Newsweak

The following is a letter I sent to Newsweek:

Dear Editor of Newsweek,

You may accept this letter as the cancellation of my subscription. I'd like to tell you why I'm canceling, though I doubt it will have any bearing on how you continue to run your magazine.

I first subscribed to "Newsweek" because I wanted the "News" in a format that would go more indepth than my local paper or the cable news networks. I didn't realize I was subscribing to "Newsweak" or more appropriately: "Opinionweek" - and certainly not a balance of opinions. Truth be told, it turns out I was subscribing to "FarLeftweek." Of all of the coverage of the election that I consumed before I made my decision on who to vote for, none were more in the tank for Obama than your periodical. I found nothing but article upon article promoted the cultural messiah-like greatness of Obama while deriding McCain as simply a clone of George W Bush. This was most obviously portrayed in an article that ran the week before the election entitled "Why McCain Won" which was an apologetic on how McCain would have won the election, had he won, which basically ends with the sentiment that voting for Obama is exerting "common sense and decency" and a vote for anyone else is not.

Your Leftism is so extreme that it seems almost to be to the level of outright fear of the right. Even in this most recent edition in "conventional" wisdom (which never quite seemed "conventional") you managed to find a reason to slam Sarah Palin yet again even though her bid for Vice President has been soundly defeated.

While I prefer to read the opinions of both sides to get a fair understanding of the arguments, I could overlook your painfully obvious political bias.

However, when that became coupled with a complete misrepresentation of the Bible and its stance on homosexual marriage, I could not continue to support your publication.

Had your piece on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" been written by someone with a Biblical education, rather than two people with a concordance and a search engine, it might have held more credence with your more educated readers. The assertions of Ms Ball and Ms Underwood that the multiple wives of the patriarchs was condoned, that lesbian activity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that the New Testament doesn't speak to what a marriage should look like are completely and categorically false. I can forgive them for not understanding the difference between cultural, ceremonial, and moral laws as they are laid out in the Old Testament. However, the sinfulness of homosexuality is repeated many times in the New Testament, confirming the law as a moral one when written about in Leviticus, not a cultural or ceremonial law. Romans 1:26 states "...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." While some might argue this refers to beastiality, verse 27 says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Verse 26 must be a Biblical mention of lesbianism as this was "in the same way" as the homosexual men. And if the Bible doesn't speak against homosexual marriage, why does it call these relationships "unnatural?" Why is it that when the Bible gives instruction on a successful marriage does it always refer to the husband and wife? To be a leader in the church, one must be the "husband of but one wife. (1 Timothy)" A husband is to love his wife "as he loves himself (Ephesians 5)." If homosexual marriage is Biblically acceptable, why is there such gender specific language, and familial roles?

Ms Ball and Ms Underwood did, however, get one thing correct: Without a doubt Jesus would have reached out with love to those with homosexual desires. In face, He loved them enough to die for them, just has he did for all sinners; myself included. No sin is any worse than another in the eyes of God and my sin is no better or worse than those who lust for members of the same sex. Jesus would have loved them the same way he would love a person engaged in extra-marital sex: He'd welcome them with open arms and love them as a person without condoning the relationship they were engaged in. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. And Jesus loves homosexuals.

Truly, the final straw and the ultimate cause of my cancellation was a small plug for your website "xtra.Newsweek.com." I could not have been more disappointed in the choice of verbiage. The piece reads, "Also, a look at the charges that African-Americans are responsible for Prop 8's passage." "Charges?" Murders face "charges." Rapists face "charges." Voters do not! Regardless of how one feels about the outcome of the vote, such sentiments should never be expressed in this fashion. Do we levy the same "charges" against African-Americans for putting Obama in the White House? I didn't think so.

Behold the Lamb of God

This weekend I had the privilege of escorting the most beautiful woman in the world to a very special event. 11 years ago, I was astonished when the Queen of Hearts agreed to go with me to a Caedmon's Call concert in Boston. The opening acts were two people that we hadn't heard before: Bebo Norman and Andrew Peterson. They have since become my favorite artists.

In 2004 Andrew Peterson, with the help of some of the most talented musicians on the planet, put together the single greatest "Christmas" album ever made: Behold the Lamb of God. To celebrate our sixth wedding anniversary, the QofH and I attended the Behold the Lamb of God tour in Connecticut. (The Queen of Hearts has also commented on this on her blog).

There is so much that I want to say about this that I don't even know where to start. I'll just go with stream of conscience:

The concert was fantastic. ~Beyond fantastic~ Andrew Peterson, Bebo Norman, Jill Phillips, Andrew Osenga, Ben Shive, and Andrew Gullahorn all played some of their own music in the beginning. After a brief intermission (and the obligatory Compassion International infomercial) they all returned and played, without stop, through every song on the album. The music on the CD is moving, the music live is incredible. (Did I mention we were in about the sixth row?) We even had the chance to momentarily speak with Mr. Peterson.

There was the possibility that I was going to have to attend this concert with someone else as our little Wild Card might not have cooperated enough for the QofH to feel comfortable leaving her to accompany me. I'm so very glad that wasn't the case.

I have tried my hand at many things. I even think I'm not to shabby at some of them (Athletics, film, public speaking...) There are things that I'm not very good at. (Basketball, watercolors, cleaning...) Of the things that I'm not good at, there is nothing that I want to excel at more than music. I listen to these artists. I bask in their songwriting genius and I wish that I could have a part in that. I wanted to be up on that stage surrounded by these titans of talent. Is it because of how their music speaks to my life? Is it because they are witty and poignant in conveying a message in their songs? Is it because they seem to enjoy a camaraderie that I have not know for some time? I do not know the answer to these questions.

Andrew Peterson spoke briefly of Frederick Law Olmsted. He is known as the "father of landscape architecture." He designed Central Park. He knew that what he was designing would not attain its full design until years after he died. He painted with trees and flowers and bushes. Andrew said that was what he wanted his music to be like: He wanted it to be relevant today and even more so thirty years from now. That comment gave me pause to think: Compare what typical "Christian" music sings about to the topics typical "secular" music includes. On average (and I am not creating any kind of rule here, but on average) secular music contains things that are fleeting and temporary while Christian music has more lasting themes. What if "secular" music started singing about community responsibility more so than just "stop snitchin'?" What if they started singing about loyalty in marriage rather than "don't worry 'bout the ring you wear 'cause as long as no one knows then nobody can care?"

This made me stop an consider: What is the most fleeting, most temporary subject that I focus on? Sports. Nothing is more out-of-date than a two week old Sports Illustrated. What happens when a team wins it all? We immediately start looking to next year. When JMO:Just the facts puts out a power ranking, how long is it good for? Until the next game is played.

So: What has this concert done for me? It gave me an amazing evening out with the love of my life. It's given me a greater appreciation for the music of Andrew Peterson and friends. It made me wish I had the time, energy, and talent to be a singer/songwriter. It reminded me what's important in this life. And hopefully it will cause me to focus more on the Word than the World Series.

It was a great concert!

Red State/Blue State Myth

I'd just like to take a moment to point out the myth of the Red State and the Blue state. Presented below are the electoral maps by county rather than by state for the last three elections. (Red=Republican, Blue=Democrat)

Here is 2008:

The Democrats won this election by about 6%. Ok, I can see that. The heavy population centers are all blue. Here is the 2008 electoral map by state:


Now, some of the things this juxtaposition shows are no brainers: New England is in the back pocket of the Democrats just as the South is owned by the GOP. However, some of what we see should cause some concern... Look at Oregon. That red state went blue. As did Nevada! And the blue state South Carolina went red! Maybe this was an anomaly. Let's look at 2004:

By county:

By state:
Take a look at California, Illinois, Michigan, and Oregon! Somehow those states went blue. And New Mexico somehow went red. Take a look at the 2008 Nevada and the 2004 Nevada. That little county in the northwest corner switched the state from red to blue!

