Remembering an Inspirational Family

I had a good friend, JP Blecksmith. We went to high school together. He was a top student, quarterback of the football team, captain of the track team, hilarious, generous and all around nice guy. After high school, he attended Annapolis and then was deployed to Fallujah, where he acted as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Marines. In November of '04, he was shot and instantly killed while clearing a rooftop for his platoon. Fox was kind enough to do a several day mini-documentary on JP and his platoon, which really showed the kind of guy he was. I wish I could find a clip. More information on JP can be found at http://www.jpblecksmith.org/.

Shortly after his death, his mother, Pam, was diagnosed with stage three colon cancer, which she battled for three years before finally succumbing in January of 2008. Pam was an extremely accomplished woman, with Stanford and MBA degrees, an extensive White House career, constant community volunteer work and a loving wife and mother of three. But, most impressive, she was the strongest and sweetest woman I've ever met. She never complained about being sick or losing her son, who was her best friend and pride and joy. I visited her in City of Hope, shortly after an extensive procedure to remove the cancer, which had, by that time, spread throughout her body. Despite her weakened condition, she was as perky and sweet as ever, while gently refusing to talk about herself, asking, instead, about my life and everyone else's.

Whenever I'm faced with adversity or sorrow, I try to remember the Blecksmiths and all of their selfless sacrifices. JP's memory receives most of the glory, because of his untimely and heroic death, but Pam was the true hero of the family. She was the silent and courageous backbone for all of them.

Pam and Ed Blecksmith at JP's funeral.

A Quality Rant

A nice little article by Victor Davis Hanson.

I'm not really with him on the American male accent thing, though.

So Disappointed...

This is no longer new news, but I'm still so disappointed. LA could really use a man like Caruso in office. And now is the perfect time for him, politically. I'm not even really a fan of his developments, but this man knows how to get things done quickly, efficiently and with integrity. I know he is facing a lot of pressure to run, so the fact that he decided not to, makes him even more admirable, especially since he sites his family as the reason. Oh well, hopefully, next time.




Caruso says thanks, but no thanks

Kevin Roderick

Developer Rick Caruso has been saying for a while that his running for mayor is only a question of when, not if. Well, it won't be this time, he announced today in a statement.

For the last few months I have been considering a potential run for Mayor because I care a great deal about Los Angeles. I grew up in Los Angeles, attended school here, started my business here and have invested a great deal in this community, both in time and resources. I have raised my family here. I love Los Angeles.

As I considered a run for mayor, given my experience both in the civic arena and in private business, I am confident that I have much to offer this city, both in terms of leadership and a passion for improving our community. For me personally however, my first consideration had to be whether, for my family, this was the right time for me to run.

And, while I am genuinely grateful for all the encouragement I have received from people all over this city to run for mayor and the confidence they put in me, I have decided that the obligation of serving as mayor would put a burden on my family that is too much at this point in their lives and, as a result, I will not be a candidate in the upcoming campaign for mayor. Having worked closely with Mayors in the past, I understand the commitment necessary to properly fill that role, and it is not the right time for me to commit myself wholly to the City at the expense of my family, particularly my young children.

My most enthusiastic cheerleaders encouraging me to jump into this race have been my four children. However, my wife Tina and I have always put our children first and I think that it would be better if the two youngest children were a little older before they make the sacrifices that are required of the families of elected officials. I hope there will be other opportunities for me to run for mayor, but my children will only be kids once.

Having an interest in serving my city is not new to me. I was proud to serve as President of the LA Department of Water and Power Commission for nearly 10 years, and to serve as President of the Police Commission during a very important time for the Department. Serving Mayors Bradley, Riordan, and Hahn was a great honor for me. Having served in those roles, I saw firsthand how important City Hall is to the everyday lives of Los Angeles residents. I have seen how much can be accomplished when the tools available to our leaders are used in a manner focused on solving problems and making our city more livable.

I have also built a business in Los Angeles, and understand from the private sector side, how government can help and also fail those trying to start a business, build a career, and raise their family here in our city. Right now Los Angeles is struggling. The LAPD, despite promises and increased taxes, remains understaffed. Instead of improved transit systems, we see more and more red tail lights. And economic redevelopment and improvements to our most underserved communities continues to lag.

