The Exit Poll

With Obama, America Rolls The Nuclear Dice

2008-10-23T09:19:00.000-07:00

While America is preoccupied in determining just how much socialism Obama will introduce in its domestic economy, the question of Obama’s foreign policy agenda went largely ignored - until Monday.

I can’t believe that Joe Biden raised the issue of Obama facing an international crisis in the first six months because I've been thinking the same thing. If Obama becomes president he will be severely tested not only because of his inexperience, but also due to his penchant for equivocation (e.g., condemning both Georgia and Russia for Russia’s invasion of Georgia) and his self-proclaimed “progressive” agenda (e.g., holding presidential level negotiations without preconditions). While the media and some Americans choose not to delve into Obama’s weaknesses, you’d better believe that America’s enemies have already compiled a dossier of his vulnerabilities. Like every president he will be tested early and often until he proves he can handle it. But this is not a game: nothing less than world peace and a nuclear holocaust is at stake.

Obama revels in comparisons to JFK and who can blame him? They both have / had charisma and youth in common. However, that’s where the comparison ends. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, “As a democratic youngster I remember John Kennedy, John Kennedy was decorated for heroism while commanding PT-109 (WWII), John Kennedy served six years in the House and seven in the Senate before running for president and John Kennedy asked for your vote instead of telling supporters to get in your face to demand it. Obama, you’re no John Kennedy.”

As much as we all loved John Kennedy, history warns us that even with all his experience, virtues, good intentions and diplomatic connections, events can quickly get out of hand when hostile world leaders perceive you as weak. When John Kennedy failed to provide air support for the Bay Of Pigs Invasion of Cuba (April 17, 1961), Khrushchev saw an opportunity to achieve Soviet dominance.

Construction of The Berlin Wall began in August 1961 and missile sites were constructed in Cuba in 1962. The resultant Cuban Missile Crisis, which peaked in October 1962, brought the world to within seconds of a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia. It was only averted by government officials convincing Khrushchev through backdoor channels that this time John Kennedy will not back down (i.e., if a Russian ship tries to run the blockade, it will be fired upon). If all this chaos wasn’t enough, despite warnings by Charles de Gaulle, JFK committed the U.S. to defend South Vietnam with over 16,000 troops in 1963. Note: Using the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, Lyndon Johnson later increased troops strength to 536,100 by the end of 1968 and the rest of this tragic affair is history.

The point of the above is to underscore that no matter how charismatic, smart or beloved the president, the world is a dangerous place and events can quickly spiral out of control. If Obama were given the same circumstances, does anyone (other than Obama himself) think that he could have handled these precarious situations better then John Kennedy? Despite Obama’s self-proclaimed “superior judgment,” it is more likely that he would have pontificated and vacillated until it was too late. One wrong move with the world on the brink and we would have seen mushroom clouds over the U.S. and Russia. I hope and pray we never come that close again.

For those who think that the world is safer now, think again. Are you safer when one person has 1,000 weapons or when 1,000 people have one each? Let’s remember that since the Soviet collapse we've had widespread dissemination of nuclear material and technology. The argument can also be made that during the Cold War disaster was averted because Soviet leaders ultimately decided that a nuclear holocaust was not in their people’s best interests. Can the same be said of terrorist groups, rogue states and militant fanatics today? I think not. Let’s recall that 9/11 was only one event in a long sequence and there’s no reason to believe that it is at an end.

The possible flash points are too numerous to mention: Russia can seek to reestablish a buffer zone to mother Russia (a neo-Soviet Union) by invading or coercing its former partners, China can have Taiwan abrogate its mutual defense treaty with the U.S. and rejoin the mainland, North Korea can use nukes to force reunification with South Korea, Russia can decide to establish a nuclear sub base in Venezuela, etc. And that’s before we get into the notoriously volatile situation in the Middle East: Iran (going nuclear), Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. The list goes on and on.

Obama fanatics would have us believe that world leaders will be so smitten with him that all self-interest will evaporate. In their eyes, Putin would rather have an Obama tea shirt and a box load of CDs of kids singing Obama songs than have Georgia join a neo-Soviet alliance. And maybe Ahmadinejad will accept an honorary degree from Columbia University and the naming of Farrakhan as U.S. ambassador rather than launch nuclear missiles at Israel. After all, didn’t Obama proclaim that the sun will rise and there will be a new day if he were elected? Let’s just hope (and pray) there are no mushroom clouds on the horizon.

Obama’s Bill To Give $845 Billion To United Nations

2008-10-04T19:13:00.000-07:00

I don’t support the recently passed $700 Billion bailout of Wall Street and I strongly believe this country had better be fiscally responsible going forward or we will be swapping a Fannie Mae – Freddie Mac instigated recession for a U.S. initiated global depression.

With fiscal responsibility in mind, it’s time we revisit the bill Barack Obama introduced earlier this year called the "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) to find out if he intends to push this forward if he becomes president. To quote Accuracy In Media, “The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.” Interestingly, Senator Joe Biden tried to rush it through his Foreign Relations Committee.

Now, I’m all for charity, foreign aid (provided it gets to the people and is not horded by governments), the Peace Corps, Red Cross, et al, but I don’t think the nation should be increasing economic burden at this time. First of all, many people who are not politicians are having trouble making ends meet due to layoffs and high fuel costs. Second, if the U.S. economy goes down, we’ll take the world with us and the hundreds of millions of dollars we already give annually to global charities via government and private donations will be lost.

Since the next presidential debate is on the economy, someone should ask Barack Obama to be specific. In our current economic crisis, will he push this bill forward if he becomes president? At every rally, he insinuates that he would when he says “Americans will have to sacrifice.“ While it’s interesting to note that he doesn’t realize or care to acknowledge that U.S. citizens currently give more charity than all other nations combined, that doesn’t mean more can’t be done. But either way, since he’ll be spending our money and not his, are we to assume his $845 Billion tax is the “sacrifice” he’s referring to or are there others? In a democracy, we deserve to know.

$700 Billion and a Trust Me

2008-09-28T19:39:00.000-07:00

I watched most of the hearings on the bailout and like most people couldn’t believe the contradictions in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s testimony and the audacity of his proposal. He started out by telling Congress to write a $700 Billion check with no oversight, no guarantees that this bailout will work (more money may be needed), that there can be no restrictions on who can participate (toxic waste from foreign banks will be purchased) and this bailout must be passed immediately or we face Armageddon.

When pressed for the rationale behind this “throw caution to the wind model,” he stated that he’s worked with his counterparts (Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, SEC Chairman Chris Cox and reps. in China, Japan, etc.) on this solution for months and it’s the best model because something really big has to be done, the taxpayer’s already on the hook and there must be no protections because “We need them (CEOs and financial institutions) to participate.”

After pulling myself off the ceiling and wrestling my blood pressure back into a normal range, I realized this was public theater. The blusterous senators with lobbyist money in their pockets raging apoplectic on behalf of the poor taxpayer, the weaseling bureaucratic sacrificial lambs sent (with three scant pages of parchment) to wilt under harsh ruling-class scrutiny was classic Greek drama. Great, but not worth a $700 Billion ticket!

