Vox Potpourri

Did Microsoft just show Google a thing or two?

2010-09-13T17:43:00.000-06:00

Microsoft found out that the Russian government is using the excuse of investigating software piracy to seize computers from advocacy groups and opposition newspapers. They quickly issued a change to their software licensing to protect those groups. As the New York Times states it:

The company essentially prohibited its Russian division from taking part in piracy cases against government opponents and declared that it would thwart any attempt by the authorities, in this country and elsewhere, to use such inquiries to exert political pressure.

That is a very bold, decisive move. It's not the sort of move one would necessarily associate with Microsoft, who has been quite loyal to profits as a general rule, but one I welcome. I suppose, in my jaded, calloused way, that it could have been a calculated move to take advantage of Google's bad press over bowing to political pressure, but such moves don't usually happen that quickly. Somebody high up in Microsoft had the guts to assess the situations and say "No, we won't allow this".

Good for them.

Though I can't help but wonder what Russia will do in response. This is the stuff of a Tom Clancy novel: Megacorp vs. megapower. And like a Tom Clancy novel, I suspect much of the maneuvering will be out of public sight.

Bullies, Islam, and September 11

2010-09-11T18:15:00.000-06:00

When I was in junior high school I got picked on fairly regularly by bullies. I did my best to ignore them or stay out of their way hoping that they would eventually leave me alone. It didn't work. There was one particular bully who sat behind me in one of my classes. One day as we were leaving class he got behind me and started hitting me over the head with his book. Something inside me snapped. I turned around, grabbed him by the throat, and pushed him into some desks. Without stopping to see what happened to him I turned and left the room.

The next day he challenged me to a fight. I agreed to meet him, but the anxiety got to me and ended up going home feeling sick. I had one of my friends give him a message that I'd face him the next day. Oddly enough, he never mentioned it again. And he never bothered me again. I suspect my one act of mindless violence was sufficient to shake his image of me as passive and him as tougher than me. It was no longer worth the risk of what I might do next time.

Today we have a couple of situations in the news. One is the proposed mosque not far from the site of the World Trade Center that was destroyed by Muslim extremists nine years ago. The other is a church in Florida threatening to burn copies of the Koran in protest of the aforementioned mosque. These are both fine examples of what is right vs. what is legal.

It is quite legal to build a mosque near Ground Zero. It's their property, and they should be able to do what they want with it. That's how America works. It's a good system. But that does not mean that it's right for Muslims to build there. It shows an extreme disregard for their fellow Americans. Worse, it looks for all the world like another link in the chain of Muslim mosques built on the sacred sites of their conquered enemies. It is simultaneously a deliberate poke in the eye of a people Muslims have considered enemies for decades and a test of will to see how weak that enemy is.

Unfortunately, because we are America, and because our laws ensure certain freedoms--including the right to be deliberately offensive and disrespectful--we have to allow this. It is important that we allow this, because American culture and law are the direct antithesis of Sharia law and culture. Whether we admit it or not, we are in a battle of ideals, and the world is watching. Sometimes adherence to ideals is more important than defending them.

On the other side we have Rev. Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran to protest the Ground Zero mosque. They have come under pressure from many angles not to go through with it. Much of that has been from their fellow Americans. Now, I agree that burning copies of the Koran is not the right thing to do. But it is legal. Just as legal as building a mosque on legally obtained property. Rev. Jones--who has announced that they will not go through with it--is well within his rights as an American to burn any religious text he desires, so long as he complies with other appropriate legal statutes (ie. fire code).

What makes Jones' threat wrong is that it doesn't mesh with Christian principles. We (Christians) are supposed to be long-suffering, patient, and turn the other cheek. We are to respect others and their beliefs. We are supposed to love our neighbors, especially those who wrong us. That is what is wrong with the Koran burning, and nothing else.

But what is more disturbing is the number of people who called on Jones' church to stop their plans not because it was against Christian principles, but because they were afraid that Muslims would be inflamed to anger and hurt Americans. This is not some vague, paranoid fear, either. We know there are plenty of Muslims capable of and willing to carry out such violence. Which brings us back to my story of the bully from my youth.

Islam may be a peaceful religion, but it's the violent side of Islam--the bullies--currently in the driver seat. There are quite likely a majority of Muslims around the world who just want to leave their own lives in peace and not offend anyone. But they are keeping silent. They are doing nothing to reclaim control of their religion from the violent extremists. They are complicit through their silence. They are enabling the bully. They are the parents who turn a blind eye to their child's behavior.

Those bullies have chosen the United States and all other freedom-loving nations as their enemy. They know they are not strong enough to defeat us outright, but they are patient. They know they just have to wear us down and break our will to fight. Unlike the bully of my youth, we can't just defeat them once and expect them to go away. If we strike back they will do their best to avoid the blow and await another chance to strike.

The only way to defeat them is to consistently answer every blow with at least as much violence in return. Trying to make peace will not do it. If they were interested in peace they would have made peace long ago. They don't want peace. They want to defeat us, to subjugate us, and build more mosques on our holy sites. To do that they don't need to defeat us in combat. They merely have to beat down our will to fight back.

So that is what is so distressing about the situation with Rev. Jones' church. I'm sure there was plenty of pressure on them from Muslims not to desecrate their holy book. That is understandable and right. But for other Americans to pressure them out of fear of the consequences shows that the Islamist bullies are winning. Some Americans, it seems, would rather voluntarily give up their freedoms and rights than face a violent enemy. They continue to hope that if we don't do anything to offend the Muslims they will leave us alone.

And perhaps for the majority of Muslims that is true. But they're not in control. The bullies are. Laying low and trying not to cause offense will not work with them any more than it did for me in my youth. It's our existence they find offensive. It's our freedom that offends them. When we voluntarily give up those freedoms they are just emboldened to continue. They're making progress toward their goal, so why wouldn't they continue? The only thing they would enjoy more than conquering and subjugating us is for us to surrender, either piecemeal or wholesale.

So as much as I don't want it to be that way, I see no other option than to continue to fight back, meeting violence with violence. We can't afford to worry about the innocents caught in the middle. It's the innocents who are the key to this. Only when the silent, peaceful Muslim majority sees that those in control are only making things worse for them will they rise up and push them out. Until then they can sit on the sidelines, claiming to want to live in peace, but all the time quietly cheering the home team that made the enemy look foolish once again.

Only when Muslims come to realize there are negative consequences to the actions of those they allow to run the show will they do something to stop it. Unfortunately I see no alternative than to make sure every act of violence by the extremists is answered with violence, even if it harms the "innocent."

That is what happened in Iraq. Now that we've pulled out most of our troops the media is admitting that we succeeded in winning the hearts of the people. That could not have been possible, strange as it may seem, without having invaded Iraq in the first place. Our invasion placed extreme hardship on the Iraqi people. It put them in danger every day from other Muslims. But all the while our own troops did their best to play by the rules. They represented American ideals, and they did it well. Yes, there were terrible mistakes along the way, but we also stayed true to our ideals in punishing our soldiers who failed to live up to our ideals. Those failures taught Iraqis as much about who we are as our successes.

The Iraqi people took notice. The extremists were not the ones trying to build up their country and protect their families. It was the Americans. The Americans, they realized, weren't there to conquer, but to protect themselves and others and to leave as soon as that was no longer necessary. The extremists were just there to cause as much death and havoc as possible--to keep the Iraqi people miserable as long as possible.

But they failed. They failed because this was all being played out in their front yard with Iraqi innocents paying the price for Muslim belligerence. They saw Americans living up to their ideals and doing the job Iraqis knew they should have been doing themselves. It embarrassed them, but it also helped them get the guts to start standing up for themselves as well.

Iraq is in miniature what the War on Terror (or are we allowed to call it that now? War on Vague Unnamable Threat?) should be. The Muslim people need to be made responsible for the violence committed in their name. If they truly are a religion of peace, they need to be made to stand up for themselves and deal with the maniacs at their head. But they're not likely to do that until they themselves feel threatened.

What I am NOT advocating is for individuals to start committing violence against Muslims. I am very much against our doing anything at all to persecute Muslims living in our country and abiding by our laws. Those who break the law should be punished through the law. Those who abide by our laws should be made as welcome as possible and encouraged to prosper. That is also an effective weapon against the extremists.

When I speak of violence, I speak only of violence at the national level, instigated by the state against the states responsible for the provocation. I speak of violence as a tool of policy, where specific actions are taken in pursuit of specific goals, and not out of revenge or malice. And in every case we should make it clear we are doing it because we see no alternative, and will protect and support any and all innocents who are willing to stand up and hold their leaders accountable.

It's not a great solution. I don't like having to advocate violence. But the Muslim extremists leave little option. They are bullies, and bullies only understand one thing. Until we make the use of violence undesirable they will continue to use it. That requires violence on our part--perhaps even disproportionate violence.

Some will say that makes us no better than them. They would be naive and intellectually dishonest. We are not seeking to conquer their land or convert them to our religion or even our way of life. Quite the opposite. They are seeking to conquer us and convert us to their religion, which is a way of life. They are seeking to do so violently. We have a right to defend ourselves, both legal and moral. Who are they to not just claim their religion is superior (that's nothing new, and I feel the same way about my religion), but to enforce it through violence? That is unacceptable.

Again, I don't want it to come to more violence. I really don't. I want the peace-loving Muslims to police their own, cut off support for the extremists, and take control of their own religious identity. I want them to be able to do it bloodlessly if they can. But if they insist on sitting idly by while their religion is subverted and used to attack me and my family, I can only be patient for so long before I have to assume that their silence is assent and they are just as much the enemy as the extremists they allow to rule.

I keep hearing there are liberal, secular, and moderate Muslims out there who refuse to accept the violent aspects of Islam. I'd like to think that's true. I'd like to think that the Muslims around me are just such people--they came to America, the heart of secularism, after all. Surely that wasn't an accident. But I very much want more than to hear about them. I want to see them. I want to see them stand up and take back their religion. Soon. Please.

Those inane Facebook quizzes

2010-07-01T14:15:00.000-06:00

I don't get into many of the little games, quizzes, or applications that pop up on Facebook, but today my curiosity got the better of me. Perhaps I was just bored--I dunno. But it came up on my wall that someone had been answering questions about me. I get those fairly regularly, but there's something about having to give away my personal info that makes me hesitate to find out just what it is someone wrote about me.

Well, today I decided to check. Just this once. It seems people have been answering a LOT of questions about me. And I admit that I'm now curious as to who some of them were. Not curious enough to play the game to earn enough credits to have the answers revealed, mind you, but curious nonetheless.

But even without knowing who gave certain answers, I have to admit it was interesting. Some samples:

Do you think that Thom Stratton can throw a football with a spiral? No
HEY!!!!!!!!!! I'm not THAT big a dork!

Do you think that Thom Stratton could shoot someone if they had to? Yes
Hmmmm... makes me sound a little...dangerous! I LIKE it!

Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever been in a fist fight? No
Technically true. Fists weren't actually used.

Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever fooled around at work? Yes
I'm hoping this came from one of my friends' young children who think that means "goofed off".

Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever cheated on a test? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever gone to a strip club? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever lied in an interview? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever smoked? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever taken money for a bribe? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton speeds when driving? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton spends more than an hour on facebook everyday? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton would lie for you? No
Do you think that Thom Stratton would pull a fire alarm as a prank? No
I'm actually flattered. I may not sound very exciting, but I think having a reputation like this is pretty good! Besides, don't forget that people think I can shoot someone if I have to! ;-)

Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever had a crush on you? Yes
There are at least a few of my FB friends for which this would be true. I admit it. I've had fine taste in crushes (not as good as my taste in a wife, mind you!). Though I still wince about how I made one instance known. I was...young and clueless. Moving right along...

Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever had stitches? Yes
True. Six stitches in my finger from the rusty edge of a dump bin. Not even my most dramatic scar.

Do you think that Thom Stratton has ever kissed a girl? Yes
That's a safe enough bet, as I'm married with three kids.

Do you think that Thom Stratton is cute? No
Not even when I pull my wittoh pouty-pout face?!

Do you think that Thom Stratton is dumber than Jessica Simpson? No
Whew!

Do you think that Thom Stratton wants to 'come out of the closet'? No
Seriously, what kind of question is that? That could either mean I'm not gay, or that I'm gay, but not wanting to come out! Clarity here, folks!

Do you think that Thom Stratton would look good in a bikini? No
Does anyone even wants to THINK about how Thom Stratton would look in a bikini? NO!!!!!! Especially not me! Thank you SO much for putting such a horrible image in our heads!

Do you think that you can beat Thom Stratton in a fight? No

I'm going to have to guess this is one of my friends' kids again...

Do you think Thom Stratton has good taste? No
Obviously not when I picked YOU for a friend...so nyeh! ;-)

Do you think Thom Stratton is cool? Yes
Now THIS person....I like!

Have you ever had a crush on Thom Stratton? Yes
Rrrrrreeeeeeaaaallyyyyyy....... I have to admit that if one question were to get me to earn the points to reveal who, it would have to be this one. Or two. Two people admit to having had a crush on me. Kinda...makes my day!

Is Thom Stratton's profile picture cute? Yes
In a "poor boy, he sure tries hard" sort of way, no doubt.

Would you go skinny dipping with Thom Stratton? No
Good!

And last but not least....

Do you think that Thom Stratton should pass on the chocolate cake? No
I couldn't agree more!

Soccer and world politics

2010-06-27T22:42:00.000-06:00

Bill Plaschke, writing for the LA Times, tries to convince America that we should stop coddling our soccer team and start expecting more of them. He convinced me, at least. I, probably like most Americans, had no idea our team was as good as it is. We're always led by the media to believe that they're the perpetual underdogs, forever destined to mediocrity in the great, world-unifying sport of soccer.

In short, I think America's view of our soccer team is a reflection of our own world view. Yes, we love our football, baseball, and basketball, but those are sports of our own making. It's okay to excel at them, because they're our games, and it's understandable we would do well. Especially since we're the only ones who really play them. Other countries may play similar games, but they inevitably change the rules to suit their own fancies (and ensuring they won't have to face the expectation of being able to challenge the Americans).

Not so with soccer. Soccer is the rest of the world's game, and America is a late-comer to the party. We should not expect too much of our team because, for all our American exuberance and enthusiasm, we're still young upstarts on the world stage (never mind that most countries in the world, as they exist today, are younger than America--it's our culture that is young and always will be). The part of America that cares at all what other countries think of us feels that we have much to apologize for, including not enthroning soccer at the center of the sports universe like so many other countries do.

Don't get me wrong. America has made our share of mistakes in our relatively short history. But being America isn't one of them. While much of the world contributed to the cause of World War II, it was America that proved to be the solution. Look up to European culture, intellect, and history all you want, but that same culture, intellect, and history is what bred the Third Reich, allowed it to grow unchecked, and then nearly succumbed to it. America, typically late to the party, pulled the rest of the world's fat out of the fire.

That same world has resented us for that, and has resented us for not allowing them to put the blinders back on again and go back to their cultured, intellectual lives. America called the spade of Communism a spade and refused to let the rest of the world ignore it. We seem to remember our lessons a bit longer than the rest of the world. Yes, we made our mistakes. Yes, we had our Vietnam. But without us, the world would have done...well, pretty much the same things they do today, with a few exceptions: drag their feet, hem, haw, and throw up a barricade of red tape to keep from having to actually stand up to the hydra heads of fascism. "Yes, we're against it in principle and all, but who are we to judge? One man's fascist is another man's liberating hero, etc. And shame on you, America, for always being so...so...un-nuanced about such things!"

Unfortunately, a continuous diet of anti-American sentiment and cultural criticism has taken its toll on the segment of America who believe that it is better to be liked than to be respected (or worse yet, right). They've grown increasingly embarrassed at the rest of the country's refusal to do obeisance to the world's superior culture and open-mindedness. They blanch at the continued audacity of labeling our baseball championships a world series (though really, who but the Japanese can challenge any American team? Who but the Japanese even play a version of baseball even close to what we have?). They want to crawl into a deep hole every time an American president goes all "cowboy" on a foreign fascist state. And one way they can atone for being American is to downplay our team's performance in the one, highly-visible sport we have come to share with the rest of the world.

As Plaschke rightly points out, Americans have been playing organized soccer for over 30 years now. While that's certainly not as long as other countries, it's plenty of time for a country of our population, talent pool, and monetary resources (not to mention love of just about any sport that comes along, as evidenced by the sudden interest in lacrosse) to become a world competitor. And, though most Americans probably don't know it, the American team was ranked 14th in the world coming into the World Cup. By all rights our inclusion in the final 16 teams should have been a foregone conclusion, not some amazing Miracle-on-Ice moment. The fact that our team (which has appeared in six straight World Cup tournaments) lost to Ghana (ranked 32nd, and appearing for their second time) should be cause for heads rolling when they return, not "Better luck next time" head-pats. Ghana was the underdog here, not the US!

So for Americans to get so worked up over our team's amazing World Cup run is at best ignorance, and at worse a reverse-psychology ploy by our cultural apologists to cover their embarrassment that we darn Americans are trying to excel again. By acting as if our winning a World Cup would take a miracle they send a message to the rest of the world: Pay no attention to those players on the field. They don't know better. The more enlightened of us know we aren't deserving of actually winning against our obvious superiors. This is, after all, your game, not ours, so we have no business rising to dominance. I'm sure our players will realize that eventually if you'll just be patient with them.

I don't have a problem with America not being the best in every sport. We're not, and quite frankly, I cheered for the opponents of our last Olympic "Dream Team". America should never dominate just because it's our right to. Inventing the game has nothing to do with it. We have to earn it like everyone else. But it runs both ways. If we should ever become a world soccer powerhouse, then good for us! We shouldn't have to apologize for being better. We shouldn't have to enfeeble our team by purposely skewing or ignoring the facts.

Nor should America have to apologize for having a different moral compass than the rest of the world--or perhaps for even having one at all. For all their disdain for America's superpower status, who is the first country they look to when they decide that somebody should do something about problem X over there? They want us to play world police and clean up the world's messes, and they want to simultaneously criticize and complain about us the entire time we're doing so. It saves them having to risk their resources and troops in getting it done, and allows them deniability later on: "No, no, we didn't want America to do that to you! Didn't you hear how much we badmouthed them and tried to talk them out of it?!"

Some day their plan is going to work too well. I believe it is already starting to. Tired of being continually beat up for doing what's right, we won't be there someday when the really need us. If Russia re-conquers eastern Europe and Iran turns the middle-east into a sea of glass and cuts off the world's oil supply they'll perhaps wish they hadn't played the game so well. But they'll be able to take consolation from the fact that the Americans never won a World Cup.

How "The Empire" sealed it

2010-06-24T08:44:00.000-06:00

MSNBC.com has an article out today about how the Star Wars franchise owes most of its success to "The Empire Strikes Back". Though Star Wars had been successful, very few sequels have measured up to the original. The success of "Empire" confirmed the franchise's staying power.

“It blew people away,” Roffman said. “It had this great integrity as a film and moved the story forward in a meaningful way. That was the birth of Yoda, the one where you realize Darth Vadar was Luke’s father, and (the film) looked like this simple black-and-white fantasy, and gave these layers of meaning and complexity.”

One of the most key pieces to the movie's success almost didn't happen. Director Irvin Kershner, who is largely credited for bringing depth to the series, was not interested in the project.

