!

2008-02-13T15:52:00.003-07:00

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy-tale I've ever heard." -Bill Clinton.

Truer words were never spoken. About a week ago I had a severe allergic reaction to the phenomenon known as Obama-philia. I don't think my problem is so much with the Senator himself. I believe he is an intelligent, honest man who also happens to be one of the better political orators I have seen in my lifetime. And in another 8 years I might even view him as being qualified to be president. I guess what drives me insane is the way people fall all over this guy as some kind of great leader when I can't find ONE SINGLE ACCOMPLISHMENT that leads me to believe he knows how to run an entire nation. Sure his speeches are great, but it's rare to hear anything even bordering on actual substance in one of them (Other than calls for unspecified amounts of "more spending"). If you want my vote, tell me what you'll do, what it will cost, and how you intend to pay for it. I don't care if a candidate "lifts my spirit" or whatever drivel I'm hearing from people planning to vote based on their feelings. I view this as a job interview. If I'm hiring a guy to run a factory (much less the world's largest economy) I need more than talk of "hope" and "change" and "bringing people together". I want to know "have you ever run a factory before?" "have you run anything?" "What specifically will you do to turn the business around?". Most of Senator Obama's issue statements on his website use the phrase "put more money (generally not specifiying how much) into _________". Seriously you can't swing a dead cat without reading a call for more government spending. We're borrowing and spending our way right over a cliff as a nation as it is. So what I want to know from Senator Obama are boring, uninspiring details like: "how much are you willing to raise taxes to pay for all of these new initiatives?", "What is your plan to balance the budget?" "Do you think you can handle tough negotiations with somebody like Ahmadinejad, or Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) who are not going to be bowled over by nice words about hope, the way the hippies and college students seem to be?" I'd like to think the tough questions will have to be answered at some point in the campaign, but that may not be the case. He might be able to ride the wave of euphoria all the way to the White House. And maybe he is perfectly ready to be president, but I'm not going to assume that without seeing actual proof. That kind of optimism has burned me once (actually twice) before.

Interesting quotes I read.

2008-02-12T11:54:00.000-07:00

"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington." -Bill Moyers, 2004
"By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into a political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube."- Episcopal Minister and former Republican Senator John Danforth, 2005

Not a "conservative" anymore.

2008-02-06T14:06:00.000-07:00

I've been listening to and reading a lot of right wing pundits lately in their attacks on John McCain, and I've come to the conclusion that apparently I am not a "conservative". (Whatever the hell that term means these days.) Here is a list of reasons why, in many cases in direct responce to what I've seen in the last week or so. I still have plenty of problems with the left, but it's the right that is pissing me off right now. So here is my angry tirade. Many of the things I will point out are things that conservatives claim to believe, but you know what they say about actions and words.
- I believe the purpose of government is to handle the peoples' business. I do care more about "getting things done" than I do about partisan "ideological purity". If you don't agree, look at history and pick out the 10 most ideologically pure regimes the world has seen. Now ask yourself if these are the societies you would want to live in.
- I don't believe it is the purpose of government to push or in any way be involved in the promotion of religion. Especially my religion. And it bothers me to no end that my party has almost become the first religious party in American history.
- I could not care less what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.
-I don't believe cells in a petrie dish have the same human rights that I do.
- I believe (in agreement with the overwhelming consensus of scientists not on the oil company payrolls) in global warming. Apparently I'm not supposed to believe in global warming, evolution, gravity, or photosynthesis because it doesn't fit the agenda.
-I'm sick of faux-patriots who wrap themselves in the flag while destroying every constitutional principle it stands for.
- I don't believe the president has the constitutional authority to violate the first, fourth and fifth ammendments under ANY circumstance.
- I have a problem with the fact that we've gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "take what you want, just don't let them hurt me".
- We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. The fact that the party that says it wants limited government has done more to expand the power of the government than any other in our history bugs the hell out of me.
-I hate euphemisms like "tough interrogation techniques". Yeah, I'm sure we send people to Egypt and Syria for "agressive interrogation".
-If I hear one more member of this administration use the phrase "I have no recollection of that" while testifying before congress about some scandal I am going to puke!
-I don't believe that the bible was intended as a science textbook, and I don't want it used as one in the public schools.
-While we're on that subject, I'd like foreign policy decisions that don't involve Jesus Christ riding out of heaven on a white horse. The child-like understanding of good and evil that pervades our country is also a sure sign that we are most likely living in a new dark age.
-I'm not going to trust what the government tells me without question. I believe the purpose of a free press is to ask the hard questions of those in power.
-I don't believe McCain-Feingold was anywhere near as unconstitutional as the presidents warrantless wire-tapping program and flagrant abuse of "executive privelege" which is worthy of impeachment and prison time.
- I'm not going to defend incompetence on partisan grounds.
-I'm not willing to distort history to obscure the fact that Reagan and George W. Bush have been the two least fiscally responsible debt-growers ever to inhabit the Oval Office. The numbers do not lie. (note: this is not meant as an attack on Reagan, who I respect on the whole. It is more of an attack on those who would make him out to be someone who walked on water and never made any mistakes and had no failings whatsoever.)
-I wish John McCain had stuck to his guns on the Bush tax cuts, saying "I voted against them because I said we would have massive deficits. Guess what we have now? Massive deficits."
-There is a difference between being pro-capitolism and pro-big business. For all the talk of a welfare state, we should start with an end to corporate welfare.
-I would like to see an end to policy being determined by political operatives, rather than experts in particular fields.
-Feel free to fight your "culture war" using means that don't involve government.
-This doesn't constitute a complete list on my part but it's enough for now.