As a former project manager, what I want to know in any emergency situation are three things: 1) What is the problem? 2) Do we know the root cause (to limit damage and identify a temporary or permanent fix)? and 3) What are my options? While heavy on histrionics, the Paulson – Senate Production came up woefully short on providing answers to at least two of these three questions. Here’s my analysis of this emergency bailout.

1) What is the problem?

Despite Congress and the media elite talking down to the people, the problem is simply cash flow, which coincidentally is why most businesses fail (about 75% the last time I took economics). And why do so many businesses have cash flow problems, the answer is good old fashion mismanagement. Enter Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stage left.

2) Do we know the root cause?

While some people would like to spread blame by going all the way back to the Section 8 housing program created in 1974, this is totally bogus. The problem we’re experiencing has its roots in the early 1990s with successive changes to the mission, budget and financing rules governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In order to achieve an increase in low and mid-income home ownership, Congress (led by Barney Frank – House of Rep. and Chris Dodd – Senate) mandated that Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac increase their purchase of low and medium income mortgages, moved their budget approval to Congress and encouraged them to purchase riskier loans (lower down payments and higher income to debt ratios). But this was only the beginning.

With its budget susceptible to politics rather than established industry standards, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac adopted liberalized lending rules championed by the Clinton administration and named former White House Budget Director Franklin Raines Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. A $10.6 Billion accounting scandal ensued with the charge of accounting manipulation tied to executive bonuses (1998 – 2004). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also backed sub-prime mortgage lending, ignored warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Allen Greenspan (2003) and with the help of Congress blocked reforms called for by the Bush Administration (2004). The government caused this problem by sponsoring and guaranteeing the liquidity of what’s now euphemistically called “toxic waste.”

The root cause then, was government advocacy or regulation that lowered (i.e., circumvented) existing mortgage requirements. While increasing low and mid-income home ownership is laudable, a more responsible way should have been found. Having their two quasi-government agencies purchase, package and trade underfinanced mortgages now threatens the entire U.S.economy.

3) What are our options?

Quantifying the damage and identifying options is hard to do when the same politicians who caused the problem are negotiating the solution. For Dodd, Frank and the powers that be, this is more about covering their bottoms than fixing the problem. Despite the dramatic appeal, a massive $700 Billion taxpayer bailout without guarantees is ridiculous. And having the government beg CEOs and financial institutions to give us their toxic waste so they can maintain profitability is insane.

Instead of a massive taxpayer bailout, I’d prefer a free-market based solution with an insurance pool funded partially by companies looking to participate. Instead of government hacks proposing solutions; I’d welcome proposals from a consortium of affected companies to identify what they need to maintain liquidity. I can assure you that a variety of options that have yet to be considered, will be identified.

Wanton government intervention into financial markets caused this problem, why should we expect the same bureaucratic thinking could fix it? Remember, if they knew what they doing, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. I say enjoy the theater, but pass on the $700 billion ticket.

Obama: Change We Don’t Need

2008-09-21T09:16:00.000-07:00

If you won’t vote for a black man or woman for president, read no further. If you intend to vote for Barack Obama because he’s black, please go elsewhere. If you’re a brain dead party hack, leftist, anarchist or union member who will vote the way someone else tells you to, this article is not for you. Hopefully, only open-minded people trying to evaluate Obama on the merits now remain and will read on.

I was one of a majority of people who was very impressed with Obama when he first burst on the national scene as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I was also very excited and supportive of his early success in this year’s caucuses and primaries. However, I became disillusioned in the spring when he failed to condemn hate speech and denied ever hearing offensive comments from Reverend Wright despite a twenty year professional and personal association He further disappointed by making disparaging remarks about Pennsylvanians and other Americans who don’t share a privileged lifestyle. And when he made anti-NAFTA remarks to Detroit union workers, while sending an envoy to the Canada government assuring them he intends just the opposite, he became the epitome of a grubby politician; more of the same.

Because his disdain for others and blatant duplicitousness contradicts so starkly with his original public persona (that of an Ivy League educated individual and self-professed liberal declaring a need for change), I decided to investigate further by reading his autobiography and other books (both pro and con). While I strongly encourage everyone to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, I’m now convinced that an Obama presidency would have a significantly negative impact on the lifestyle of the average American because the issues cited by his detractors are largely substantiated by his own gaffes. As is often the case, unguarded moments reflect our truest feelings.

I have no idea how Obama became an extremist or decided to embrace hate. Born to Muslim and Christian parents, schooled in Indonesia and Hawaii in his early years, left with his grandparents in Hawaii while his mother returned to Indonesia to pursue her doctorate, sent to elite private schools in Hawaii, California, New York and Massachusetts he was more fortunate than many. Some have suggested abandonment, racial identity issues and an association with mentors with legitimate grievances, but it’s not for me to judge. What I do know is that many of us were not only born to parents of different religions and experienced the stress of their subsequent divorce, but we also endured abusive step-parents, lived in run-down neighborhoods, moved whenever rents were raised, went to public schools, served our country, worked our way through college, served our community (with no monetary benefit) and hate no one. For we know that no matter how bad you think you have it when you’re a kid, as you mature you learn that many millions of people have it infinitely worse.

Those of us who have endured and are of moderate means know all about responsibilities and charity and we sure don’t need someone fortunate enough to obtain an Ivy League education to mandate sacrifice from a government pedestal. Furthermore, we would never embrace a Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayres or Louis Farrakhan and propose an amiable sit down with Ahmadinejad. No matter how you spin it, Obama is either misguided or clueless and is exercising the same poor judgment he exhibited when he exposed his children to hate filled sermons on Sundays. To quote Obama “words have meaning.”

With a lot more maturity, a selfless devotion to work benefiting others in a Mother Teresa–like way (no Resko slumlord issues) and moving beyond hate, Obama may someday be ready to bring us the good sort of change he preaches. But by then, we will probably already have had at least two black male, one female, and one Hispanic president who were elected based on the excellent content of their character. Now that’s really the change we’ve all been waiting for.

Obama Trashes Hockey Moms!

2008-09-09T20:54:00.000-07:00

I heard Obama say it and didn’t believe it. So I listened to it a second and third time and lo and behold, he said it. When Obama said of Sarah Palin “that’s not change” and then continued “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” it was a snide attempt to insult her. But while Obama probably meant to insult only Sarah Palin (which undoubtedly is what he wanted since he slammed McCain with his next remark about wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called "change") he unwittingly insulted all hockey moms. For in her speech, Sarah Palin said the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick (meaning a hockey mom fights for her kids), Obama is saying that you can put lipstick on the mom, “but it’s still a pig.” While his audience of followers knew what he meant and thought it was funny, the decent among us think it was classless, sexist and a new low for the Obama campaign. I only hope the women of American are listening and will be mad enough to say it with votes.

I don’t know if it’s flop sweat, nastiness, dirty politics, lack of class or a deeper problem (like demeaning people who live in small town America), but Obama has demonstrated a very unstable penchant. If this is how he strikes out when under campaign pressure, how will he react when confronted by Putin, Ahmadinejad or other potentially belligerent leaders during heated negotiations? If he were strike out in the same crude and immature manner to the former head of the KGB, Putin would probably have to be physically restrained. And who could blame him? The repercussions of such a scenario are something I hope everyone considers before voting.