These are very, very tough economic times. This City needs leaders that have a singular focus on improving the quality of life for all Los Angeles residents. There are good people in City Hall, and it is my hope that collectively, they can refocus their efforts on our City's problems in the months ahead so we realize Los Angeles' full potential. This was a very difficult decision for me to reach because of my devotion to this city, but today my role will remain as an interested and active private citizen and I will focus for now on my family, my business, and my community-based charitable activities.

Too Funny...

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Check out this blog post from The Mud Pit.

Let's Peer into the Future...

A Perfect Storm
By Thomas Sowell

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

This makes me want to move back to the safe haven of Maine.

Another rant against uninformed voters

Why do we, as a country, condone and promote ignorant voting? Nothing annoys me more than the "Get Out the Vote" movements. Why do we want uninformed voters helping to make important decisions about our country? Why don't we have an "Educate the Vote" campaign? Instead of being so concerned with people voting, we should be promoting knowledge and understanding of the issues that face us. And if people were educated about the issues, they would have more of an incentive to vote. This uninformed voting only leads to these knee-jerk, empty decisions.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone who knows nothing about any of the issues, and who couldn't tell an Obama policy from a McCain policy, waxing on about how they plan to vote for one candidate or the other. Although, in California and in my peer group, it definitely is largely Obamaniacs. I have no doubt that the rest of the country has plenty of uninformed McCain supporters.

I just have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we give free Starbucks to people as an incentive to vote. The people that should be voting are the people who would vote without free coffee, not the people who have to be reminded and prodded.

I'm tired of people expecting a pat on the back for voting when they know NOTHING about the issues. You should get a pat on the back when you LEARN about the issues.

And I am so sick of hearing about how much of a historic election this is. Get over it people. I guarantee that it would not be considered to be such a historic election if the black candidate were on the Republican ticket. And the fact that we are making such a big deal over the color of Obama's skin, just goes to show how far we still have to go, rather than how far we've come. As I see it, this is a step backward, judging a candidate by the color of his skin, rather than on the merits of his record. Heralding a guy, who's party promoted him prematurely because he's a slick speaker and an uber politically correct choice. Never mind that he practically has no experience, poor judgment and is the most leftist candidate of all time. But, I digress.

The point is, people need to start doing their homework. Especially, smart, educated people, who have the time and resources to do such. Put down the People magazine. Turn off American Idol. Educate yourselves! Don't vote based on what someone at the office water cooler says. Learn about the issues. Figure out where you stand and then the choice becomes clear. These candidates stand for such radically different ideals, that it is utterly incomprehensible to me that anyone could have trouble deciding between the two.

And for those of you who don't like either choice, join the club. But you have to work with what you're given and vote for the America that you would rather see. Get involved. Education is the key. Sitting back and B-M-W-ing does nothing. Do something! Make an effort. Educate yourselves and then educate others. Learn about local candidates. And stop voting based on who looks more presidential.

As a side and final note, a very wise friend recently said:

You just described 90% of Obama's voting base. They know absolutely nothing about the issues, and they don't care. It "feels good" to vote for him. Kelly, you could tell them that Obama is going to execute their families and they'd still vote for him. They don't care about facts. Period.

I have a theory---it's a product of our TV/Internet generations, with short-attention spans and a taste only for dessert---nobody eats vegetables anymore (i.e. reading, researching, discussion, analysis, etc.). They only want easy answers (like their favorite TV shows) and simple solutions (like their e-mail splurges and text messaging).
Our society is deteriorating from the inside out...in an similar way that the Roman Empire destroyed itself from inside. As the Romans took over more & more people, tribes, villages, towns, they gradually lost their sense of Nationalism and cohesion. It became more about "me" than "us." The sense for a cause greater than oneself was lost. That is exactly what's happening to us, and Obama is the messiah for those who want handouts, for those with no appreciation for hard-earned success, and for those who want to alleviate their white guilt.

Welcome to the new U.S.A. You can scream, or you can dig into your little corner of the universe and enjoy it as best you can. That's what I'm doing.

It is so true. People vote based on what benefits them, personally, rather than what is best for the country. This short-sighted, me-centric society is the heart of so many of our problems. Look beyond yourselves, people. Try extrapolating a bit. It won't hurt, I promise.

Spooky

A great little clip...

Wow, this is the most poignant I've ever seen Megyn Kelly.




Good for her.

The Silent Tax

What's the most annoying and sneaky tax of them all?

