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.

Exxon Mobile

Frankly, I'm tired of Exxon Mobile trying to improve their public image by these "Look-at-all-the-good-stuff-we-do-for-the-community-while-we-rob-you-blind-at-the-pump" commercials they've been airing. They did it during the Olympics and they've continued even after the games have ended.

How dumb do they think we are? "Oh, gee. Exxon Mobile posted the largest single quarter profit in the history of the world last quarter. Isn't it nice that they are spending some of that money to tell me that they are spending some of that money to provide mosquito nets in Africa? Now I don't feel so bad paying $4+ dollars at the pump."

"Wow, this Exxon Mobile employee is volunteering his time to encourage students in math and science. ... Unless they are paying him to do this... in which case they are again proving that they have too much money."

Truth be told (is there ever anything other than truth told on Just My Opinion?) they have three different "Math and Science" ads and two different "Mosquito Nets" ads. That is a lot of money spent to tell people just how much good they are doing in the world. Imagine if a non-profit spent that much declaring from the rooftops all the good they are doing. The people who donate to them would be livid.

Well, I, apparently, am "donating" to this good by paying too much for gas. Instead of spending the extra money you are receiving, try giving some of it back. Looks to me like the oil companies function more like Democrats than Republicans: "Oh, we have more money than we need. Let's find new ways to spend it, rather than giving it back to the people we took it from."

Because of these ads, I won't buy gas from Exxon Mobile!

... And Nothing But the Truth

As we remember the attacks on our country that took place seven short years ago (can you believe it's been that long?) my thoughts turn to politics.

A recent poll asked people if they were afraid of another attack on the country. Only 30% said yes compared to over 2/3rds of those polled in 2002. Anyone want to take a guess as to why that might be? I have a theory. Our government has been successful at thwarting the plans and the schemes of those that would desire our harm.

This is something that ought to be considered as we contemplate who we will allow to lead our nation for the next four years.

Several times on this blog I've accused Sen. Obama of lying to us.

What do ya know! I found a situation where Barack Obama did not lie to the American public.

He only purposefully mislead us.

After much research, I have learned that Sen. Obama was telling the truth when he said that "Sen. McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time."

This is a true statement. (What is meant by "with President Bush" is with the Republican party.) Since January, John McCain has voted in line with the President's view (hence, the Republican view) 90% of the time.

But if a half truth is a falsehood, then I've found one. In 2005 McCain voted in line with the President only 77% of the time. And in 2001, McCain voted in line with the Republican party a mere 67% of the time.

Let's contrast this with Obama who voted with his party 97% of the time in 2007 and 2005 and 96% of the time in 2006.

To quote one of the most unbiased sources I could find: "So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 90 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."

Where is the promised "change?" A President in the Oval office who tows his party line is not bringing change to Washington! The change that is needed in Washington is not simply a change of party. It is a change of process, practice, and policy.

For as much as McCain voted "With Bush" 90% of the time this year, he still has a track record of being one of the most independent voters in the Senate. Unlike the distinguished freshman Senator from IL.

Hey, when all I've presented are facts, I can't really say that it's just my opinion!

In the interest of fairness, here are other unbiased reports on the "facts" of the convention speeches of Obama and McCain

Were You Not Listening?

Nothing like lying to the American people. And nothing like doing it before you even get elected!

Barack Obama, after the Republican National Convention stated: "Nobody talked about jobs. Nobody talked about health care, Nobody talked about education."

Look, Barack, if you didn't watch the RNC, just admit it. Don't make stupid false statements about it. You sound like a teenager who told his parent he was going to see "Alvin and the Chipmunks" but really went to see "The Hills Have Eyes." "What was the movie about Barack?" "Oh, uh... there were these ... uh... rodents...see, and uh..."

Or if you disagreed with what was said, that's fine. Disagree. But don't act like nothing was said. To use the teenager analogy again. "Barack, I told you to clean your room!" "It doesn't need cleaning!" is different than "Barack, I told you to clean your room!" "No you didn't!"

Personally, I found four portions of McCain's speech exceptional. One was about jobs, one about health care, one about education, and one about compromise.

Or perhaps Senator Obama simply went to the kitchen to get some ice cream. Maybe he had to hit the head. Because here is an uninterrupted segment from Senator McCain's speech: (emphasis added)

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second-highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity.

I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That's going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We're going to help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.

We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower-paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity. Sen. Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will.