What should really happen is Obama should be asked to either remove himself from the Democratic ticket or admit he’s not ready for prime time and swap places with Biden Athough I’ve never cared for Joe Biden’s policies because he engages his mouth before his brain, the chances of him getting us into a war are far less than Obama

Foreign Affair Expertise in Satire and Fact

2008-09-08T18:57:00.000-07:00

When Barack Obama was asked to comment on the CBS2chicago.com report that “125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer: Total Is About Double The U.S. Troop Death Toll In Iraq,” he confidently pointed out that the surge didn’t work and peace in Chicago will not be achieved until local politicians learned to compromise. Then, seizing the opportunity to apply his newly acquired post-Russian invasion of Georgia expertise, he conveyed deep regret over the loss of life in Chicago, called for urgent humanitarian and economic assistance, noted the need for increased diplomacy in the region and underscored the need for a United Nations Security Council Resolution for “an immediate end to the violence.” He later retracted the United Nation resolution proposal when a foreign reporter pointed out that the US has veto power on the Security Council and would almost certainly veto any resolution concerning one of its major cities.

People who compare Barack Obama’s lack of experience to Sarah Palin's lack of experience are undermining their own argument. Barack Obama is, of course, running for president at the top of the Democratic ticket and should not be in a head-to-head battle with the subordinate vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket. After all, with few exceptions history shows that vice-presidents are often kept out of the inner circle of presidential confidents. Remember, John Nance Garner (Democrat) – 32nd Vice President (first VP under FDR) said the vice-presidency “wasn’t worth a warm bucket of spit” and Truman (FDR’s other VP) didn’t even know the US had developed the atomic bomb. Despite this evidence to the contrary, Democrats continue to insist that the foreign policy experience of supporting cast member Joe Biden will somehow compensate for Barack Obama’s knowledge gap.

Democrats also attempt to justify their concern over Sarah Palin’s lack of foreign affairs experience by pointing out that John McCain turned 72 in August and if something were to happen to him, then Sarah Palin would be president. Oh my God! Using the same logic I suggest the following retort, “Do you realize that Joe Biden will be 66 in November and if something were to happen to him, Barack Obama would be president?” Unfortunately, you’ll probably have to explain this to them.

Democrats: You Blew It!

2008-09-03T11:03:00.000-07:00

One of the nicest traits of Americans is their sense of fairness; the propensity of Americans to inherently stick up for the little guy and defend the underdog. Well, guess what? In their zeal to undermine Sarah Palin with every dirty trick and smear in the book, Barack Obama, the Democratic political machine and mass media have gone way too far and consequently, rekindled this spirit in me.

We all know that decency in a political campaign is as hard to find as reformers in Washington, tolerance in Reverend Wright’s sermons or experience in Barack Obama’s resume, but this brutal smear campaign against Sarah Palin establishes a new low. From its initial use of sexism, this comprehensive trash campaign subsequently attacked Palin’s husband, their five month old baby with Down Syndrome and their pregnant teenage daughter. Can the family pet be next?

I understand that the goal of this brutal campaign is to destroy Sarah Palin within seven days. It seems Barack Obama has brought his knee-capping dirty politics from the South side of Chicago to the national stage. Remember he eliminated all competitors in his state senate race. It looks like this is the change Barack Obama thinks we’ve all been waiting for.

As a fair minded American, my response to this underhanded tactic is to vote for the McCain – Palin ticket in November. As an independent, I had previously stated that I wasn’t going to support Obama because of his affinity for hate speech (first, failing to condemn it by Rev. Wright and others and subsequently to engage in it [e.g., “white people are bred …,” etc.]), but I wasn’t close to voting for McCain. My alternatives, as always, included third party candidates and write-ins.

But thanks to this latest Democratic tactic, my hand is now forced. Although I will not register as a Republican, I will definitely vote for McCain – Palin and if the Democrats don’t stop the smears, I’ll vote for the entire Republican party line (despite my preference for some Democratic locals). I strongly encourage all Independents to stand up for fairness and do the same. Congratulations Democrats, You Blew It!

Obama Trashes Clinton Supporters at DNC

2008-08-26T19:48:00.000-07:00

Despite getting 18 million votes in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is being denied the right to have her name put in nomination and having a valid delegate count conducted. Instead, Clinton delegates are being pressured by Barack Obama to forego their historic right to a democratic polling of delegates in favor of a mock polling of one or two states followed by a scripted withdrawal. Although I’m not a Hillary supporter, I am rather fond of Democracy and I don’t think that this autocratic process is remotely fair. It is however, indicative of the strong-armed methods Barack Obama used to deal with political opponents in the past (he eliminated all opponents from the ballot) and evidently continues to use. To quote Chicago Tribune’s John Kass “It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today.”

It’s no wonder that some of the Clinton delegates resent Barack’s intolerance toward his fellow Democrats. After all, he expects them to support him going forward. They undoubtedly have a hard time reconciling Barack’s amiable public demeanor with his arrogant private actions. As an independent observer, it will be interesting to see their response. Will these ardent Democrats fight their right to vote being taken away from them or will they quietly capitulate? Do they have enough guts to demand a vote and rule their party or will they let party bosses rule them? Just how Democratic is the Democratic party? We’ll know by Thursday night.

Democrats Are Making A Huge Mistake

2008-08-08T20:03:00.000-07:00

By not proposing a solution to the current energy crisis, refusing to let a drilling proposal come to the floor for a vote and adjourning Congress, Democrats are making a huge mistake. It’s a good thing they’re running against inept Republicans who wouldn’t know how to capitalize on this gift if their lives depended on it. It’s a wonder any Republican ever gets elected. As an independent voter and someone who’s frustrated by the waste and incompetence of government, here’s what I would do.

If I were a Republican, I’d tap into the 70+ % of public frustration with this do-nothing Congress and raise their protest to an exponential level. I’d hold a demonstration on the House floor that the press couldn’t ignore and if they tried to ignore it, I’d bring in portable cameras, digital recorders, cell phones, loud speakers and put front page advertising on newspapers, radio and internet. I’d use YouTube, billboards, blogs, you name it. I’d promote it as a free speech issue and pressure the President to call for a special session of Congress. I’d treat it like a job action or strike (yes, I was a union member for 10 years), schedule members for floor coverage a week at a time and cover the floor in shifts 24 hours a day. I’d also get those representatives who were not on their weekly shift to go home and campaign at every gas station in their district. They’d get local coverage and direct consumer contact to register voter anger. I’d tell them to make it clear to the irate drivers at the gas station that I was fighting for the American people and make it an issue in every Congressional race. I’d promote this as a filibuster for the country’s future. By the time I finished, the local Democrat wouldn’t even get a vote from his own family.

If I were a Democrat, I’d thank God that the Republican’s are too clueless to understand the true depth of public frustration with high gas prices. I’d also try to get on the right side of this issue just in case lightning strikes and the Republicans wake up. Although there’s not much chance of that, the first thing I would do is stop making inane statements such as: it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR (only 74 miles from existing pipeline), drill on the land you leased (most people understand lease options are lost money if subsequent survey’s show there’s not enough oil to make a profit), inflate your tires and get tune-ups.