Now, here's the most interesting one:

2000 by county:

2000 by state:

Remember, the blue candidate actually received more votes than the red candidate! So, what can we learn from this? Cities decide elections

Let's take a detailed look:
Pennsylvania: on all three maps, PA goes blue. Where are the blue specks? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Illinois: Also a blue state. Where is the blue located? Chicago and outside of Saint Louis, MO.
California: Sacramento, San Fransisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego,
Ohio: The two times Ohio managed to go red, the Dems failed to get Cincinnati
As Detroit goes, so goes Michigan. As Green Bay and Madison goes, so goes Wisconsin.

I've done some pain staking research. I looked up the population of all of the cities in the United States that have over 100,000 people. Then I catalogued the population of each state. I added the total population of "City-Dwellers" and compared that to the total population of each state. Any one care to guess what I discovered?

In Red States: The majority of the time, less than 25% of the states population lived in a 100,000 person city. In some cases, they didn't even have a city totaling 100,000 people.

In Blue States: The majority of the blue states had over 40% of their population living in 100,000 person cities.

As you know, JMO doesn't like to point out problems without offering solutions. In today's electoral process, rural and suburban voters are left out in the cold. I propose an electoral college for each state. Every county gets a certain number of state electoral votes based on the population of that county then they are tallied to determine which candidate carries that state. The numbers would be the same as each State House of Representatives. I believe this will balance out the desires of the more rural citizens with those that live in the big cities. I will endeavor to do more research regarding this solution.

In the meantime, here are the Electoral College maps broken down by county one after another for easy comparison:

Review: Goodnight and Good Luck

2005/PG/Drama

Set during the 1950's McCarthy Red Hunt, Goodnight and Good Luck chronicles the heroic actions of Edward R Murrow and his team at "See it Now" as they battle TV Executives and the posibility of being black listed or even imprisoned to combat Senator McCarthy and his actions.

What impressed me most about this film was the sheer amount of original footage they were able to use. It was as if Senator McCarthy were a paid actor in this movie. Also, much of the movie was Mr Murrow delivering portions of the show "See it Now," adding more original content to this compelling picture.

While there were a few lines thrown into this movie that appeared to be aimed at the Bush Administrations Gitmo Detention Center, overall, this was a remarkably un-political political film. The makers admitted that they recognize that some of the things that were said could be misconstrued to be purposeful attacks on the current administration, but they simply wanted to tell the story of Murrow vs McCarthy and the courage that it took at the time.

Much like Shattered Glass, though the film was set mostly in a TV studio it was still compelling and captivating. I was disappointed when it was over because I wanted to see more of the tension, more of the planning, more of the history of the exchange between Murrow and McCarthy. Most of the acting was stellar, including the possible weak link of Actor/Director Clooney which was good. He wisely selected a smaller role than other Actor/Directors have in the past (*cough* Gibson *cough* Cosner *cough* Eastwood *cough*). I appreciated that it was shot in black and white and only one of the subplots seemed unnecessary.

If you liked Thirteen Days or even if you didn't, chances are good you won't feel like the 93 minutes you gave to Goodnight and Good Luck was a waste of time.

3.5 out of 5 stars.

NFL Power Ranking, Week 11

As the season heats up and the playoff picture becomes a little clearer, Just My Opinion: Just the Facts returns with a current NFL power ranking:

10) Arizona (7-3):

The phoenix is on fire thru the air, so is Warner. Wins over Dallas and Buffalo get you on the list.

9) Indianapolis (6-4):

Losing to teams you should beat (Chicago, Green Bay), and beating teams you should lose to (Pittsburgh, New England) is not the way to get to the playoffs. But it does get you on the power rankings.

8) NY Jets (7-3):

Classic Favre is tossing the INTs at a higher rate than in the frozen tundra. But he doesn't have the Defense to allow it. Reign that in and you might see the post season.

7) Dallas (6-4):

Tough stretch without Romo at the helm. Wins against Philadelphia, Green Bay and Washington get you on the list. Losses to Arizona and St. Louis means you're mired in the bottom five.

6) Tampa Bay (7-3):

The silent striker. No one is talking about you. But big wins over Carolina and Green Bay put you on the map.

5) New England (6-4):

Bradyless second place? Something must be going right in Foxboro. Compare what Cassel's done to the Romoless 'Boys. The division is still within reach.

4) NY Giants (9-1):

Perhaps the most inflated record in the league, but 9 and 1 none the less. Only impressive win was against a healthy Philadelphia. Tough stretch coming up after Arizona: Washington, Philadelphia, Dallas, Carolina. Your post season will be decided there.

3) Carolina (8-2):

Like The Bucs, you are quietly beating key teams. With a relatively easy schedule headed into the playoffs 12-4 isn't out of the question.

2) Tennessee (10-0):

Inflated record like the Giants, except that you are winning big against the bad teams. Your first challenge of the year doesn't come until week 16 against Pittsburgh. Then you face of against your nemesis Colts for the last game of the season.

1) Pittsburgh (7-3):

First in overall defense. First in defense against the run. First in defense against the pass. 2nd in points allowed. You'll play the role of spoiler when you face Tennessee.

Apu. It's been a loooong time since you've commented! Tell me what you think! Everyone else is also free to share their opinion!

Change?

"A vote for Obama is a vote for change" was the mantra of the President Elect's campaign. Then, after winning the election, our masterful rhetorician made some comments that made us believe that he might appoint people from different political parties, not just Democrats. I was encouraged. Perhaps real change would come to Washington.

One by one his selections have hit the newspapers and the airwaves. John Podesta, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Ron Klain, perhaps even Hillary Rodham Clinton herself. What do these people all have in common? They all served on the Clinton administration (Hillary unofficially, but basically). So, it turns out that "A vote for Obama was a vote for the Clinton administration."

Hmm. If I wanted the Clinton administration, I think I would have voted for her.

And where are the "other-minded" people? Where is the balance to his cabinet? Where is the change!?

So we have to ask ourselves: When Obama campaigned on "change," what type of change did he mean?

A) Something we've never seen before in the oval office. (I'd argue this is what most people believed.)
B) Something opposite of what we have right now. (As most people believed A, this would have to be a part of that by definition.)
C) Something that we've done before but is different from what we have now. (This appears to be the tact he's taking.)
D) "I'll just say whatever it takes to get elected." (I'm not actually going this far, yet. But time will shed more light on this option.)

A friend of mine was raised in a culture that believes, "It doesn't matter what I say, what matters is what I do." This friend said that he believes Obama was raised in a similar culture. He bases this on certain speech patterns, key words, and actions that he's seen in the President Elect that hearken to the culture that my friend is so intimately familiar with. I hope my friend is wrong.

On a post on Dr. James' blog is September, I posted the following comment:

I looked very hard at the other side. I wanted to like Obama... And up until his convention I was seriously considering him as a potential candidate. I hadn't counted him out simply because there was a D by his name.

Then he gave his speech.

First, let me say that I watched about 90% of the DNC. I wasn't really surprised by what I heard. "No intelligent person would vote for McCain." "It borders on treason to do so.." yada yada yada. I expected Barack to rise above that. I anticipated a unifying speech. I expected something fresh.