“I said I was not interested in this project,” Kershner said. “I responded that he had already done it, and I didn’t see what I could contribute. I also didn’t want to do it because none of us knew if a follow up to ‘Star Wars’ would work. It was a lot of pressure.”

Ultimately, Lucas persuaded Kershner to direct “Empire” by saying he’d put his own money into it, and would let Kershner have creative control. “George said, ‘This will be your picture, you’ll be on your own, and I won’t be looking over your shoulder,’” Kershner said. “That’s when I finally said, ‘OK, I’ll do it.’ And George kept his word.”

I know for myself "The Empire Strikes Back" remains my favorite of the six Star Wars movies. It was also the movie that helped me switch my idolization from Luke Skywalker to Han Solo. Han was cool in that movie. He continued his penchant for wise-cracks and brilliance under pressure, but added a new layer of sophistication. He got the girl. He had interesting friends. He had a noble side.

Yes, Luke was learning the Force and all that, but while Han's character developed, Luke's remained much the whiney, self-absorbed dork he had been in the first movie. And though his encounter with Vader changed him, we didn't really get a chance to see it until the third movie, by which point he had become the somber, brooding Jedi. Yes, he was key to the entire series, but he wasn't all that fun anymore. With Han Solo we got drama and fun!

The recent discovery of Star Wars by my children has given me a chance to go back and gain new appreciation for the newer trilogy, but the original trilogy will always remain my favorites. And "The Empire Strikes Back" will always lead the pack.

Fathers Day thoughts

2010-06-20T20:46:00.000-06:00

I miss my dad. He was a character and a tease, and could sometimes embarrass us, but he was also a fairly wise man. He knew quite a bit about what made people tick. I wish I could hear whatever advice he'd have for me right now. I've taken a rather unusual and bold turn in my life, and I could use his reassurance that I'm not getting in over my head.

What was one thing we could always count on with Dad. He believed in us kids. Even when he may have wanted to throttle us, he still could see our potential. When the first of us boys (not me) got brave enough to run a business on their own he was right there to cheer him on and help in whatever way he could. And he had more help to offer than we probably ever would have given him credit for.

I suspect most dads are not truly appreciated by their children--at least not until those children get children of their own. Now that I'm "grown up" and being a father myself I'm starting to see and appreciate what my father went through. Then I only saw that my dad worked most of the day and was too tired to do much when he got home. Now I realize that he wasn't doing that because he wanted to. He had an obligation to provide for his family, and he did it. He took whatever jobs he had to in order to do it.

For my Dad there was no such thing as the "ideal career path". He worked a farm, taught school, drove truck, sold vacuums and appliances, restocked stores, cleaned laundromats and churches, repaired sewing machines, and managed PE equipment. While he undoubtedly enjoyed some jobs more than others, he never took the attitude of, "I'm a _____, that's what I'm good at, and that's the only work I'll do." If there was a job he could do, he would do it.

He volunteered a lot, too. He was PTA president for awhile. He was a scout leader. He was a scout committee chairman for a long, long time. He organized church libraries. He organized church fundraisers. He visited the elderly--something we are all often assigned to do in our church, but he took it quite seriously. I don't think he ever turned down a request to serve.

My dad was forty before I was even born. That just occurred to me. I supposed I knew that, but I just realized the significance of it. He was not exactly young anymore, and he was putting in twelve hour days before coming home to spend a few more hours fixing sewing machines. No wonder he wasn't exactly the most playful of dads. But I don't recall suffering for attention.

Anyway, I guess the bottom line is that my dad was a good man who worked hard for and loved his family. Unfortunately I took my time having a family of my own, so I didn't come to understand him very well until he was already gone. There is so much I would like to tell him now that is just going to have to wait. And I'm going to have to muddle through these changes in my life without the benefit of his wisdom, even though I'm positive he would understand exactly what I'm going through and would know just what to say.

I miss you, Dad. I love you. I'm sorry I didn't say it often enough.

Obama's brings the pitchforks and torches against BP

2010-06-18T11:30:00.000-06:00

Jazz Shaw at Pajamas Media recently looked at the remarks by Congressman Joe Barton and had this to say:

But while the remarks could certainly qualify for some sort of MTV Music award for inept commentary, and Barton has already been forced into a mea culpa, one nagging problem remains. The Texas congressman’s statements were politically tone deaf … but he was also correct.

He goes on to explain how, while BP should by no means avoid responsibility for this mess, it is not the President's place to force them into paying damages.

We do, in fact, have laws in this country which cover precisely this type of scenario. Plaintiffs in large scale disputes such as this have a right to petition in court and have a third party arbitrate disputes, collect funds, and disperse them to the injured parties. But in each case one of two things happens; either the company does it voluntarily to improve their public image or a court directs them to take this action. There is no provision for an elected official from the executive branch to simply order such an action by fiat.

True, BP may have been under no legal constraint to follow Obama’s dictate. But given the fact that their popularity around the world right now isn’t exactly at an all time high, the president pretty much had them over a barrel of oil. And it does, as [John] Hawkins opined, carry the stench of being “lawless, creepy, and dictatorial.”

He concludes with the following:

It would be a shame if the Gulf Coast denizens who rely on fishing and tourism for a living actually wind up waiting longer and receiving less because of President Obama’s desperate need to appear as if he’s doing something — anything! — in the face of this Deepwater Disaster film which simply refuses to go away. And even if the slush fund works perfectly and everyone is paid in a timely fashion, the day may yet come when savvy legal minds will find time to ask the president exactly where he found the constitutional authority to demand such a solution from a private company without the benefit of a court.

I am all for BP paying for as much of this mess as they can. But they are not solely responsible in this mess. Not when we hear reports of would-be cleanup vessels being stopped due to insufficient life vests. Didn't the President just say this is a crisis? In crisis situations we don't stand on largely-irrelevant bureaucracy.

I, frankly, never thought it was appropriate to hold Bush responsible for the response to Hurricane Katrina. I do not think it's appropriate to hold Obama responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill, either. But the Democrats, in insisting on the former, have reaped the latter. What we need from the President is leadership--someone to cut through all the red tape to get the best and most resources into play to clean up the mess. A single call from Obama could have had the Coast Guard out of the way in no time. Let the courts handle who is to blame and who has to pay for it. Let BP come forward voluntarily with an offer of some initial pay-out to help those affected.

Unfortunately we have a President who does not know how to lead, but does have a habit of reaching for his bat whenever big business is involved. His need to beat up business goes beyond sticking up for the little guy. Little guys are employed by big businesses, too, after all. No, his need to bash business approaches the pathological. His need to be seen bashing big business borders on the narcissistic. Meanwhile we still have an oil slick problem, and all the leaders who could be doing something about this are wrapped up in some sort of Pyrrhic kabuki.

When I hear "Obama" and "leaks" together this is not what I think about

2010-06-12T15:39:00.000-06:00

I saw this headline over on MSNBC.com today:

My first thought was of the Gulf oil spill, followed by an "Oh really?!" The article is actually about administration and staff members leaking information to the press.

Now I'm not one of those people who immediately assign ulterior motives to everything the press does, but that particular headline does seem a bit suspicious at a time when people are questioning Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill. On the other hand, they could just be fond of making the President look like a brand of paper towels.

Has Cassini found life on Titan?

2010-06-09T17:42:00.000-06:00

Scientists are reluctant to say so, and are determined to exhaust all other explanations first, but something unusual is happening with the hydrogen, acetylene, and methane levels on Saturn's largest moon. One explanation is a microbial form of life conjectured five years ago. Read the whole story from Popular Science.

Some thoughts on Helen Thomas' retirement

2010-06-07T22:22:00.000-06:00

I suppose I should be happy. The left got caught in their own hypocrisy and someone's career was ended as a result. I don't find that at all satisfying, really. There is something deeply disturbing about all of this. Several somethings. Let me see if I can put a finger on it.

This was not some quasi-journalist talking head like Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh. This was a "real" journalist with a long and distinguished career for a distinguished news organization. That she felt comfortable letting out something like that is a sad commentary of where journalism has gone. I don't harbor some rose-colored notion of a "Golden Age of Journalism" when reporters gathered and reported facts in an unbiased manner. But there is something wrong when journalists so easily decide to make news instead of reporting it.
There are no doubt many on the right who are chalking up a scalp over this. "Bravo us! We finally caught one of them in the same sort of thing they get on us over, and we made it stick!" What a rotten world we are creating for ourselves where we lay in wait for one another trying to catch them being their worst selves.I don't want to live in that world. People make mistakes. You take anyone who makes a living by talking, and eventually you are going to catch them in a moment when they talk too much and think too little. The result is that the only people who will be able to take and hold power are those who can completely disconnect their words from their thoughts. Those people should never have power!
There are people who make their living by regularly saying much, much worse than anything Thomas said. Because they call themselves comedians and entertainers they get a pass. Again, do we really want to live in a world where people can say anything they want without fear so long as they put a laugh-track to it? Do we really want to live in a world where people don't actually make us laugh so much as race one another to the depths of vulgarity, incivility, and depravity in an effort to make us laugh at our own discomfort?
Our political domain has degenerated to the point of resembling the very Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the center of this whole incident. Each side unleashes political violence on the other, confident that they are only defending themselves, and that the other side started it. Who actually started it is so obscured by now that it's largely irrelevant. As I tell my squabbling children, I'm not interested in who started it. I'm interested in seeing who is going to have the courage to stop first.
The very battlefields that our two warring political factions choose to do battle in and the tactics they choose to employ tells me that it stopped being about who has the better ideas some time ago. No one is really interested in helping America anymore. It's about beating the other side. It's scorched earth politics. It's two drunken giants doing battle on an anthill. They're too drunk on piety to do much real harm to one another, but we poor ants are getting caught in the middle and crushed.
There are no real neutral sides in the battle. That Thomas was allowed to go that far unchecked indicates that there was no one interested in stopping her. I won't go so far as some as to accuse all the mainstream media of being in the left's pocket, but I feel it's quite safe to say there are very few journalists remaining interested in just presenting the facts and letting each citizen make up their own mind. Each journalist has their ideology, and will carefully select facts to push their audience in that direction. They'll even find subtle and not-so-subtle ways of telling their audience what to think. This is why I think bloggers are doing so well right now. To quote from Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Pirate of Penzance": "I don't think much of our profession, but contrasted with respectability, it is comparatively honest." Listen to any blogger or journalist for long and you'll detect their agenda. But the majority of bloggers will never pretend they have no agenda at all.
No one will learn a thing from Thomas' fall. No one is going to step back from the battlefield and question whether or not this is all worth it. They'll continue the fight, tooth and nail, while the house burns down around them. I would welcome this if I thought for a moment they would destroy only each other and leave everything else still standing. Unfortunately, I see them dragging the rest of us down with them.

No, I am not happy that Helen Thomas finally went too far and went down in flames. There is nothing to take any satisfaction in here. There is nothing encouraging about any of this. I see things only getting worse.

I need to go read something cheerful before I go to bed.

Vote for Mickey Kaus!

2010-06-01T12:25:00.000-06:00

I just saw his campaign ad. I like it:

I can't vote in California, but I'd dearly like to see both Barbara Boxer sent packing and someone with this sense of humor in Congress. If you are someone who CAN do something about this...please do!

A different perspective on BP

2010-05-25T19:59:00.000-06:00

Tiger Hawk has this interesting perspective to add on the Gulf Oil Spill:

Somewhere within BP true heroes are working night and day to stop the gusher and clean up its consequences. These people -- everybody from petroleum engineers to the rough men and women who work in oil fields in the world's most challenging environments to the machinists and welders who labor around the clock to build the next solution -- are not, in the main, responsible for the disaster. They are responsible for ending it. They are not known to us as individuals. In the current climate, where liberal activists intimidate the families of corporate executives to gain leverage, they no doubt hope to remain anonymous. They are working around the clock, to the point of exhaustion, in conditions, both physical and emotional, more stressful than most American employees (including many who complain about all the stress they are under) can possibly comprehend. They will eventually solve this problem they did not create. At the moment of their success, which no doubt will come, these men and women will have prevented staggering incremental damage. Their only reward, though, will be relief and the satisfaction of a job well done.

Always good to remember before vilifying any company. There are very, very few organizations (even including Congress) that are corrupt from top to bottom. Most companies are full of honest, hard-working people, who do their best for their employers, their families, their communities, and their country. In our rush to blame someone--and surely there are plenty of someones who should take the blame on this--let's not forget that there are good people out there trying to clean up a very bad situation.

Does Peter Jackson hate Aragorn?

2010-05-23T22:37:00.000-06:00

I've been watching Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers extended edition lately. I've never been entirely comfortable with their treatment of the character of Aragorn in the first place, but seeing all the other cut scenes has nearly convinced me they had it in for him. Something about the character made them start sharpening their scalpels to do a major makeover.

Aragorn in the books was not this conflicted slacker they show in the movies. I can understand their taking some liberties with the character. After all, other than their particular roles, there's not a lot of difference between Gandalf and Aragorn in the book. They both are strong, noble, and have a full sense of purpose. They are like two sides of the same coin, determined to see the business through come what may. I can see them making them more different for sake of the movie.

But the way they purposely change significant events in the movie to fit their new narrative really grates on the nerves. Aragorn was able to wrest control of the palantir away from Sauron, not give up in the attempt. And I certainly don't recall him going "all wobbly" at Helms Deep. The Aragorn Jackson builds up is such a wuss that it's actually jarring when he actually suggests they go assault Sauron's gates to draw his armies away from Frodo. What?! Did Aragorn actually suggest something brave? Or is he just wanting to get himself killed so he doesn't have to face Arwen dying? The scene fairly clangs with disconnect between a character that has gone so far afield that he hits a corner and the original intent of the author.

Perhaps that is why my favorite characters in the movie remain Theoden and Eowyn. Gandalf is done well, but he's Gandalf--aloof and unfathomable. Sam is played well, but his character is too simple, as are the characters of Gimli and Legolas. There's no depth to appreciate there. That leaves the only really interesting and heroic characters to Theoden and Eowyn. They are the strong characters that Aragorn is not. What Eowyn sees in Aragorn I have no idea.

To be sure, Viggo does his best with the character given him. I end up liking him in spite of what is done to him. Mortensen imbues the character with a strength and nobility that is not born out by the script itself. Even then, it took me the better part of the first movie to get it straight that Sean Bean was Boromir, not Aragorn. Sean Bean fit the image I had of Aragorn so much better.

But ultimately, just what does Jackson's Aragorn actually do in the film? His character is important to what happens in one instance only--walking the paths of the dead to raise the army that wins the Battle of Minas Tirith. Other than that, he's a throw-away character. Well, that and make it a bit more believable that the hobbits escape the Ringwraiths and make it to Rivendell. After that he becomes Aragorn, Tormented King of Angst, and doesn't surface again until the last half of the third movie. His character could have been left out altogether without much impact on the plot until that point. And after that point as well. He's a buff-studly fighter amongst a group of buff-studly fighters, nothing more.

The ironic thing is that in trying to avoid a static character that starts and ends the movie the same person, Jackson turns Aragorn into exactly the same thing. I don't see any real growth in Jackson's Aragorn. He starts and ends the movie as a man hiding not comfortable in his own skin, but who happens to be good at fighting. He's just going along with the flow, and that's really all he does for the entire movie. He doesn't become anything. He waffles his way from start to finish. At least if he was going to be a stereotype, they could have left him a strong, brave, noble stereotype.

It's enough to make one think that Jackson and company (for he had help in his character assassination) couldn't bear the thought of a character that was noble, just, and true, possessed moral clarity and a strong sense of purpose, and who would see things through to the bitter end because that's just what people do. Did they think that Americans today wouldn't be able to relate to such a character? Well, if that's the case, then why film Lord of the Rings at all? Because that's what the movie is about! How did they read the book so closely and miss that?

To be sure, Jackson's Lord of the Rings will remain one of my all-time favorite movies, because he got so many other things right. He captured the epic scale of the novel, and portrayed so many scenes so much better than even I had envisioned them. He captures many of the crucial themes and does them respectable justice. And he tells a good story. I'm only afraid he told it so well that no one else will ever try it and show how it could and perhaps should have been. There remains much about the books that Jackson never tapped into, and would benefit from better treatment than was given. I hope to see it done in my lifetime.

Ideological purity is counterproductive

2010-05-21T19:32:00.000-06:00

I read a sad-but-amusing blog post over at The Watermelon Blog tonight. The writer's claim is that only atheists can be green. He believes (rather wrongly) that people of religion do not care about the planet because they believe they can get their imaginary friend (God, in his open, inclusive, accepting parlance) to fix everything if they screw it up.

Pardon me, sir, but your ignorance is showing. But even if his assertion was true, what good does it do the green cause to insist that people must first give up religion before they can care about the planet? How does that encourage anyone to even try to reach a compromise in their beliefs? On the contrary, it is an exclusionary, self-defeating tactic that will accomplish nothing.

I am a vegan, and I have learned that people can be vegan for a variety of reasons. Frankly, I don't care what their reasons are--the end result is the same. If everyone became vegan then no more animals would need to be harmed. So if someone wishes to go vegan because of their health, because of environmental concerns, or because the locked chest in their attic told them to, I don't care. If we can come together on something like that, great!

So why should this writer wish to throw down the gauntlet and insist on ideological purity in the green movement? I would think that he would welcome anyone that wishes to go green, whether they believe in the divinity of God or, like him, believe in the depravity of man. How does it help the planet he claims to care so much about to refuse to let anyone one try to save it until they renounce religion?

On the contrary, this person has revealed himself to be just as prejudiced, small-minded, and misguided as he feels religious people to be. He has denounced one religion only to take up another. I fail to see how he has improved himself in the process. He has proven himself the very model of the depraved human race he despises so much.

I, as a vegan with at the very least some green tendencies, who also happens to be religious, believing that God expects us to be good stewards of this planet and everything on it, have little use for people like that. The green movement has no use for people like that.

Obama is now a Luddite? Uh huh.

2010-05-10T10:51:00.000-06:00

Quite a few pundits and bloggers are making quite a bit of Obama's commencement speech at Hampton University, in which he seems to declare war on modern technology:

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

I'm not going to worry too much about his trying to get rid of iPods. That is pretty much ridiculous. His much-lauded youth support would turn on him in an instant. They may anyway, since he seems to denigrate some of the most popular forms of entertainment around while in the same breath claiming he's never used them. Few things rankle youth than adults criticizing their favorite past-times without having given them a fair try.

But frankly, I think Obama is being less than truthful. This is, after all, the same president who had to fight to keep his Blackberry. You're telling me that he wouldn't know how to use an iPod? And while it's possible that Sasha and Malia don't have an Xbox or PlayStation, I'd be very surprised if he's never used one. In any case, such an admission is hardly becoming of the president everyone once lauded as the most tech-savvy president ever.

What is also sad, though, is Obama's apparent lack of historical perspective. While it is certainly true that modern media isn't always reliable as a source of truth, and that crazy ideas can spread like wildfire, this is nothing new. In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson there were rag-sheets and tabloids spreading a constant supply of information not just of of questionable veracity, but out-right libel. Nor was is confined to one side of any issue. While they may not have been spread across the country within seconds, they certainly spread quickly enough to be difficult to combat.

So for Obama to start complaining about this now either shows that he is completely unfamiliar with the history of American political discourse, or that he just doesn't like it when it's used against him. Heaven knows he's benefited from it when it's in his favor.