The trouble with all of these suggestions is that they fail to solve the problem. On the one hand Congress (which is overwhelmingly populated by lawyers) is telling subject matter experts in the oil industry where to drill and how long it would take to deliver it to the public. On the other hand, they’re acting like auto mechanics and micromanaging the issue. Either way, all these statements fail to demonstrate the leadership required to deliver a comprehensive energy policy. By going on vacation, Democrats are compounding their problem by demonstrating a lack of empathy for the public.

If I were a Democrat I’d cut short my vacation, reconvene Congress and seize the momentum on this issue. This might not be popular with extremists like MoveOn.org but I’d be better off getting the votes of millions of drivers than placating a few vocal extremists. Leftists have nowhere to go and will vote for Democrats anyway. Finally, I’d declare to a friendly press that I understand the plight of people who live in suburban and rural areas who don’t have mass transit as an option and must drive to keep their jobs or care for their children. To all energy users, I’d provide solutions instead of casting blame.

As a non-aligned voter, I find both major parties sorely lacking in foresight. Instead of solutions, I see stereotyping: the Republicans for big oil and the Democrats for impractical extremists. Both parties have failed to address this issue since for over 30 years despite controlling Congress and the White House at various times. The sad fact is that the status quo works for both parties and the people be damned. There’s too much lobby money on all sides of this issue to ever resolve it. Case in point, in the year 2000 I wrote to both presidential nominees suggesting the way to get the “green vote” was to propose a plan that would commit the government to gradually replace its fleet of vehicles with alternative fueled models. This would guarantee domestic auto manufactures a market for these vehicles, encourage R&D at corporate expense and serve to migrate the industry without direct government subsidy. Initially the federal government would dedicate 5 or 10 % of their scheduled replacement of vehicles to alternative fuel models, but this schedule could be adjusted as production models became available. Note: per latest figures the Federal Government fleet consisted of 642,223 vehicles.

I think it’s noteworthy that neither the Federal Government nor any of the state governments (even those controlled by extreme environmentalists) have proposed something along these lines. Could it be that Federal and State politicians don’t want to forego the comfort of their limos for a tiny electric car or hybrid? Even cities that are finally enacting fleet targets on transportation companies are carefully avoiding a replacement program for perk vehicles in city fleets. These people don’t want real action; they just want to make noise, collect money and mainatin power. The last thing they want is change.

Don’t Vote Democrat Or Republican; Vote The Individual

2008-08-04T10:57:00.000-07:00

Why, because the system is broken and the parties are at fault. Case in point is the failure of Congress to devise an intelligent action plan to resolve the energy crisis. Despite the infinite resources at their disposal and no reluctance to use them when motivated, Congress went on vacation without producing any legislation to address the issue. If this were private industry, these people would be fired.

Examining the Senate first, only the Group of Ten (five Democrats and five Republicans) proposed a compromise solution to the energy crisis. That means only 10% of the Senate constructively engaged in solving the problem; leaving 90% of the Senate, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, unproductive and unresponsive to the nation’s most pressing problem. If their constituents were smart and would stop voting along party lines, these people would be unemployed. That means ninety Senators (and their staffs) would be out of a job when their respective terms expired.

Now if you thought that 10 out of 100 of a workforce constructively employed is bad, they are a model of efficiency compared to the House of Representatives. Thanks to the majority party system, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was allowed to enact special rules requiring two-thirds support (290 reps out of 435) for offshore drilling before letting it come to the floor for a vote. Even a solution containing offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive plan was blocked from being voted on. Speaker Pelosi recently explained her intransigence as "I'm trying to save the planet." How ridiculous. Since she can’t stop any other nation from drilling either on their land or in international waters, does she think that drilling by a less technologically developed nation would be safer for the environment? Or maybe she just wants to hurt the US and by extension, the world economy. I know it couldn’t be concern for the use of fossil fuels because she wanted a larger jet when she became speaker. And it couldn’t be naiveté because she tried to exempt Star-Kist (headquartered in her district) from the minimum wage hike. So that leaves us with party politics.

What the Democrats are betting on is that despite being the majority party in Congress, their obstructionism and lack of responsiveness to the people will automatically be blamed on Republicans because Bush is in the White House. This is demeaning to all thinking voters. Could you imagine telling your boss that you couldn’t deliver something that was totally under your control because some other company that used your product was stopping you? This is what the Democrats who control the legislative branch of government are claiming when they don’t produce law for the executive branch of government which is controlled by a Republican. Such a farce would fail in any other industry; so why is it acceptable in politics? The answer, of course, is that party line voting fails to hold individual politicians responsible for their actions. Instead of being accountable to the public for their jobs, they’re only accountable to their party.

The only way to stop this insanity is for a majority of the people to become discriminating voters and reject party labels. It is insulting when party strategists refer to the “Democratic Brand” and “Republican Brand” as if they were marketing a can of tuna fish or a jar of peanut butter. Any independent voter can readily see that both parties are more than a few fries short of a happy meal. Now’s the time to stop voting party line and start voting for individuals who will represent us and fulfill their sworn duty to uphold the constitution. To Speaker Pelosi I say, “You’re fired, I’m trying to save the nation!”

Some Missed Opportunities For Cap and Trade

2008-07-29T18:50:00.000-07:00

Although I like Cap and Trade better than Kyoto for addressing pollution, I think its real potential will not be achieved until it’s applied to our government. Thinking outside the box, here are some suggestions.

1. Cap and Trade to reduce redundant and unproductive government agencies.

Example: Use Cap and Trade to cut the “War on Poverty” program budget by 10% without reducing services. Note: War on Poverty refers to all programs implemented to solve this problem since 1964. This was chosen as case in point. Poverty should have been defeated long ago. The needy are not helped if government waste consumes all funding.

How it works: For ease of illustration, let’s use two (instead of 100) agencies to reduce poverty. Agency # 1 is able to show it reduced the people it serves by 20% (by finding people jobs). Since this is 10% more then required under the cap it can sell the "over" reduction of 10% to the highest bidder out of any of the other poverty agencies. Say Agency # 2 is bursting with political patronage jobs and is willing to pay top dollar to get under the cap, they would be willing to pay big bucks to Agency # 1 to buy their 10%. Agency # 1 would be required to pay a nominal tax (6 to 10%) on this “income” but can use the rest of the money as bonuses to reward its employees for a job well done. The end result would be the federal budget dedicated to this cause would be reduced without a reduction in real services. This same principal can be applied to all budget items.

2. Cap and Trade can also be applied to reduce Congressional pork.

Example: Use Cap and Trade to reduce funding of useless projects by 40%.

How it works: Representative Runningforsecondterm reduces the pork he/she inserts in this session’s bills by 60%, but Representative Toomanyfavors can’t reduce pork at all. Rep. Runningforsecondterm could sell the 20% overage in pork reduction to Rep. Toomanyfavors for a profit, pay the nominal tax and use the rest of the money for a re-election campaign. Note: In this example, Rep. Toomanyfavors would have to purchase the additional 20% of pork reduction credits needed for the required 40% (20% + 20%) from any other representative who may have them.