What I got was politics as usual. It was his convention speech that convinced me that I was going to vote against Obama. I heard no real change. I heard just change in party. If Washington is broken, as he claims, then going in and doing the exact same thing the other party is doing with a different agenda isn't going to fix anything.

I was heartfully disappointed by his speech.

... [Obama] has completely disappointed me. I firmly believe his is my brother in Christ. I respect him for that. I believe he has the best of intentions. I'm not sure if [the following is due to] his campaign people or if he's just so entrenched in politics, but I do not see him rising above the sludge of misleading statements, out-right lies, and negativity of standard politics.

I had high hopes. Perhaps my hopes were too high. But I feel like his campaign during the primaries gave me that hope.

My turning point is when he said in his convention speech, "When they run out of new ideas, they revert to stale tactics to scare voters. They make their opponent out to be someone people should run from" Something he had just spent the last 20 minutes doing.

When I didn't see the promised change in his political strategy, I hoped that he was simply doing what was necessary to get elected and that the change would come once he was in office ~ A Machiavellian "ends justify the means."

I'm still not seeing the change. I'm seeing the same old politics as usual ~ Where power is more important than the people.

AL MVP

They finally got it right!



Dustin Pedroia wins AL MVP!

I was worried that K Rod would sweep this honor out from under last year's AL Rookie of the Year due to his record setting performance for the Angels.

Thankfully, the voters realized that a gold glove and silver slugger winning day in, day out patient contact hitting second baseman with power is more valuable than a man who comes in for an inning every third game. K Rod finished sixth overall.

Justin Morneau finished second and Dustin's teammate Kevin Youkilis finished third.

For times the voters got it wrong see: 2005, 2006, & 2007

Still Political...

Even though the election is over, there are still many political things happening in this world and I'm here to comment on a few of them.

Economy: I am amazed at how quickly this economic crisis has exploded in regards to the scope of those it is affecting! During late September and all of October, even into early November, this was a "National Crisis." Our country was mired in an economic crisis with now end in sight. Then, suddenly on November 5th, the crisis changed. News stations across the nation started referring to it as a "Global Crisis." Really, there are only two options as to what's happened. Either our economy so rapidly attacked the economies of Asia and Europe that news stations suddenly needed to change the graphic and wording regarding the crisis ... or ... they found that it's really difficult to blame a president (and, by association, a party) for a "Global Economic Crisis." However, a "National Crisis" simply lends itself to being the fault of the executive office. Of course, once the need for the term "National Crisis" is over, they were free to utilize the sensationalized term "Global Crisis." What liberal media?

President: Some of the countries that have been effected by the crisis have met in an attempt to determine what steps they can take to shorten or overcome this economic climate. President Bush attended this meeting. The story should end there, right? But there were people that protested saying that President Elect Obama should have attended. Now, I know people really want their free healthcare to start soon, and they want their tax breaks that Obama voted against when he was a Senator that he's going to institute once he's president. And I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but... Obama is not president yet and therefore he should not be attending international meetings as though he were. Sorry.

Bail out: The senate is debating sending a portion of the $700,000,000,000 bail out to Detroit for the auto makers how have been hit by this recession. On the one hand I wanna know why we're only bailing out certain industries. Mortgages? Banks? Auto makers? The Airlines after 9/11? Why not retail Jacuzzi sellers? They must be struggling. Casinos? I'm sure their business is down. The Detroit Lions? They could sure use it. On the other hand, (and this is the more troubling aspect) if the government decides to extend the money to the auto makers a stipulation is that the government would then have an ownership stake in those companies. Pardon me?! What would the government be doing with an ownership stake in GMC, Ford, and the others? Let's see, what does the government owning big business sound like... Oh yes, I remember now: Socialism. Nothing like having the Dems in power without any checks or balances!

Just a few things that have been bugging me.

Kids Say the Darnedest Things

I so very much enjoy having conversations with our little two and a half year old Full House. The things he comes up with:

I'm often amazed at the sheer vocabulary of words our little man has:

When asking for blueberries
Full House: I want big, huge, MONSTER blueberries!

Driving home
Full House: Look, daddy! Our intersection!

Climbing on his crib
Full House: I'm an acrobat

It is probably no surprise based on who this little man's dad is that he likes sports. He's still learning the details though. He likes to play with his tee-ball which he calls "hit the ball bat." Several times after fantastic hits he's been known to yell:
Full House: Yay! Go Red Sox! Touchdown!

When he gets angry, he tends to want to bite things, particularly that thing which is frustrating him. Nine times out of ten, that's mommy or daddy:
Mommy: Are you biting mommy?!
Full House: No, I'm CHEWING mommy!

And little ones take things so literally. One day, after he tumbled off the couch and bumped his little head on our hard wood floor:
Mommy: (Seeking the injured body part) Oh, little man! What did you hit?
Full House: The floor!
Mommy: (trying desperately not to laugh) and what hurt?
Full House: The wood!

Often, you can get a good sense of how others see you by what your kids say. One day, Full House wanted to listen to his music in daddy's car. Daddy tried to explain why that wouldn't work:
Daddy: Your music is on a CD, mommy's car has a CD player. Daddy's car has a cassette player.
Full House: Oh... I see. (He really says this.) Mommy's car has a CD player.
Daddy: That's right, and Daddy's car has a...?
Full House: (He thinks for a minute) Daddy's car has a BASEBALL player!

I can't even begin to put into words how thankful I am that the Queen of Hearts is my wife and the mother of my children. She is immeasurably amazing. For as wonderful I think my son is, the credit belongs to her. We just celebrated six years together, I hope for sixty more. And I hope that I never make her feel taken for granted. She is my life. And that's a fact, not just my opinion.

President-Elect Obama

Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations. This is an historical moment for our country. I'd like to congratulate you on your tireless, no doubt stressful, campaign. You overcame not only the obvious barrier of being the first African-American to have a real chance at the White House, but other less mentioned barriers: two very popular politicians in Hillary and John. You had further to climb and more circumstances trying to hold you back and yet you were victorious. You should be very proud.

You addressed a group of voters during your acceptance speech: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn..." Well, that's me. "- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices." Sorry Senator Obama but that remains to be seen. I'm going to be honest with you Mr. President-Elect. I wanted to vote for you as you emerged the winner the Democratic primary contest. I wanted to back someone who was promising to, as you put it last night, "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." But you then participated in that very act during your national campaign. Was this a case of "the ends justify the means?" You are now echoing the very words spoken at the RNC by the man you just defeated for the highest office in the land. He said, "Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it." I truly hope that you live up to this hype that you failed to live up to during your campaign. Perhaps, now that you have attained your goal, you can be the statesman, not the politician, that I had originally hoped for. My challenge for you: Win my vote in 2012.

You are a very inspiring speaker. While this definitely helped you win this election, I fear that it could unseat you as well. In all of your charismatic oration, you've convinced people that you can somehow bring about a type of utopia. Free healthcare, peace in Iraq, a better life for the middle class. I urge you, please examine past economic policies before instituting your own. The middle class will not likely support you again should they receive more in their paychecks from the government, but less from their employers only to see more go toward everything they have to purchase.

Having said all of that, you are my President and I will support you, critique you, and pray for you. I will openly support your policies that I agree with, and I will condemn those that I don't. Should the scale ever tip too far to the latter, my support for you may falter, perhaps even fail. But make no mistake. All that you've done before is past. I will view it as the means to this end and let you start anew.