Inflation

Why isn't this discussed more? Every time the government spends money that it mints (on failing programs that shouldn't exist anyway) the value of all money goes down. This, in turn, hurts the middle and lower class the most. It's a silent killer and one of the things that drives people to foolishly hunt the highest returns they can, in order to just make up for inflation. The value of our money is partially transferred to the government as they print and spend it. Another infuriating tax that we never even see until it's too late. $1,000,000 sounds like a lot, right? Well, give it 30 or 40 years. It will only be worth a piddling $250,000 or so.

So, if government cut spending, inflation rates would not increase as rapidly, making our money worth more, longer. I have much of my money patiently waiting in CDs in this bad economy, yet, I am losing to inflation, even with a 4% return. It's frustrating that you get taxed to the hilt no matter what you do. And inflation is a nasty tax that you can't hide from. It will get you even if you don't declare the money and keep it under the mattress.

So, why is it that Barack Obama, Defender of the Little Guy, wants to spend more? Shouldn't he cut spending to best help those struggling? Especially in a down economy, wouldn't you want to do anything in your power as President to reduce the financial burden on Americans?

Guess not...

STOP STEALING MY MONEY!

Beating a dead horse...More on Media Bias

For those who still do not believe it exists...

From the article, written about the first objective and successful study on media-bias, found in UCLA's Quarterly Journal of Economics:

Media Bias is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

That seems just a touch slanted.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

I found this to be interesting, as well:

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

Now, because this is only taking into consideration straight news while omitting op-ed pieces and pundit shows, the networks and papers cited in this article could slant an entirely different way when looked at in whole. For example, as stated, The Wall Street Journal's opinion pieces are largely conservative, especially when taken in context of other media. However, what should really matter to the American public are the NEWS pieces...the ones that purport themselves to be unbiased, not the pundits who claim to be anything but.

Furthermore, another study examined the viewership of the different news networks and came to some obvious conclusions. Of CNN's viewers, a whopping 51% are democrat, while on 13% are republicans. MSNBC showed similar numbers with 45% being dems and 18% being republicans. Where is gets a little more interesting, is Fox's viewership, who claim 33% democrats and 39% republicans. That seems to be a whole lot more balanced than the aforementioned networks.

Now, I do not believe that Fox is always "Fair and Balanced." Not only do they tend to have more conservative pundit shows, but in the shows that claim balance, they generally to have a stronger and more credible personalities on the conservative side. for example, on Hannity and Colmes, Hannity is much more the celebrity and more committed debater. Colmes tends to let a lot slide and often defers to Hannity.

On the flip side, however, O'Reilly (whom I cannot stand and is believed to be a wingnut conservative) really is moderate and at times even populist. He just is very vocal about certain conservative beliefs that drive liberals crazy.

Just a few of O'Reilly's leftist views:

• Opposes the war
• Supports nationalized health care
• Supports minimum wage
• Opposes the death penalty
• Supports race-based preferences
• Supports government control of education

Given these positions alone, can you really call the guy conservative? Even Republican is a stretch.

Overall, I do believe that Fox strives more for balance than the other networks, which just drives liberals crazy. While attending the Communication School at BU, we were shown the "Outfoxed" documentary, lamenting the horrific slanted atrocities presented by the Fox network. Were we presented an opposing viewpoint? Of course not. All of my peers walked away from that class, even further convinced that Fox is the enemy. I even recived some gasps of disapproval and shock from friends when I told then that I do tune into Fox regularly.

And of course, one guy's opinion means nothing as far as the facts go, but it's always interesting when a lib journalist breaks from the fold and notes the injustice.

I have zero issues with any network/paper having as many partisan (on either side) pundit shows/op-ed pieces as they wish. But, can we please at least try for unbiased newscasts? And if that's too much to ask, can we at least call a spade a spade?

Sometimes, I am dumbfounded that there are even any conservatives left.

The reality of health care

Liberals love to complain about the high price of private health care, while demanding that the government provide it for the people. Well, when are people going to realize that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid eliminate the incentive for competitive pricing?

50% of Americans receive some sort of government health care. So, why would patients, doctors or hospitals practice restraint in medical billing? If you're not paying out of your own pocket, why care how high your bills are? And if the bill will be paid by Big Daddy Government, why should doctors or hospitals care how much they charge?