Once you get the idea, Cap and Trade can solve all of our problems; frivolous law suits, illegal immigration, drug dealing, prostitution, failure of our education system. Let’s give it a try; it’s hard to believe we could do any worse.

How Obama Lost My Vote

2008-07-27T15:21:00.000-07:00

When informed that he’d have to go alone and not make it a campaign stop, Barack chose not to visit our wounded servicemen in Germany. But that’s not why I won’t vote for him.

If Barrack’s resume qualifies him for president, then mine qualifies me for World Emperor. But what the hell, you have to learn executive skills, foreign policy, strategic thinking, US and World history, the unintended consequences of uniformed policy somewhere, so why not with your hand on a nuclear trigger with world peace at stake. But that’s not why I won’t vote for him.

Obama is black! Really? He was just as black when he delivered the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and “wowed” me and everyone else who was listening. And he was just as black when I cheered him on during every televised speech and debate in his early battles with Hillary Clinton. So that’s not why I won’t vote for him.

The reason I decided not to vote for Barack was his refusal to condemn hate speech. I’m sure some folks don’t even remember this, but it was a seminal moment for me. I couldn’t believe it when Barack floated numerous excuses like: I never heard it (despite 20 years as my minister and personal friend), Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s like a crazy uncle who sometimes says harmless and crazy things, when I was a kid my white grandmother made an offensive statement too, I don’t agree with everything everyone I know says, etc. It would have been so easy and morally straight to just say, “I know the guy, he’s my spiritual mentor, he’s a part of my family and I love him, but hate speech is wrong no matter who says it.”

Anyone who has ever attended a diversity or sensitivity training session over the last 30 years knows that hate speech is wrong. Furthermore, who can tolerate it much less defend it? I refuse to let hate speech be a part of my life. I stopped watching Seinfeld (repeats) because of Michael Richards’ racist outburst (I no longer enjoy the zaniness of the Kramer character) and I no longer watch Mel Gibson movies because of his anti-Semitic rage, so why would I demand less from my president then from a comedian or an actor? Who has a greater impact on my life and the welfare of my country?

In light of Obama’s justification of hate speech, I can’t understand why any Democrat or real Liberal would support him. For the modern day Liberal, who’s really just an anarchist or leftist, supporting hate speech is not a problem because before they decide right or wrong they first find out if it comes from another Liberal Democrat. That’s why they have no problem with a former KKK member (Senator Robert Byrd) being the elder statesman of their party. But for those of us who are free thinking independents, we see this as a contradiction to Barack's elevating promise and hope that basic moral concepts such as eliminating hate speech is a good thing for everyone.

Having decided that Obama doesn’t have the same moral standard against hate speech as I, his subsequent issues concerning Rezko, the Canada free trade double talk, statements stereotyping white people, and his non-visit to the troops didn’t surprise me. It doesn’t make him the worst person in the world, but it does make him more of the same; a cagey politician with significant moral issues and an undernourished resume. What a disappointment. Sorry Obama, we can do better.

Breaking News Bulletins... (Satire)

2008-07-20T10:55:00.000-07:00

Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore on Meet The Press this morning blamed this year’s annual California forest fires on Global Warming. He also attributed tropical diseases, aging and the loss of Yeti habitat to the same cause.

In Related News, the Campaign for Al Gore For US Energy Czar issued the following release…

“Despite similarities in appearance, speech pattern and IQ, there’s absolutely no truth to the rumor that Al Gore and Forrest Gump are identical twins separated at birth”. – Denial issued July 20, 2008.

Presumed Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama conferred with 300 of his closest foreign policy advisers today and announced he would move two army brigades to Afghanistan immediately. When an unscreened reported asked whose army and how many men are in a brigade, Barack replied “Americans eat too much and should donate more if they want world respect.” Three hundred advisers rushed the young reporter to an indoctrination center.

After Consulting With Obama Campaign Strategists, anchors for ABC, NBC and CBS denied there is any bias in their accompanying Barack Obama on his overseas tour while not covering McCain’s three previous trips. Barack agreed that any disparity in coverage is simply due to the facts and should not be changed.

Meet The Press announced that Barack Obama will be Tom Brokaw’s guest for one full hour on July 27th, but denied that Tom will appear in full cheerleader uniform. An undisclosed source however, said pompoms and knee pads (for genuflecting) were still under consideration.

300 Advisors and No Clue

2008-07-18T20:53:00.000-07:00

Although Obama’s undeniably the best public speaker on the political scene today, he seemed very unsure of his facts when referring to the Marshall Plan a few days ago. While I don’t care that he stammered because he’s still a better speaker than McCain at his best (and we won’t even mention President Bush), I noticed that his assumptions and conclusions were skewed. His understanding of the plan, the deeper reasons behind it, the political, social and economic aspects were superficial at best. What came through loud and clear is that for all his attributes, he’s clueless. I know a few months ago he thought the US consisted of 57 states, but I had hoped it was just a screw up, albeit one that any domestically schooled second grader wouldn’t make.

My worst fears were confirmed this morning when I read that Obama has 300 advisors on foreign affairs and receives two emails to brief him and provide answers. Oh my God! The front running candidate and probably future president is totally ignorant of this country’s history and of world events. Now I know why he doesn’t want do Town Hall Q&As; giving a prepared speech is one thing, but knowing enough facts about a specific topic is another.

As a history buff I firmly believe the old adage that those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it and I would expect that any President of the United States would be knowledgeable about historic events. If he or she is not, the probability of making a critical error in judgment is increased. You shouldn’t need a cheat sheet to get a solid foundation before meeting the leaders of other countries; you should already have that. Except in rare instances, the briefing sheet that all presidents get should be a detailed refresher on current events, internal pressures, and regional issues relevant to the subject nation as opposed to a primer.

The thought of US power in the hands of a novice in both political and military affairs is a scary one. Listening to Obama say he would move an army division here or there or nuclear disarm to send the right message to dangerous foes on the world stage conjures up images of a helmeted Michael Dukakis perched proudly atop a battle tank. When it comes to national security and strategic thinking, I’m afraid the only people I trust are John McCain, Colin Powell (how I wish he were running) and General Petraeus. I’m sure there are others, but the list would not include Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Dan Quayle or John Kerry.

History is an unforgiving teacher. They probably don’t teach it at Harvard Law, but at the height of the Cold War, the world was 30 seconds away from a nuclear exchange because Nikita Khrushchev was convinced that JFK was weak after he cancelled air support for the Bay Of Pigs Invasion and could do nothing to stop construction of The Berlin Wall. And JFK commanded PT109 in WWII, served four terms in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate and had close family ties to ambassadors. Despite charisma comparisons to JFK, Obama has none of these experiences to teach him. If he were to go head to head against Ahmadinejad who do you think would have the edge? This is a question every American must answer in November.

Immaturity Reigns In Washington

2008-07-17T22:37:00.000-07:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reportedly will not lift the Congressional ban on offshore drilling because it “would amount to capitulation to Republicans and The White House.” While that may be good rationale for intransigence if you’re in kindergarten, it hardly serves the best interests of our nation in time of need. Such a statement from the person who is second in the line of succession is appalling and illustrates the kind of thinking that got us into this energy crisis in the first place.