Welcome to real life, Mr. President. My advice is to start telling the truth yourself. If you and your administration would actually live up to the promises of openness, clarity and disclosure you offered in order to get elected people might actually listen to you instead of going to all of these sources your disparage. We were all hoping for a president who could talk straight and resist the urge to ding everyone who disagrees with him every time he opens his mouth. But it didn't happen. We got another bully pulpit. After awhile we stop listening and look for information elsewhere.

Might I suggest, Mr. President, that you might be better served by learning how to use an iPad yourself? Get out there and see what is being said and what the American people really want rather than barricading yourself in your Washington echo chamber. Perhaps you might begin to understand just why it is you're beating your predecessor to the bottom of the presidential ratings. It's not because people have iPods and PlayStations, Mr. President. It's because they have brains.

What to do with lemons

2010-04-27T15:36:00.000-06:00

If wisdom is to be found on t-shirts and bumper stickers, then I wonder what can be learned from these two bits of wisdom:

1) If life hands you lemons, make lemonade...but without sugar and water your lemonade is gonna stink!

2) If life hands you lemons, take them! Well hey! Free lemons!

Two thoughts. One: Even the best opportunities are usually going to require something from you to make them successful. There's no free ride.

Two: Life will now and then teach you things. Even if it's not immediately applicable, hang on to it. Something will come up where that knowledge will come in handy. While we tend to prize most what we gain at the highest cost, never turn up your nose at knowledge or experience that comes at a low cost.

Someone must be running scared...

2010-04-11T07:54:00.000-06:00

Instapundit spotted a movement to infiltrate and sabotage the Tea Party by "exaggerating" the party's worst elements. In short, they're going to pretend to be racists, hicks, and idiots in order to discredit the movement.

May I suggest that if you have to do that then there is nothing really wrong with the group you hate so much--the problem is YOU. If the Tea Party movement is really full of racists and stupid people, then it will destroy itself. If you have to make it something it is not to destroy it then you've only proven yourself to be paranoid about and/or threatened by something you don't understand (aka racist/prejudiced).

Just further proof that the Left are hypocrites and determined to win the race to the bottom. If you have to resort to such nastiness to win the debate then you ARE the disease, not the cure.

Reid made the right call in withdrawing from church meeting

2010-04-05T08:25:00.000-06:00

I don't have much good to say about Harry Reid, but he was right to pull out of speaking at a church fireside after receiving information/threats that protesters were coming to the meeting to protest.

Reid, you see, is a member of the same church as myself. Though I have to raise my eyebrows at some of the stunts he pulls and wonder how he reconciles his beliefs with his religion, that's ultimately between him and God. I have to assume his local church leaders know his heart better than I do.

But church firesides are not political meetings. They are religious meetings, designed to be spiritual, faith-promoting events in a somewhat informal, more intimate atmosphere than formal church worship services. Having a bunch of angry protesters disrupting such a meeting would benefit no one--certainly not the people who go there in order to have their faith reinforced and hear the quiet reassurances of the holy spirit.

In short, once Reid knew there would be protesters, he knew the meeting would not be successful in its purpose. Rather than subject the attendees to a irreverent, contentious situation that would benefit no one, he chose to cancel his involvement. I appreciate and respect that.

As for the protesters, if they were members of the church they should be ashamed of themselves. They should know better. If they were not, they should find out what they are about to disrupt before they do something like that and show a little respect for others. While I, too, would like to give Reid a piece of my mind, that was not the appropriate venue.

Singing in that good ol' harmony

2010-03-30T10:33:00.000-06:00

I've been using Pandora at work lately to provide some background music, but I haven't been able to take any one station for long before needing a change. Yesterday, however, I created a station around acapella mens groups, and found it kept me going my entire shift.

Do Wop, Vocal Jazz, barbershop--whatever you call it, it covers a lot of ground; from the King's Singers to Boyz II Men, and some amazing groups I'd never heard of, like Tonic Sol Fa. There are covers of old chestnuts to jaw-dropping arrangements of familiar tunes to original works that left me speechless. The King's Singers' cover of Billy Joel's "And So It Goes" about left me in tears. If I had money for it I would have bought at least two or three albums yesterday.

In high school and college I was privileged to sing in several acapella groups. There is nothing quite like singing tight harmonies and energized rhythms with a group of guys that blend well. I've almost always enjoyed making music in a group over solo work, and I miss it.

I remember back before I moved to Boise coming over here for the River Festival any time I heard the Nylons were performing. I remember riding a shuttle bus home from one concert, my brother and I being completely unable to contain ourselves and breaking into song. I'm still a bit surprised we did it, but by golly if we didn't soon have a majority of the passengers joining in. We sang everything we thought people would know, including patriotic songs. That was probably the most enjoyable bus ride I've ever taken, and I still get chills thinking about it.

I think I disappointed my mother when I didn't become a music teacher. I don't regret that decision, but I do sometimes wish I'd tried some other ways to make music pay. I think the unbounded opportunity to make music was one of the main reasons I had a hard time getting out of college.

Right now my life is necessarily focused on supporting and raising a young family. But someday I will find my way back to performing. I don't think I'll be entirely whole until I do.

Is the Left inherently violent?

2010-03-30T09:23:00.000-06:00

I watched a segment of MSNBC's Morning Joe today that really made my skin crawl. It started out fair enough, raising the idea that political violence is perhaps evenly matched on both sides of the political spectrum. I can accept that, even though their immediate examples seem a bit lop-sided to me: A racial epithet and a case of spitting on the Right side vs. death threats against a Republican senator and his family on the Left.

But then the segment took a quick turn into "yes, but" mode by making the apparent claim that the Right's violence is somehow worse because there are Right-leaning pundits on talk radio that incite rage against the government. They placed the burden of proof on Pat Buchanan that the Left is just as bad, then continually discounted his examples because there was no single voice advocating those acts. (I beg to differ; there are incitements aplenty from the Left, including from the Chief Executive himself.)

Think about that for a second. If there is a similar amount of political violence, and such violence from the Right is incited by a few self-proclaimed spokesmen, while such violence from the Left is unorganized and organic, does that not imply that people on the Left are inherently violent? People on the Right have to be stirred up to violence, but people on the Left just commit violence without instigation? Is that really what they want to say, regardless of whether it true?

Is that what amounts to a defense? It's in effect sending a note to the teacher saying "Please forgive Johnny for hitting Suzie yesterday at school. This is not something he learned from TV or from watching us, he's just a naturally violent kid and will sometimes hit others without provocation. But please forgive that, because Seth is also violent at school because of things he learns on Television and from his parents."

Violence is violence, regardless of impetus. The Right continually apologizes for it, condemns it, and warns against it, while the left refuses to even acknowledge it. As any behavioral specialist can tell you, recognizing you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it. In that case, the Right is the more mature, responsible side. The Left is still in denial.

Violence and politics...plenty to go around

2010-03-26T07:47:00.000-06:00

The media is quick to jump on any cases of reported violence against Democrats and their offices, forgetting far too easily that liberals have advocated and engaged in more than their of politically motivated violence. I mean really, has there ever been a WTO conference that didn't include mob violence by protesters?

If there is anything remarkable about the supposed violence against Democrats it's that it's occurring at all. But the way they've been acting lately, it's just as likely that the violence is perpetrated by liberals as it is by conservatives. This administration has managed to tick off just about everyone, so they should only be surprised that it's not worse!

You do not regularly and contemptuously ignore the will of the people without reaping retribution. I do not advocate violence, but to whine and cry about it is just ridiculous. What did you expect? You crammed a bill through that the majority did not want using tactics the majority found reprehensible. Ye reap what ye sow.

Racists under every rock

2010-03-22T19:09:00.000-06:00

The effort to spin America's dislike of the Health Care Bill has begun, using the same old tune: If you disagree with it you're a racist. They're starting to sound like a broken record.

But there are a few glaring holes in that thinking. First off, polls show that over 59% of Americans oppose the Health Care Bill. If they oppose it because of racism, then how did Obama get elected in the first place? At least 10% of those people had to have voted for Obama for him to win.

Secondly, this erroneously assumes that everyone associates the Health Care Bill with Obama. This is not true. I suspect most people associate this bill with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I know I do. This is their bill, even though it was Obama who requested it. I blame them fully for this mess. But I'm white and they are white. Can I be racist against "my own kind?"

Actually, I am racist. I'm bitterly against the politician race. They're certainly not the same species as the rest of us. They are a vile, nasty lot who should never be let near power. This latest fiasco proves it. So if I'm a racist it's because they're making me that way.

And the fact that they immediately assume that opposition to their work is because of racism...well, that's just because they're racist. They hate the American race.

"Health Reform" passes. Remember this in November.

2010-03-21T21:32:00.000-06:00

The House just passed the "Sit Down and Shut Up, America, We're Going to Fix This Even If it Kills You!" Bill, otherwise known as Health Care Reform. It's interesting to note that the MSNBC.com Poll currently shows 59% of voters feel this bill is a bad idea that will screw things up for a long time, compared with only 29% who think it's a good idea. MSNBC polls tend to run liberal, from what I've seen.

What scares me is that the Democrats won't stop here. Now that they know how to ram-rod things through effectively they're not going to be able to resist doing it again and again before November. They know they just signed their political death warrants, so they've got nothing to lose. Scuttle the Ship of State and grab all the gold service pieces they can pocket on the way to the lifeboats.

I am so disgusted with our "representatives" I don't even know where to begin.

Television is bad for you? Who'd have thought!

2010-03-05T09:43:00.000-07:00

MSNBC.com has an article today citing five different ways that television is bad for you. In a nutshell, television:
- Increases your chances of heart disease
- Makes you drink more
- Increases the odds of teenage pregnancy
- Weakens your bones
- Makes parents interact with their kids less

But I'm sure they still maintain it's just the act of watching TV that's bad for you, not the programming they show you.

Democrats throwing Obama under the bus?

2010-03-02T10:37:00.000-07:00

With very interesting timing, the Democrats are now starting to talk about how Obama should be listening to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It's been a long-held opinion of those opposed to Obama's agenda that either Obama failed to recruit the right people for his staff, or that he simply refuses to listen to them. It looks like the Democrats feel there is political capital to be gained by claiming the latter.

A fascinating development, to be sure. I'm sure this is just the beginning of...something. I wonder where this is headed.

International Conflict

2010-02-26T08:24:00.000-07:00

Today the USA hockey team plays the Finnish team in the semi-finals. As I've mentioned before, we're a mixed-nationality house. But all things considered, I hope you'll all understand if I cheer for Finland to win. I mean, come on. Team USA has dominated the medals. Finland has three--and no golds.

I'm cheering for Finland.

Segregation based on health care?

2010-02-25T12:29:00.000-07:00

Where I work they have the president's health care summit on the television. I can't see it, but I can hear it.

Some genius is going on and on about how we eliminated segregation based on gender, disability, and other factors, and now he wants to eliminate segregation based on health care.

This worries me when the people leading this country don't even know the meaning of a simple word. Since when are we setting up "premium coverage only" sections on buses? Where is the "insured only" drinking fountains? Where are the "uninsured" high schools?

Perhaps he knew full well he was using the wrong word, but used it anyway because of it's emotional connotation. Even so, it's probably a good thing I don't know who that was. I lost all respect for him.

Men only do bad things?

2010-02-25T10:50:00.001-07:00

Here's an interesting YouTube video about the disappearance of men and the rise of misanthropy.

Interesting video, but I will take one exception to it. The narrator claims that misandry is a word. Not according to Websters. Misanthropy is the word he may be looking for, and it is accepted by spell-check.

EDIT: I checked in the Oxford English Dictionary, and "misandry" is a word in the British English. But since it's evidently not a word in American English, and MS Word is made by an American company, I wouldn't place too much stock in that particular argument.

If Vonn is drawing all the attention it's not her fault

2010-02-24T20:30:00.000-07:00

It seems US Skier Julia Mancuso is annoyed by teammate Lindsey Vonn's popularity. While her remarks may be true, it's the nature of the sport. And with me, at least, Vonn's popularity is perhaps more deserved.

I admit my opinion is based only on a single medals ceremony; one of the first, when Vonn won gold and Mancuso won silver. Mancuso was wearing, of course, her trademark tiara. And when she took the winners podium she had to add a saucy dance to her waving. Vonn was much more staid, pumping her fists a few times, but otherwise keeping it more dignified. To be fair, both women placed their hands over their hearts for the National Anthem, and it appeared as if Mancuso were even singing along. But the podium dance rubbed me the wrong way. It's a small difference, but Mancuso seemed to be about "look at me", while Vonn seemed to be more about "look at this moment." What can I say? I prefer my winners dignified and a little awed at their success.

Certainly it's Vonn who has the media's attention, and no, it's not fair. But she could have it for all the wrong reasons, too. Ask Bodie Miller what that's like. It's not like Vonn did anything particular to become the media's Face de Olympique. I doubt she would feel at all bothered if the attention were elsewhere.

Mancuso's remarks also belie a predisposition to attention-seeking. The reality for most of us in the viewing audience is that women's skiing gets but a small percentage of the overall attention. Lindsey Vonn is no more important than, say, Apolo Ohno, Evan Lysacek, or Lindsey Jacobellis (how'd you like that kind of attention, Julia?). To assume that America is focused on Lindsey Vonn is untrue at best, delusional at worst.

Relax, Julia. There's enough limelight for everyone. You've already had more of it than I'm likely to ever have. Try to make sure it's not the wrong kind of attention.

Will we turn a blind eye to antisemitism this time too?

2010-02-21T19:59:00.000-07:00

Sweden, where Jews were once given refuge during WWII, is now becoming a hotbed of antisemitism. Does this mean that for all our supposed intellectual and moral progress we're no better today than we were seventy years ago?

I hope not.

Glenn Reynolds on why spirituality is more popular than religion

2010-02-21T09:45:00.000-07:00

Citing a Pew Research Forum report, which cites young people as being spiritual, but not religious, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit had this to say:

Well, that’s because religion often tells you to do things you don’t want to do, or to refrain from doing things you want to do, while spirituality is usually more . . . flexible.

I'm not sure if he considers that a bug of a feature, but he hits the nail on the head. Far too much of the so-called spirituality today centers around the idea of God wanting our attention, but little more. The idea that God may actually expect certain things of us beyond a generic, flexible "being good" is inconvenient at best.

No, the inconvenient truth is that God has a plan for us, and that plan calls for us to meet certain standards of behavior. Attempts to water it down so that we can feel better about ourselves with less effort will not work out well for us in the end. I mean seriously, do you really think you can tell the creator of the universe that "I'm sure you didn't mean all that 'thou shalt/shalt not' business. Here, let me show you what I am willing to do for you, though."?

Good luck with that.

I envy the Dalai Lama

2010-02-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

When recently asked for his opinion on the Tiger Woods situation the Dalai Lama admitted that he did not know who that was. Boy do I wish I could say that.

Once it was explained to him he added:

“Whether you call it Buddhism or another religion, self-discipline, that’s important,” he said. “Self-discipline with awareness of consequences.”

I can't argue with that.

Multi-national households and the Olympics

2010-02-20T21:12:00.000-07:00

My wife is Finnish. Not that American television shows that many competitions where the Finns are competing (unless, of course, there's an American with a good chance of winning competing), but it does make it fun to have more than one nation to cheer for.

Am I glad that Shaun White won the Half-pipe gold? Sure. Am I thrilled that a Finn got second? You bet! With the Finnish ski-jump team not quite living up to its usual powerhouse status so far, I'm all for Finland developing some depth in other areas, too (4 of the top twelve snowboarders going into the final round were Finns).

I'm also backing the Finnish hockey team, just so you know. I want them to beat the Swedes first and foremost, but if they go on to beat Team USA, I'm fine with that. I love my country, but I don't believe can't do with a little humbling from time to time. And if someone's got to do it, why not my adopted country?

Go Finland! Hyää Suomi!

How not to make a sale

2010-02-15T20:32:00.000-07:00

My business partner and I had a conference call from someone who had promised to show us some things that would improve our business. The presentation was light on details, heavy on sales pitch. We were okay with that.

But then he went into full "used-car salesman" mode. When we wouldn't commit to a sale right away he decided to do us a "favor" and go talk to his supervisor. Sure enough, he came back with a wonderful new offer about a third lower than the first one--if we acted right away. We were not about to act right away. We needed time to think about it.

But time was one thing he absolutely did not want to give us. Every time we would tell him we wanted to think about it he would keep countering with various reasons why we didn't need to. Some lovely gems:

- If we didn't like charging the amount to our credit cards he could always set us up a business account so it would be charged to the business. This, frankly, was an insult to our intelligence. Debt is debt, whether it is owed by us or by the company we own. If we aren't sure we can afford it on our personal credit cards we are not going to be any more able to afford it if we charge it to the business. It's real money, regardless of where we charge it.

- When we asked for a couple of days to think it over he initially agreed, but then countered by asking what could possibly change in two days? He added that all that was likely to happen in two days was that we'd talk ourselves out of it. I can't argue with that. He hadn't really made that strong of a case for his company's services. If he had, we'd still feel good about it after a couple of days.

The bottom line was that no matter what we said he wanted us to decided right then and there. People like that annoy me. They obviously do not have faith in their product. They do NOT want you to think about it, which is always a red flag to me that you should do plenty of thinking.

My partner was much nicer than I was. I gave up about 2/3rds of the way into the conversation and walked away. Had it been my phone I would have hung up on the guy. I don't have time for jerks like that. I've got plenty of fly-by-night shysters calling me now that I have a registered business. I don't have that much time to waste on them. I hope to never hear from that one again.

Why I like Country music

2010-02-07T15:28:00.000-07:00

Lately I've become bored with the classical music station when I'm out driving, and the Lite Rock station plays obnoxious trash more often than not, so I once again checked out the Country station. Within a few minutes I heard:

- A song in which the subject acknowledged God's place in their life.
- A song reminding us that our life here on Earth is temporary, and so shouldn't we all do more to help one another along the way?
- A song about how wonderful the singer's wife is.
- A song extolling the virtues of hard work, family, and simple living.

I do like some of today's pop music. But very little of it has to do with me. I'm not in that lifestyle anymore--if I ever was. I'm in a lifestyle that seems to only find its voice in Country music. Not that all Country is that way by any means. There's still plenty of heartache songs, total lust songs, mad at the world songs, etc. to go around. But all in all, Country music is the only genre left that still respects and cherishes the things I respect and cherish.

As I get older I find the message is becoming more important than the medium, and I can overlook the nasal voices, drawls, and twangy guitars that still characterize much of Country music because of its message. If you're looking for sophisticated music you'll probably want to look elsewhere (but then again, you'll also discount much of the music world in any genre). But if you're looking for music that isn't ashamed to stand up for hard work, honesty, religion, fidelity, family, loyalty, patriotism, and traditional values, Country is pretty much it.

I thank God I'm a country boy.

Societal Confusion Over Sex

2010-01-31T20:25:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched "The Proposal" with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, in which Bullock's nasty New York editor character blackmails Reynold's executive assistant character into pretending to be engaged to her so she can avoid deportation. In contemplating the movie afterward I realized that there was a major, glaring hole in the movie--other than the other obvious ones called the plot.