If the free market were allowed to work, health care would become affordable, just like all other private products and services. Of course there would be different levels; more money would buy higher quality insurance. But government run health care isn't exactly top notch anyway. Why would the better doctors choose to work for the government when they can make more money running a private practice? And of course, there would still be those who choose to spend their money on other things rather than health care, but in general the price would come down. Why should it be different than anything else?

Gaffe-ing all the way to the bank.

I'm already a little sick of hearing about this story, but it does still make me chuckle when I think about it.

Joe, just keep at it. We need to see more of you, man! Get out there!

I'm not really sure why SNL hasn't picked up on the comedic value of Biden yet, but he sure is gold....sweet, Botox'd, liquid gold.

I'm sure his gaffe's will have little to no impact on the election, but I do appreciate that special way he has of bringing a smile to my face.

Let's please move on.

A Gallup poll shows:

While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.

So, can we please, please, please, please stop saying that the evil white racist is going to cost Obama the election?

Thanks.

Oh, and p.s., I'm not going to point out the percentage of people who will vote Obama because of his race.

Palin vs. Obama

Record Vs. Rhetoric
by Thomas Sowell

Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.

The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience-- none in an executive capacity-- and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.

Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.

Sarah Palin has had executive experience-- and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.

We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.

Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media?

One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate.

Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.

More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.

Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.

Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is.

But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions.

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."

Finally, McCain brings it.

Good job, McCain!

He finally pulled through, doing a great job at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner, getting loud belly laughs from all.



Obama was pretty entertaining, as well:

McCain then followed up the dinner with a great showing on Letterma, where Dave managed to keep his bitterness to a minimum. McCain finally elucidated some of the concepts that he's been struggling for the last few months to communicate.

I just hope that people were watching, because they certainly weren't watching the third debate.

Freedom of Choice?

I don't feel very free when my choice is: Obama, a big smelly socialist or McCain, a big smelly socialist.

Why prioritize when you can get it all for free?

Nick Gillespie's take on health insurance.

Well Put.

A nice little article on why wealth redistribution is ridiculous.

We're in big trouble

Case in point:

She's got some serious balls.

I can't think of anyone else who would have the balls to get on TV and speak their mind about such a controversial issue.

The world needs more Ayn Rands.

Palin: Kicking Ass and Taking Names

"Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Many of us can finally breathe a sigh of relief as Palin proved herself to be the skilled debater we originally believed her to be. I've been nervously anticipating this night after watching the painful Gibson and Couric interviews, worried that the worst was yet to come.

But, she came out in full force, winning by a landslide on personality and she more than held her own on policy, foreign and domestic.

Biden did well, too, I must admit. I guess he powered his gaffe machine down for the evening, unless you count his numerous misstatements of facts. By the way, there's something funny with Biden's face. Has he had a face lift?

Overall, this debate was far more interesting than the first Presidential Debate. Both were on point and Palin has mastered talking to the people through the camera, and tearing her opponent apart with a sweet smile, all the while.

Where has this Sarah been? Were the aforementioned interviews just an example of a nervous newcomer, someone who hadn't yet hit the books or someone who hadn't yet had the campaign lines drilled into her head. Maybe she just ate her spinach this morning. Whatever the ultimate cause of this stellar performance from Palin, I will not look to closely, for I am just so thankful that we, not just made it through, but kicked some ass and took some names!

Milton Friedman making Donahue look like an idiot.

What a brilliant man. He had such a way of simplifying complex issues.

This is so scary

Are you kidding?

Washington Post admits things are going well in Iraq

Washington Post article:
Please especially note the last paragraph and my added emphasis.

Another Iraq Benchmark
Legislators approve a crucial deal on provincial elections.

Friday, September 26, 2008; Page A22

WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office. The legislation eliminates the party slate system that allowed religious authorities to dominate Iraq's previous elections, and it provides for women to hold 25 percent of seats. Most important, it will allow Sunni leaders who boycotted the 2005 provincial elections -- and who have since allied themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to compete for political power in the provinces that were once the heartland of the insurgency.

As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces. Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence. The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.
ad_icon

For some time, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has been citing provincial elections as the most important of Iraq's "political benchmarks." This week's breakthrough follows others in recent months, including the reform of a law that purged former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from government posts. More steps are needed -- most important, agreement on a law distributing Iraqi oil revenue among provinces and allowing for new investment. But it's now clear that the political progress that the Bush administration hoped would follow the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has finally begun. How can the next president preserve that momentum? Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.

What a Jerk!

This is just disgusting and is another example of the media not doing their job.