When running for election our representatives in Washington keep promising that they’ll work across party lines to get things done. Obviously, House Speaker Pelosi wants to make sure that none of the Democrats we voted for can keep that promise.. Given this childish mindset, is it any wonder that Congress hasn’t proposed a comprehensive plan to achieve energy self-sufficiency?

I’m all in favor of a migration plan to take us off of fossil fuels, but I know that we must drill in the most promising areas in the short term. With environmental protections and a percentage of the revenues dedicated for the development of viable alternatives, there is no reason for this deadlock. Is it any wonder Congress is rated in single digits? Let’s remember this in November.

Democratic Congressional Representatives Become Oil Experts

2008-07-14T20:20:00.000-07:00

Opposition to drilling in ANWR was always a canard with opponents saying there’s not enough oil, it would cost too much or it would take too long to bring to the market. A sane person would just say, put environmental protections in place and if it doesn’t make financial sense either an oil company will not do it or they’ll lose money on the operation. As long as they’re legally required to minimize their footprint and restore the area when they leave, who cares. Congress could even stipulate that because the oil is coming from a national reserve the output must be sold domestically. Therefore, this is not a valid concern.

Time frame to market is also specious. If it takes too long why should Congress care? Unlike when Congress creates a boondoggle, it won’t cost the taxpayers anything. Could this be why our representatives can’t understand this?

Approximately eight weeks ago Democrats began threatening to nationalize the oil companies [e.g., Maxine Waters (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)]. Do these people really think that the role of government is to wildcat for oil? I can just picture bureaucrats and politicians determining where to drill, what equipment to purchase, where to lay pipeline, how to route tankers, where to refine, how to distribute, etc. Since the result would be that no gas would ever get to the pump, alternative fuels would have to be found. Could this really be their ulterior motive?

The last four weeks have been spent repeating the mantra “drill on the leases they already have” [Barack Obama (D-IL), John Larson (D-CT)]. As someone with at least a rudimentary understanding of business and the ability to do basic research, I find this proposal ridiculous. When a company buys a 10 year lease for oil and gas exploration rights on a piece of land it will either exercise that right (and make a profit if it hits oil) or let the lease expire and lose the cost of the lease. Assuming our government is smart enough to protect our interest by charging an appropriate amount for the lease, the decision on whether to exercise said leased right is at the discretion of the leaseholder. And since we all agree that oil companies are out to make as much money as possible, they would get the oil if their experts deemed it profitable. Remember, if they try to delay, the lease may run out or we may have developed alternative fuels.

So what we, the public, are left with is deciding who knows more about the oil business and who has our best interests at heart. For the former, I opt for the oil companies hands down, not even close. With respect to the latter, we’re talking Hobson’s choice so we’d better speak for ourselves.

Pickens: Patriot or Profiteer?

2008-07-11T13:31:00.000-07:00

When I first saw T. Boone Pickens’ commercial I thought that finally someone was showing some good old American ingenuity. His patriotic appeal was strong: America, we have a problem so let’s get going and fix it. My sentiments exactly. I spent my life as a project manager and troubleshooter, so wallowing in trouble is not my style. At T. Boone’s suggestion I went to his website to check out his plan.

By the time I hit the statement describing $1 trillion to build wind facilities and another $200 billion to build transmission connectivity, it hit me big time: what’s in it for T. Boone? Reading on, the plan describes how “T. Boone Pickens’ Mesa Power is currently building the largest wind farm in the world” in Pampa, Texas and encourages us to join up, share the plan and push the plan on the new administration to take office January 10, 2009.

I have a problem with both this plan and this strategy. While I’m all for solving this problem, I don’t believe that technically this is the best solution, albeit it’s probably one of the most expensive. I’d like to see a cost benefit analysis comparison between The Pickens Plan and alternative solutions before committing the country’s bankroll to this venture. Secondly, as a Vietnam War Era veteran, I don’t like Mr. Pickens’ blatant appeal to our patriotism to obtain buy-in when a strong personal profit motive is involved. If the argument for The Pickens Plan were strong enough, he wouldn’t have to wrap it in the flag to sell it. It would be much better to say something like “I’m the chairman of BP Capital Management and owner of Mesa Power. I know oil and I know the investment business. My power company is building the largest wind farm in the world. I believe wind power is the answer to America’s energy problems. Support me…”

There’s nothing wrong with patriotism, there’s nothing wrong with profit and there’s nothing wrong with doing something patriotic for a profit. However, if you’re doing the latter let’s be up front about it.

Draft this woman for President!

2008-07-10T08:06:00.000-07:00

This woman strikes a blow for all hard working, non-elite Americans who have the nerve to think that big government and the bureaucracy it supports is too big a burden for the American family.

Modern Day Liberals, Socialists and Progressives (i.e. leftists) please forgive her because she undoubtedly went to school before indoctrination; social promotion and teachers having sex with their students became the standard. Moreover, she understands that government should serve the people (not the reverse) and in a democracy a government’s power is an accumulation of rights ceded from the individual to the government to achieve a common good. AKA “by consensus of the governed.”

This woman understands that her ability to put food on her table and clothing on her back is being limited by an overstuffed bureaucracy with a voracious appetite and an unrestricted ability to take what it wants. She obviously doesn’t appreciate that when big government is sitting at her dinner table eating most of her food, it’s doing so with the promise to work in the fields and replace it with even more goodies; not only for her but for everyone. Alas, she probably doesn’t even believe in utopia, socialism, Marxism or that big government will altruistically administer for the collective good. She would rather have a needy neighbor sit at her dinner table then an omnipotent bureaucrat.

Isn’t it ironic that the frustration expressed by this woman is pointed at the same people who would feign pity and then solve her plight by taking the rest of her possessions to fund a program to help her? And then with a self-righteous air of conceit call a press conference to proclaim they’ve solved yet another social ill. To all those self-aggrandized elite, this wonderfully independent American woman says, “Get off of my back!”

Congressional Performance Closing In On Zero!

2008-07-08T09:45:00.000-07:00

I was reading up on the Kyoto Treaty yesterday and was going to post on that. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the blog…Rasmussen Reports announced that Congressional approval is now at an historically low rating of 9%!

Although I believe we’re still marking on a curve and that absolute zero is warranted for an inert and mentally dead body, it’s nice to know that Congress’s lack of usefulness has not gone unnoticed.

To honor this historic achievement, please take the accompanying poll to predict Congress's reaction to its abysmal rating.

Importing Nuclear Waste: Not a Good Idea

2008-07-06T19:39:00.000-07:00

EnergySolutions Inc., a nuclear waste treatment and disposal company based in Salt Lake City, Utah has an application pending (IW023) with the NRC to import 20,000 tons of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from decommissioned nuclear reactors in Italy. The disposal process entails incineration in Tennessee and residue burial in Utah. Decision on a license is pending and lawsuits have been filed. The opposition includes Republican Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. (UT) and Democratic Congressman Bart Gordon (TN) who introduced H.R. 5632 with 26 Co-sponsors.