My trip to the caucus

2008-02-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

I participated in the Colorado GOP caucus last night. My current mood with regard to this whole debacle can be best summed up as "disillusioned". I checked the party website before I went down to the middle school to verify the room number. Everyone said to show up by 6:30 to be sure and sign in and be ready for the start of the caucus. When we arrived at the school at 6:20 no one knew what the hell was going on. We must have asked 10 people "Where are the precinct 152 republicans?" They all said "go around the corner to the left and sign in at the table." So we go around the corner. Now I should mention that I could tell by the demographics of the people in line that this was NOT the line for the Republicans. I live in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood and everyone in the line was either very old or very young and about 50% black. As we got closer to the table we saw an Obama sign on it and a lady passing out Obama stickers. So we bypassed the line and saw room 45, where we were supposed to be according to the website. We walked into room 45 and there was a large Obama sign hanging from the ceiling. So we wandered the school for another 20 minutes. When we got upstairs we saw some other republicans but no one knew anything about precinct 152, but at least there were republicans hanging out in the hallway. It turned out the guy in charge for our precinct was no where to be found so Nick and I commandeered a classroom with an open door, made our own sign and posted it on the door. I kind of expected the Republicans to be organized and show machine-like efficiency while the democrats had no organization to speak of. What I experienced was the exact opposite. The classroom started to fill up with people who, like us had been wandering the halls looking for our precinct, many of whom had been directed into the Obama room while wearing Romney paraphenelia. I knew going in that I was going to be in the minority as a McCain supporter, but I wasn't expecting the level of irrationality I heard around me. You'd think McCain was the second coming of Kruschev. But I managed to bite my tongue. Finally at around 7 the guy in charge got there, looking completely disorganized and overwhelmed. He brought the meeting to order and had us sign in. The turnout was about 5 times what it had ever been in the past. Out of around 400 registered republicans in our precinct, a whopping 27 actually showed up. We opened the meeting with an invocation in which I half-expect the angel Moroni to be mentioned. Then said the pledge of allegiance. The whole process of the meeting reminded me of the movie "The Life of Brian". A lot of time wasted. A lot of masturbatory procedural stuff. Electing a leader for the meeting. Electing a secretary, etc. I swear to God that they took up an offering for the republican party. Because if there's one thing the GOP doesn't have it's money. Next they said if anyone wanted to make a 1-minute speech on behalf of a candidate they could. I was tempted to get up and say "Can anyone here tell me the difference between Hillary Clinton's health care plan and the bill Romney signed as governor of Massachussetts?" But I didn't because I just wanted to get it over with. After about 45 minutes they finally took the presidential straw poll.(Which thankfully was a secret ballot.) The results were:
Mitt Romney- 21 votes.
John McCain- 4 votes.
Mike Huckabee- 2 votes.
Ron Paul- No Love.
After this was done, most of the group left. They still had to elect delegates and a bunch of other crap to take up another hour. We stayed a little longer, but as soon as their was a break in the action we managed to bail. Overall, this felt like a complete waste of time and I vastly prefer a regular primary to a caucus. This was the least democratic process I have ever taken part in. I would much rather show up and cast a ballot for the candidate of my choosing than go through this process which was clearly and obviously run by supporters of Obama and Romney respectively. Nobody involved with any other campaigns was visible at all. I wonder how many people showed up and changed their minds to go along with the herd. This wasn't a problem for me since I don't particularly care what the rest of the room thinks, but I could see where it would be for people more prone to avoid conflict. I went home and watched election returns to see that thankfully my experiences were atypical, with McCain racking up delegates, the resurgence of Huckabee, and Romney only winning a) states where he has lived b) states where there is a disproportionate number of mormons and c) states where they have these borderline-rigged caucuses. (Maybe "rigged" is not the right word since I don't think any actual wrong-doing occured. But the outcomes did seemed determined by who's people were running the show.) Next up for Colorado: the primaries to select senate and congressional nominees in April.