Hollywood is the current champion of free love. They would have us believe that sex is just another past-time like walking the dog or eating chocolate ice cream. They laugh at traditional Christian morality that holds sex to a higher standard. It's as natural as breathing, they would have us think, and there is no reason why anyone shouldn't have sex with anyone under any circumstances, at any time. Love--even familiarity or cordiality--has nothing to do with it.

So why is it that these two characters, while visiting his home, sleep separately? She gets the bed while he gets the floor. These two are going to be pretending to be married for awhile. So why don't they at least share the bed, even if they can't stand each other enough to have sex? It's not like the movie can't go to elaborate, near-Rube-Goldber-ian lengths to get the two to bump into one another stark naked. Why should they have any trouble sharing a bed?

Because this is a romantic comedy. These two character who can't stand one another are destined to fall in love by the end of the movie. Therefore they must NOT under ANY circumstances have sex before they at least realize they are in love. No matter how much Hollywood would like us to think sex and love have nothing to do one another, the viewing audience still cannot separate the two--at least not the female viewing audience, the main consumers of rom-coms.

No, the intended target of this movie still thinks it's romantic that these two obviously are falling for one another, and yet are still denying themselves a little physical gratification. It is sexual tension, not consummation that drives romantic comedies.

The movies just don't work any other way. Can you imagine such a movie about two people who are sleeping together purely for the satisfaction who slowly start to realize they are actually in love? Nope. It doesn't work, does it. The viewing public may have tossed out the notion of saving oneself for marriage, but they can't quite toss out the notion of sex without love.

Oh, I'm sure there may be one or two such movies, but they probably didn't do well, or weren't really romantic comedies.

Perhaps there is hope for America yet.

Obama, the State of the Union, and the Bully Pulpit

2010-01-27T22:36:00.001-07:00

Is there anyone Obama didn't attack? He continues to pummel away at the financial sector, as if they weren't a large part of the key to getting the economy back on track. He took a stab at the Supreme Court, eliciting a mouthed "not true" from Justice Alito.

He blasts Washington, seemingly without realizing that he is Washington now. He controls Washington. He took a stab at "climate change deniers" even while the IPCC is falling apart from its own bad science. He took an off-handed swipe at middle-America for not being smart enough to recognize how wonderful his health care reform was. And he sends a warning to Congress members who are starting to think that listening to their constituents instead of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi might be a good idea after all.

He continues to insult our intelligence by promising more of the same, tired "we will go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year" rhetoric. He spent $700 billion on a questionable Recovery Act, and he expects us to get excited about $20 billion? We're not stupid. We have been paying attention.

Oh yeah, and he takes a stab at the oil companies. Of course there's the obligatory attack on "the right" using staw men and subverted logic. He continues to blame Bush for everything, as expected.

Oh, this was a good line: "Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense."

In short, he wants to undo the last year of his administration while making it all sound like someone else's fault. He wants to hang on to his horrible ideas for America because that's what he was elected on, regardless of how people feel about his policies now. In short, he's still not listening.

Ah, and of course he punches the lobbyist button. That's like only blaming the drug dealers, Mr. President. It takes politicians who allow themselves to be bought to make lobbying worthwhile. I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi promising to clean up that swamp when the Democrats took over three years ago. You know, the last three years of the eight years that supposedly brought us where we are today? You'd like us to think that you've only had a year to undo the past eight, but the reality is your team was at bat when the problems began. Some could even say you helped cause it.

And why are you so bent on making lobbyists disclose everything when you and your party have not only NOT kept your campaign promise of greater visibility, but actually gone the opposite direction? You promised us no legislation going to a vote without being published online five days before the vote. Secret debates and secret guest lists is what we got. Thousand-page bills voted on after mere hours is what we got. You want to keep your faith with the people who got you there? That's a good place to start. Open sesame, Mr. President!

Another gem: "Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era." Really? So that's why you rubbed the Republicans' nose in it with the "We won" Crack? That's how you work to bring about post-partisanship? You let your Congressional leaders exclude the Republicans time and again and call that working toward peace and harmony? No sir, you either expected exactly what you say you didn't, or you simply didn't think you needed the other side's cooperation. Not give up on changing tone? No sir, you have not even begun. Get to work already.

Ah nice, he blames all our cynicism and disappointment on business, media, and lobbyists. The finger always points everywhere but at himself. It's our cynicism that's the problem, not his bad policies. If we weren't so cynical we'd see how wonderful his policies are! Stupid people!

Well, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. He intends to keep hammering away at the same ol' same ol'. Heaven help us all because he knows better than all of us what we want.

I think Chris Muir puts it best: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/012610.jpg

I'm Still Standing...Yeah Yeah Yeah

2010-01-25T11:04:00.002-07:00

There is much I would have liked to have blogged about in the past few weeks, not the least of which the interesting little development in Massachusetts. It's an interesting little bit of trivia that the first major victory for the Tea Party came in the very state in which the event for which it is named occurred. But I'll leave it at that for now.

I mainly just want to say I'm still here. And that starting a business of any kind--brick-n-mortar or online--is work! Work WORK WORK!!!! Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

But I am making progress. You can see the results at www.kitchenriches.com, where we sell food dehydrators, vacuum sealers, and ice cream makers. And right now we're having a sale. There's free shipping on orders over $100! Check it out!

The idea behind the site is that with the economy being what it is, everyone is looking for new ways to cut costs while still being able to connect with family and friends over food. One way is to buy food in bulk, preferably in season when it's cheaper, and preserve it through dehydration or freezing (or both!) And the ice cream makers? Well, they're just for fun! We all need a little fun now and then! And ours will make ice cream without having to use ice or salt!

Anyway, I'm still here, and I'm trying to get on top of things enough to post more. See you around!

eBay Hack

2010-01-12T20:09:00.002-07:00

One of my eBay auctions may be experiencing technical difficulties, so I'm posting a picture here for someone to see.

Actors and Movie Stars

2010-01-06T22:08:00.002-07:00

"An actor is someone who pretends to be someone else. A movie star is someone who pretends someone else is them."
--Nicolas Meyer, director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

I was watching TWOK with the commentary track tonight and that quote leapt out at me to the point I had to pause the movie and write it down.

Mislaying Blame

2010-01-03T09:53:00.002-07:00

I find it laughable that the Obama administration is trying to blame the nearly-successful "underpants bomber" on the Bush Administration. This is not to say that policies established during the Bush Administration didn't contribute to the failure--they may very well have done.

But the reality is that the Obama administration has been the team at bat for nearly a year now. They've managed to cram through some of the largest pieces of legislation in history over the protestations of their political opponents. Surely, if they saw holes in the homeland security system, they could have passed some legislation to fix it. It would have been a slam-dunk. Even the GOP, who still holds the high ground on national security, would have had a hard time not going along with that one.

But the reality is that tightening homeland security just wasn't that important to this Administration. They didn't make any changes because they believed the current system worked--or they just didn't care. They own this failure, no matter how much they may try to pass the buck.

Nor can they continue to blame the economy on Bush. If the largest spending bill in history couldn't get the job done, then they clearly had no idea what they were doing. It's not Bush's fault. It's Obama's. He had his shot and he blew it. Whether it was picking the wrong people to solve the problem or failing to recognize the depth and extent of the problem, it doesn't matter. He failed to fix it, when he promised he would. It's his problem now.

The fact is that this administration has not accomplished anything of any positive significance in their first year. Not only have they failed to implement the will of the people, they've done many things entirely against the will of the people. I guess it's time to award Obama another prize.

Twelve Days of Christmas

2009-12-17T09:29:00.002-07:00

This is a re-post of something I put up over at our new online store's blog:

THURSDAY, DEC. 17, 2009
Twelve Days of Christmas

Someone has chosen our family for a modern "Twelve Days of Christmas" this year. We're not sure who it is, but every night for the last four nights someone has left something on our doorstep, along with a little poem.

Day One: "On the first day of Christmas we're dropping Christmas hints - And a candy cane treat bag full of chocolate mints! The 12 days of Christmas is a tradition we adore - So sit back and enjoy the gift, there'll be a eleven more!" This came with a bag of chocolate-covered mints.

Day Two: "On the second day of Christmas on your doorstep we did drop - two liters of our favorite soda pop." This was attached to a bottle of 7-Up Pomegranate.

Day Three: "On the third day of Christmas on your doorstep we did drop - three packages of popcorn to be popped." This came with three packs of microwave popcorn.

Day Four: "On the fourth day of Christmas to your doorstep we did lug - four quarts of apple cider in a great big jug." A gallon jug of real apple cider (not concentrate).

This is quite a lot of fun for us, as you can imagine. The kids are all excited to see what we get each night. We're also pretty impressed by how well they are able to get to our doorstep undetected every night. Granted, we're not actively trying to catch them (why ruin a good thing), but the way our house is laid out doesn't make it easy. All it would take is for one of us to be sitting on our couch looking out the window and they would have no way to get unseen to our door.

I certainly hope this is as fun for them to give as it is for us to receive. Probably more, as they get the thrill of the Mission: Impossible-style deliveries. The gifts are not extravagent--and don't need to be. Normal food, when given with love, become special--so special, in fact that we haven't been able to bring outselves to eat any of it yet! And family expriences around that food builds lasting memories. I know we'll never forget this. I should hope they--whoever they are--don't either.

Merry Christmas, and thank you...whoever you are!

Hey, Mutant!

2009-12-06T22:03:00.003-07:00

Posting has been pretty light lately, for which I apologize. Trying to get something going that will someday put food on the table has been pretty demanding lately. Which brings me to the not-unrelated topic of "Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium", a movie we watched last night.

I've had my eye on it at the video store for awhile, wondering if it was any good. It was (perhaps mis-)placed in the comedy section, so I figured it had to be pretty light stuff. And there is some, to be sure. But the movie is really a very compact, heavy little light drama.

It speaks volumes about the value of wonder and fun. But it also speaks volumes about believing in yourself. The main character, Mahoney, is the assistant manager of a magic toy shop run by the slightly-less-magical Mr. Magorium. Mahoney has spent so long as part of the shop that she has gotten used to the magic--and gotten used to the notion that Mr. Magorium provides all of it. She never stops to think that perhaps she contributes in her own way.

Mr. Magorium knows this, and that is why he leaves the shop to her when he dies. But her own lack of faith her herself sends the shop into hibernation until, of all people, the stuffy, real-world-ly accountant manages to show her that that magic is in her, too.

I found myself getting choked up at the ending, though it took me awhile to realize why. I think over the last few weeks--perhaps the last several months--I've become Mahoney, thinking there's nothing magical about me. I've lost my belief in myself somewhere along the way, and it's been making me miserable. I'm not entirely sure how to find it again, but I suppose knowing it's missing is half the battle.

I know one thing that would help. I need to try on one of Eric's hats. Mr. Magorium was quite right about that. Eric has fabulous hats.

Concerning American Girl

2009-11-30T20:44:00.006-07:00

American Girl is the name of a product line put out by a company of the same name. They began with a series of books (with corresponding dolls) and have expanded from there. We discovered them when my daughter borrowed some of the books from the library. We started reading them as a family and soon we were hooked. Even the boys like to listen, and don't mind too much that it's "girl stuff".

The books are quite good. They mix a little history, a little bildungsroman, a little morality play, and a little "Stuff Girls Like", like dogs, cats, horses, clothes, etc. They teach good values, such as the importance of family, being a true friend, and being aware of and involved in the world around you. And, of course, believing in yourself.

The heroines are good and decent girls. They don't always have their priorities straight or their perspectives properly aligned, but they invariably undergo appropriate adjustment before the end. Things don't always go their way, but things do always turn out as well as they can.

In short, if I had to pick one fiction series for my daughter to take to heart, it would be these books. The girls in these books are just the sort of girls I'd like my daughter to become--and for my boys to associate with.

That's not to say they don't market the concept to death. They do. Every year they come out with a new Girl, with the corresponding product line. But their success is not undeserved, by any means, and if someone has to get my money I'd prefer it be American Girl over, say, Bratz, Star Wars, or My Little Pony. Bratz seems to be designed to produce shallow, image-obsessed girls. Star Wars is all about excitement, shallow story lines, vague morality, and pushing product. My Little Pony is all about cramming little girls' heads with cotton-candy inanities.

American Girl is about substance. It's about producing smart, confident, considerate, modest girls. It's about letting girls be girls--focused, grounded, well-rounded girls.

Tonight drove that point home pretty well. It was our family night, and it was my daughter's turn to come up with refreshments. We had a little mini-parfait made of brownie chunks, chocolate pudding, whipped topping, and candy-cane pieces. It was quite good, kinda different, and elegant-yet-simple. It turns out it was a recipe from the American Girl magazine.

I picked up the magazine for a quick glance while we were eating. The cover touted an article about throwing a "Party with a Purpose", so I flipped through the magazine to check it out. There was an article on how to throw a party for your friends centered around making hand-crafted items to take to local animal or homeless shelters. Included was a list of thoughtful questions for the girls to discuss while they worked.

I was somewhat taken back by what I saw. I belong to a church that places a great deal of emphasis on developing young women of depth, substance, and spirituality. American Girl covers the first two quite well, and goes as far as they can with the third without getting religious. I would be pleased as punch if my daughter were to come to embody all the American Girl values, quite frankly.

So I don't say this lightly: American Girl is a company on the side of parents. They're an excellent resource. Quite frankly, I wish there was an American Boy, as well. Yes, they're out to get their share of your money, but unlike most companies out there tapping into the kid and "tween" markets, they deserve it.

Bravo, American Girl. Keep up the good work. You and your products are welcome in our home and in the lives of my children.

Climategate

2009-11-25T08:59:00.002-07:00

There's a fair amount of buzz lately about the scientists in the UK that a hacker exposed fudging data, withholding information, and stifling dissenting opinion. Of course you'll only find that buzz on the Internet, as the mainstream media is staying so far away from the story they're almost on their way back toward it.

Defenders of course claim that this is an isolated incident. We're expected to believe that this hacker just happened to pick on the one bad apple in the Global Warming community. The trouble is, if the GW community were really acting like the scientists they're supposed to be, they would have exposed these frauds themselves.

It would be quite impossible for four scientists to cover themselves so thoroughly for so long if the rest of the GW community were approaching their work with anything even remotely resembling healthy scientific skepticism. But no, the fact that these "bad apples" were not exposed by other scientists is a strong indicator that they are by no means the only ones involved in the suppression of GW dissent and skepticism.

It's not just one bad apple--that much is certain. Chances are it's the whole tree.

Thank a veteran--and run!

2009-11-11T20:16:00.002-07:00

Today being Veterans Day I thought I would try thanking the veterans I know. At work I had a chance to thank the new guy who I overheard was in the military recently. He seemed genuinely surprised and pleased, and said I was the first person to remember today.

After work my wife told me she had made a cake to take to someone. She had gone to our kids' school for their Veterans Day program, and the principal had given her the idea to find a veteran to show thanks to. Our older son has a friend whose dad served recently in Iraq and has now retired into the National Guard and local law enforcement. We decided to take the cake to him as a family.

He wasn't home when we showed up at his house, but his wife was very grateful. She called him at work and told him about it, and he called our house and left a message on our answering machine before we could even get home. He seemed very astonished and grateful that someone would do that for him and his family.

So I've come to the conclusion that it's hard to thank a vet and not come away feeling like you got more gratitude back than you gave. Next year I may have to try random, drive-by thankings. Take that!

Scozzafava reveals what pols fear

2009-11-04T07:25:00.002-07:00

The NY23 house race is over, in which a Republican, a Democrat, and a Conservative all ran for the same seat. The Republican dropped out. In the end the Democrat won in an area largely leaning Republican in the past. Why?

Because the Republican threw her support behind the Democrat. Criticized by many for being a Republican In Name Only (RINO), she decided to prove it.

What this shows is that there is one thing that our two main parties hate more than each other: the idea of a third viable party. Oh sure, there have been a few independents reach office here and there, but those often are people who started out with one party or another and became Independent-in-name-only (uh...IINO?) after their party abandoned them.

No, this was a case where a candidate from an actual third party ran and nearly won. Even though there are more ramifications for the struggling GOP, the message is clear to both parties: you are both losing your grip on the electorate. If Americans get the idea that "none of the above" is a viable alternative to the classic Rep vs. Dem dichotomy both parties stand to lose power.

And in the end that's what this is all about. Both parties crave power. They're not so much interested in helping the country as keeping their power. To do that they have to keep the American people firmly divided into two camps; Us against Them. They would rather see one of the approved opposition win than someone supposedly closer to their own values who is outside the artificial two-part structure.

Congratulations to you, Doug Hoffman. You nearly started something. You may still have. But it's obvious that this race mattered, because reports of the outcome are buried in the news. MSNBC.com barely even acknowledges it, even though it provides counterpoint to their lead story of several key GOP victories. Since it doesn't fit the GOP vs. Dems narrative it's just not important, I suppose.

Smart does not equal leadership

2009-10-30T08:01:00.002-06:00

Going after Fox News wasn't enough. Now the Administration is going after....automotive website Edmunds.com.

Perhaps Sting is right and Obama is super-smart. But he sure hires some stupid people, and seems to be unable to lead them away from doing stupid things. If that's the case, being super-smart just isn't going to cut it.

Sting drinks the Obama kool-aid

2009-10-29T19:21:00.005-06:00

Sting is going down on record as an Obama devotee:

"In many ways, he's sent from God," he said in an interview, "because the world's a mess."

Huh? The world is a mess, and Obama is elected in the middle of it, so that means Obama is sent from God? By that rationale, Putin's sent from God, Chavez is sent from God, Sarkozy is sent from God, and on and on. Why exactly is it Obama's job to fix the world? At what point does the World become responsible for itself.

At any rate, I'm not likely to take Sting's word (he's agnostic at best) on who is or isn't sent from God. I'm a fan of his music, and this won't change that. And, unlike many famous people with political opinions, Sting has actually done something to try to improve the world. But reading his biography is enough to convince me I don't want to take his word on what is right or wrong without question.

At any rate, he's obviously not open minded when it comes to those of us opposed to Obama:

The British singer, who released the seasonal album "On A Winter's Night" this week, said he's fascinated by American politics, Obama, and also by Obama's opponents on the right.

"It's aggressive and violent and full of fear," he said of the backlash against Obama. "They don't want change, they want things to feel the same because they feel safe there."

If the opposition is aggressive it's because the left taught us that's what protesters need to be before anyone will pay attention to them. As for the violence, I wish he's cite an example. If he's referring to the Tea Party protests this year then he's way off base. By and large, the only violence at those protests came from the counter-protesters.

As for the "full of fear" part, that's pretty rich coming from someone who is seldom exposed to the fears most of the rest of us have. It's not likely any change in government policy is going to put him out of his many homes. I suspect he's not concerned about extended periods of not working.

Perhaps we are full of fear, Mr. Sumner, but that's because we live in the real world, not the jet-setting world of the hyper-rich-and-famous. And unlike you, no journalists are asking us for our political opinions. If we were to call the Iranian government to request the release of political prisoners I wouldn't even get through, though I'd probably be taken no more seriously if I did.

You see, the rest of us--who you are usually quick to dismiss as "medieval", fearful, and unwilling to talk about real issues--actually have to worry about such mundane matters as food and clothes. We have enough trouble paying for one house, let alone several mansions. We're tired of rich well-to-dos telling us WE are the problem and that we should just shut up and let the smart people fix us.