No matter what your position on domestic nuclear power, I think we can all agree with Congressman Gordon when he said “I was shocked to learn that the United States is the only country in the world that accepts and disposes other countries’ radioactive waste. I don’t want to see the United States become the world’s nuclear garbage dump.”

At a time when the approval of new domestic nuclear power plants is contingent upon public approval of disposal sites like Yucca Mountain, approving licences to accept foreign nuclear waste is ludicrous. I strongly suggest we tell our reps to support H.R. 5632.

Journalistic Integrity: An Oxymoron For Our Times

2008-07-05T13:39:00.000-07:00

There was a time when I used to spend almost $10 every Sunday on a stack of newspapers that my wife and I would spend most of the day reading. And by the end of the day, we’d feel fairly informed on current events. I don’t do this anymore. Not because of the proliferation of the Internet and cable, but because of the appalling lack of diversity of opinion. Whether from print media, free TV (ABC, CBS, NBC) or most cable, all of the stories have the same information from the same perspective. Unlike modern day journalists (ouch!), I believe that most events have at least two credible perspectives. Even more horrifying is the fact that I found I could predict the coverage. Either I’m clairvoyant or reporters are not doing their job.

Here’s a case in point. Yesterday’s news stories stated that President Bush was heckled during the 4th Of July speech at Monticello, but failed to point out the hecklers were pros. I, like most of the naive public, incorrectly assumed that the heckling was probably by some disenchanted youth who although not caring about other people’s rights, was demanding to be heard. To the contrary, it turns out that someone named David Swanson who proudly claims to be the first yeller at this event is the self-proclaimed creator, director and/or member of over twenty anti-Bush, impeach Cheney, progressive Democrat, pro-Kucinich type websites. Now whether you agree with Mr. Swanson or not, the point here is that this information is relevant to the story. If you’re going to report on protests, it used to be Journalism 101 to report facts relating to who, what, where, when, why and how. Journalistic integrity anyone?

Congress Rated At 12% Satisfactory

2008-07-02T10:55:00.000-07:00

My first thought upon hearing this was 12%… really?.. they must be grading on a curve. I would rate them at zero with the caveat that it should be lower but we don’t allow negative numbers.

If you think the Republican Administration is incompetent, then how would you describe the Democratic Congress? Words fail, but arrogance and disdain for the working public would be a good start. Rather than go home for the 4th of July, Congress should have called an emergency session to address the hardships caused by rising gas prices.

In the short term, drilling for oil offshore and in ANWAR should have been authorized (with environmental protections) and all earmarks (and unspent monies) rescinded from this year’s legislation and reused for alternative energy research. RFP’s should be issued immediately and a panel of independent honest citizens convened to ensure that the contracts let out are free from corruption. Impossible you say, probably but isn’t this in effect the jury system the virtues of which all our legislators extol?

Although I know the latter will never happen, it does convey the seriousness of high gas prices to normal people. If widely proposed, it might just scare our inert Congress into some constructive action. Instead of primping in front of a camera before sliding into a 6 mile per gallon limo for a quick ride to a waiting private jet to go home to hear what the common man was thinking, Congress might actually serve their constituents. With respect to the movie My Cousin Vinny, I could hear Congress now “Oh My God. What a blanking nightmare!”

The Jury’s Still Out On Global Warning

2008-07-01T21:09:00.000-07:00

I believe in doing my homework and not jumping off a cliff because everyone else does. While it’s easy to believe the earth is in a warming cycle and that people do pollute, a healthy dose of scientific skepticism is warranted with respect to mankind’s ability to be a major influence on this planet’s climate.

My research included Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and despite the acclaim found it extremely embarrassing. It was a combination bandwagon speech and political advertisement. Essentially saying “7 our of the 10 scientific journals ran articles on global warming so it must be true and by the way, let’s talk about me.” While this may be useful technique in selling toothpaste or Carbon Credits (Al reportedly has a 9.5% interest in a Carbon Credit sales company “Camco International Ltd’), it has nothing to do with scientific methodology. If mankind is causing global warming, this puff piece could actually hurt the cause.

To understand the issue of global warming I read several scientific journals. The most interesting background was in William Sweet’s article in the December 2007 issue of IEEE’s Spectrum magazine entitled Catastrophic Climate Change From Outer Space. This article traces the origins of the global warming issue to Wallace S. Broeker’s 1987 work which was referenced by U.S. National Academies National Research Council in 2002 and points out that new research reported in the 9 October 2007 issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests a comet or asteroid destabilized glaciers in the referenced period of climate change. This possibility is supported by a layer of iridium, carbon and other evidence in sediment at about 50 North American sites.

Sorry for being so long winded, but my point is if scientists, engineers and other technical experts don’t know the root cause of climate change there’s no way untrained and undisciplined politicians have a clue. Until more is known, I’m going to sit on the sidelines and watch this bandwagon go by.

Age Discrimination

2008-06-28T22:24:00.000-07:00

Although McCain may not be my first choice, I’m tired of the comments about his age from the same people who preach that any discrimination is wrong (something I agree with). So I thought it would be interesting to look up some of VIP ages. – Thanks wikipedia.

By the way, how can Joy Behar (Liberal in name only) make snarky comments about McCain’s age when he’s 6 years younger then Barbara Walters and 6 years older than her? Better watch out Joy, you may be looking for another job.

John Paul Stevens – April 20, 1920 – is 88
Barbara Walters – February 25 1929 – is 78
Ted Kennedy – February 22, 1932 – is 76
Ruth Bader Ginsberg – March 15, 1933 – is 75
John McCain - Aug. 29, 2008 – will be 72 this year
Joy Behar – October 7, 1942 – will be 66 this year
John Kerry – December 11, 1943 – will be 65 this year

The Liberal Myth

2008-06-26T15:15:00.000-07:00

Today’s self-professed Liberal in government, media or college has no clue what Liberal means. Liberal is defined as open-minded and free from dogma and agenda. If people recite a litany of things you must believe and are closed to discussion they are not Liberal, they are groupies. If someone says they’ve heard everything on a subject they are not Liberal, they are closed-minded. If a group of college students shout down a guest speaker on campus who has a differing political perspective they are not Liberal, they are fascist.

True Liberals welcome diverse opinion, test ideas for intellectual merit and defeat prejudice, intolerance and bad ideas based on worthiness. They are open to knowledge from all sources and are humble because they realize they know nothing. If Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Socrates, Plato, where humbled by the universe and spent a lifetime seeking knowledge, then ranting politicians, pandering media, self-aggrandized college professors and campus kiddies haven’t a clue. Instead of truth and knowledge, they seek popularity, acceptance and followers. After all, it’s a lot easier to repeat slogans and perpetuate clichés then it is to question sources, investigate issues and form your own conclusions. True Liberalism is dead and the ones who killed it are today’s self-professed Liberals.