Hmm... Not sure what I was listening too, then. McCain must have accidentally skipped this vital portion of his speech because according to Senator Obama nobody talked about jobs, health care, or education.

Oh... maybe he meant at his own convention!

And, for those of you who are interested, here was my favorite part of his speech. I've boldened the absolute greatest line. If McCain wins and keeps his promises, this line will enter the ranks of "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." This line could potentially change politics as we know it. It's so simple that it's profound and so attainable that it's revolutionary.

The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.

Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Sen. Obama does not.

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. This amazing country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability.

We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit.

This man is my choice for President. I hope that isn't just my opinion.

wanna read the whole speech? here it is: McCain's Acceptance

NFL Power Rankings Week 1

with upsets and injuries I simply couldn't resist:

10) New York Giants (Previous Ranking: off)
Last Week's result: W vs Washington

Convincing win. Though Manning still looks like a timid kitten in the pocket. If they want climb in the power rankings, he needs to mature. next game at St Louis, should be an easy win.

9) Chicago (Previous Ranking: off)
Last Week's result: W vs Indianapolis

Wow. WOW. The mighty Bears D held Indy to 1 touchdown and that was in the second half! Used Orton's strengths rather than trying to force him to do things he doesn't do well. Keep this up and you'll contend. next game at Carolina. Tough game. It'll be close. Probable loss.

8) Carolina (Previous Ranking: off)
Last Week's result: W vs San Diego

Poise, calm, gameplan. Overcame the team some have picked to win it all. Welcome to the list. Next game home vs Chi-town. It'll be close, but you should be able to eek out a win.

7) Green Bay (Previous Ranking: 7)
Last Week's result: W vs Minnesota

Brett who? This is Mr. Rodger's neighborhood. I fully expected a valiant effort in a losing battle. (Of course, I had you ranked above MN and should have listened to myself.) You won when the power ranks said you should. Hence you keep your spot. Next game should be an easy win compared to this one: At Detroit.

6) Indianapolis (Previous Ranking: 4)
Last Week's result: L vs Chicago

It's one thing to have a great defense stymie your offense. It's another to not be able to stop Kyle Orton. Things better change if you want to prevent another free-fall on the list. Next game at MN. If you can stop their run (which I think you can) you should win this game. Though right now I see it as 50/50.

5) New England (Previous Ranking: 1)
Last Week's result: W vs Kansas City

You won the battle of the back up QB's. Brady is out for the season. Moss is still Moss. Vrabel still Vrabel. Belichick is still Belichick. If anyone can find a way to win with Matt Cassel it's Bill. Besides, Cassel hasn't started a game since 1999 when he was in high school. He has something to prove. They can run the Indy passing offense: dink dunk 4 yard here 6 yards there try a huge play every now and then. This takes 2 wins from them, tops. Next game: The Old-timer vs the new comer. Favre vs Cassel. At the Jets. I think New England can pull this one out.

4) San Diego (Previous Ranking: 3)
Last Week's result: L vs Carolina

Your loss was not as egregious as some others (*cough* Indy *cough*) But you didn't look like a playoff bound team. Tighten it up. We don't want the only Bolt we're talking about to be a sprinter from Jamaica! Next game at Denver. Denver showed themselves to be formidable and the new Mile High isn't very forgiving. With reservations I pick you to win.

3) Philadelphia (Previous Ranking: 9)
Last Week's result: W vs St Louis

The New England of 07. Running up the score. Blowing out the other team. I'm not complaining. I think this should only be prevented if the participants are under 14. It's not your job to prevent yourself from scoring. Too bad you next game is at Dallas. But starting the season at .500 isn't terrible.

2) Pittsburgh (Previous Ranking: 6)
Last Week's result: W vs Houston

See notes for the Eagles. Basically the same situation. Exact same point total. But you did it against a slightly better team. Next game another blowout as you march into Cleveland.

1) Dallas (Previous Ranking: 2)
Last Week's result: W vs Cleveland

Sleeping to a 28-10 victory over a team I had high hopes for. With Indy faltering, San Diego fizzling, and New England limping, you are the default #1. Keep Jessica out of the stadium and you might stay there. You face the first test of the season next week when you host Philly. You'll come away with the win, though.

Off) Cleveland, Jacksonville, Minnesota.

Seriously, I don't expect this to be a regular thing (barring enough interest and requests for it to continue), but this week one was so volatile that I had to reorder the teams.