~One whose support you have, but whose vote you have not yet earned,
Just My Opinion.



Ok, before I could write the above letter, I had to get out of my system a letter of a different ilk. Here's what I had to write first:

Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations. You've managed to deceive more than 50% of the people that chose to vote that you were the right man for the job. Truth be told, with the way you ran your campaign, the Democrats could have nominated a lemming and it would have won over the Republican nominee. It was obvious from the get-go that "we can't afford four more years" would be the Left's mantra. And while the GOP managed to nominate the most non-Bush of the bunch, you still managed to pin the Bush III moniker on him. Well done.

You've got a long road ahead of you. I hope you are already planning your rebuttals to the "read my lips" moments that you can expect in 2012. Tax breaks for everyone making under $150K, free healthcare, more jobs, higher wages, out of Iraq, renewable energy, abortions for all, A BCS Playoff, a rebound in the economy (Even as I type the DOW falls), assistance for "main street," and unconditional talks with Iran, North Korea, and Syria, just to name a few. Your tax plan should accomplish the first one, but that means it will make the third and fourth improbable (if not impossible). Those not occurring will likely mean that the ninth will be quite sometime in coming. Which, of course, means that you won't have the money necessary to do numbers two, six, and ten. Even now, you can't carry out the eleventh because when they heard that you would sit without precondition, the leaders of those countries set some preconditions of their own. Now they have the power in the relationship. That leaves the fifth, seventh, and eighth. You don't actually have the power to do the eighth, though it would be nice. The fifth is a non issue because we've already agreed with their government that we'll be out by 2012. Which leaves the seventh. Yup, there's no doubt we'll get that one.

You made a call for unity. I find that ironic. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the party not in power to find a way to unify with the party in power. I'm just wondering why you expect Republicans to unify with you when you, as a Senator, made no effort to unify with them.

In conclusion, part of me looks forward to see if you will really do what you promised: bring actual change to Washington. Or if you will simply continue the partisanship and make it left leaning. Another part of me can't wait to watch your economic plans prove, yet again, that Ronald Reagan was an economic genius and that, like most things in life, to effect the long term you might have to do something that looks like it is sacrificing the short term but if you focus on the short term you are guaranteed to sacrifice the long term. If you take that path, your long term will be short, and will still be looking for the first two term African-American President.

~One whose vote you have not yet earned,
Just My Opinion.


now go read the first letter again.

Voting Booth, Volume XIV

As the election is today, I have a few, short thoughts that I need to get out before we vote. I will arrange them in an order that I feel is descending from most important to least:

If you read nothing else, read this! The election was days away. The economy was in shambles. The working classes were afraid of losing their jobs, they faced pay cuts, strike rumors swirled in the wind. The upper class was afraid that they were going to lose everything they'd worked so hard to save and create.

The election was a close one. The Democrat won the popular vote. It looked as though the Republican had won the Electoral College. But the outcome was unclear. After months of lawsuits, in late December, the Republican was awarded the White House.

Does it sound like I'm describing the 2000 election? I'm not...

During the uncertainty, the blue collar people began major sweeping strikes. Industry shut down. Riots broke out in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Fransisco, and St Louis.

The new President had to make a decision: The upper class was calling for him to send in the national guard to subdue the rioters and break up the strikes. However, the army was spread so thin fighting a far off enemy, there may not have been enough soldiers to do the job. His second option: he could do nothing. Stand by, allow local authorities to take the necessary action against the rioters. Let capitalism decide how the strikes ended.

Had he chose the former, it would have simply aggravated the situation. Wisely, the Republican President chose the latter. He did nothing. He did not send in the National Guard, he did not aid the strikers or the companies, he did not pump money into the economy. He did one thing: He sent troops to keep the peace. He never sent troops to end the riots, only as peacekeepers once the riot was concluded. The economy rebounded.

Economists speculate that had he acted on behalf of either party in the strikes, it would have simply prolonged the situation. They believe that had the President intervened, the economy would have struggled for at least two decades. Instead, it rebounded before the decade ended.

Am I prophesying about the 2008 election? No. All of this happened in 1876-1877. The President? Rutherford B. Hayes.

History repeats itself because we are no longer students of history.

Stock Market: The Media has been declaring this the worst economic downturn since the great depression. We are to believe that the country has never faced this magnitude of crisis since we needed to elect a Democrat to three terms to get us out of it. Guess what... It just isn't true. Many of you know I work for a large financial company. Today, our CEO sent an internal message to the employees to assure them of the companies financial security. He said, rather offhandedly, that October was the 8th worst month for the stock market since 1930. The 8th! Not the first, not even in the top 5. EIGHTH! There have been nearly 80 years since 1930. That's almost one worse month per decade! But, remember, as the economy fell, so did voters to Obama. But the media isn't biased. I'm surprised they didn't try to call this the Greater Depression or Great Depression II: This time it's personal!

Expectations: Obama is already laying the ground work to lower expectations of what he will and will not be able to do as President. Even he recognizes that he can't do what he's promising! A woman at an Obama rally said, "I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to work on puttin’ gas in my car. I won’t have to work at payin’ my mortgage. You know. If I help him [Obama], he’s gonna help me." Ridiculous. You read it here first. Should Obama win and unless something miraculous occurs, he will be a one term President.

Associations: Obama has repeatedly attempted to disassociate himself with four different people/organizations. ACORN, to which he gave $800,000.00. The felon "Tony” Rezko. Bill Ayers, from whose house he announced his candidacy for Senate. Due to this connection, Obama could not work for the FBI, CIA or NSA. But he can be President. He's distancing himself from the former CEO of Fannie Mae from whom he "didn't take financial advice." Rev Wright, whose church Obama attended for twenty years. To his own admission, he was there approximately twice a month. 2 times per month times 12 months per year is 24 times per year times twenty years is 480 sermons. But he didn't know Rev Wright was controversial. Either he's lying, or he thought the comment "The U.S of K.K.K.A" wasn't controversial. Obama even said, "I will not repudiate the man [Rev Wright]." Another example of his brilliant rhetoric: "Repudiate:" To reject the validity or authority of; To reject as unfounded, untrue, or unjust. Obama chooses a word most people don't actually know to tell the truth in a very veiled way that sounds honest and respectful.

Prediction: Since 1936, With one exception in history, how the Washington Redskins go the weekend before the election, so goes the incumbent party. When the Redskins lose, there is a change in party in the White House. When they win, the incumbent party keeps the Executive Office. (The exception? Their 2004 loss to Green Bay, yet George W Bush remained in office.) As I type this, Washington leads Pittsburgh 6-0. Not a good result for McCain. Pittsburgh rallied to win 23-6.

A few notable quotables:
"for the first time in my, really, adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country" Michelle Obama

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world will test Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. We are going to have a crisis, an international crisis to test the mettle of this guy." Joe Biden

So, in conclusion, what does this country really need? A politically inexperienced lawyer who studied under a racist hate monger and partnered with known terrorists while exercising his blind ambition for higher and higher offices. One whose economic plans have been proven by previous administrations not to stimulate the economy, but stifle it, the exact opposite of what history had taught regarding his opponent's policies. Yeah, that's what we need.

Don't forget! Neverfindout.org

Now go vote!

Halloween

Happy Reformation Day! Often forgotten in the shadow of ever shrinking "fun size" candy bars is the anniversary of Martin Luther posting his 95 thesis on the Wittenburg Door sparking the Protestant Revolution! Thanks Marty!