So thank you for your lovely opinion, but no thanks. I'm not convinced that I, in my opposition of Obama, am making the world a worse place than are the Sudanese government or Al Qaeda. Perhaps super-smart Obama and you might want to focus some attention on those problems instead of how to silence Fox News or how to cram yet another bad idea bill down the American throat.

Or how about dealing with AIDS and other diseases in Africa? Oh wait, that was Bush who did that. And we don't like to talk about him. He wasn't sent from God to clean up the mess, and so everything he DID do to help clean it up should be ignored. It's much better to back a president who gets awards for the mere potential to solve problems.

Sting, you are more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than Obama, and I don't say that lightly. I know at least some of what you've done to try and make the world better. Perhaps in four years Obama will deserve it. But for now, his getting the award just makes light of the real efforts you and thousands of others have made since before Obama was out of high school.

Obama should be singing your praises, not the other way around. But then you've got a new album to promote, so I guess whatever it takes to grab a headline, right?

Teen-age angst-ridden vampires and the girls who love them

2009-10-29T09:01:00.002-06:00

It's Halloween Week at the video store where I work, and so we're showing Halloween-related videos on the screens around the store all week. Yesterday was "Twilight" day. I'll admit up front I know very little about Twilight--and I don't care to be enlightened. I find the idea of vampires not being able to go out in sunlight because they "sparkle" to be silly. What the author seems to have done is show laziness by wanting to create tragic immortal beings who were not really vampires without going through the effort of establishing something else.

Anyway, the movie's tag-line keeps bothering me: "If you live forever, what do you live for?", or something like that. It occurred to me that nowhere have I ever seen vampires try to do anything useful with their immortality. At best they create art or something, but most of the time they sit in Gothic mansions and brood, plotting and scheming against their own kind.

Why is it we never seen a vampire given to scientific pursuits? Imagine what an immortal researcher could accomplish? They have all the time they need to ground themselves in the history and theory of their field, all the time in the world to patiently test each hypothesis. They don't need to worry about achieving some great, life-defining work before they die, because they don't.

I'm not so naive as to think vampires might do this to benefit humanity. But imagine the things they could do to benefit themselves, at least. But they never do that. Vampires are wasting their immortality. So why do all these vampire fans want to believe that vampires are somehow superior to mere mortals? They waste all the positive aspects of their existence.

It's no wonder vampires are so popular with goths and certain other crowds. Many of these people do with their own mortality what vampires do with their immortality. They waste it on brooding.

I'll settle for half that in cash

2009-10-29T08:49:00.002-06:00

The big news story on the front page of my paper today was that the 30,000 jobs created or saved by the Stimulus Bill may have been over-stated.

I'm not so concerned about the numbers being wrong by 5-6,000. I'm concerned that some considered that number to be good news at all. Our economy continues to lose more jobs in a week (some months, in a day) and we're somehow supposed to be convinced that this is a sign that the Stimulus is working?

According to my calculations, that means each one of those jobs cost taxpayers $26,233,333. Give me that money. For what they spent to save just one job I'll create at least 1,000 jobs with that. Deal?

Chocolat

2009-10-25T21:09:00.002-06:00

We rented the movie Chocolat this weekend. Yes, we're behind the times. Nearly everyone of the female gender and many of the male gender have already seen that movie and declared it the best movie ever.

It's a good movie, but we're not breaking into best ever territory. But it is a good movie nonetheless. It does much to continue my enjoyment of Alfred Molina and Judi Dench. But I figured early on that this was going to be yet another one of those movies that vilifies religion as the enemy of all things fun. In fact I suspect that this one aspect is the primary reason why this movie is the favorite of some.

This idea is only buried in the last few minutes of the film, but well enough that I believe it was not the intention of the script to make religion the villain yet again. After all, the real trouble was not the Church or its pastor. After all, Pere Henri was a secret Elvis fan, and was just as cowed by Comte de Reynard as everyone else. And once freed of the the Comte's domination he uttered the sermon that supposedly changed everything.

So it could be argued that the enemy was really The State, and the intrusion of The State upon religion. But that also would be too easy, really. Both the State and the Church were but levers of power by which the Comte tried to control everyone and everything. Ultimately the movie had nothing to say about religion--or chocolate, for that matter.

No, the movie was about life and the little dead-end alleys we get ourselves into and lack the drive, the courage, or the moral fiber to get ourselves out of. In this Vianne, the purveyor of chocolate who turns the town upside down, was just as stuck as everyone else. She could see others' problems quite clearly and was able to help them, but she was completely blind to her own. The opposition mounted by the Comte de Reynard only provided her with the excuse to continue as she always had; picking up her daughter and her life and moving off to the next town to solve more problems and continue ignoring her own.

There is much to be found in the movie. It is a tight, well-told story. It it story-telling done right. It is not anti-church or anti-religion or anti-sin or anti-anything, except anti-"stuck". It's just that the plethora of Hollywood dreck that takes the lazy road of vilifying religion makes it all to easy to view this movie as being just one more of the same.

This is a movie about people, and what lies in their hearts; what makes them people. It is about the ability of people to examine their lives and makes something different of them. It is about the ability of people to reach out to one another and help them to take that first step in remaking themselves. The truth in this movie comes from the fact that every single character suffers from the very same problem, even their would-be savior, and that every single person needs someone else.

Not a single character ends the movie the same as they began it, and with only a single exception all are better off for their interactions along the way. It's a lot like life, only better. And that's what good stories are all about.

More on Obama v. Fox News

2009-10-23T06:49:00.001-06:00

From Jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine:

It’s a cringe-inducing moment, both for those who oppose the White House on policy grounds and those who cheer its every move. As surely as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton allowed their personal flaws to erode the office of the presidency, Obama seems bent on allowing his own flaws (thin-skinnedness, hubris) to do potentially grave damage to the office as well. And over what? Not some grand policy matter or some key personnel matter, but over the desire to exclude a news network that has criticized him.

Read the whole thing.

Obama, the war is in Afghanistan

2009-10-19T07:33:00.002-06:00

The White House continues to escalate its war on...Fox News.

From MSNBC.com:

Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox News operates "almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

Jay Nordlinger at NRO makes the necessary comparison between Fox News and another news outlet who, evidently is not the research/communications arm of the Republican Party.

Evidently Fox News' sin is not being a hack for a political party, but being a hack for the wrong party. Heaven knows that if there is any vehement glee on the part of Fox news when they break a story that makes Democrats or the Democrat's friends look bad, there is just as much vehement glee by the other networks as they try hard NOT to cover it.

In any case, Karl Rove makes a good point:

Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor and former White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration is trying to demonize Fox News for asking questions officials do not like. He compared Obama's approach to that of President Richard Nixon, who included journalists on an "enemies list."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," Rove said. "And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do."

While the Bush White House did complain about news coverage, I don't recall them ever singling out a network for attack. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Had they done so there would have been a furor, I'm sure. But now we have a White House doing the very the last administration was only accused of, and there is dead silence.

Until the White House also calls out other news networks for their biased defense of the administration they really have no credibility in their claims. It is quite obvious they don't like Fox News only because they are critical of their administration.

In continuing this war all they are really doing is calling more attention to the fact that Fox News is the only source of news that doesn't support Obama's agenda. They can't buy better advertising than that. You'd think that seeing Fox News' market share continue to rise would warn the White House to try a different strategy to silence dissent.

Education in America

2009-10-18T20:51:00.004-06:00

The newspaper reported today that Obama wants to extend the school day to help students become more competitive with students in Asia. As the parent of a first grader who already feels he spends too much time in school I don't like the sound of that.

For one thing, this is apparently all based off of standardized test scores. If we want American children to be competitive we don't accomplish that by teaching them to pass rote tests. That accomplishes nothing. We don't produce the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Donald Trump by making sure they all know the same facts and skills as every other kid in the world.

If we're trying to produce a generation of regurgitative drones we've already lost the game. India and China can out-produce us there any day. What America needs to stay on top is innovative creators. I'm afraid Obama's vision for American education is little more than a more PC version of the Monster.com ads--you know, the ones where kids relate dreams such as "I want to claw my way to middle management," or "I want to have my redundant skills outsourced to India", or other stuff like that.

We don't need kids who can pass tests. We need kids who can dream up the future and then go get it. You don't accomplish that with milquetoast visions of homogeneous classrooms where everyone is made to feel good about themselves whether they actually deliver the goods or not, or where the brighter students are forced to slow down to accommodate the slower learners so they won't feel bad.

No, we need schools that teach kids that you achieve through hard work, perseverance, and by taking risks, and that if Johnny feels bad because he didn't do as well you should see if you can't help him do better next time, but ultimately it's his own responsibility.

The students need to learn that, mind you, not the teachers. The teachers should be just as concerned about Johnny as they are about Jenny the bold, outgoing, future entrepreneur. We should give teachers the tools, support, and respect to teach every kid at their own level. But they should not feel obligated to knock Jenny down a few notches by teaching her that getting ahead is somehow wrong.

Heaven knows Jenny will get a hard enough time from the other kids who are not as motivated. I saw that again and again growing up. The average kids would single out and pick on the high achievers and try to embarrass them into coming down to their level rather than just studying harder themselves. Kids can be mean that way. We don't need the teachers doing that too.

No, if other countries are starting to beat America it's not because their students can pass standardized tests better. It's because somewhere along the line they're instilling their children with confidence, creativity, and drive. Those matter more than whether a child can quote from memory the Pythagorean Theorem. Someone with confidence, creativity and drive will soon be able to hire someone else to remember that for them.

If Europe wants him, they can have him

2009-10-13T08:38:00.002-06:00

Joel Kotkin poses an interesting explanation of Obama's popularity in Europe:

Barack Obama's seemingly inexplicable winning of the Nobel Peace Prize says less about him than about the current mentality of Europe's leadership class. Lacking any strong, compelling voices of their own, the Europeans are now trying to hijack our president as their spokesman.

I can't quite agree with him that Europe's health care system is better than ours without some clarification of criteria, but his overall premise is sound.

White House declares war on Fox News

2009-10-13T08:26:00.004-06:00

From the New York Times:

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Of course all it takes to undertake a "war against Barack Obama" is to actually report the news, as opposed to all the "legitimate" news organizations out there who cover up stories, spin everything White-House-ward, provide Obama with free infomercial time, and get tingles up their legs every time their darling boy speaks.

In America, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave, either. Perhaps Fox news will go easier on the White House when the rest of the "legitimate news organizations" start doing their jobs again.

It's no wonder that news organizations across the country are failing--and that the government is so eager to bail them out.

News you can abuse

2009-10-13T08:22:00.003-06:00

Found this on MSNBC.com this morning

...because they plan to conspire with Iran to circumvent any sanctions anyway.

Don't tell me the Internet hasn't changed the world

2009-10-10T07:11:00.002-06:00

Yesterday my wife and youngest son went to several yard sales and came home with, among other things, a model of the Shuttle Tydirium (a space ship from Star Wars). I knew I'd be the one putting it together, and that I just had my evening planned for me.

I came home from work later in the day to find all three kids clustered around the box, excited for Dad to start work on it. So excited were they that they had removed all the pieces from their sprues. No problem, so long as the instructions were clear enough. Except there were no instructions. I tried to put a adventurous face on it, hoping we could figure out how things went together if we thought really hard.

Then I got the idea to check online. People put all sorts of odd things online these days. Sure enough, there is a gentleman who posts an amazing amount of information about his various modeling projects. I was saved.

I know it's been said many times many ways, but the Internet makes an enormous amount of information available that would have been impossible even ten years ago. And while it may not be that big of deal in the grand scheme of things, it salvaged the day for my kids and prolonged the myth that Dad can fix anything for just a little while longer.

And it's just in time for Oscar season...

2009-10-09T06:45:00.003-06:00

President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?

I'd say they had better do something about their flatulent moose up there in Norway. It's obviously effecting the prize committee's ability to think clearly.

I predict an Oscar win for Obama at the next Academy Awards, even though he's not been in any movies...or was he shown somewhere in Michael Moore's latest dorkumentary?

Well, the world has never really listened to a US president. Perhaps they'll listen to the Nobel committee.

UPDATE: A couple thoughts about what Obama should do about this award:

1 - Decline it, as others have already suggested. He can announce that while he's flattered by the award, and appreciates the vote of confidence, he represents America, where results--not ambitions--define who we are. He can then decline the award, asking that they judge him at the end of his tenure based on his actual accomplishments.

2 - Accept the award on behalf of everyone in the world who hopes and works for peace, even if they have yet to achieve their dreams. Paint himself as no more deserving than the Iraqi shop-owner who has reopened his shop in spite of continued violence, or the Peace Corps volunteer helping immunize children in Africa. Something that both honors others who have done more in a less visible way, while politely showing the committee that he thinks they're full of it.

If he accepts the award as is he'll do himself no favors. Sarkozy's recent criticisms will be validated. Rogue-state leaders will look down their noses at him even more and do everything in their power to undermine his new status as a peacemaker. The Muslim world will laud him publicly and oppose him every step of the way.

This award is the last thing Obama needs if he is to be at all effective in the world.

Had to laugh...

2009-10-08T20:05:00.000-06:00

see more dog and puppy pictures

Generosity

2009-10-08T19:53:00.003-06:00

My wife was out walking the dog tonight and found one of our neighbors had put a chair out on the sidewalk, along with a note saying it was free to anyone who wanted it. There was a rip in the fabric in the back, but otherwise a clean, attractive chair. We decided to give it a home.

Our daughter has a chair in her room that we picked up over ten years ago from a thrift store. It's served us well for many years. All three of our kids were nursed in that chair. It never was in all that great shape, but a quilt over it hid most of the problems. It's time it retired, however. Or, since it is in no worse shape than it was when we got it, we may take it back to the thrift store.

This new find will likely take its place in our daughter's room. It would look very cute there, and the best spot for it would also hide the rip.

Thank you, neighbor!

Am I missing something?

2009-10-07T22:16:00.002-06:00

The CBO has announced that the current Health Care Reform bill will cost $829 billion over ten years, while reducing the deficit $81 billion over ten years.

Something this is a good thing. We spend ten times what we save. Go try again, and come back with a plan that will cost $81 billion and save $829 billion. Then we'll talk.

All I know is that if I were to take a plan to any of my former bosses that called for spending more than you save by any amount I'd get fired. And rightly so.

Who keeps electing these fools?

Bill Whittle on Game Theory and Obama's foreign policy

2009-10-07T08:50:00.002-06:00

Whether you love or hate Obama's foreign policy (I think he's doing us irreparable harm), this video by Bill Whittle is an excellent look into human behavior and how game theory predicts it.

I just wish he could have told us how to punish late mergers at off-ramps. That's always been a bit of a sore spot with me.

Knowing when the quit

2009-10-06T21:16:00.001-06:00

Orson Scott Card is for unions, but against union leadership that fails to realize that they're pushing to far, and the inevitable backlash will not be pretty:

Workers need the rights that unions have won for them, including the right to organize when they want to. Won't it be a shame if, by attacking the rights of workers, the union leadership class causes the whole union movement to be perceived as just another conspiracy against working people?

Sad but true

2009-10-06T06:39:00.001-06:00

An observation made on the webcomic Darths and Droids today:

We're not sure exactly when vampires stopped being horrific and became vehicles for adolescent angst, but we suspect roleplayers might have to own up to some of the blame.

Politics and anger

2009-09-30T22:17:00.003-06:00

Max Boot has commentary over at Pajamas Media. He defends political anger, so long as it doesn't turn into violence. He also takes a look at where political violence is more likely to come from:

At the G-20 summit held in Steel Town, Time reported, leftist protesters who refused to apply for an assembly permit pushed dumpsters into the street, pelted police with rocks and macadam, and smashed windows of banks and even a Boston Market and a Mini car dealership. (These guys even hate cute little fuel-efficient Euro-cars? Sheesh.) Dozens of arrests were made. Meanwhile the number of projectiles hurled at law enforcement figures by banned-in-the-UK radio talker Michael Savage remained stuck at zero. The 9/12 protests that drew tens of thousands of marchers to D.C. were consistently painted as threatening because of signs that said things like, “Joe Wilson was right.” But if there were any arrests for violent acts, they weren’t mentioned in the Washington Post’s coverage.

And this is a telling point...

The MSM aren’t too curious about protesters like the ones in Pittsburgh (Do they watch Rachel Maddow? Do they read Paul Krugman?) because they believe radical leftists kinda have a point. Bankers get huge bonuses. Shouldn’t we all lob rocks at police to express our outrage?

And a particularly sharp closing point:

The thing they’re nervous about is not being assassinated but being tossed out of office. They should be nervous about us. Because we are their bosses and we can fire them.

More on Roman Polanski

2009-09-30T09:54:00.003-06:00

...and the morons who apologize for him.

Reading through the Wikipedia entry on Roman Polanski and the reaction to his recent arrest, I came across the following:

French minister of Culture and Communication, Frédéric Mitterrand, was especially vehement in his support, all the while announcing his "very deep emotion" after the questioning of the director, "a French citizen" and "a film-maker of international dimension ": "the sight of him thrown to the lions for an old story which doesn't make much sense, imprisoned while traveling to an event that was intending to honor him: caught, in short, in a trap, is absolutely dreadful". Polanski, Mitterrand continued, "had a difficult life" but had "always said how much he loves France, and he is a wonderful man". There is, he added, "a generous America that we love, and a certain America that frightens us. It's that America that has just shown its face."

Such naivete is incredible. We should not arrest known criminals if they are on their way to collect awards? I can just imagine the example that would set for other criminals:

Officer: Sir, you are under arrest for murder. Please step out of the car.
Suspect: But officer, I'm just on my way to accept an award!
Officer: What award is that?
Suspect: Serial Killer of the Year.
Officer: Oh. I had no idea. Please, proceed. We'll pick you up afterward.
Suspect: (Under his breath) Not if I can help it...

Remember, this is Roman Polanski. He's fled justice before. You think he wouldn't have tried to do so again? In spite of what the celebrity left would have us think, police are not stupid.

But wait, there's more. We should forgive Roman Polanski because he "loves France" and is a "wonderful man." Well of course he loves France, you dolt! That's the country that has helped him avoid consequences for his crimes for so many years! And if Polanski is such a wonderful man, why did he drug and rape that girl? Lots of criminals are wonderful people when they're not committing their crimes. So what?

Mitterrand also seems to find an America that believes in law enforcement frightening. That terrible America! They lock up rapists! They extradite criminals! Oh, the shame! Where will it end?! I'm sure Mr. Mitterrand has no trouble with law enforcement and extradition when it goes the other way. Or perhaps he does oppose hauling French citizens back to France to face justice for their crimes. From what I've heard of French prisons, I don't think they have much ground to call America frightening.

Of course Mitterrand is no more a fool than the group or artists who wrote a manifesto calling for his release. Also from Wikipedia, the manifesto concludes as follows: "Roman Polanski is a French citizen, an artist of international reputation, now threatened to be extradited. This extradition, if brought into effect, would carry a heavy load of consequences as well as deprive the film-maker of his freedom".

Uh...yes, I believe that is the point of criminal punishments. They are intended to bring consequences to bear; the heavier the crime, the heavier the load. And yes, that usually involves depriving people of their freedom, film-makers or not. It's called a disincentive. It's called the law.