The gift that keeps on giving

Oh, Joe. You just can't seem keep that foot out of your mouth. And we all thought Bush was bad.

There have been some real choice moments as of late, like when Biden proclaimed that Hillary would be a better VP:

Or, my personal favorite, asking the audience at a rally to "Stand up for Chuck!" when referring to wheelchair bound Senator Chuck Graham:



Or the latest, Biden bungling an interview with Katie Couric, showing his lack of knowledge of US history:



Or when Biden was recently condemning China's use of coal power, when Obama supports the use of clean coal in the US:



However, this Obama/Biden Gaffe Machine video is pretty funny. It does contain some painfully awkward moments, though. So watcher, beware:



The best part is that there are several other gaffes that I haven't posted. How about when Biden castigated the Obama/Biden campaign for an ad deriding McCain for not using a computer because of injuries?

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the “CBS Evening News,” Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

“I thought that was terrible, by the way,” Biden said.

Asked why it was done, he said: “I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we’d have never done it.”

Or when he declared, on ABC's Good Morning America, that paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do:

"It's time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut..."

Or what about when Biden claimed his helicopter was "forced down" in mountains crawling with al-Qaeda? Even though his helicopter landed because of weather. That’s not what he told a National Guard audience in Maryland. From Jake Tapper:

Biden said he would ask Palin about “The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down…John McCain wants to know where Bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That’s where Al Qaeda is. That’s where Bin Laden is. It’s not in the country of Iraq.”

Never stop, Joe. Just keep doin' what you do and we'll keep laughing.

Lions and Tigers and Polar Bears. Oh my!

Ok, maybe no lions and tigers, but definitely polar bears.

An article on CNN laments how the shrinking of Arctic ice is starving polar bears and causing them to turn to cannibalism. Oh, woe is me! Damn that global warming! It's Bush's fault! It's Palin's fault! It's time to panic!

Oh...wait.

Polar bears are a naturally aggressive species. Oftentimes, the adult males will eat their young and the smaller females for survival and to eliminate competition. They exhibit these same behaviors when there is an abundance of ice. Nature is not always pretty, my green friends. Deal with it.

An article called "Observations of Intraspecific Aggression and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)" notes the natural behaviors of polar bears:

Cannibalism in polar bears appears to occur as carrion feeding and as attacks by males on small cubs or incapacitated individuals. Direct observations indicate that intraspecific killing and cannibalism occur among polar bears throughout the Arctic. The high incidence of Trichinella infection and circumpolar observations of cannibalism suggest that polar bears will readily eat other polar bears when they can do so without excessive risk of injury. Speculations that intraspecific aggression and cannibalism may be an important social and ecological force are consistent with existing information on polar bear biology.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do a little more research and at least mention that this does occur normally.

Not to mention, the earth has been warmer in the past than it current is, and somehow our polar bear buddies managed to survive.

So, phew! We can all calm down. The world is not ending tomorrow.

C'mon, really PETA?

PETA is constantly one-upping themselves with new levels of crazy. But they've really been on a roll lately.

According to an NBC article they plan to purchase the San Diego Sea World. Why, you might ask?

To free all the animals, or course, replacing them with virtual reality and animatronic displays. Fabulous idea. I'm sure that will work out brilliantly. I'm not sure what a Sea World ticket costs these days, but I am sure that people are not going to pay that price to see holograms and Chuck E Cheese style animals.

And for the record, it would only cost about $110 million to buy the park.

However, their newest, shiniest idea has to be their latest demands on Ben & Jerry's, urging them to replace the cow's milk in their ice cream with human breast milk. Really? I mean....REALLY!?

I have three things to say about this:

1. Gross

2. Gross

3. Since pumping human breast milk is a labor-intensive, long and slow process, how does this make ANY economic sense. How could Ben & Jerry's afford to pay all those milk-pumping women?

Their letter to Ben & Jerry's discusses their "innovative" idea.

Ben & Jerry's response to this plea was, "We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child." In other words, "You've got to be kidding me, you tree-hungging, dolphin-saving, tofu-eating phychos".

In conclusion, I know I can rest easy knowing that PETA is there to save the animals and...the world.

The Tax Discrepancy

In a recent poll conducted by IBD/TIPP, some disturbing evidence was uncovered about how much people think the "rich" are paying in taxes.