Can't wait till next Sunday!

Seven Political Complaints

When it comes to politics, do I ever do anything else?

Complaint 1: Double Standards

When a hurricane devistates a city, when politicians fail to serve their people, and when disaster strikes: It's the president's fault. However, when a disaster is averted, when an evacuation is successful, and when politicians shine: The credit goes to the local leaders. Hmm... And the latter is not just the national media. The Republicans are congratulating Mayor Nagin and the new (Republican) Governor of Louisiana. Granted it's a back-handed compliment saying "The local leaders did their part this time. They did what they were supposed to do and evacuated the areas most affected." I couldn't agree more. The blame and the kudos should fall squarely on the shoulders of the local officials. I await the apologies of all of those that blamed the president and are congratulating Nagin.

Complaint 2: An Inconvenient Label

A major news website has the headline "Ex-Democrat now backs McCain" to announce that Joe Lieberman would be speaking at the GOP convention. Funny thing is: Lieberman still holds all of this committee positions and the Democrats count him when they discuss their margin over the Republicans in the Senate. So, he's a Democrat when they like what he's doing and he's an "Ex-Democrat" when he's stumping for the other party. Most memorable line from his speech: "Country matters more than party and John McCain is the best choice to lead our country."

Complaint 3: Lying to America

I grow weary of the Democrats strategy to paint McCain as Bush III. Let's be honest: Bush II wasn't even the same as Bush I. How can McCain be a little Bush II clone? I think what bothers me most about this is it is so far off the mark. The only Senator who may be more of a maverick, more of a wild card, than McCain is Lieberman. I hope that those who believe that McCain will be "four more years of failed leadership" (As Hillary put it) will view his voting record and find that the mathematical equation Bush=McCain deserves a big red X through it.

Complaint 4: Stupid Voters

Once before at work I had a customer say something so stupid on the phone that I had to mention it here. It's happened again. A customer said to me today that they were apprehensive when it came to voting for the McCain/Palin ticket because, "What if, God forbid, she should become president? I'd be uncomfortable with her inexperience in the White House." Pardon? Yes, let's all vote for Obama to ensure inexperience in the Oval Office rather than voting for McCain on the outside chance that it might happen. Seriously. There should be a test before you are allowed to vote.

Complaint 5: Inappropriate Bias

On the rerun of House today there was a scene were a doctor is attempting to gain some privacy in a restroom. In the stall, on the wall behind her was a bumper sticker that said "Vote for Change '08." Shameless. I'd be just as upset if it said "Country First '08." I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It seems that the wealthy of Hollywood enjoy paying more in taxes because that why they don't have to feel compelled to donate any more of their money. "Sorry, I gave in my paycheck." Actually, Lieberman said it right, "The real vote for change is a vote for John McCain."

Complaint 6: "The High Road"

I'm incredibly surprised that the Left decided to press the issue of Sarah Palin's daughter's (Bristol) pregnancy. Did they forget that Barack said that he "wouldn't want [his] daughters to be punished [by having a baby] for poor decisions they made"? Seems to me this is exactly the type of thing they'd want to stay way from. Although, I wouldn't put it past Obama to ok the release of this information so that he can "take the high road." "Family is off limits," he can now say. Rather than actually making it off limits. It's the same strategy he used when he encouraged his "former mentor" pastor to continue speaking loud and crazy so that Obama could immediately disagree with him, rather than trying only to disagree with the things he'd said in the past.

Complaint 7: How the Election Process fails me

I've realized why I so prefer the negative "attack" political ads. As I look back over my own voting record I found that I have yet to vote for a candidate for President. Even before I could vote I was campaigning actively for Bush I because I didn't want to see Clinton in the White House (Just ask my High School Art teacher...) The first vote I ever cast was against a Clinton second term (So much against, I had registered Democratic so I could vote for Bradley in the primary in the hopes that Clinton would not get the nomination... and then I voted against Clinton again and consequently Dole received my vote.) I voted against Gore and Kerry. Now, every vote I've ever cast has fallen into the pool of a blue state. So, for those of you who feel like your vote "didn't count" when you voted against Bush II: I know how you feel. I'm so hoping that this vote will be for a candidate and not against one. In that fashion, I'm a bit of an undecided voter. Will I be voting for McCain? Or against Obama? I just don't know.

There you have it, feel free to respond by number. Offer your opinion in response to mine.