quick hits from this week: part 2

2008-02-02T20:03:00.000-07:00

-I've been listening to both right-wing and left wing talk radio a lot this week. I find it amusing that the lefties devote a great deal of time bashing Hillary Clinton, and the righties have done nothing except bash John McCain. Am I living in bizzarro-world? It doesn't seem to be doing much good on either side. Now granted the right has (as it usually is on most issues) been much more forceful. The moment of the week for me was Sean Hannity pleading with Zogby and Rasmussin to say something other than the obvious: that John McCain leads Romney by a wide margin and fares much better against either Democrat in November.
-Note to the Romney people: If he can't beat the "liberal" John McCain in a Republican primary, how can you expect him to have a chance in the general election?
-Here's a fun game: get a piece of paper and a pen and see how many U.S. Senators you can name from memory. I scored 52. (Bob, I wouldn't be surprised if you scored a 100 on this.) Ah, the things I do to cure insomnia.
-Make him spend it all, Mac!
-Am I the only one who finds this "scientific", "computerised" (whatever the hell that means) survey that came out this week saying Barack Obama was the most liberal Senator to be an absolute joke? No Russ Feingold? No Bernie Sanders?( a self-described Socialist) I mean come on. They also had Joe Biden ranked number 3 most liberal. Another example why anything put out by a "conservative think-tank" should be viewed with suspicion.
-Can Barack and Hillary strike a balance in a debate? It's either the Jerry Springer show or a love fest. I half-expected them to start making out on Thursday.
-The Iraq strategy of both Clinton and Obama seem like the worst of both worlds to me. Okay, so we reduce the number of troops to the point where they can do nothing to keep the country from spiraling out of control, but we leave a smaller force there that will be less able to defend itself so we keep having American casualties? How is this a good idea? I've said it before and I'll say it again; I want there to be a large number or none at all. I believe this war was a mistake from day one, but a half-ass solution is worse to me than choosing between what we have now and a complete withdrawal.
-I for one am glad people like Ann Coulter are not endorsing Senator McCain. If she had one less synapse firing in her brain, she'd be in a coma.
-I'm really into the Dropkick Murphys these days.
-I'm considering spending my economic stimulus package money on a tattoo for my chest. The ideas I have are a) some type of flaming skull b)Old Glory c) the words "No Control" or d) the words "Liberty or Death". I am open to suggestions.
-I think the worst thing to happen for Mike Huckabee's campaign was when he increasingly transitioned from being seen as "former governor" to "former minister". I don't know if this is something done by the campaign or by the media, but I think this was, along with that stuff about changing the constitution and sodomizing people with flag poles the undoing of his campaign.
-Larry King used to do a stream-of-thought column in usa today (much like the one I'm doing right now, only with shorter sentences) in which he would impart such deep wisdom as "I have no tolerance for people who commit rape". Some deep thought right there.
-Al Qaeda (how the hell do you spell that anyway?) is now using women with Downe's Syndrome as human bombs. I'm not shocked by the fact that these are evil bastards, but this caught even me off guard. Do you think they just sat around going "what's the most evil thing we could possibly do today? Oh, I know. We'll use mentally handicapped people to blow up a pet-market full of schoolboys who have the day off! When I hear stuff like this it makes me hope that a) There is a literally burning hell and b) that God grades on a curve.
-If you've still got the piece of paper you were using for the Senators quiz, go to www.cnn.com (or www.foxnews.com if you prefer), look at all of the stories they have links to on their front page. Now count how many are actual news and how many are simply sensationalistic headlines. Usually stories like "celebrity x reportedly nailing celebrity y" or "dildo sales up 20%" or "cute child reunited with cute puppy" outnumber stories like "Are Pakistan's nukes secure?" or "Skyrocketing price of rice endangers world's poor" by a ridiculous margin. Is it safe to say the word "news" is false advertisement at this point?