Luc Besson, on the other hand, seems to get it: "I do not know the history of the process. (...) I feel a lot of affection for [Polanski], he's a man I really like and I know him a bit, our daughters are very good friends but there is a justice, [and] it is the same for everyone".

So does Jewel: "Polanski-admitted raping a 13 yr old-whys every1 in the arts upset hes facing jail? cause hes a gifted director? what am i missing?" asked bewildered singer-songwriter Jewel via Twitter.

UPDATE: Ran across a few more reports of celebrities rushing to defend him with such platitudes as "it was consensual" or "that was so long ago" or "the victim has asked for the case to be dismissed". According to the court transcript it was NOT consensual. She was thirteen! She was drunk and on drugs, and she was still saying no. Under the law, consent has nothing to do with it. He knew that, or should have known it. In what universe is a forty-four year old having sex with a thirteen year old girl okay?

As for the length of time since the incident, that's Roman Polanski's fault, not the justice system's. He didn't have to run. He didn't have to stay away so long. He could have put this behind him long, long ago. He chose to continue avoiding responsibility. It's his fault, and no one else's.

Let me put it another way. I have a son who does not take well to punishment. When he does something wrong he gets time out. Often he will throw a tantrum and refuse to go into time out. He has not only done something wrong, but he is refusing to accept the punishment. So when he finally does calm down and accept punishment he still has to have his time out.

It would do neither of us any good to say "Well, your tantrum was longer than the time out would have been. Since you weren't having any fun during that time I'll count that as your time out. Go play now." He would only learn to keep throwing tantrums. He and his siblings would learn that I don't mean it when I threaten him with time out.

Roman Polanski is pretty much like my four-year-old, sorry to say. To let him off now, especially when his life has been by no means bad for those 32 years, would send him and society the wrong message. Punishment is punishment. He didn't even stick around to see what his would have been. It would serve him right if his punishment now is much longer than it might have been had he just accepted responsibility and served whatever time was coming to him.

He had the ability to put this to rest long ago. Instead he threw a 32-year tantrum.

Liberals, morality, and Roman Polanski

2009-09-30T08:45:00.006-06:00

Liberals like to believe they are the elite, morally and intellectually. Hollywood liberals (no, that is not entirely redundant) make normal liberals look humble by comparison. And yet the only ones they are fooling are themselves. Nothing exposes the moral bankruptcy of the left like their inability to apply morality uniformly.

This is because morality is useful in placating moderates and bludgeoning conservatives. But, truth be told, if it weren't for those pesky moderates and conservatives they would prefer there be no morality at all. Liberals seem to think that abject hedonism and intellectual enlightenment can exist in the same being.

Witness for the prosecution: Roman Polanski. This "gentleman" drugged a thirteen year old girl, raped her, then fled the country to avoid imprisonment. After thirty-two years in exile, he has been arrested in Switzerland and is awaiting extradition hearings. A large number of artists in America and in Europe have rushed to Polanski's defense, claiming he's suffered enough already and that such a great talent should not be shut up in prison.

In other words, if you are talented you should a) be allowed to have sex with anyone or anything, regardless of legality or the wishes of the victim, b) should not be subject to the rule of law, and c) should be shielded from their own stupidity. So what they seem to be telling us is that Timothy McVeigh's only real crime was not being talented enough.

Of course this attitude should not be surprising. Artists and actors have been told by everyone and themselves for years that they are special, that they are delicate souls, and that their role is to push the boundaries and break the rules. More than once in my own musical training did I hear the maxim "You have to learn the rules before you can break them." So many artists have "handlers" to shield them from the realities of life.

But to shield artists, no matter how talented, from the consequences of illegal activities is to undermine the very society that makes it possible for them to develop and display their talents. It is spitting in the face of everyone who has lived by the rules. It cannot be allowed to stand.

Roman Polanski is a criminal. He broke the law. Criminals must be punished, or the system breaks down. He did not just break one law, either. He raped the girl, and he fled the country to avoid justice. That is two laws. Even if there is any reason to overlook the first--and there is not--there is no reason to overlook the second. On the contrary, overlooking the second does more harm to society than the first.

I do not believe those who claim he has suffered enough for his crime already. In what way has he suffered? He has still been able to work all of this time. He has had his freedom. True, there are certain countries he has been unable to visit, but he seems to have done well enough in spite of that. Such are the inconveniences of fleeing justice. Is being unable to go to other countries to accept honors for your work a small price to pay for being free to continue your work?

It is not the fault of American justice that Roman Polanski, for all his supposed genius, was stupid and remains stupid. If there is any constant in America it is our willingness to forgive and forget, especially our celebrity types. What else can explain how Bill Clinton can commit adultery with no consequence while GOP senators continually have to step down for less?

Had Roman Polanski gone to jail like he was supposed to he may have given up a year or two of his life. Considering the kid-glove treatment he was receiving that allowed him to flee in the first place, he probably would not have served even a year. Once he got out he would have been embraced by Hollywood again, and perhaps even lauded all the more for his having experienced the darker side of American justice and come through unscathed, or some clap-trap nonsense like that. Critics would have been falling over themselves to point out the new-found depth and passion in his work that could only have come from having experienced the horror of incarceration and a loss of freedom for a time.

And he would have been free to collect his awards anywhere he liked.

No, I do not feel sorry for Roman Polanski. Every step of the way he has received special treatment. He has foreign diplomats and celebrity elites falling over themselves to come to his defense. The man made some very serious mistakes, but he has largely avoided the consequences.

If Roman Polanski gets off I will feel outrage on behalf of a friend of mine who committed statutory rape. He also plead guilty. He went to prison for several years, voluntarily accepting harsher conditions than was required. I believe he learned his lesson and was reformed. Yet, as a registered sex offender, he will never have the same degree of freedom Roman Polanski has enjoyed for thirty-two years.

Where are the celebrities rushing to his defense? Where are the awards? Is his only crime, then, not being famous enough?

The liberal elites think they are so intelligent, yet they cannot see the harm their attitudes toward morality and rule of law are doing. My friend accepted responsibility for his actions and learned from the experience. He's a much smarter man than Roman Polanski.

Roman Polanski should serve time for his rape. He should serve even more time for evading justice. If he dies in prison, so be it. We, as the "unfamous, untalented" of America, deserve nothing less. The liberal and Hollywood elite deserve nothing less. It is high time someone sent them the message that they are not above the law, that "genius" and creativity and celebrity are no excuse for anti-social behavior. The question is whether or not they are smart enough to learn the lesson when we try to teach it.

UPDATE: In all fairness, I should point out that while the Huffington Post has fired an extensive volley in support of Roman Polanski, not all on the left see it the same way. Many see the situation for what it is: a crime exacerbated by evasion of justice.

It is mainly the Hollywood Elite who are rushing to Polanski's defense. And why not? If justice can be enforced on him, why...it could be enforced on them too! We must push back the hands of legal progress!

Alan Grayson vs. Joe Wilson

2009-09-30T08:38:00.002-06:00

What's the difference between Alan Grayson's charge that the GOP just wants people to die and Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar?

Well, for one, House leadership are not insisting he apologize even once, let alone twice. For another, there is substantial evidence that Joe Wilson was correct, whereas there is very little to back up Grayson's claim. But other than that, the incidents were pretty much the same.

Good behavior for thee, but not for me.

I think your computer would do it better

2009-09-29T21:22:00.004-06:00

Actual tweet from someone who just started following me:

Im not Actually typing this my computer is!!! LOL, email me to learn how to automate your business

This person really needs his computer to start typing his tweets for him. Computers at least know basic rules of grammar. He doesn't do much to convince me I should trust him anywhere near my business. I don't need to look like an uneducated hick...automatically.

I am not going to be nice and follow this person back.

I realize that Twitter forces one to be brief, and perhaps he has decided to trade punctuation for brevity. But just drop "LOL, " from that tweet and you've bought yourself enough punctuation to look intelligent.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Social media is all fine and good, but it is only as smart as the user. Broadcasting a poor image to a million people instead of a few thousand just drives your business into the ground that much faster. The rules of business still apply. The Internet is merely an equalizer, not a miracle-maker. If you are clueless, it can't help you.

The more technology encourages people to communicate without proper grammar and spelling, the easier it will become to differentiate oneself by merely writing to an acceptable standard. There are already too many people out there who think that grammar is the person married to grampar.

[/snark]

Socialism and the assault on the middle-class

2009-09-29T20:55:00.003-06:00

This weekend I had a lengthy conversation with a gentleman from Ecuador. He spoke about conditions in his own country and how things are headed that way here. He explained that down there the socialists have gained power by taking from the middle-class and giving it to the poor. Not from the rich, but the middle class.

They don't take from the rich because they want to become rich themselves. They don't want a middle class, because the middle class can threaten them. The poor, however, can be easily diverted in their hatred of the rich to take it out on the middle class. They can be placated by handouts from the government.

Eventually they eliminate the middle class, leaving only the rich-and-in-power, and the poor who depend on the government for everything. As the old song goes, the rich get richer and the poor get children.

We need to be more observant here. Sure, the Cap-and-Trade bill will impact companies and the wealthy. But the main impact will be on the middle-class. Energy costs are nothing to the rich, but they're a significant budget item for the middle-class. Universal Health Care means nothing to the rich. They'll go wherever they need to to get the best care. But saddle the middle-class with their own health care costs (from keeping their private plans) and subsidizing health care for the poor, and suddenly they don't have much left to go around. Hit them with both and the middle-class start resembling the poor--only they're not eligible for the handouts.

People are not stupid. Provide them enough disincentive and they'll get the message. They'll give up and join the poor. It's easier than trying to get ahead and become rich. It's easier than trying to hold the line and remain middle-class.

Socialism doesn't lift everyone to higher levels. It drags everyone else down to the lowest common denominator. After so many decades of fighting against socialism around the globe you think we'd have learned that by now and know better than to bring it here.

Racist is as racist does

2009-09-29T20:41:00.002-06:00

Sonja Schmidt over at PJTV has a video installment on racism and the Democratic Party. It's an interesting video, but most disturbing is the segment showing Sen. Barbara Boxer trying to counter testimony from the head of a national chamber of commerce organization (who is black) on what seems to be a science-related issue by citing that the NAACP takes a different stance.

She seems to be implying that the NAACP's position should be the standard position for all blacks, and that this gentleman should just shut up and accept it. When he rightly takes offense at her intimation of not toeing the black party line she continues to talk to him in an increasingly demeaning way.

To his credit he doesn't back down and calls her out on it. The liberals stance that any black who does not agree with their policies is a sell-out, self-loathing Uncle Tom is much more racist and nasty than any of the protest statements the left are currently denouncing as racist. It's time more people called them on it.

The idea that one should always think and feel (and vote) a certain way because of one's race is despicable. It is wrong. To attack any member of a particular ethnic group because they disagree with that "party line" is vile, underhanded, and racism at its worst. The left have no business lecturing the rest of us on racism until they clean up their own act first.

From the "Too Much Free Time" files

2009-09-29T16:43:00.001-06:00

I give you...Monty Python's "Camelot" as performed by the Star Trek Players:

A cautionary tale

2009-09-29T11:36:00.003-06:00

How to catch a wild pig.

Enough with the free corn.

Greetings to space

2009-09-24T21:07:00.003-06:00

For the last four nights the International Space Station has been visible orbiting above our city at least once per night. For some inexplicable reason I've felt compelled to go out and watch every night. Tuesday night it made its earliest pass of the week, and I took the kids outside to watch.

It's little more than a bright light, a little brighter than Venus perhaps, traveling across the sky, fading in out of the sunset and fading out toward the east. I watched it with binoculars the first night, but it's simply too high for my birdwatching binoculars to help much.

But each night I've been out there watching that little bright point of light pass overhead. I've always been excited about space, I suppose, from the time my brother woke me up early one morning to watch the first space shuttle launch on TV. There is something inherently exciting about the idea of traveling out there in the void where distances quickly become mind-staggeringly meaningless, where there is barely anything at all, and where one slight misstep is not just dangerous, but fatal.

To the men and women who have served on the ISS, I salute you. And, given the chance, I keep a quiet vigil from my backyard. You'll never know it, but there is at least one pair of eyes in Idaho noting your passage in the night sky. God bless, and good night.

Things that concern me

2009-09-23T21:07:00.004-06:00

Starting off, the FCC chairman has decided the Internet needs his regulation.

Now, whenever a telecom company wants to implement a new service or product that works by manipulating traffic flow on the Web, it will have to worry about whether or not its innovation might set off Genochowski's sense of... well, whatever it is that he and the rest of the regulators at the FCC don't like.

Harry Reid doesn't want to investigate ACORN.

Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he would not ask the Senate committee chairmen or Congress “to do anything that would distract from efforts to address” health care, climate change, an overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system and oversight of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Investigating baseball steroids use is important, but not what some questionable political group does with taxpayer funds. Harry, your moralectomy was a complete success. Heck, even Barney Frank is starting to question ACORN.

The Washington Post is coming to the defense of Congress by saying that requiring them to read every bill they vote on would bring government to a standstill. As Glenn Reynolds says, "That's not a bug, it's a feature..."

Meanwhile, our Secretary of Energy thinks Americans are children who need to be taught how to act.

This week, prepping for the upcoming Copenhagen climate change talks, Dr. Steven Chu, our erstwhile Energy secretary, crystallized the administration's underlying thinking by claiming that the "American public . . . just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."

This concerns me, and I'd like to see a reference for this claim:

Chu will deploy bureaucrats to more than 6,000 public schools to, um, teach children about "climate change" and efficiency. They probably won't mention that the Energy Department was found to have wasted millions on inefficient use of energy by an independent auditor this year. (Listen, even our parents aren't perfect.)

We don't need bureaucrats for that. It's already in the lesson plans for every school out there. My children get it in school regularly. I get frequent lectures from my kids based on stuff they heard in school. Of course they still can't manage to turn out the bathroom light when they're done, but hey, they're only supposed to pass on the message, not heed it themselves.

And what's this? Is the government really helping out the drug companies in exchange for pro-reform advertising? In light of the recent NEA scandal, it's not hard to imagine.

Meanwhile, Democrats have rejected a GOP bill that would have required putting the text of the health-care bill online 72 hours before an vote.

Remember when posting the text of bills online before a vote was a plank of Obama's platform? He doesn't.

Of course he's too busy apologizing for America, stiffing our friends and loving our enemies:

But on foreign policy as his record emerges -- as he reverses himself on missile defense and perhaps on Afghanistan -- his motivating principle seems rooted in an analysis, common in his formative university years, that America has too often been on the side of the bad guys. The response has been to disrespect those who have been our friends and to bow to our enemies.

Evidently if we want moral leadership we need to look to Canada, of all places:

“President Ahmadinejad’s repeated denial of the Holocaust and his anti-Israel comments run counter to the values of the UN General Assembly, and they’re shameful,” said one Canadian official.

“He uses his public appearances to provoke the international community, and that is why Canada’s seats will be empty.”

And finally, what better way to wrap up than a jab at our dear friend Charlie Rangel, who can write tax law blindfolded. That way he can honestly claim to never have seen it when he fails to follow it himself later on.

It's not whether you are loved, but who loves you

2009-09-23T08:37:00.002-06:00

The Telegraph, a British paper, offers the following analysis of Barak Obama on the international stage:

Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack.

As we saw last week with his shameful surrender to Moscow over missile defence, the president is perfectly happy to undermine America’s allies and gut its strategic defences while currying favour with enemies and strategic competitors. The missile defence debacle is rightly viewed as a betrayal by the Poles and the Czechs, and Washington has clearly give the impression that it cares little about those who have bravely stood shoulder to shoulder with their US allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider war on terror.

The Obama administration is now overseeing and implementing the biggest decline in American global power since Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately it may well take another generation for the United States to recover.

I feel safer already.

Saturn in all its glory

2009-09-22T10:58:00.003-06:00

I am not kidding. This picture, (Hat Tip Bad Astronomy) is simply incredible. Or, if you're really up for a show, try this larger version (picture is large. Scroll down and right for the main show).

It's stuff like this that adds a little perspective to one's day. Political sniping loses importance in the face of such reminders of the wonders just outside our own world. Or in our world, for that matter.

Why don't I like Glenn Beck?

2009-09-22T08:22:00.002-06:00

Several friends of mine are avid listeners of Glenn Beck, but I can't bring myself to become one myself. I've listened to a little bit, and while I find him at times amusing and at times correct, I still can't warm to him. Ron Radosh over at Pajamas Media comes close encapsulating my viewpoint, I think, by encapsulating David Horowitz:

And let me give the last word to David Horowitz, who reasonably accepts part of what David Frum has said, when he makes the following point. Beck, he says in one of his blogs, has done good things and must be given credit for this and not be read out of the conservative movement. Yet, he agrees that Beck must be “reined in” and corrected when he goes too far. If those in the conservative ranks who support Beck do just that, Beck’s excesses can be tempered, and those who do not like him will listen to him more carefully when he is right.

I admit some of my dislike of Glenn Beck is a gut reaction. My father was an early and avid "Ditto-head" when Rush Limbaugh first impacted on the scene. The more avid he became the more I avoided Rush. Beck reminds me of Rush, and so triggers my habitual wariness.

Yet, on the recommendation of some persons whose opinions I respect, I read Beck's "Common Sense" recently and found it convincing. If that was the Beck who showed up on the radio every day I might be more inclined to listen, had I the time. But therein, too, lies the problem. I'm not willing to give very many people a full hour of my time. If they can't make their point in a few minutes it's time I was moving on.

But ultimately I think my main reason for disliking Glenn Beck is because of his incite-ful style. He is a merchant of anger, and I find that distasteful and counterproductive. Anger doesn't get the job done, not when the job is something that requires long-term focus and commitment. And Anger is too easily subverted for other purposes.

There's a popular bumper sticker that says "If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention." The trouble is, the opposite is also true: If you're outraged you're not paying attention to anything else. I can't live a life of continual outrage. I don't need to be outraged to act, and I fear those who do. Outrage far too often leaves one unable to think clearly, and therefore prone to having others do their thinking for them.

I'll take a platoon of calm, cool, rationally concerned people motivated to action over an army of the outraged any day.

Granted, that can be hard to come by.

In defense of Ewoks.

2009-09-21T22:02:00.004-06:00

This weekend I completed the indoctrination of my children by showing them Return of the Jedi. I know, there are three other movies still to go, but I'm still ambivalent about the "newer older" movies. Perhaps in time I'll watch them again to see if they're any better than I remember. I mostly just remember being overwhelmed with special effects and underwhelmed with actual plot and acting.

But to get back to my children, Return of the Jedi for many Star Wars fans is the worst of the three, for one main reason: Ewoks. There are very few ambivalent fans where Ewoks are concerned. You either hate them or love them. Most hate them.

I'm one of the ambivalent ones. I thought they were fun the first few times. I don't dislike them now. I have no problem with a bunch of overgrown teddy-bears defeating an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops. With the Empire, that's not saying much. The Empire military doctrine always seemed to be "either build massive, intimidating weapon systems or throw more troops at them". They deserved to get beat by a band of teddy bears with teeth.

I have more of a problem with either the speed at which the Ewoks were able to prepare all their traps, or the fact that the Imperial troops basically ignored those traps for so long, depending on which premise you believe. I think the Ewoks had too easy of a time with it, but that was more a fault in the story-telling than anything else. Lucas dwelt more on the Ewoks beating up stormtroopers than on stormtroopers beating up Ewoks, yet also portray's Chewbacca's liberation of a scout walker as the turning point in the battle. I don't think it was meant to look like such a cake-walk for the Ewoks, yet that's how the battle came across.