2008 NFL Preview

Don't worry, I'm not expecting to do a weekly power ranking this year but I can't avoid doing a preseason prediction post!

Let's get right into it!

Preseason Power Ranking:

10) Cleveland (last ranking last year 9)

Moderate success last year. 1 win from a playoff spot. Can Anderson the wonderboy get you to the post season this year? It'd have to be a wild card place.

9) Philadelphia (off)

As long as you have Westbrook and your D, you're dangerous. Wild Card? Maybe.

8) Minnesota (6)

You don't need a quarterback when you have Adrian and that O-line. I'm expecting a playoff berth this year!

7) Green Bay (2)

No Favre? No problem. (Ok, I only wrote that because it was catchy.) Slight problem, but Aaron Rogers has been under the tutelage of the master for years. Young receivers + young QB = a "We-don't-know-we-shouldn't-win" mentality.

6) Pittsburgh (8)

I think you're feeling the pressure of Cleveland and you'll step it up a notch. But since Big Ben's injury, you're not among the elite.

5) Jacksonville (5)

This team is built to defeat Indy. But they can't seem to. It does make them useful at defeating other teams though.

4) Indianapolis (4)

Manning's injured. 'Nuff said.

3) San Diego (7)

Merriman is hurt, could be out for the season, but the Chargers are always dangerous.

2) Dallas (3)

Romo grows another year wiser. Dallas gets better in the off season. Maybe they'll actually win a post season game this time.

1) New England (1)

If they went 15-1 and lost the Super Bowl they'd be in first. Why would 18-1 and losing the Superbowl be any different? The loss to NY was a blip on the radar. They're still gonna continue their winning ways.

Off) New York Giants (10)

This is not spite. Osi's down, Strahan's out, Coughlin's still coaching, Manning's still throwing. They will not make the playoffs.

So, am I right? Am I wrong? Where's your team? (Sorry Jason, look at the Giant's schedule. You just might agree with me.)

Sound off in the comments!

Voting Booth, Volume VIII

Warning: This is a slam on the Democratic party. Perhaps I should have let some time pass before writing this, but I am too annoyed by what I just watched.

I was going to wait for the GOP to have their convention so I could (most likely) rail on both parties for the practice that has thrust me into anger and rage.

I love the political process. I love two people saying the same thing in different ways and people deciding that one is right and one is wrong just because of the letter by their name. "That ball is red (D)" "That's a red ball (R)" Well, clearly the former is correct because the ball could change colors so right now it's red but the ball is the most important part, not the color. Obviously the latter is correct. It differentiates it from the other balls. That's the red ball. If it gets changed to blue, then we'll talk about the former. It's hysterical.

Sidenote: During Hillary's speech she said that "we need to take back America." From whom? From Bush and Cheney and the Republicans? Funny thing, last time I checked they won the election which means that more Americans voted for them than for the other candidate... which means what you've really said is that we need to take back America from the majority of Americans. Yup, that sounds like the Democratic party. (Oh, and if Hillary really meant what she said in supporting Barack, it means that she'll never be president. You don't run against the incumbent from your party and she'll be in her 60's in eight years which, according to Democrats, is too old to be President) End Sidenote.

That having been said, what I cannot abide is what I have seen every time I've tuned into the DNC (And what I expect to see when I watch portions of the RNC). I apologize, for this post I have to discuss only the Dems because they are the only ones who have spoken nationally on such a stage as their National Convention.

They claim that the Right are fear mongers, and yet all they do is claim that the Republican agenda is the destruction of America! Do they ever say it outright? Practically.

Their speech is reminiscent of war time rhetoric. "The future of our country depends on Barack Obama." "It's for the children." "This is a fight we must win!" Why? Why is this a must win? For either party?

Time and time again, the speaker talks about the things that need to happen in the country: Jobs must be created. The country must be protected. The environment must not be destroyed. Clean energy must be utilized. And Barack Obama is the only candidate who will accomplish this and the Democrats are the only party who will fulfill these goals. That if one were to vote for the other party it would amount to treason.

Here is a direct example. Obama said "Government cannot solve all of our problems. But it should provide us with clean toys, safe water, roads, new technology. It should be for us, not against. Help us, not hurt us. Ensure opportunity not just for those with money and power, but for all. It should protect American jobs and workers." By saying this, he is shamelessly implying that McCain doesn't believe these things and will not do them.