While we anticipate neither our Full House nor Wild Card will participate in Halloween in the traditional sense, it was always my favorite "Holiday." It was the only one where effort had a direct correlation to reward. Sure "Santa" might give you coal (you've got some sick parents if you ever actually received coal) and nobody doesn't get stuff for their birthday, but, with proper planning, Halloween could end in a massive haul.

Seriously, I would game plan for a week before. I couldn't wait to get out of school to prepare for my super bowl. I had maps of my neighborhood that were color coated with categories such as best candy givers, open early, close late, skip this house, friends live here -- all of these had an impact on the route that I would take. I'd plan to pass my house several times during the evening to drop off my loot and pick up a new pillowcase (They were strategically placed for quick transfer). In my stragetery, I came up with a few perennial rules that never failed me. Now that I'm no longer out there, for the first time ever, here is my list of rules. Those of you who still participate in this ritual, feel free to imitate how an expert once did Halloween. Read and learn:

Rule 1) Use a pillowcase! Not a plastic pumpkin, not something that goes with your costume theme, not a bag. Pillow cases hold a ton without limiting the grabability near the top. It's difficult for candy-givers to determine how much candy you already have because pillowcases don't show off your current amount of loot. You can run with a pillowcase and not have to fear that anything is going to fall out. Ever try running with one of those plastic pumpkins?

Rule 2) No Masks! If you must wear a mask, it comes off between houses. You can't run in a mask because your breath condenses inside, it limits your vision and stumbles could cost time and candy.

Rule 3) Hit the rich houses last! That's right, last. Why? The houses that give out the king sized bars are gonna give out one at a time unless they think the night is almost over. That's when they tell you to take a few, or, if you've arrived at the perfect time, the rest. The houses that you missed because they've run out of candy is more than made up for with the extras that you've received from the other homes.

Rule 4) Home-made costumes only! Your generic American candy giver is much more likely to drop a few extra pieces in your pillow case if it looks like you put some effort into your costume rather than went out an purchased that years version of the Harry Potter costume.

Rule 5) Do NOT go in a group! If you must, be with a sibling, but whenever possible, go as the only trick-or-treater with a parent visible standing several yards back. When there are eight pillow-cases held out, each gets one piece. When there's one, more candy falls.

Rule 6) Take two When the bowl is held out and the giver tells you to take a few. Ponder your choices and politely take two. My experience shows that approximately 60% of the time, the giver will drop two or three more into your bag because you were polite and didn't grab a handful. Had you grabbed, you might have gotten 3 or 4. Politely taking 2 nets you a possible 4 or 5.

Rule 7) Make a pit stop! Always make at least one stop back home to empty your pillowcase. If you look like you haven't gotten much, you'll get more. Depending on how late you are starting your final run, leave a little in the bottom of your loot-bag so it looks like you got a late start, not that you are just starting out.

Now, I give these rules in the hopes of sparking a little nostalgia, cause a few chuckles and to raise the following question:

How long will this tradition survive? With fear we send our children to schools where they are greeted with metal detectors. We request that they text us repeatedly when they are at the mall. And yet we allow them to dress up and meander the streets knocking on the doors of neighbors (who we don't know) in the dark with hundreds of other strangers walking about supposedly chaperoning other children.

One of two things must be true: Either we are unnecessarily uber-paranoid 364 days out of the year and Halloween night is actually how our society would be if given the opportunity. Or our daily concern is warranted and we are recklessly irresponsible on Halloween night.

Voting Booth, Volume XIII

Orson Scott Card a self proclaimed "card carrying Democrat" has slammed the media for their coverage of this "economic crisis." If you'd like to read it from his blog you may do so here. It was also printed in the Rhinoceros Times in Greensboro, North Carolina. For your convenience, I've reprinted it below:

"Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?"
-- An open letter to the local daily paper
-- almost every local daily paper in America:
by Orson Scott Card
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know. This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans. What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before. This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them. Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.

(Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.) Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending? I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. 'Housing-gate,' no doubt. Or 'Fannie-gate.'

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed. As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay ... 'Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury.' These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was the Democratic Party.

The party that tried to prevent it was the Republican Party. Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame? Now let's follow the money right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was. But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an 'adviser' to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.) If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper. But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to. If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate. Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing. Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months. So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all," in journalism, left? "Do you even know what honesty means? Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for? You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.

Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles. That's where you are right now. It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there. If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices. Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way. This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion. If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -- and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie. ... You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This isn't even my opinion! What's yours?

Voting Booth, Volume XII

Things bugging me

There are several things about this political season that are driving me to Anarchy. Here are a few:

Bias: I'm so sick of seeing the side by side images of McCain and Obama pictured like this: Obama clearly looking forward and McCain, backward. Obama bathed in a backlit halo, McCain lit from the front accentuating his wrinkles. Obama practically posed, McCain mid word.

These images are hand picked and assembled in a computer, you tell me there's no bias here.

This one is from ABC.

Think that's the only one? Think again:

So's this one

Here's one from TIME:

US NEWS

Top news

NY TIMES

Here's another example:

Is this because McCain is the candidate on the "right" and Obama on the "left"? Ok, let's switch them.

Whoops. I guess that didn't work.

It's these subtle biases that seep into undecided voters' psyches and cause them to lean one way or another.

ACORN: For those that don't know ACORN is an organization that has been registering people to vote; primarily people who will most likely vote democratic. They are currently being accused of voter fraud. Why, you ask? Here are a few facts to consider:

Did you know that all 11 of the Dallas Cowboys offensive starters were registered to vote in Nevada until ACORN came under attack? All of them "registered" through ACORN. Guess which party they were regestered in.

Wisconson has registered convicted felons to vote ~ through ACORN.

Indiana has 105% of it's population registered to vote. This is amazing seeing as the national average of voting eligable people that are registered to vote is 72%.

Why does this voter fraud enter into the equation? Isn't this just an isolated agency acting on it's own? Well, what would you think if a candidate were giving money (not even receiving money... giving money) to this fraud riddled group?

Barack Obama gave $800,000.00 to ACORN for their "Get out the vote" effort. Nearly $1 million. A) That's how much he's raking in during his "I'm only going to use public funds, just kidding" campaign and B) that's how much he thinks this organization will help him buy I mean steal, I mean win the election.

You know, now Obama's been disassociating himself with Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN. combine that with such the short period of time that he's been in the public eye... That's a lot of disassociating for such a breif period. I wonder then, who WAS he associated with?

Ads: The other complaint I have is with Obama's "90%" attack ad (which is somehow not negative according to the media) that has emerged since the final debate.

It opens with McCain's scathing comment, "I am not George W Bush, if you wanted to run against George W Bush you should have run four years ago." The narrator then tries to claim that McCain votes like him. The most deceitful moment of the ad is the end: A shot of McCain stating, "I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my -- even Republican -- colleagues."

Before I continue, here is a direct comment by Obama when he was campaigning in a Red State, "And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there." (I mean a bunch of balogna, but it doesn't seem to be such a big deal for him, now does it?)

Back to the ad: With that video clip of McCain it's right from the horses mouth, right? WRONG! This nearly expertly edited clip has removed two key words, one at the beginning and one at the end. Listen closely and you can hear the first word: "That." and watch his lips and you can see him beginning to form the last, "But."

The full quote is, "My opponent likes to claim that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my -- even Republican -- colleagues, but this is simply not the case." He is obviously stating the allegations in order to refute them.

Nothing like deceiving the American public to gain the office in which they desire someone with integrity. Maybe, just maybe, all of the politicians play the same game and McCain is watching this ad chuckling and thinking, "good shot!"