As it turns out, the top 1% (people making over $364,657) pay 40% of taxes, while only earning 15% of the nation's income. Now, that doesn't seem very fair. However, 60% of people believe that income bracket pays 1% or less in the nation's taxes. Also, people feel that the "rich" should pay up to 26% in taxes, while Obama want to raise this to 39%. It seems there is a discrepancy in the common knowledge.



The poll continues with top 5% (earning $145,000) pay 60% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of taxes and the top 25% ($60,000 and up) pay 85% of taxes. More than a third of people believe that the rich pay less that 20%. Why don't people know this? Why isn't this all over the news? Instead, that misleading racial poll is being blasted into every home in America.

As a nation, we are focusing on the wrong things, as usual. Both sides are guilty of this. Let's stick the issues and get the facts out there. For example, so many Obama supporters believe that his proposed tax hikes will not affect them. But with everyone fretting over the state of the economy, now is THE WORST possible time to raise taxes...on anyone.

But, maybe an Obama presidency will be a good thing. Maybe he'll run the country into the ground so badly that people will be clamoring for Palin for President in 2012.

Another interesting article on Investor's Business Daily.

New Race Poll

These new poll results that are getting so much press attention asks whites about their views of black people.

I'm sure by now, most have heard that 52% of whites feel that blacks are aggressive. 49% feel that they are boastful, 41% think blacks are complaining, 34% feel they are lazy and 21% believe they're irresponsible. This has lead many to believe that if Obama loses, it will be because of this seemingly overwhelming white racism.

However, what you don't hear on the mainstream media outlets is that blacks were polled as well. How did they react to the same questions?

59% of blacks feel that blacks can be classified as aggressive, 57% feel they are boastful, 51% feel they are complaining, 39% feel they are lazy and a whopping 40% feel they are irresponsible. Blacks feel much more negatively about their race than do whites.

And although blacks feel all these things about their race, does that mean they think Obama reflects any of these qualities? No, of course not. Neither do the vast majority of whites. Even though blacks feel these negative stereotypes apply to their own race, 96% of blacks intend to vote for Obama. What does this say about the poll?

That it means nothing.

While I'm sure there will be those whites who do not vote for Obama because he is black, there will probably be more whites who will vote for him because he is black. If Obama loses, it will not be because of racism, it will be because of his lack of experience and far leftist views.

Isn't is about time that we move past these pathetic allegations of racism?

Bush's Resignation Speech

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.

This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.

If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore.

I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:

There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world.

Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours.

And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office.

Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.

That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can.

But they are.. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.

Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter.

Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out,

even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below ow sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.

But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again.

Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Why don't people see how radical this would be?

Obama/Biden-#1/#3 most liberal voting record in the senate + Democrat controlled house and senate = Scary

So much for checks and balances.

Word Salad

This post won't really have anything to do with Obama's constant word salad-ing. I just really like that phrase.

Actually, I wanted to discuss the idea of race-based preferences and how they hurt the very people they're supposed to help. There has been a lot of research lately on what actually happens to the students who are admitted with lower credentials. A minority student is much more likely to graduate on time and with better grades, if they attend less competitive school. Many who attend more competitive schools because colleges or high schools want to appear more diverse, are setting themselves up for failure. Now, OBVIOUSLY, there are many minority students who are very deserving of a spot in the most competitive of colleges, etc, just like there are many non-minority students who could never cut it in a competitive school. So, why force it? Isn't it better for any student to graduate, rather than drop out. With a high school or college diploma from any school, a person is much more likely to find a job and being a to support a family than if they fail or drop out.

Check out Professor Richard Sander's research regarding the perfermance of students in law school:

Not surprisingly, such a gap leads to problems. Students who attend schools where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students tend to perform poorly.

The reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial.

Supporters of race-based admissions argue that, despite the likelihood of poor grades, minority students are still better off accepting the benefit of a preference and graduating from a more prestigious school. But Mr. Sander's research suggests that just the opposite may be true--that law students, no matter what their race, may learn less, not more, when they enroll in schools for which they are not academically prepared. Students who could have performed well at less competitive schools may end up lost and demoralized. As a result, they may fail the bar.

Specifically, Mr. Sander found that when black and white students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school, they earn about the same grades. Similarly, when black and white students with similar grades from the same tier law school take the bar examination, they pass at about the same rate.

This is a quote from Gail Heriot, The Wall Street Journal

I just don't understand how this helps.