As I type this, Obama is giving his acceptance speech, and I must respond to these statements lest I explode!

Let me first say that I respected Barack before this speech. All of the tactics that I'd been ranting about above had come from other Democrats. Obama had yet to play this game. He talks a lot about "same old politics" and then put on the jersey of the team he claims to oppose. Fear fear fear.

I am livid at all of the strawmen that the speechwriters are setting up. The DNC is not the party of the people as it likes to pretend, it is the party of the strawman. Fear this that the GOP might do, fear that that the Republicans have planned.

Here's an example: Obama said, "I have news for you McCain. We all put our country first." McCain has never implied that Obama doesn't. But now, uninformed people can do nothing but assume that he's made repeated claims to that nature.

Obama mentioned Martin Luther King Junior's "I have a dream" speech and said that the people who gathered in Washington that day could have heard any number of things. Anger. Discord. Disunity. Division from so many dreams differed or destroyed. Funny thing is: That's exactly what I heard from Obama. Discord. Anger. "Eight is enough." Implying that McCain is a Bush mini-me. I'm hoping the irony was not lost on others.

He claimed that when a candidate has "no fresh ideas, the revert to stale tactics to scare voters. They make their opponent out to be someone people should run from." I wonder what Obama meant to do, then when he claimed the following (each quote followed by my response):

"McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time." What does this even mean? Bush doesn't write bills, he doesn't cast a vote. Is he considering Bush's Veto as his vote? Ok, how many bills that Obama voted for has the president veto'd? If voting with Bush means voting the party line, what's Obama's record? 97%? Even when the majority of his party voted with Bush he still stubbornly stood alone as one of the few people who doesn't have to say "I voted for the war before I voted against it." When even his running mate admits "Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued" -Joe Biden

One time Obama voted against the grain of his party was when he voted to hold lobbyists more accountable. Any guesses the name of another Senator who voted for that bill, who co-authored that bill? Oh yeah, John McCain.

"In November, Bush and Cheney will ask this country for a third term." Newsflash: George W Bush is not running for President! And McCain is not a Bush clone as you'd like to paint him. Actually, you said several times that "McCain stands alone..." in his unwillingness to retreat from Iraq, in his stodgy old time political views, his "worn out ideas of politics of the past," etc. Gee, if all of these things are what we need change from and yet McCain stands alone... sounds like he must be the most powerful Senator ever!

To scare us even more, he mentioned the following "failures" of the Bush administration:

The average American salary has "gone down $2000." Of course, he fails to explain this. Not many people have actually taken a pay decrease. But when you compare wages to inflation and the rise in cost of certain expenses this is true. But what's driven this? Well, I'll list a few: Oil cost due to A)Higher global demand and B) Opec lowering supply. But we can't give the American relief by A) drilling offshore, B) releasing some of our own storehouses, or C) temporarily repealing the gas tax. These are all Republican ideas to ease this burden voted down by Democrats. There's been a sharp increase in food costs. Mostly due to the increase in cost to ship it (due to the higher oil costs) but also due to alternative fuels. Ethanol is a component in many alternative fuels. Ethanol is made from corn. This has caused corn to go through the roof. Corn is the primary food for numerous livestock, causing the cost for meat and poultry to increase as well. But we aren't going to mention those things.

"American people can't pay the mortgage," Yes, yes, it's the president's fault that irresponsible people paid more than they could afford for a house because the adjustable interest rate was just too good to pass up and because mortgage companies were too eager to give loans to people who probably couldn't pay them back. Absolutely, let's blame the president for that. Boy Obama, if you win, you better hope that nothing bad happens. It's your own track record to blame the president.

"A President who sits on his hands while an American city is drowning." Hopefully, this is the last time I'll have to mention that the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana were both Democrats. If my towns school system is failing, do I go to the Governor of CT and ask why? Do I go to my town representative? Or do I go to the Superintendent? Why do the Democrats love to skip over the people who were responsible for such a smaller area and were given the means and the power to protect the people who live there? In the Roman army the Prefect was in charge of the camp. The Centurion was in charge of the Legion. And the Legionnaire was in charge of guarding 16 square feet of ground. If that Legionnaire fails, do you blame the Prefect?

Obama claimed that the policy of the Republicans is that "You are on your own," left to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps to get ahead. (Another strawman) But failed to mention that the policy of the Democrats is that you can't do it without the government. You'll be in a place where you have to rely on it. Of course, he then went on to tell stories about people who did "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and succeeded or allowed their children/grandchildren to succeed. That was just weird.