If this isn't enough for you, here's a great website to read on the full Obama story.

Well, it's all just my opinion. And it's one I'll be exerting at the voting booth.

Review: Juno

2007/PG-13/Drama

The biggest complaint I've heard about this film is that it is going to encourage teenage girls to get pregnant. When there was a rash of pregnancies in Gloucester MA, the media and others questioned whether movies like Juno (or Knocked Up) were partially to blame for the outbreak of teen moms.

Ridiculous.

If this movie were a catalyst for more teen moms it is solely that those teens chose to keep their babies, rather than abort them. There is no way that a young teen is going to watch this film and think, "What a great idea!" At one point Juno mentions she's being referred to as the "cautionary whale." Too true.

The first beneficial thing about this film is that it debunks a few common myths regarding teen pregnancies: 1) You can't get pregnant your first time. 2) All parents are gonna freak out and disown their kids. 3) Abortion is the only option.

Here's what I liked about this movie: Juno's parents weren't "stupid adults." If you watch movies for teens the adults are always dumb (usually with one sage exception, most often the adult the teens should least be spending time with). They are either irresponsible, oblivious, over bearing, selfish, addicted to something, etc. (Notable exceptions: Pretty in Pink, Freaky Friday, Juno) Juno's parents are Christians (a fact that has to be inferred, which is more rewarding than when it's spoon-fed to you). They are supportive without condoning Juno's actions. They love her without condition. Mark and Vanessa [the couple who wants to adopt Juno's child (I didn't make that up, that is their names)] are well thought out characters and not simply vehicles for the plot. I could completely understand their origins, present situation, and future. In Mark we find the adult who is irresponsible, selfish, and dumb. In a typical teen flick, he's the "hero-adult." Not so in Juno. I also enjoyed that pregnancy wasn't glorified or down played. She dealt with the shock, the decisions, the hormones, the ridicule, the uncomfortability, the pain of giving up the baby, the strain on relationships. There was little to nothing that made her situation look desirable. Possibly the best part of the movie is that she decided not to abort the baby in the abortion clinic. She showed that it is never too late to choose life. It even gives a bit of insight as to what might lead someone to do what she did (have sex with someone she wasn't romantically involved with). Repeatedly, Juno says, "I don't know who I am." It's a major subplot that mysteriously dances just under the surface of the movie. Juno doesn't know who she is, or what she wants. The confusion that comes with adolescence is magnificently represented. Juno does things that confuse even the viewer as she continues to confuse herself.

Only three things stand out to me as taking away from this movie (It started out as one thing, but with each revision, I found another). First, while Ellen Page (Juno) did a great job as a 20 year old playing a 16 year old, and while her grasp of the slang and vernacular was exquisite, so was her articulation, and that was a problem for me. Her pattern of speech was too precise. A 16 year-old tossing around phrases such as "I'm forshizz up the spout," and "Banana! Shut your freakin' gob," with expert pronunciation was a little jarring. Second, I didn't really like the way Juno's relationship with "the dad" ended. It made sense in the big picture, but there needed to be an epilogue or something to let us know how it all turned out. The final thing that I didn't really like was the PG-13 rating was probably pushing the envelope.

All in all, Juno is a cautionary tale. It is doesn't come off as a movie about abortion or pregnancy or even teen pregnancy. It is a well crafted film that tells the story of a confused teenaged girl who makes a mistake and chooses to do the right thing. Even when her perfect vision of the end result disintegrates, she still finds a way to work through it. The film deals with the pain, ridicule, emotion, confusion and ramifications of a teen pregnancy.

3 out of 5.

Voting Booth, Volume XI

Pop Quiz! How well do you know the presidential candidates?

1) True or False: When Barack Obama won his election to the IL State Congress, he was the only name on the ballot for that seat.

2) How did McCain endorse Bush in 2000?

A) With great excitement
B) Dutifully
C) With reluctance
D) The Press practically had to force him to say "I endorse Gov. Bush"
E) He didn't endorse Bush

3) How many combined years has Obama been an IL State Congressman and US Senator?

A) 8
B) 12
C) 16
D) 20
E) 24

4) During his tenure as a Senator, McCain has openly opposed:

A) George Bush
B) Donald Rumsfeld
C) Dick Cheney
D) None of the above
E) All of the above

5) True or False: Barack Obama has run for a new office following the completion of every term to which he's been elected.

6) During the 2008 Primary Season, which of the following supported John McCain?

A) Rush Limbaugh
B) Sean Hanity
C) Laura Ingram
D) None of the above
E) All of the above

7) When Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 (when John Kerry was nominated for President) he was a:

A) Law student
B) Community Organizer
C) IL State Congressman
D) US Senator
E) None of the above

8) True or False: In 2001 McCain was seriously considering switching to the democratic party.

9) Financially, Obama has raised:

A) Enough money to out spend McCain three to one
B) Enough money to buy 1/2 hour TV spot on all major networks
C) More money than has ever been raised before for a political campaign
D) No "public" funds (even though he announced that was all he would use originally) allowing him to spend as much as he can raise.
E) All of the above

10) In 2004, McCain was considered for Vice President for:

A) George Bush
B) John Kerry
C) John Edwards
D) Hilary Clinton
E) None of the above

11) True or False: Barack Obama has held public office longer than Sarah Palin.

Answers:

1) True. Obama had basically been handed the seat as the incumbent was running for Governor. When she was badly defeated, the Democrats asked Obama to step down and give her the seat. He refused. There would be an election. Obama had his staff check the signatures on the petitions of all of his opponents. He found enough ineligible signatures that he was able to have all opponents removed from the ballot. He ran unopposed.

2) D) The Press practically had to force him to say "I endorse Gov. Bush." In his "endorsement" speech, McCain looked awkward as though he was there against his will. He didn't use the phrase "I endorse Gov. Bush" until pressed to do so by a reporter.

3) B) 12. He first won his unopposed seat in 1996.

4) E) All of the above. He opposed Bush's original tax cuts. He opposed how Rumsfeld was handling the war. And he opposed Cheney when it was suggested that he fall in line with the party.

5) True. in 2000, Obama ran for IL State Senate after his first term as a State Congressman. He was soundly defeated with the help of Bill Clinton. In 2004 he ran for US Senate and he is now running for President.

6) D) None of the above. Not one Republican pundit wanted to see John McCain as the Republican Nominee.

7) C) IL State Senator. He wasn't even a US Senator when the Democrats last Presidential candidate was nominated.

8) True. McCain was actively courted by the Democratic party as they sought someone who might switch sides, giving them the 1 vote edge in the Senate. McCain eventually declined.

9) E) All of the above. I guess this proves that you sure can buy the Presidency.

10) B) John Kerry. Just as Lieberman was considered for McCain's running mate. It was designed to draw some voters across the aisle.

11) False. Obama won his first election in 1996. Sarah Palin was first elected to public office in 1992.

So there you have it. Obama has yet to hold a position long enough to really know what he's doing in it, let alone what would be required in his next position. And he had a plan in place to elevate himself to the place where he could run for president this year when he arrived in the Senate in 2004. Year 1: keep your head down and your voice quiet. Year 2: Help out other Democrats. Nothing like earning some IOU's by helping people get their bills passed. Year 3: Gain prominence. Start to speak out a little louder. Year 4: Run.

McCain, on the other hand, is not the darling of the right as the Left is trying to paint him. He is the Maverick, so much so that the Democrats tried to get him to switch parties and considered putting him on their ticket. He is not Bush III and is obviously an independent thinker who stands up for what he believes in.