But there was one aspect of the entire situation I hadn't considered until my kids showed me. Kids love Ewoks. At least mine do, and I now can see why. They'd sat through three movies of scary stuff. Scary bad people. Scary alien monsters (Jabba's Palace wins the competition for my six-year-old son's least-favorite part). Big people fighting big, uncertain fights. It's the sort of thing that caused great amounts of anxiety in even my bravest kid.

Then along come the Ewoks. They're cute, they're small, they're non-threatening. They obviously have to be good. And then the cute, small, non-threatening "silly-bears", as my kids call them, proceed to kick the scary people's butts in cute, amusing ways (unless you're the Imperial walker crew caught between those two logs). It's not just a triumph for the Rebellion. It's not just a triumph for the Ewoks. It's a triumph for small, repressed things everywhere, which includes children who have sat through three movies of scariness and never seen it completely defeated, merely escaped. Until the Ewoks do it.

In short, I think George Lucas, consciously or not, was tapping into the adolescent psyche. He'd been providing the coolness and wonder for three movies already, but he still needed to provide that empowering image that children could connect with. The Ewoks provided that. They are the one thing in the trilogy that kids can connect with whole-heartedly. They're the comic relief of the movies, and they save the day.

I think Jar Jar Binks and the Gungans played that role in the next three movies, though primarily in the first. I think Jar Jar was not there for the adults, but for the kids. But the adults hated him--much like many adults at least now hate the Ewoks.

Young Anakin was, I believe, intended for a similar function. He was a kid played for kids. Yes, to adults lines like "Let's try spinning, that's a good trick" sound corny and...well, childish. But I've heard similar things come from my own children's lips.

I don't think the adults were ready for a young Darth Vader that acted like a kid. I think we were expecting something more like the little girl from Poltergeist or something; creepy and vaguely menacing. Instead we got...Anakin. And many of the adults never forgave Lucas for that. Especially for that, coupled with Jar Jar.

Time and nostalgia tends to make all of us take things from our childhood more seriously than we should. The original Star Wars trilogy, for all its excitement and dark aspects, was meant to be fun. Let's face it, parts of Episode IV are just plain silly. Like the trash monster. Like the Jawas. Like the cantina band. Like C-3PO. We're not supposed to think too much, just enjoy.

Time ages us, however, and we somehow get the idea that our beloved Star Wars we remember from our youth was somehow better and more serious than it was. So when a new set of movies came out, we went expecting something more like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or some of the other darker, more "adult" sci-fi we had been subsisting on in the mean time.

Lucas went the other direction. He made Episode I to out-Star Wars the originally Trilogy. He emphasized what he thought were the key ingredients in making it fun--and had we still been the children we had been when was first saw it, he would have been right. We told him on no uncertain terms that he'd gotten it wrong. We hated Anakin and Jar Jar.

He wasn't stupid. He made a quick attitude correction hoping that he'd done enough to bring in the kids in the Phantom Menace that they'd stick with him through the darker, more angst-filled remaining two films. It was the adults he had to convince now, and I'm not sure he really knew how. The result was two more films that, in my opinion, lacked the fun of the original trilogy while not ever quite figuring out what else to be instead.

I'm not so sure that Revenge of the Sith couldn't have been made better with a dash of Ewoks. My kids are clamoring for me to show them the next three, but I'm hesitant. After Phantom Menace there will be precious little pay-off for them. I'm not sure I want them getting the message that not all movies end well just yet. I'm pretty sure I don't want them getting that message from a set of movies that basically tell you "life sucks and then it gets worse, and there aren't even Ewoks to make you laugh along the way."

Because no matter what you may think, real life is not that way. Even if it sucks and just gets worse, there will always be Ewoks if you know where to look.

And I thought it was the cats I had to keep an eye on...

2009-09-21T20:48:00.000-06:00

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Double standards on criminal behavior

2009-09-21T17:20:00.002-06:00

This weekend in our city a female schoolteacher was arrested for having sex with a thirteen year old student. Today I overheard some colleagues discussing it. Their consensus was that this woman's husband must not be much of a man if his wife needed to go have sex with teenagers.

Can you imagine anyone saying that if the situation were reversed? Did anyone suggest of Elliot Spitzer's wife that she was an inadequate lover? Does anyone ever think to place the blame on anyone but the rapist when the rapist is male? Not that I excuse male rapists in any way, but that's the point. Why do female rapists get a pass? Why do people look for external causes to explain their behavior?

It would be unthinkable to blame the wife for a husband's sexual crimes, but it's entirely too common to blame the husband when the wife messes up. This teacher did not do what she did because of her husband. She did it because she has some deep, serious problems. She made some very bad choices, and she alone is responsible for them.

Or have we merely progressed for far on eliminating sexism against females that we over-compensated and are now sexist against men?

The detritus of our lives

2009-09-18T10:23:00.003-06:00

My den has become home to a family of four kittens being fattened up for adoption. Our local shelter can't adopt them out until they're big enough to be neutered, which isn't until they're around ten weeks old. In the mean time they need the cages space for all the cats that can be adopted, so they've asked foster families to take on kittens for awhile.

Kittens are frisky. Kittens have sharp claws. And they can't be allowed out into the rest of the house, so my den door is always closed. I am somewhat allergic to cats, and my den gets stuffy without proper ventilation. In short, I have been unable to use my den much.

This weekend we came up with a solution. The den is becoming my wife's sewing room, and I'm moving my desk and stuff up to our bedroom where her sewing stuff was. It should be an easy swap, right?

Except my desk won't fit in our bedroom. It's a corner desk, and won't fit in any corner of the house except the one it was in. So out it goes, and in the mean time I've built a new desk from an old closet door, a bookcase, and a filing cabinet. It's actually quite nice. I have more desk space than I've ever had before.

The trouble is finding places for all the stuff that used to go in the old desk and bookcase. I never realized just how much stuff had built up there in the four years since we moved in. All of that stuff no longer has a place, but dearly needs one.

Much of it is not simple-to-place stuff. We're talking about old keys I'm not sure what they go to. Or old cassette tapes that I'm not sure what is on them. Or that container of change from the yard sale. Two undeveloped rolls of film. Where do they go?

To find out could require a significant amount of time. I'd have to try every lock in the house to figure out what to do with the keys. I'd have to find one of the few working cassette players to try the tape on. I'd have to find my wife and have a non-trivial discussion on where the change can goes. Okay, the Chuck E. Cheese token can go in the trash. There, one piece of clutter gone.

It's like a bomb went off in a thrift store, and I'm sifting through the rubble trying to reconstruct both the bomb and the store. We accumulate so many things in our lives that have significance only in where they came from. I have dozens of little knickknacks given to me by my children or by flummoxed family. I love them, because I love the people who gave them to me.

And I can never get rid of them, especially anything given to me by my kids. Every single crayon scribble on paper must remain a cherished keepsake until at least a few years have passed to where even they don't remember it anymore. Then you quietly slip it into the trash and hope this is not the day they decided to go through Daddy's garbage can.

The bulk of my writing has ground to a halt this week. The task of sorting, sifting, and placing has gone on much longer than expected. Not all of it has been drudgery. I came across several manila envelopes full of old pictures my mom sent me. There are numerous mementos of ten years of marriage; paperwork for cars long dead, loans paid off, or education completed. It's a fossil record marking the passage of life and the evolution of souls.

Some of it gets thrown away at long last, though you can almost hear the grief-stricken wail of the abandoned artifact, unable to comprehend why it, and not the receipt for the microwave, is being tossed aside. Such is the burden of a sentimental person. Everything has meaning. Everything represents a lifetime of memories, and to dispose of the object somehow diminishes the memory. Isn't my daughter's first gymnastics lesson just as important as the last car payment? They both left behind receipts. Where do you draw the line?

It seems easier just to hoard and hoard every little artifact until desperation forces your hand. You simply have to reclaim more space, so this time it's the manual for the old refrigerator that gets it, along with the receipt for when you got your wedding rings re-sized. Another memory dies, gasping its final death rattle.

It's not good to live too much in the past, but it's still good to visit now and then. It's good to measure growth, to reconnect with things now taken for granted.

My in-laws are in the process of moving to a smaller place from the townhouse where they lived for over thirty years. I do not envy them the task of deciding which bits of memory are worth saving. A lot of memories will be taking their last breaths.

Where do you draw the line?

Fighting racism with prejudice

2009-09-15T22:25:00.002-06:00

Someone in my Facebook friends list (I don't recall how she came to get there) was ranting about "teabaggers" and how they are all racist and ignorant because she saw a few signs at a rally that could be taken in a racist manner.

Obviously the irony of her own statements were lost on her. Certainly the implications for liberal protests were. I'm sure there were some liberals who were uncomfortable with some of the signs that showed up to some of their protests, too, and would take exception with someone assuming that they agreed with those signs just because they were at the same rally.

I'll tell you right now, I did NOT agree with the "Birther" at the Tea Party rally here in Boise last week. And I thought quite a few signs were too angry for my tastes. But they have a right to say what they want to say, whether I like it or not.

I still don't get how liberals can call themselves "intellectuals" and simultaneously hold the belief that anyone who disagrees with the current administration is racist. Especially since I'm pretty sure a large number of liberals disagree with the current administration on a number of issues, such as Obama's move today to renew three key points of the Patriot Act, or our escalating commitment in Afghanistan. By their own definition, they are now officially racist.

I disagree with the current administration on a number of issues. I also agree with many of the actions Obama has taken since taking office. So which is it, people? Am I racist or not? Please spell it out for me. How many issues must I agree with the president on before I am not a racist?

And where does criticism of Pelosi and Reid enter on the spectrum? Since a good portion of the details of "Obama's" policies actually come from them, am I racist for disagreeing with Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Can a white person be racist against a white person?

Of course this entire train of thinking is idiotic. It's merely justification by the left for not listening to any criticism of their hero. If they can find a way to dismiss another's arguments before even hearing them they never have to risk being uncomfortable or questioning their own moral superiority. Crying racism is a cop-out, and in the long run it will do more damage to their cause than they realize. Soon everything will be "racism" to the point that real racism will become irrelevant.

I "unfriended" this person. I'm probably a racist for doing so, even though she's white. But, having reviewed her own words (which is more than she has done for me before painting me as an ignorant racist), I find I have no desire to associate or, by accepting her as a friend, imply any approval of her prejudice and intellectual dishonesty. She is, quite simply, everything she is supposedly against, but refuses to see it. She is no friend of mine.

Fifteen minutes of fame

2009-09-15T21:21:00.002-06:00

Last night I was just checking Instapundit one more time before heading to bed when something caught my eye--my own name. I'd nearly forgotten about it, but I'd sent Glenn Reynolds a brief email about the Boise Tea Party after I got home on Saturday. He posted it. Fortunately someone else had sent a picture. I had intended to, but forgot the camera in the hustle to get the kids ready.

Anyway, I was like a giddy fanboy to see my name on Instapundit. What can I say?

My First Tea Party: Why I joined in

2009-09-13T16:00:00.003-06:00

I've never been to a demonstration/protest/rally before. It's not my..."thing". While my involvement in politics has increased dramatically since I became old enough to have something to lose, I've never really felt passionate enough about something to go demonstrate.

Perhaps that is because in my lifetime protesting has largely been the tool of choice of the Left. The right, as a general rule, are not protesters. And the moderates...well, we think both sides are nuts and tend not to get too close to either lest something undesirable rub off.

Besides which, I've never felt that protests work. In my rather short political history there's been little evidence that it does. How many anti-war and anti-Bush protests were there? What did they accomplish? They couldn't even sway enough democrats to their side.

Plus, I felt that their rabid, frothing anti-Bush hatred undermined their entire argument. I mean if these people were reasonable, thinking human beings they would surely realize that there is another side to the issue and be willing to acknowledge it, right? They would be more convincing if they acted reasonable. At least in my book.

Well, times they are a-changing. Over the last year or so I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with both parties. The Left are too busy trying to spend all our money, sock it to the rich, and get as many special interests hooked on government funding as they can. The Right are too busy trying to spend all our money, sock it to everyone but the rich, and annoy as many special interest groups as they can.

And then Obama took office. Though I didn't vote for him (my vote for McCain was not an enthusiastic one), I at least had hope that he would be who he campaigned as. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. For awhile, at least on national security, it appeared he might be okay.

But as a team, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been atrocious. Obama has largely sat it out on domestic matters. He has offered no leadership on any of his "pet projects". He's simply told Congress "Send me a bill, and I'll sign it". So the democratic congress has served up the biggest slabs of partisan legislation they could find, laden with pork, and stuffed with little "gotchas". And they've tried to run them through before anyone had enough time to read them, a sure sign that they've had something to hide.

But the Republicans haven't had anything better to offer. Granted, the Democrats have largely cut them out of the process. But they've been unable to get any message out at all, let alone one that resonated with the public enough to sway them to their side. The GOP has become the party of zombies. They've done precious little to earn any trust. The only good thing they have done is keep saying no. But my own democrat congressman does that, too.

Then there's the corruption. The Republicans can't keep their pants on and the Democrats can't seem to file an honest tax return to save their lives. Nancy "I'm going to drain this swamp" Pelosi has done nothing to try to restore ethics wot Congress--unless a Republican does something wrong.

So I'm sick of all of them. No one represents me in Washington anymore, except perhaps for the Blue Dog Democrats, and then only on fiscal matters. The left has done their absolute best to shut down any dissent, including trying to frame any criticism of the sitting president as motivated by racism. That's a bunch of hooey, and they know it. But they also know that if they keep hurling the same epithets at reasonable people long enough they get scared off and go away.

Well here's a news flash for you. I do not trust Obama. I do not like his policies. I think his plans are dangerous. And I am not racist. I defy you to prove that I am. If Bill Cosby were to run for office I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice were to run for office I'd seriously consider them after a good look at their policies. I judge people by the content of their character, their words, and their actions. Skin color matters about as much to me as the color of their car. If you've got any evidence to the contrary I urge you to bring it forward.

But to get back on topic, I'm extremely dissatisfied with our government--all of it. However, except for elections, which happen far too infrequently to avoid the pending disaster that is a Obama supported by Pelosi and Reid inadequately opposed by the GOP-light, there is nothing we can do except protest. And I've felt protest to be an ineffective tool of the politically demented.

The Tea Party protests have given me some hope. And the Town Halls of August helped, though the level of anger coming out has made me wary of associating myself with any of it. The 9-12 group has some good ideas, but I've associated it too much with Glenn Beck. Mind you, I don't mind Glenn Beck. I read his "Common Sense" and found it to be very good. He's got some good ideas. But he is an entertainer, and he takes his discourse to levels I do not wish to go.

So when I heard about our local September 12th Rally sponsored by the 9-12 group I wasn't interested. But the night before I talked with a friend who is more politically impassioned than I am. He asked me if I was going, and I said I wasn't. We discussed my reasons, and I posed the question of what good it would do.

He explained, first of all, that beyond saying it's a good idea, Glenn Beck is not involved in the 9-12 group. He encourages people to look into it, but that's it. And to answer my question of what good it would do, he simply reminded me that the more people who show up the more likely the politicians will take notice, and those who show up help determine what it is the politicians hear.

I replied that it was all well and good, but the only chance we really have to make a difference is for Americans to stay angry until the 2010 elections, and I doubt Americans will do that. He countered that the movement doesn't need angry people, it needs concerned people who are willing to stand up.

We ended up moving on to other topics, but the discussion stuck with me. Saturday morning in the shower I replayed the conversation in my head and realized that my excuses were just that--excuses. What chance does the Tea Party movement have of sustaining its efforts into 2010 if it sputters and dies now? If people aren't willing to stand up now while it's still fresh, who is going to stand up in a year from now when the powers that be are pulling every trick in their playbook to help us forget all about this year?

There is another reason to protest, and I had been the one to think of it during our conversation. There are people out there considering running for office. The way our election cycle works they have to be making their decisions soon if they are to get things started soon enough. By protesting now, these people may get a chance to see what issues are really important. It may help them shape their platform, and it may get good people who feel similarly to run, taking the protests of a sign that the support may be there for them next year.

But it basically boiled down to the fact that for me to feel as strongly about the situation as I do and then to not try every avenue to get my voice heard would be a useless waste of energy at best, and downright hypocrisy at worst. I really started to think hard about going.

I looked up the information online and saw that it was not just the 9-12 group sponsoring the rally, but also the Tea Party organization. That further nudged me toward going--while the Tea Parties are painted and dismissed by the left as just right-wing extremism, they are really about as centrist an organization as you're likely to find in America right now. I would not be presenting myself as one of "Glenn Beck's Evil Minions."

But there was the matter of my kids. My wife does volunteer work on Saturday mornings, and I watch the kids. They're 8, 6, and 4 years old, so taking them would not be the easiest thing to do. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this would be a good opportunity to teach them about citizenship and government. I want my kids to grow up with a different example than I had.

My dad was passionate about politics, but I don't recall him ever doing much more than yelling at the television during the party conventions and arguing with friends. I'm beginning to see now that I was wrong, but at the time it just turned me off. I don't like extreme emotion, or extreme devotion to a cause (Dad was a Ditto-head), and from my dad's example, I learned to dislike politics intensely.

I want to be different for my kids. I want to show a calmer, more rational view of politics. I want them to know that I keep informed and form opinions, but that I can discuss it rationally with anyone who is willing. I also want to show them that there are times when talking is not enough and that people of conscience must act--act rationally and within the law, but act nonetheless.

From what I've heard of the Tea Party protests so far, I figured this would be about as safe a rally as I'm ever likely to find. Taking my kids would pose no problems beyond their ability to keep up with the march. There was little chance of seeing something that I would have to explain before they're ready to understand it. In hindsight that was not entirely an accurate assessment, but we got lucky.

So I ended up loading the kids in the car, driving downtown, parking near the rally zone, and walking with my kids up the hill to meet the rally as they marched downhill from their starting point. I was able to spot my friend and some of his kids, and we joined in. He was surprised to see us, and flattered when I explained it was largely his doing.

The paper today indicates there were about 1500 people involved. That's pretty good for Idaho, especially for a moderate-to-conservative cause. It was calm, rational, and pleasant. My kids had fun being in the "parade", as they called it. They would have liked it more if I'd thought ahead better and given them some signs to wave, but all things considered, it went well. We left early, as they were getting hungry and started getting bored once the speakers started, but we were there long enough to count, I think.

Later in the day I checked the news and found out about the 2 million protesters at the Tea Party in Washington D.C. That's a staggering number. If the politicians fail to take notice of that then they're too stupid to serve.

Frankly, I wouldn't have thought a turnout like that was possible. That alone is enough to make me glad I went. I think I would have been embarrassed had I not gone and then found out that so many others did--enough to possibly make a difference. Instead I can take some satisfaction that, in a small way, I was a part of something much, much bigger than just me.

Obviously my story is not unique. There are a lot of people going through much a similar thought process right now. A lot of people who thought their individual participation probably wouldn't matter, but took a chance anyway. One by one, person by person, we individually added up to a very big something.

And that sent a message louder than anything we might have shouted, or anything we might have written on a sign. I was there, and so were my children. There is hope that we can change the world after all--or at least our country.