"unlike McCain I will give tax breaks for companies creating American jobs." Check your facts. McCain tried to bring this about in a bill years ago.

"I'll cut taxes for 95% of working families." Funny, I seem to remember Bush desiring across the board tax cuts. That would be 100% of working families and yet Obama voted against this. Why should I believe that he'll be cutting taxes now? Especially seeing as he wants to pay for everything for everyone:

Obama promises "Change" we cannot afford: He wants to pay for education, pay for people's mortgages, pay for healthcare, pay to create jobs, pay teachers higher salaries, but cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Where will all of the money come from? He promises to "close corporate tax loopholes." And he will go through the "Federal budget eliminating programs that don't work." Brilliant, why didn't anyone else think of that? Who's going to decide what did and didn't work? Why didn't you do this as a Senator? Do you really believe that you are going to be able to increase spending as much as you hope, and decrease taxes as much as you promise, and cover it all up by cutting a few corners in the budget and causing companies to pay more in taxes (that they are just going to pass on to their customers)? As Seth and Amy would say, "Really?"

Obama promised to "give the military the equipment they need" to carry out their missions yet several times voted against funding the war.

"John McCain is fond of saying that he'll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell but won't even follow him to the cave where he lives." Barack, if you know where Bin Laden is and you've been keeping this from us so you can win an election, that's despicable. If not, how can you possibly make this stupid claim? (Anyone else find it interesting that "Obama and Biden" sounds a lot like "Osama in hiding"? Just wondering)

Misc

"you don't deter Iran by talking tough in Washington." No you do it by talking tough in Iran without requesting anything in return. Honestly...

"that's a debate I'm ready to have." Yes, we all know you've been very specific on what, when and how you will and will not debate John McCain. I know you aren't one, but it strikes of cowardice. Every one says how inspiring he is, but he shys from offer after offer to debate. Why?

In 10 years, Barack promises to "end our dependence on oil from the middle east." He pledged to dedicate $150 billion on renewable energy and that it will create 5 million jobs. Well, it better. Because if we wean ourselves off of oil it's going to end 30 million jobs. Gas station attendants, fuel truckers, oil refineries, oil heat service people, etc. Oh, and what are we supposed to do with the 9 years of oil that we have stored in our reserves? Once everything runs on renewable energy our reserves will be like having every album on cassette just in case.

Here is what Barack said that I can agree with:

"programs can't replace parents, government can't turn off the tv and make them do homework." I'm very glad to hear this. I think this is something that both parties should be focusing on. Programs that keep the government out of my living room and encourage Dad's and Parents to return to their living rooms are how we can turn this country around. You want to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies? Teach Dad's how to love their daughters. You want to have all kids have an opportunity to go to college? Teach parents how to tutor their children instead of solely relying on public education.

He also said that his desire to lead is guided by his understanding of being his "brother's keeper." I get that. But his solution to that call on his life is terribly misguided! There is too much corruption in the government to successfully carry out what he wants to do. And because it is a career, there is too much self preservation for the government to truly desire that people be free of their need of the services they provide. Barack should take his Christian beliefs (which I firmly believe he has) and bring the services he wants to provide before the universal church. Let God be glorified for what he wants to do, not Uncle Sam.

I should have cooled off before writing this, but I didn't. Frankly, I don't expect anyone to actually read this. Afterall, it's all just my current opinion.

Voting Booth, Volume VII

Joe Biden!

Joe Biden is Barack Obama's running mate!

I was so hoping that the Democrats would select Joe Biden! There is so much blog fodder I don't even know where to begin!

Joe Biden is 65 years old! So much for the "He's too old to run for office" that the Dems were attempting to hold against McCain for all it was worth. Hmm. Kinda makes all of the other "he's too old to lead" inferences null and void, too.

Joe Biden is the man who was railed on for saying, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Clearly this is a racist statement and there were many many supporters of Obama saw it the same way. I'm not hearing their outrage right now... are you?

On November 27, 2005, regarding Iraq, Joe also said, “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.” Whoops, it's gonna be hard to defend that one!

This one too: On Hussein’s WMDs Joe Biden said, “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

(Isn't this great? But wait, there's more!)

Joe Biden also said, “The more people learn about them [Obama and Hillary] and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.” But apparently, Biden's support hasn't. I guess when opportunity knocks, it doesn't much matter whose hand it's using!