Book Review: The Silence of the Rational Center.

2008-01-31T21:49:00.000-07:00

I just finished re-reading The Silence of the Rational Center: Why American Foreign Policy is Failing, by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. I originally read it last summer and found it to be one of the 2 best books on politics/ government I read all of last year. The main argument of the book is that foreign policy, more than any other area of government requires thoughtful, fact-based analysis that rarely makes for entertaining debate and doesn't exactly fit into a 30-second sound byte. The overarching point is that we, as Americans prefer what the authors term "the Big Idea". From "Manifest Destiny" to "Imperialism of Righteousness" to "Freedom on the March", we prefer a grand vision to boring analysis of pros and cons of a particular action. At times this has been a good thing, for example the idea of personal liberty laid out in the U.S. constitution has served us well. In recent times an over-simplified cable-news-friendly view of events has not. The experts on foreign policy issues generally take a much more pragmatic approach. This group constitutes the "rational center".
Analysed in the book are:
-Cable news, which far from shedding light on a subject usually either involves name calling between 2 or more opposing talking heads who usually have no expertise in whatever they're discussing but are picked for their fiery rhetoric.
-How the "rational center" is supposed to function. Keeping emotion from carrying policy makers off during times of national stress, balancing ideals and actual policy in times of crisis, and how it has failed miserably at certain instances (McCarthyism, the lead-up to the Iraq war.)
-The disastrous results when "big ideas" combine with "big media" to shape public opinion through a format that de-emphasizes rational discussion, and turning complex policy challenges into undifferentiated, apocalyptic threats to the nation's very existence. This format also conditions viewers to imagine that foreign policy consists of clear, binary choices.
-The use of blind patriotism and fear to make people more susceptible to the "big idea".
-A good deal of the book examines the role of "think tanks" that look to advance their agendas by twisting data to fit a preconceived notion, and the phenomenon of "false expertise".
- A chapter is devoted to "experts" like Noam Chomsky or Paul Krugman on the left and several prominent "neocons", many of whom are famous for political positions on areas they have no special training, experience, or insight into.
-A chapter is dedicated to "elites and the use of force". Many people think we have a hawk party and a dove party in this country, but looking at our political history, a more accurate description would be a hawk party (Democratic) and a super-hawk party (GOP). Examined in this section is how political elites view military force as a policy tool.
-A chapter is spent looking at fighting insurgencies. The most interesting part of this to me is that almost no Democratic nation has fought a successful counterinsurgency campaign on foreign soil since at least 1940. This is followed by a 4-page list of conflicts and the results in that time span. The only successful counter-insurgency mentioned in the book is the one China fought against Tibet, using tactics not generally available to democratic nations (i.e. genocide). The failure rate of insurgencies is very, very low.
-The problems facing intelligence gathering agencies are detailed.
-The last section of the book examines the future of U.S. relations with China. A "big idea" leading to war with Iraq is one thing, but the same thinking leading to a confrontation with China would be catastrophic. The authors then lay out potential areas of conflict (for example, in another 20 years China will very likely demand at least 99 million barrels of oil per day. The world currently produces 84 million a day, a number that is not likely to rise.) and several ideas for how to deal with our relations to China as an ascending superpower.
-The book goes into a lot of detail, but I'm trying to keep this post shorter than the actual book. Overall an excellent read for anyone interested in political discourse that doesn't involve calling people idiots, traitors, etc. but deals with subject matter in a more scholarly fashion.