Dump Congressional Incumbents

2008-06-22T11:55:00.000-07:00

God knows the Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes, but if you don’t think congressional Democrats will screw us to win the upcoming election you’re kidding yourself. As long as the DNC thinks that voters will blame the Republican administration, they’ll keep us unhappy. All political parties work in their best interests which often don’t coincide with ours. The only way to get them to perform is to vote against all Congressional incumbents Bush is already gone. The presidency will change no matter who gets in. Don’t buy the hype.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised lower gas prices if the Dems got control of Congress (April 19, 2006). They got what they wanted and didn’t deliver. As far as I’m concerned DNC means Do Nothing Congress. Dump them and if the Reps fail, dump them too. Sooner or latter, someone will listen to us and not the special interests!

High Gas Prices are a Meeting Of the Mindless

2008-06-22T11:31:00.000-07:00

In my opinion high gas prices are due to the perfect storm of evil intent. You have the extreme environmentalists who’ve wanted high prices to take us off oil, Democrats in Congress who don’t mind screwing the public if Bush gets blamed (and they get the presidency in 2008) and opportunists like the Oil Companies, OPEC, Venezuela, Russia and Future Commodity Traders.

I’m an environmentalist. If you live on this planet, you have to be. Only the insane "defecate where they dine." But also remember that a turtle's or sand darter’s rights to occupy a certain area isn’t sacrosanct. Extremists think that a once a mollusk migrates to a certain area it can’t be relocated or returned to its original habitat. This is elevating the freedom of other species above humans and is ridiculous. Preserve all species, but allow human progress!

How Many Lawyers Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb?

2008-06-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

Approximately 1,143,358 lawyers by end of 2007

If anyone touches that bulb I’ll sue.
If that bulb is neglected I’ll sue.
Does the bulb have a disclaimer on it?
Is the bulb safety tested?
Is the light from that bulb approved for children?
Do you have a written release to remove that light bulb?
Has the bulb been read its rights?
Do you have bi-lingual instructions for removing that bulb?
Does the bulb unscrew both right and left?
The ACLU has a lawsuit against replacement of that bulb so it can’t be removed until the Supreme Court rules on it.
Where do I send my bill?
Forget it. We’ll live in the dark!

Populism is Dangerous

2008-06-20T22:42:00.000-07:00

Why? Because “group mentality” is an oxymoron. It lacks ownership, intellect and perspective. Moreover, whether its presidential elections, tattooing or drugs you’ll usually regret it. Popular opinion is usually wrong. It reflects what the group’s leader or the “in crowd” thinks and what the followers are too afraid or intimated to resist. This is not to diminish teamwork which is a consensus that’s best achieved when every independent thinker gives voice to his / her opinion and a clearly defined objective is determined. Give me a group of independent open-minded thinkers and we’ll make the right decision every time. What does this have to do with the price of gas? Think Obama.

Barbara Walters, The View and Joy is No Joy

2008-06-20T22:33:00.000-07:00

Barbara Walters should be commended for succeeding in male dominated business back when opportunities didn’t exist, but citing adulteress affairs in her bio is classless and just going after the money. I don’t believe many married women view “the other woman” as nice or virtuous, but rather as a threat to their marriage. Yes it takes two to have an affair, but by virtue of your well-deserved success you have condoned this behavior by saying “I did this and I’m a success so there’s no down side.”

Joy Behar left earth in the ‘60’s and should have never returned because she hasn’t looked around and observed that things have changed! All of her opinions are archaic and she refuses to acknowledge that most issues she was so hung up about have been resolved. A psychiatrist would have a field day looking into that pea brain and would probably have to jump out the window about 15 minutes into her first one hour session. Do you believe this ideologue was once a teacher? Thank God she’s now just an aging jokester making digs at 40 year old issues. Joy’s one of those awful people who refuse to take “yes” as an answer. Maybe reliving her youth makes her feel younger, however Joy is no Joy.

Political Polls and TV Ratings

2008-06-19T22:17:00.000-07:00

Every time I hear newscasters tell me that 60% of the American people “say” or “are in favor of” this or that I think who did they ask and what was the question? It seems to me that too often the questions are lame, the choice of answers ridiculous and the entire poll seems to be reverse engineered At the very least, tell me who paid for the poll (or is buying the results), how they came up with the questions and what bonehead determined the answers. I realize you can take a years worth of courses on how to design an accurate survey, but it’s an in-exact science and I can make a poll produce any result I want.

My other problem with polls is who do they ask? I don’t know anyone anywhere who ever contributed to Gallup, Zogby, Quinnipiac or even the Nielsen Ratings and if you believe in Six Degrees Of Separation, that would include the pollster himself! On the brightside, I’m clearly not to blame for The Kardashians which makes Gillighan’s Island look like a Mensa meeting.

Washington is a Toxic Waste Dump

2008-06-19T22:03:00.000-07:00

Every once in awhile I think the best thing to do about hot air, waste and corruption in Washington is to move it. Put all the offices and departments into trailers or mobile homes and relocate it every 4 years to another part of the country. Preferably leaving no forwarding address so hopefully some of the dumber deadwood would get lost and not be able to show up and collect a paycheck. In this scenario, how many bureaucrats would simply keep showing up at their old office, sit there and never realize their “work” has moved? This could be an intelligence test. If we did this every 4 years how many lobbyists might wander around dropping dollar bills on the ground or sticking them into random freezers? How many leeches would stick to the glass of candy store windows for want of the federal teat to suck up to? Also think of the environmental benefit. Every 4 years we could declare the area a toxic waste dump and remove all materials proven harmful to humanity. The hot air would dissipate, bullshit would be converted to fertilizer and we can start fresh every 4 years in the hope of getting it right. Ah, but to dream…

Gas Price Solution

2008-06-18T21:57:00.000-07:00

Sanity please! I want a PLAN to provide immediate cost relief (this year), research and development into alternative energy sources (within 5 years) with intermediate achievable steps and complete energy independence (within 10. years). Make this a national priority and report results. Instead of finding imaginative ways to waste money on a Bridge to Nowhere (Sen. Tom Coburn – R-OK) or a Woodstock Museum (Sen. Hilary Clinton – NY-D) fund alternative energy research at our Universities!!! Get rid of all earmarks. This waste is DELIBERATE folks, innovative and in your face. Kick the bums out now!

An Independent Voter

2008-06-17T20:39:00.000-07:00

As an independent voter I don’t have a predetermined favorite in this race. I’ve voted for and against Democrats and Republicans and often wish for a third choice. In my opinion, both parties are abusive when they are dominant. Our only chance to keep them fairly honest and to represent us (and not their own interests) is to make them work for our vote. People who vote Democratic because grandma loved JFK (or FDR) are as ridiculous as those who vote Republican because Ike won WWII. If coalition governments weren’t so inherently weak, I’d actively support a third party. Maybe we should bring back the Bull Moose or maybe some tar and feathers would help.

Mission Statement

2008-06-16T20:30:00.000-07:00

Originally this blog was going to be solely about politics because it’s an interest of mine and it’s an election year and all of our thoughts go into deciding which one of these clowns can screw up our lives the least. Now however, I’ve decided that Common Sense is much too broad a topic to limit it to politics. Our whole society needs a good dose of Common Sense laxative to get its system working the way it should. Apologizing up front, I intend to share my thoughts on gas prices, TV, movies, the media, abortion, racism, sexism, stupidity, lawyers, the legal system, etc. All of which can be fixed with a lot of common sense!