On December 11, 2007, Biden's campaign said, “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate. But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Later that night Biden also said, "When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.” I'm gonna doubt they are going to change thier slogan now that Biden's on board. But I've been complaining that this entire campaign has been empty. Biden's addition doesn't change that.

(I saved the best for last)

On August 2, 2005 Joe said, “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

Joe Biden also said during his campaign for his party's nomination, "I am not running for Vice President and if I were offered the position, I would refuse it." Nothing like sticking to your principles, right Joe? He has yet to attempt to glaze over this glaring inconsistency with some other substance less statement.

And finally, while running for the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden said, "Barak Obama is not ready to lead because the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Then, on October 30, 2007, Joe Biden said “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.” Sounds to me like Joe Biden would vote for McCain over Obama!

He has attempted to combat these statements by saying, "No one knows better than I do, after the last 18 months, that Barack has met his challenges with judgement and wisdom and steel in his spine. I have watched as he has inspired millions of Americans to this new cause.” No one knows better than Joe? Really? No one? I'll bet Michelle might have something to say about that. (You aren't actually a Senator from Idaho, are you Joe?) And he is so right on: I can't imagine a more important characteristic for a president than "inspiring." I guess Dr. Phil should be president. Maya Angelou as well. Don't forget Depak Chopra... These are all very inspiring people. Oh, and Joe? What challenges has Obama met with a "steel spine" in the past 18 months? The softballs from the national media? The rocketing to the top by the democratic party? The lemming like worship from the left? I'm not seeing any "challenges." Before you go, Joe, one more question: What's the "new cause?" Getting out of Iraq? Old. Nationalized healthcare? Old. Bigger government? Old. Catering to special interests? Old. I'm just not seeing it. I think the only new thing I've heard of is his desire to meet with leaders of countries who hate us with no strings attached. That's new.

Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that Obama promised that if you signed up to receive the text message announcement of this VP you'd be the first to know. Whoops, the story leaked and news stations were reporting it before the text message went out. Obama's camp scrambled and phones were buzzing all over the east coast at 3 am with the ever important text message. Nothing like breaking an easy promise. (What really cracks me up is the people savvy enough to want the text message probably read it and thought, "Who the heck is Joe Biden?! This must be a joke, he's supposed to pick Hillary.")

Wow. A text message to announce your choice for VP. That's what I want, a hip president. Maybe his state of the union address can be a music video.

And for all of the Biden bashing, we can't forget the infamous words spoken by Barack himself after winning the Senate seat in 2004 when asked why he'd ruled out running nationally. He answered, "I'm a firm believer in knowing what you are doing before applying for a job. If I were to run nationally, I'd have to begin right now before serving even a single day in the Senate. Some people might be comfortable with that. I am not one of those people." What happened to that Barack Obama? I don't know because he certainly isn't running for president!

The Democrats might have thought that Joe Biden would be a shot in the arm for their campaign. Looks more like he's gonna be a shot in the foot!

Oh well, this is all just my opinion anyway.

The Olympic Games

A review of the best and the worst of the games.

The Worst

I've been trying to let it go. I've been telling myself it's all in my head. I've been sure it couldn't have been happening. I've been wrong.

The Beijing Olympics should be more accurately called The Biased Olympics.

I have two beefs with these games, and both revolve around China. (Hey, here's another reason to ban my blog from China)

First of all, there is an Olympic gymnastics rule that states that one must at least turn 16 years of age in the calendar year in which the games are held. Has anyone been looking at some of those Chinese gymnasts? Well, let's just say I'd never hand them the keys to my car! There are two Chinese gymnasts that I'd say are probably 16. One of them, I thought actually looked to be about 18. I saw she was listed as 20 and thought... hmm. well, maybe. Then I learned she'd competed at the Athens games, where she had to be at least 16... Right! I get it now. If she's 18 now, she was illegal then. (Since I first wrote this draft, documents have been uncovered that show all but one of the Chinese gymnasts were underage. An investigation has been initiated.)

Why does this matter? To be honest, it wouldn't if it weren't a rule. Are there 13 year olds that are the best gymnasts from your country? Send them! Is there a rule against it? Don't send them! I think it's amazing that the most talented gymnasts from China just all happen to have been born in the same year and it just happened to be a year where they'd all be 16 in an Olympic year! I feel bad for the 17 year olds who just happened to be born in the wrong year. So, point one: The Chinese are obviously cheating.