Lipstick on a Pig Policies

Interesting, Barack (The One) Obama using the lipstick on a pig rhetoric, supposedly to refer to failed policies that McCain is trying to pass off as something different. Well, Mr. Obama, do you really want to go there? Let's think about some Obama policies that have failed in the past, shall we?

How about health care?
Obama wants nationalized health care. Liberal Americans love to use Canada's nationalized health care system as a model for what they think we should have in the US. Well, if Canada's system is so wonderful, why are they shifting to a privatized system? Their system has failed. Time and time again, we have seen that government programs do not work. For example, has there been any correlation between the exorbitant amount of money thrown at the public school system and the education level of its students? No.

How about raising taxes?
It has been proven, over and over again that raising taxes on businesses causes businesses to raise prices, costing the consumer more. Who gets hurt the most with raised prices? The lower-income consumer. So much for protecting the little guy. Plus, it causes people to spend less, hurting the economy. It's not complicated, people.

How about "understanding" and "talking with" our enemies?
Sounds a lot like Jimmy Carter, who also ran on the mantra of "hope" and "change". Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today as Islamic Terrorism, mostly backed by the current Iranian regime is largely a result a the failed Cater foreign policy. had he been tougher in the 1979 revolution and hte US embassy hostage crisis, things would be different today.

Obama loves to use Kennedy as his model for foreign policy. Kennedy, in 1961, sat down with the soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, without any preconditions. After the meeting, Krushchev sized him up as naive, inexperienced, and a lightweight. He then built the Berlin wall, put missiles in Cuba and put the country at the brink of thermo-nuclear war. Kennedy, afterward, said it was a mistake, he shouldn't have done it and that Krushchev ran all over him. Why would Obama use Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev as a model is confounding. Why is no one talking about this?

How about opposing the surge?
Pretty sure that it worked amazingly. Pretty sure Obama voted against it. Pretty sure that he is FINALLY coming out and sort of admitting that it worked brilliantly.

And on a final note, I would love to know what foreign policy experience Obama has that would make him more qualified than Palin. Nevermind the fact that one is running for President and one is running for VP. Oh, I forgot about his stirring speach in Germany. Doesn't that count? They sure do love him over there. And I'm sure that the Germans really have the American's best interest at heart.

Why I am Pro-Palin.

1. She has strong conservative ideals and fights for less government control. It seems to me that Republicans are becoming more and more moderate (aka McCain and a spend-happy Bush), so I am thrilled that someone who is articulate and popular might be able to reinvigorate the stagnant conservative ideals (LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL).

2. She energized the hell out of the conservative base, which was desperately needed.

3. I couldn't care less that I share a gender with her, but am thankful that she is a woman to take some ammo from the Dems when they say the Republicans don't have diversity in their party (which is a fallacy).

4. I definitely hope to hear more from her and find out what she's truly about. But, I am excited that at first blush, she seems intelligent, tough (but likeable) and conservative. I also like that while she seems to stand by her ideals, she is willing to listen to others and modify herself accordingly. For a small example, when she said "nucular" in her speech on the day she was announced, I almost died. But, she corrected that by the time her acceptance speech at the RNC rolled around, unlike Bush, who, stubbornly, to this day, says "nucular."

5. I disagree with some of her principles. I'm an atheist and lean toward pro-choice. I want religion out of schools and politics, for example. But, I still feel that she is SO much more in the right direction than the majority of other republican politicians. Even if McCain is not elected, I hope that this campaign allows her to be a real contender in politics in the future.

I'm sure plenty of dirt will continue to come out about her in the future, but I am confident the pros will vastly outweigh the cons after the dust settles.

It is so important Obama does not get elected, that McCain could have picked a toad to be his running mate, and I'd begrudgingly support the ticket. But, I'm glad he didn't. I'm glad he picked someone who's stealing the spotlight from Obama, creating buzz about the McCain ticket, is quick, packs a punch and finally seems to be on the right side of most issues that should be important to this country (whether they know it or not).

I can't understand how people do not see this and why they are fooled by Obama's "Change" BS. On the topic of change, how is it that Obama can claim his platform as change when everything he wants to do has been tried already and failed. For example, Obama's health care plan, which is packaged as "new" is completely modeled on the system implemented in Canada, which is failing. Why is it that Canada is returning to a privatized system? Because government-run health care DOES NOT WORK. Just like most other government-run programs DO NOT WORK.