I ask again: Who would you rather see in the White House. The restless ambitious inexperienced politician? Or the principled, experienced, independent statesman?

Judges, Motorcycles, and more Politics

As it always seems to happen when I have a slightly extended absence: here is a multi-topic post. I'll organize from least interesting to most. Feel free to skip around.

Legislating from the Bench: The Connecticut Supreme Court has done the same illegal, cowardly, usurpation that the Mass courts did. Gay "marriage" is now legal in CT. If you live in CT, whether you agree with the ruling or not, you ought to vote Yes for the Constitutional convention so that the judges will learn that they don't actually run the government. They don't have the right to make new laws. And this government of the people by the people for the people is truly going to be that. Here is my biggest beef with Gay "marriage." Marriage is a religious concept. Now, if the church is supposed to keep it's nose out of the state, why isn't the reverse true? Let the state give whatever rights/benefits/tax breaks they want to gay couples. But don't require the church to bestow the title "married" on them.

Motorcycles: I used to see the bumper sticker with an image of a motorcycle that said "Share the road" and think that it was a reminder to motorists to share the road with motorcyclists. Now I realize the truth. It's reminding motorcyclists two things: 1) They don't actually own the road and 2) There are cars on it. I have had several situations where I've nearly taken out a motorcycle because he decided (and the jerks on bikes to tend to be universally men) that the dotted white line on the highway is the motorcycle lane. The reason drivers don't see motorcyclists is because they weave in and out of traffic at 3 times the speed limit. One of my favorite things about CT is that helmets are optional. Talk about social Darwinism. God bless the freedom to be stupid, but don't endanger my family while you're at it! So, hey motorcycles, "share the road, will ya?!"

Spin: My new biggest beef with Obama's "honorable" campaign is his "Tax Break" ad. In it he claims that 101 million American families will not receive a tax break under McCain's economic plan. During this assertion there are two images on the screen, assumedly representing the type of "families" that won't receive any tax break. Both images are families with kids. Whoops. McCain's plan will double the tax credit for children. Golly Gee, Barack, are you being deceitful to the American people again? See, it looks like the people pictured will receive a tax break. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, you certainly aren't in the business of misleading America. Of course, you don't explicitly say that those pictures are representative of those who would be left tax breakless, but we'll just let the American people believe that they won't, right?

Campaign Signs: I've noticed a few trends with the campaign signs that I've been seeing in my neck of the woods. The first thing I've noticed is the incredible lack of campaign signs. Either people don't care as much as they have in the past, this campaign is more contentious than previous ones and people don't want to upset their neighbors, or the candidates are charging too much for the signs and people don't want to buy them. I, personally believe the second to be the least likely. Another observation is that the people supporting the Democrats choice for President appear to be embarrassed by the Vice Presidential selection. Easily seven out of ten signs that I see do not have Biden's name on them. I have news for those who will vote for the D's: You can't have Obama without Biden. I haven't seen the same shying from the running mate with the McCain/Palin signs. Perhaps 2 out of 10 list only McCain. The other thing I've noticed is that there are more "cross-over" voters this year voting for McCain. Remember this is based entirely on campaign signs. I've seen "Democrats for McCain" "Women for McCain" I've even seen one that said "Hilaryocrat for McCain." Obviously these are people who traditionally vote for the Democratic party.

More of the same: While in conversation with a voter she expressed a thought that I found to be poignant and worth sharing. She said, "I would have liked to have seen McCain/Palin just to see if anything would have been different." What does this admission reveal? She expects nothing but more of the same partisanship, deadlock, and disappointment from an Obama Administration as we've gotten from Bush II. What she said in her defeated, resigned comment was in complete agreement with what you've been reading on Just My Opinion: Obama will not bring change. Partisanship is the same be it left or right. True change is someone not beholden to any one party. Someone who's record shows that he or she votes with their conscience, not with the letter by their name. Who might that be? I think I'll just refer to one candidate as Mr 66% and the other as Mr. 97%. You tell me, which would you rather have in office?

So, what's your opinion?

Voting Booth, Volume IX and X

For those of you who have been paying attention, you might have surmised that my blogging absence was due to the birth of my daughter. You'd be right! The Queen of Hearts and I (and our Full House) are pleased to announce the arrival of our little bundle of sleeplessness, I mean joy. Our little Wild Card was born on Friday September 28 at just after noon. She was 7'11" and 19 in long. Happy, healthy and we are thrilled to have her as a new member of our family.

Due to my absence, I have lots to cover, so let's get right to it! In reverse chronological order:

I'm sure you've noticed there have been a few debates that I haven't been able to weigh in on and I'm sure you are wondering what I think. (Why else would you be reading this...) So I'll do my best to make it brief:

Voting Booth, Volume X: The Vice Presidential debate:

I'm going to handle the two debates slightly differently.

Biden began this debate down a few points. This is because he was expected to run away with it. It was anticipated that Palin would look as bad as she did with Couric. So in order for him to win, he had to win convincingly. He didn't. The very fact that the debate appeared to be "close" means that Palin walked out the victor.

I don't mind mentioning that I really like Sarah Palin. I feel like she could have been my neighbor who decided she wanted to make a difference.

So I'm just going to pose a few questions that I found myself asking while watching this debate (Nearly all of them are for Biden):

Who had the power over the last two years to pass anything they wanted in congress while we've been suffering through the "Worst economy ever"?

Who blocked McCain's bill to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac two years ago?

Yes, small business owners avoid the personal tax increase proposed by Obama for those that make more than $150K. How, exactly, do they avoid the increase in the proposed business tax?

Exactly how have you been supporting "clean coal" for "25 years" when it hasn't been around nearly that long?

If global warming is entirely man-made, as you claimed, why is it that we have proof of the temperature of the Earth increasing prior to the Industrial revolution?

If the "insurgence strategy" won't work in Afghanistan, why did you say, not 2 minutes later, that you'd send more troops there?

What is a Bosniac? Last I checked, they were Bosnians.

If Obama is going to have you present for every important decision, are you really comfortable being the VEEP for a man who needs you to hold his hand as Pres?

Oh, I did have one question for Palin.

I understand that you want people who have foreclosed houses to vote for you... but do you really not blame the people who took mortgages they couldn't afford? Someone can suggest that I purchase a Jaguar, but I know I can't make the payments. So, "Predatory" lenders or not, isn't there some shared blame there?

I'm pretty sure that Biden is glad he only needs to debate Palin once.

Voting Booth, Volume IX: McCain v Obama round 1:

This debate was much closer, so we'll have to break it down more.

Preplanned Lines: Advantage Obama
They both had them and they both said them, but Obama made me believe slightly more that they were off the cuff. Whereas whenever McCain said one, he might as well have been crossing it off the list on his podium as he said it.

Zinger: Advantage McCain
While they both had some poignant things to say, McCain's "The next president will not have to decide whether or not we went into Iraq" was easily the most memorable and the one that takes the cake.

Points: Push
I really feel like both men said what they wanted to say. They laid out some of their plans and attacked some of their opponents. No clear winner here. Although, I do have one question for Obama. It seems his contention is that when Wall Street fails, "Main street" feels it. Yet at the same time he denies the flip side of that same coin. He does not believe that "Main Street" succeeds when Wall street does. How is this possible?