Historical Perspective

2009-09-08T20:33:00.002-06:00

I just finished reading "The Victors", by Stephen E. Ambrose. It's an account of the European Theater during World War II. As I made my way through the book, reading of all the men killed and wounded it slowly dawned on me that my impressions of the war were flawed. World War II, in my mind, was a war that Americans went off to, won, and then came home. But that is not really accurate. A lot of Americans went off to war, died, and never came back.

I know it sounds incredibly stupid on my part, but it occurred to me that my viewpoint was based entirely on one detail: The only ones who can tell the story of what happened are the ones who lived. Every story you hear about the war is told by someone who lived. The dead tell no tales. You never hear a story without it ending "and then I got to go home."

Wikipedia states that there were 416,800 American soldiers killed in the war. That's as if the entire region for about 50 miles around my house were suddenly depopulated. America got off lightly, considering our role.

It is practically impossible for us today to comprehend the evil that was unleashed on the world in the space of about ten years. Three to four percent of the world's population was killed in the war; about 60 to 80 million people.

What can one say about that, really?

What was the big deal?

2009-09-08T10:23:00.003-06:00

I just finished listening to the President's speech to schoolkids. It was a good speech. I enjoyed it. I got some positive things from it. Is there room for disagreement on what he said? Sure there is. A lot of the disagreements in this country stem from how we define a lot of the terms he spoke about. But chances are each kid that listened is going to define those terms the way their parents do.

I didn't see anything I'm going to have to sort my kids out on tonight. It was a good speech. I hope all you screaming radicals who kept your kids home today are embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you.

UPDATE: It seems that the screaming radicals are always with us: When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

Does power breed apathy?

2009-09-04T06:57:00.004-06:00

Marta Mossburg looks at why ObamaCare is failing in her column for the Washington Post:

The group collectively lamented that the Right discovered Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." "It's kind of scary! They have learned all of the tricks," said Sue Esty, the assistant director of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Maryland.

But maybe it isn't the Right learning the rules. Maybe it's the community organizers losing the anger so necessary to keep the fight alive. Angry people drive beat-up hatchbacks and eat ramen noodles.

They don't show up to greet their leaders in a Volvo, Lexus, Cadillac or Chrysler 300, like some of the cars parked outside SEIU 1199, and eat grapes and cheese like at this meeting.

Who would have thought that being in power might actually make it more difficult to get things done. What a concept: We vote our people into office so that they can get things done, not so that we have to keep working to get it.

Parental responsibility and Obama's school speech

2009-09-03T20:26:00.003-06:00

My first grader informed me today that his class will be watching Obama's address to schoolchildren on Sept. 8th, and that if we don't want our child to watch we need to notify the teacher. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that this is what our country is coming to.

I remember a lot of people on the right promising to do for Obama what the left were unwilling to do for Bush: respect the office, if not the occupant. That has all been forgotten, evidently, as a hear a lot of people encouraging us to keep our children home that day. I repeat, this is embarrassing.

The man is the President of the United States, whether we like it or not. Let him talk to our kids. He's not likely to say anything too complicated anyway. These are schoolkids, after all.

That night be sure you talk to your kids about the speech. Find out what they got out of it. Find out how they feel about it. Then offer counter-arguments as needed. I learned last year around election time that my opinion still hold sway with my kids. They still trust Mom and Dad over teachers and presidents.

But they won't for long if they feel like you are hiding things from them. Pulling them out of school because the President is speaking is going to spark their curiosity and make them want to find out just what is so bad about what he said. Then they'll wonder why Mom and Dad were afraid of it. You will lose credibility by avoiding issues like this, where you will gain trust and respect if you meet the challenge head on.

My wife just found in the school newsletter that only six classes out of at least fifteen will be showing the broadcast. That is rather sad, but I can understand why the teachers would want to avoid the hassle. It makes me wonder if there are parents out there who burn their children's Presidential Health and Fitness Award certificates when they bring them home from school.

Give your president a little respect and your kids a little credit. I understand the speech will also be broadcast online, so watch it yourself so you know what to discuss with your kids. But for pity sake, people, let's stop acting so suspicious and fearful. Obama does not have a mind control ray. He's not going to tell our kids to join his Obama Youth Brigade and refuse to eat their vegetables until you give in on health care and cap-n-trade.

I do not fear Obama using the schools for a bully pulpit. I have a much more effective vehicle when it comes to ensuring my children are taught correctly. It's called the dinner table.

Can America stay angry?

2009-09-01T22:11:00.002-06:00

It seems 53% of independents disapprove of Obama. People on both sides of the political fence are getting tired of government spending, government waste, government bickering, and government taxes. We're tired of hypocrisy and duplicity by our elected officials. We're tired of those who keep promising to clean up Washington yet don't even lift a finger to do so once elected.

All well and good.

But can we hold on to our anger for another year? This is why the administration is trying to push everything through now. They're counting on the "American Amnesia" to kick in before the next election. Will we forget by then how upset we are with things now?

This is not the time to go all "Yoda". We do not want to let go of our anger. America needs to turn to the dark side for awhile and take back our country.

Can we do it? Yes we can!

General disquiet

2009-08-26T19:46:00.003-06:00

Here are a few things that worry me:
- Senators abusing their power to dredge up ammunition for the Health Care bill
- Real unemployment rate much higher, perhaps 16%
- It appears that the person who vandalized the Denver DNC office is...a Democrat activist
- Beating up blacks is okay if they're against Democratic policies
- What's good for Geithner is criminal for the rest of us
- The deficit will be higher than first thought...and that's a good thing?!
- China is starting to dump American debt
- Eric Holder is a joke, but I'm not laughing
- John Stossel has noticed that criticism equals racism in "post-racial America"
- The Healthcare Bill includes tighter restrictions on taxpayers who make honest mistakes. Perhaps this is a good thing if it would have applied to Obama cabinet appointees.

Don't worry, there's got to be some good news out there somewhere.

You can't win the war until you win the battle

2009-08-21T18:17:00.003-06:00

Over at PajamasTV they're calling a cautious victory for the health care and budget protesters.

Color me jaded, but I can't believe it was that easy. I still hear lots of rhetoric from the White House about pushing Health Care through. If they're pulling back at all it's just to try their next favorite tactic: stall and hope everyone forgets about it.

I don't think the Administration has learned anything yet. I don't think they're listening yet. I think they're only pretending to listen. They're appearing to change their minds, but at the same time they still protest about the protests. That doesn't appear to me to be a concession. I think it's more like the kid to, when mom says no, goes and asks dad.

So what is America to do now? Keep up the pressure. We've got their attention, at least, and that's more than we've been able to do previously. It's a start. But we need to keep holding their feet to the flame, and we need to stay vigilant. They are going to try an end-run at least once before they actually concede any kind of defeat.

In the mean time, we can also raise the level of discourse:

- No more shouting matches, please. That's so "Bush Era". We're different. Let's show it. Be respectful, but don't be a push-over.

- No more guns at protests. That was stupid, even for a radio show stunt. It distracts from the real message we're trying to send. Stop it.

- No more "Kill Obama, his wife and kids" signs. That person got detained--and quite frankly, should be arrested. That's beyond the coverage of the First Amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if they were an Obama-backer hoping to do their man a favor by discrediting the legitimate protesters.

- Do not forget. Those of you in areas where your elected officials have been hiding from you or talking down to you--remember that. They're counting on our faulty collective memory to kick in before the next election. Do not forget. Vote them out. Support the reps. who are listening and get it. I don't usually vote Democrat at the national level, but right new we've got a Democratic representative in our area who is listening, is talking sense, and largely voting the way I would like. If he keeps it up I will vote for him next time. People like that deserve our support.

- Stay informed. A vigilant populace is our only guard against unresponsive and oppressive government. And it's not just this administration. Though I agreed with some of what the previous administration did, they were just as deaf when it came to listening to the people. I understand what some of you were feeling back then a little better now. Whether we agree on the issues is irrelevant. We need to join together to force our government to start listening again.

- Do the "reaching out" that they refuse to do. Remember all of that talk of bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and reaching across the aisle? It didn't happen, did it. But let's not let them drive a wedge between Americans. Let's show them a good example. Let's start talking to each other. Let's start working out problems ourselves. Let's start treating each other with respect, try to understand where each other is coming from, and see if we can't find a third option that moves us in a better direction.

- Turn off the Professional Outrage Squad. Both sides have them. They're not doing us any favors. Their jobs, as they see it, is not to bring people together. They're to stir up the flock to keep sending them drawing a paycheck. As much as I like Glenn Beck's "Common Sense", I still will not listen to his shows. He always sees the worst in everything the other side does. We don't need that.
< >< >< >< >It's like my kids when they get in these moods where they are constantly watching each other to find something to tattle about. No one is giving anyone even the slightest bit of room for error. Everyone is holding on to every little piece of ammunition they can get. We're still hearing about Michelle Obama's "For the first time I'm proud..." speech. I think she misspoke then, and I don't care to keep hearing about it now.

It's not too late to turn America around. It's not too late to return decency to our national dialogue. It's not too late to build bridges so that even when we don't get our way on issues we don't start reaching for the torches and pitchforks. Wouldn't it be nice to feel like we were at least heard first, and that perhaps the result we disagree with was at least modified out of respect for our point of view?

It can happen. But We The People have to make it happen. Our government won't do it for us. We have to make them. And that starts with re-making ourselves.

Town hall, Idaho style

2009-08-19T20:56:00.003-06:00

Tonight I got a call from my congressman--or at least his auto-dialer--inviting me to a telephone town hall, one of at least two he's conducting this month. I decided to join. Everyone was polite and calm on both sides of the health care issue, and Mr. Minnick did a pretty good job of explaining where he stands on things and why. This is what town halls should be, and would be if more congresspersons treated their constituents with the respect Mr. Minnick shows us.

Walt Minnick is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who supposedly convinced Pelosi to slow things down and not take a vote until after the August recess. If so, good for him. And while I can't say I agree with everything he said, I think if he can stick to his guns he'll do a good job for us when he goes back. If there has to be health care reform, I'd prefer his version of it to anything else I've heard so far.

I'm still jaded enough by politics to not want to believe Minnick is for real, but he's off to a good start if he's trying to make a believer out of me. I didn't vote for him, but next time around I just might.

Rewriting Godwin's Law

2009-08-18T10:58:00.004-06:00

"Godwin's Law" is an observation made by attorney and author Mike Godwin, which states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."

Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.

Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.

I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.

Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.

In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.

But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?

The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.

Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.

Iconography and Obama

2009-08-17T19:34:00.003-06:00

Bill Whittle is back with another thought-provoking segment on the power of iconography.

And while we're touting videos, here's Ed Driscoll's interview with Chris Muir, creator of "Day By Day", one of my favorite cartoons (Ed didn't ask the question I'd have asked, which is: Is Zed modeled after Muir himself?)

Muir just completed a fund-raising drive which evidently exceeded the goal, which I'm pleased to see. I'm also hoping to be in better financial shape (ie. employed) next time so I can contribute. He's certainly on my list of sites I would like to support.

And who would I like to support, you may ask? Well...in no particular order:

Michael Totten
Chris Muir (Day By Day)
Pajamas Media - Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachel, Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, et al.
Michael Yon
James Lileks

Do I think you should, too? Why yes, of course! If you have some spare change, check them out and leave a tip. Tell 'em Thom sent you.

John Mackey, Obamacare, and public opinion

2009-08-17T10:01:00.002-06:00

Now that I've read the Op/Ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in the Wall Street Journal I really don't understand what the big deal is.

Don't get me wrong. This is not about Free Speech. I uphold Mackey's right to say what he said. I uphold the right of the readers to boycott Whole Foods if they so desire. Freedom of Speech should never guarantee freedom from consequences for that speech. If you're going to say something that annoys your support base you should be prepared to take a hit, whether you're John Mackey or Natalie Maines (or Arlen Specter).

No, this post is about what liberals say and what they do. One of the main criticisms being leveled at those protesting against the Health Care Reform bill is that they are shutting down discussion and disallowing dialogue.

Mackey's article is a calm, rational discussion of alternatives to what is currently on the table. But just because he does not agree with universal health care it appears that the liberals are unwilling to read any farther than the second paragraph. I'll bet if they did they'd find they agree with him on at least a few points. Even if they disagree with everything, they would likely benefit from hearing what other people think.

Don't liberals espouse the value of differing viewpoints? Or does that only apply to ethnicity and sexual orientation?

To be fair, the political right is just as bad. Both sides seem to focus much of their attention on keeping people from listening to anyone from the other side. They aren't conducting a war on their ideological opposites so much as a joint offensive against moderation. They don't want anyone reaching over the wall they built. They have no interest in reaching across the aisle--they'd rather turn the aisle into a demilitarized zone where anyone who dares to venture will be shot on sight!

The sad thing is that if we we would take more time to listen we just might find we CAN find an answer that we can all agree on. Health Care reform could be possible. Universal Health Care could be doable. But as long as our politics allows for no middle ground we'll never accomplish anything that doesn't alienate at least half of the country.

The middle ground is where the answers can be found. John Mackey tried to take us there. No good deed goes unpunished.

Oops! I picked the wrong side!

2009-08-13T20:51:00.003-06:00

According to this article, the Obama administration is offering $15 an hour to protest in favor of his health care proposal (big misnomer, really, since he didn't write any of it and admits to having no idea what is in it). Unfortunately for me I already caved to the insurance companies and have been speaking out against it. Boy did I screw that up. Obama pays much better than the big, bad insurance companies! I haven't received a single darn penny for my efforts so far.

But it's our side of the debate that's being dismissed as "astroturf", while the other side is the one hauling in professional protestors. Isn't all this "truthiness" great?

Call Me Un-American

2009-08-10T10:21:00.003-06:00

I am the mob. I am a racist, fascist nazi pawn of the Health Insurance industry. Not only that, I must be stupid, because I'm not getting anything from the Health Insurance industry except...the health insurance I pay for. There's no hack like a stupid hack. And alas, alack, I am a hack.

Because Nancy Pelosi says so. And Nancy Pelosi wouldn't lie to you.

She and Steny Hoyer have a column up at USA Today in which they make the case for Americans sitting down, shutting up, and letting Congress do what's best for everyone. It really is a precious piece of cynicism, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy. Where to begin...

"Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care."

I don't know about that. I've been enjoying quality, affordable health care for only about 39 years. But then I work hard, save my money, and plan for such expenses. Which makes me a chump, of course.

"From President Lyndon Johnson to President Bill Clinton, to President Obama's winning campaign on the promise of reform, there hasn't been a more debated domestic issue than the promise of affordable health care for all."

Oh, so that's why you want no debate on it this time, because it's been debated in the past. Oh, and Obama was elected on many things, and to suggest that the only reason we voted him into office was to screw up Health Care is disingenuous.

"The failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation's history — it is well worth the time it takes to get it right."

Unless, of course, "getting it right" means doing nothing. Shouldn't all these past failures tell you something? WE DON'T WANT IT! AT LEAST NOT THE BRAND YOU'RE PEDDLING!

"Already, three House committees have passed this critical legislation..."

Meaning....? Obviously three House committees is no endorsement, or you would have supported the War in Iraq as vehemently as you do this nonsense.

"... and over August, the two of us will work closely with those three committees to produce one strong piece of legislation that the House will approve in September."

Even if we don't want it? Aren't you missing something. It's fitting that she refers to the governing body as "the House", as she's obviously forgetting the representative mission of that body. You are supposed to represent us, not cram things down our throats.

"In the meantime, as members of Congress spend time at home during August, they are talking with their constituents about reform. The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people we represent."

And this is why the majority of the meetings our elected officials are holding do not even allow questions about the health care legislation? Is this why so many representatives are not interesting in "dialogue" but just telling us what we want? Is this why so many of them end up yelling at their constituents, hurling accusations and contempt? Is this why union members are beating up protestors?

"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent..."

...anyone who is against this bill as un-American, fascist, elitist, paid hacks, but to silence any opposition? Oops, I'm jumping the gun, even if it is true...

"...the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."

I will agree with her some here. If there are people who are shouting others down then that's rude. But most of the videos I've seen has involved heckling the speaker, something left protestors have been doing without any criticism from Madam Pelosi for years. Does that mean that everyone has free speech, but some have more of it than others?

"These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion."

Like I said, this just looks like a case of "we can dish it out, but we can't take it. For shame, Pelosi. We saw WORSE than this about Bush. Where were you then? Holding the noose?

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

No, creating bad legislation is how you failed at this task for decades. You have the media firmly in your corner. If they can't get the message our there for you it's because you have no message. We're not afraid of the facts. But it's hard to believe our congressmen are giving us the facts when many of them admit to not having read the bill. How can they possibly give us the facts?

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, is TRYING to give us the facts, but YOU don't seem to be listening.

"Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts."

Why? If you'd had your way this bill would already be passed BEFORE anyone could learn the facts. In fact, nearly every bill you've crammed through so far has been as quickly as possible lest Americans get a chance to learn the facts and engage in dialogue and debate. Pelosi, thy name is hypocrit.

"Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket."

Uhm...most health plans I've ever seen already have a preventive care component. Even after I was laid off I had people from my former employer's health plan calling me to work out a healthy lifestyle plan. Any decent insurer gets it already. Probably better than the government does.

"This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation. We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics."

...because you intend to intimidate, malign, and discredit all critics until there are none left!

Good luck with that. You've already made it obvious that you'd prefer to do everything without any debate. That is WHY our elected officials are getting such pushback. It's a new thing for them, but it's long overdue.

"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal."

What polls does she read? Certainly not this one.

"This fall, at long last, we must reach it."

Why? Tell me why we must, other than your poll consisting of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Is it because you haven't managed to kill off the economy yet? Is it because you haven't spent enough money yet this year, in spite of campaign promises of cutting the budget? I'm not necessarily opposed to health care reform, but not the expansive, not this expensive, and not when we can't even afford the amount of government we've got. Enough of this deficit spending. I know Pelosi et al just want to get the main spending over with and out of the way before next year's election season, but that's is the worst possible reason. If these bills are so good they should stand up to the debate of a campaign season. If you're so proud of it, wouldn't it be a great campaign point? The very fact that they want to hide this before then indicates they know what a scam this is.

Let's not forget, too, that these elected representatives who care so much about Americans and the environment want to buy a bunch more airplanes for congressional travel, even though the military claims we don't need all of them. As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe it's a problem when those who are telling me it's a problem ACT like it's a problem.

To quote columnist Ron Hart:

If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his surgeon general who is obese, signed by a president who smokes, and financed by a country that is just about broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

It's a shame that Pelosi had to squander her opportunity. She had a national forum in USA Today. This was the perfect opportunity to present the "facts" she cares so much about and make her case for Health Care Reform. Instead she maligned concerned Americans who are so frustrated by their elected officials they feel they have no recourse but to protest. Instead she gave us broad, unsubstantiated generalizations that amount to little more than "it'll be great. Trust us."

Miss Pelosi, we don't trust you. That is why we're protesting. Get your fingers out of your ears and listen, like you claim our representatives are eager to do.

Instead she's too busy doing the very thing she accuses her opposition of doing: ABCNews Blog: "Partisan Mobs with Lies About Health Reform," Democrats Rally Their Own Activists to Visit Members of Congress at Town Halls, District Offices.

Miss Pelosi, have you forgotten that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?