Point two: 51 Gold. 21 Silver. 28 Bronze. Never have I seen such a lop-sided medal total. The US had 36 Gold, 38 Silver, and 36 Bronze. Note the consistency. Among other top medal receiving countries: Russia 23, 21, 28; Great Britain 19, 13, 15; Australia 14, 15, 17; and Italy 8, 10, 10. Why such a lopsided Gold count for China? My best guess is that the Chinese government has all of the judge's and referee's passports and is holding them hostage in exchange for undeserved favorable judgements. The Chinese won 64% of the judged gold medals and medaled in 78% of the judged events.

I played it off as accidental the first time, and coincidental the second. I saw a pattern at the third and outrage the fourth. It only escalated from there. Allow me to list them: Women's Team All-Around. Several times there were gymnasts who clearly out performed the Chinese and yet the Chinese had better execution scores. I'm not even talking about the final score. I get the degree of difficulty thing and how it works. That was what peaked my interest. Then I saw that men's individual All-Around. It had been predetermined which Chinese male would win as long as he didn't break himself. Well, it was all gymnastics; maybe it was centralized there.

Then I watched women's springboard diving. In diving, identical dives are often done by different competitors. A Russian woman nailed her dive: Height, position in the air, vertical upon entry... Beautiful. The Chinese "Favorite" dove next and did the same dive: Great take off, less than perfect position in the air, twisted, over-rotated, big splash, better score. Excuse me? The Chinese won 7 of the 8 diving gold medals and the only reason they didn't win all eight was the final dive for the Chinese was terrible and the Aussie nailed it. It would have been far too blatant had they still given the gold to the Chinese. Then I saw that women's individual vault: The Chinese girl who landed on her knees won a bronze over other Olympians who landed their vaults. A Russian guy on rings does something no other Olympian has done and does it perfectly and sticks his landing and doesn't even medal so that two less perfect Chinese performances can be awarded with the hardware. And then the Individual Uneven Bars event. The "no-really-I'm-16" Chinese contestant nearly missed a release, couldn't keep her feet together and couldn't stick the landing. She tied (and subsequently won due to a "tie break") over the contestant who had one perceptible error. They had the exact same degree of difficulty. Only one gave a gold medal performance and she left the arena with silver draped around her neck. Travesty. Tie breaker? Should have been unnecessary. I look at the men's vault where one competitor landed the best vault of the games. Then failed to land his second and did not medal. Note: No Chinese involved. Let's not forget that the Olympic gold for Trampoline also went to a Chinese woman. Even though the Russian out performed her.

Oh, and gymnastics is the only elitist sport that doesn't award two medals to people who tie.

As they awarded the Chinese Olympian the gold medal for the uneven bars, as an act of protest, I muted my TV. I refused to listen to the national anthem of the country that was a) cheating (the "gold medalist" was one of the obviously not-sixteen-year-old competitors) and b) winning undeserved medals.

I was very disappointed. I want the following things to happen in the Olympics:

1)Either declare that golf is not a sport or included it.
2)2012 London: Debut of Olympic Ultimate Frisbee
3)Either fix the judging or have timed (Sprinting)/target (Archery)/distance (Discus)/team point (Volleyball) events only.

The Best

Now that I've complained, allow me to praise the sailing team from Croatia. It was the 14th and final race of the men's 49er sailing competition. Denmark lead second place Spain by 11 points.

The seas were choppy and the winds fierce as the competitors made their way to the starting line. On the way out, the unthinkable happened, Denmark's mast broke in half. Unable to race, they returned to the docks. Croatia was had already been eliminated from the competition. Seeing Denmark's misfortune they offered the Danes the Croatian boat. The Danish sailors Jason Warrer and Martin Kirketerp Ibsen gratefully accepted and raced out to the starting line.

The race had already begun. There is a rule in sailing that you have to cross the starting line at no more than four minutes after the start of the race to avoid disqualification.

At 3 minute 57 seconds the Croatian boat, carrying two Danish hopefuls flew past the starting buoys. They finished the final race dead last. However, two teams failed to finish putting the Danes in 7th place. It was enough for them to hold off the surging Spanish by 3 points and Denmark took Gold.

This is my nominee for "Greatest Sportsmanship Moment of the Olympic Games." (The Spanish have since lost two appeals. The result will stand.)

I love the Olympics!