Awkward Moment: Advantage McCain
Giving McCain the advantage means that Obama gave us the most awkward moment. McCain had just told the heartfelt story of a mother who lost a son in Iraq and how she didn't want him to have died in vain. And Obama, like a five year old, basically said, "I have a bracelet too." Nothin' like sounding unoriginal and sounding immature at the same time.

Eloquence: Advantage Obama
But did we really expect anything else? This should come as no surprise to anyone. McCain didn't pull any "Bidenisms" or "Bushisms" or "Quayleisms" so this wasn't a real big issue.

Fact Checking: Push
I'm tempted to give the advantage to McCain because I believe that Obama's "misinformation" was more deceptive than McCain's. But they both stretched and twisted the truth to fit their own agenda's. Obama mentioned McCain's supposed 90% agreement with Bush again. They both mentioned tax breaks for oil companies as though that was the point of the legislation that was voted for or planned. In Obama's situation it was a bill that provided funding for renewable energy and in McCain's plan it is a tax break for all companies, oil companies included.

And so it appears that we are at an impasse. 3 per candidate. However, because there was such a stark contrast in the final category, where it is usually an automatic push, this time it actually becomes a consideration

Conduct: Advantage McCain
There was a moment early in the debate where Obama interrupted McCain. McCain was so taken aback by it that he let it happen. But he never let it happen again even though I counted three more times that Obama attempted to interject while McCain was mid sentence. McCain, however, gave Obama the respect he deserved and allowed him to finish speaking before attempting a rebuttal.

Final: McCain
While I give McCain the marks for "winning" the debate, I don't think that anyone is going to change their vote over this one. It may have swayed an undecided or two, but there really wasn't anything new. McCain missed a few key opportunities that he may be saving for rounds II or III where they may make a bigger difference closer to the election (For example, some of Obama's key financial advisers were high ranking officials for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. You may remember, the failed companies that we are now bailing out? (More on the bail out later.) Why is this not a concern?)

And the loser? The American people. As long as we have a two party system the political problems that we are experiencing will never be fixed in Washington, Boston, Albany, Hartford, or anywhere else in the US. McCain is clearly the most independent of the "two" candidates. If we are experiencing more than one crisis (the war, the economy, healthcare, employment, etc) with a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Executive branch. Maybe we should protest both by voting for another party. Green, anyone? Libertarian? Socialist? There are plenty to choose from. I'm pretty sure you can still "Vote Bob."

Alright, moving right along:

The Bailout.

The more I research this thing the more I think that the Democrats took advantage of a small issue and made it into a huge crisis so that they could come running to the rescue and push through a "bailout" bill packed with liberal agenda addendums (tax breaks for employers to pay for employees' who want to bike to work, 20 million to liberal special interests, etc). Small business owners aren't having problems getting loans. Car buyers, home buyers, etc. The only people who can't get loans are those that aren't qualified. The very people who had their homes foreclosed on in the first place. The very people who should have been rejected originally.

This "bailout" is a joke. And who decides who gets bailed out? My brother-in-law's ice cream shoppe could have used a bailout. So could the Detroit Lions. What about the auto industry? They are truly struggling. Where's their bailout? One more thing:

If the republicans are the party of big business and fat cows, why did they not want to pass this bill "designed to give more money to the rich?"

Well, there you go. My thoughts on all that's happened while we've been busy having a baby! What do you think?

A Memo to Jay Leno:

A memo to Jay Leno:

Greetings Mr. Leno. I have been an avid watcher of your show for as long as you've been hosting. Truth be told, I was a big fan when you were guest hosting in place of Mr. Carson, and I was very happy when you won the position over Mr. Letterman (and even moreso when your ratings proved that you were the right choice). I've even made an appearance on your show.

Having said all of that, I have a question. Why is it that you and your writers believe that ageism is acceptable? Not only acceptable but the anchor that holds your monologue together.

Since Sen. McCain was announced as the Republican nominee you've made no less than three "old" jokes at his expense each and every night. The first ones were funny. But it's gotten quite old. Perhaps even older than Sen. McCain himself. There are only so many ways you can show that someone is very old. You've covered them all.

Furthermore, so few other candidates are the target of your "humorous" jabs. Yes, you point fun at the "gun toting, I-have-no-foreign-policy-experience, working-mother" Sarah Palin. And on a rare occasion you point out a gaffe made by Sen. Biden. However, it seems to me that Sen. Obama is completely off limits. When you have guests who support Sen Obama you allow them to speak openly and freely. When you have guests who support Sen McCain you pose tough questions and force them to defend their position.

Are you simply getting lazy as you head toward retirement? If your obvious lackluster attempts at used comedy continue, I may have to tune into a different show. Truly, you are becoming a hack of yourself, and it's not pretty.

Hopefully, things will change.

~A former faithful viewer

This Week in the NFL

No power rankings, just some observations:

The following NFL teams are undefeated:

Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
New York Giants
Tennessee Titans

However, of the seventeen wins represented there (the Ravens have already had their bye week) seven have been against teams that have yet to win. The Raven's opponents have gone 0-6, the Titan's foes have gone 1-8, and the Giants have faced off against teams that have a combined 2-7 record. The Cowboys are the only team that has handed each of their opponents their only loss of the season thus far. And if we compare the net points of the losing teams, only Dallas and Denver have beaten teams that have net points that aren't negative.

Those stats not impressive? How about this: If we compare the rankings of the teams average points, yards, rush yards and passing yards per game only 2 crack the top 5. Denver averaging a ranking of 3.75 and Dallas at 4.

All this is to say we have four illegitimate "undefeated" teams right now. Not only that, but the Giant's schedule is so soft that it would be a disappointment if they didn't go 6-0. And they should be 6-1 when they face off against the 7-0 Dallas Cowboys. This would be the first of four consecutive losses for New York, dropping them to a more earthly, more representative 6-4. Baltimore's average ranking is 16.75, The Titans are at an average of 14.75 and the Bills average 14.25. Remember, there are 32 teams in the NFL. These "undefeateds" are smack in the middle.

In Other News: (Ok, not news exactly, but in other aspects of the NFL:)

Running up the score: Last year the Patriots were slammed for what some saw as "running up the score." Up by two touchdowns they went for it on fourth and one against Dallas igniting the ire of the Lone Star fans. How interesting, then, this past week when Dallas goes for it on fourth and 1 late in the game deep into Green Bay territory and up by a lot. They failed to convert. But had they converted, shouldn't they be accused of running up the score? There was more time than they would have been able to kneel out. They would have had to get another first down and there wasn't much room to obtain it. So, for the record, the following fans cannot complain about anyone else "running up the score": Dallas (see above). San Diego 48-29 (38-14 at one point, yet they kept scoring). Miami 38-13. Atlanta 38-14. New York Giants 41-13 (wk2). Green Bay 48-25 (wk2). Denver 41-14 (wk1). Buffalo 34-10 (wk1). Philadelphia 38-3 (wk1). Unless, of course, it's true that you shouldn't be required to "stop yourself."

Ok, I can't resist, without explanation, here's a power ranking:

10) Atlanta Falcons
9) Indianapolis Colts
8) Carolina Panthers
7) Minnesota Vikings
6) San Diego Chargers
5) Philadelphia Eagles
4) Denver Broncos
3) Pittsburgh Steelers
2) Green Bay Packers
1) Dallas Cowboys

The AFC is totally up for grabs. Denver looks good but they give up too many points (84 thus far). Pittsburgh can't seem to protect Big Ben. The Titans and Patriots are playing with back up QBs. The Colts and Chargers are whole, but can't seem to close out the wins. It's gonna be a fun year.

There you go. My NFL post for the week.