and this just in

Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska.

There seems to be a lot of speculation as to why, (her term expires in 2010), some say she is preparing to run for the presidency in 2012.

Talk about self absorption. (Maybe she couldn't stand the thought of Michael Jackson getting all the attention). Truth is, she has been the focus of those who fancy themselves the purest of the pure in terms of who is the most conservative in the GOP. One of her aides was quoted today as saying that "people here are collectively agreeing that it sheds everything she doesn't like about running government now and allows her to devote fulltime to this passion she has about wanting to lead the country away from socialism."

Well jeepers, ain't that sweet.

In the first place, the statement, if I interpret it correctly, (the syntax is a bit more fractured than even a curmudgeon such as myself is used to...), reminds me a little of the things that came from the Nixon White House regarding Watergate. The governor was elected to a four year term, and now, in the face of a few minor things, such as some serious ethics investigations, and polling numbers that have at times, reached into the single digits, well shucks, the governor is just going to take her conservative credentials and go home!

I mean, seriously, this is life in the political world Sarah, if you run for the White House, it ain't gonna be any better, and you cannot simply throw a neutron bomb at those who might not like what you do when/if you happen to get there.

Lead the country away from socialism. Nice. This from the governor of the state that pays its citizens rather than taxing them. The idea of a budget crisis in Alaska is when to mail the checks.

And some people claim that UFO's don't really exist. Remember, the people who staff, advise, spin and promote Ms Palin are the same people, I mean the very same people, who worked wonders for Dan Quayle.

just another week....

Where are we this week?

Well, besides being right here, our nation is preparing to celebrate its 233rd birthday this coming saturday.

233 years of freedom of speech and of the press, and what do we have to show for it?

Impressive, eh? I wonder what we can do to follow that? How about "damn near anything"?

To our friends the British, I would like to say "you are welcome". I don't know that you would have survived this long had you held on to the colonies when you tried. Consider that can of whoopass we opened up on you at Yorktown not just a lesson, but an investment in your future and your well-being.

And while I am on the subject of of semi-sentient beings who pontificate and bloviate on the popular media, there seems to be something of a urinating competition within the ranks of those pundits who fancy themselves to be on the right of the political spectrum regarding who did what and whose fault it is that they didn't win the election.

These people take themselves altogether too seriously, and really need to spend three months broke and unemployed, availing themselves of the services and resources available to most everyone, and exposed to all the petty insults and indignities that are placed in many peoples way by those who just don't understand what the problem is. I'm betting that the 'issue' of who is the purest conservative won't look quite as significant.

On a related note, Al Franken is going to become a senator, only eight months after the hotly contested election. It is this kind of thing that makes one wonder if this particular republic is too far gone to be worth saving. In any case, I hope that he serves with distinction, and leaves before he becomes a stalagmite like so many of the others.

Michael Jackson passed away this week.

OK, enough of that, lets move on.

For the past few weeks, we have been treated, yet again, to the saber rattling of the DPRK, with that little runt that they call 'beloved leader' threatening a rain of nuclear fire if he does not get his way. I know that out President campaigned on an image of doing things differently from the previous administration, but how much of this little cockroach do we need to put up with?

It is clear that his threat was taken seriously enough that defensive hardware was moved into Hawaii, Alaska and the mid Pacific areas to deal with any extreme contingencies. (As an aside, these US states, territories and protectorates are potentially threatened because any other test trajectory for a medium or long range rocket would cross Russian or Chinese territory--governments not known for displaying tolerance for unsanctioned overflights, even by comradely allies).

In the event of a provocation, our President needs to show some serious resolve, not to mention a set of brass cajones.....

The there is the Iran situation. When I think of brass balls and the 4th of July, I have to think of the folks there, in the streets, taking a stand for what they believe to be right. They may think no more highly of the USA than their government, but they are to be respected for what they are doing. Think of them this weekend, as you do what you do.

Everybody have a good weekend. I'd like to say hi, and welcome to Cathleen, and to anyone else who may happen by.

just testing

 

I am doing this now from a mac.

I hate it.   If you have a chance to get one, get a PC with XP installed.

Just my opinion, make your own judgement.

I changed the music on the template today, if you can hear it, (the mac browser does not support the audio stream), and can identify the tune, or even guess at the title, drop me a note or a comment so I know that it works.

You will have earned my undying respect.

Just saying hello

Well.

So much for those cutesy little commercials, (not that I put a lot of stock in what I see on the telley mind you....).

I am writing this from a Mac.     One of those things that doesn't break or get virii or unpleasant things like that.     Truth is, it doesn't do a lot of things that a PC does.     But to make up for that minor disparity, it costs a lot more, so there is a bit of compensation to the whole scheme.

I haven't posted in a while, and, I see that a few of you have dropped a comment on my last post.    Thanks, I really didn't expect it.

So, what's up with anybody out there?    Are things going pretty much the way that you expected, (yeah I know, but down the drain is not an indicator of an accurate prediction...).

I have a few more things to post about, but I am getting ready to reinstall this crackerjack operating system.    Again.

a lack of focus

 Sure looks that way to me.

 

Everywhere.

 

We have a new President now, (I really hadn't noticed, the bullshit factor seems to be about the same......).    The party on the right is pouting and refusing to play at all, while the party on the left is strutting and playing the same old "it's all their fault" tune.

 

Focus.

 

A news item that I saw this morning notes that a whopping 66% of all cellphone data traffic is generated by the iPhone.

 

Can I ask who cares?   

 

I saw an item last week noting that the state of Virginia is considering a tax (or is it a fee?) on every mile that autos drive, to support roads and infrastructure in that state.    (I wonder what they do with gasoline and diesel taxes?).     Along those lines, may I suggest a tax on the iPhone, (or is it a fee), to support those of us who pay outlandish rates for auto insurance and for cellular phones?

 

There is a crisis in this country.     It is not economic or political or moral.   

 

It is a detachment from reality, and that condition just happens to extend into those aforementioned arena's.

 

The Obama administration keeps stimulating the economy, but they have not a clue as to what they are stimulating, or what they are trying to cure.     The other party, while crying the blues, along with their choir of pundits and talking heads has no better notion of what is going on.

 

This sucks.     

 

It is time to simply back off.     The president needs to chill a little and stop spending money.    I am not saying that his heart is not in the right place, but neither he, not anyone else it seems, has a clear idea of what has happened or why, and what is happening now.

 

The economic crunch has been a long time in coming, and it has been orchestrated in such a way that any attempt to stem the damage only exacerbates the problem.      The middle class in this country is being wiped out, we are becoming a nation of haves and have-nots, very quickly now, and efforts to throw relief at those who see themselves slipping across that metaphysical line are benefitting the haves more than anyone else.     Wealth is being drawn away from the general population at an alarming rate, and concentrated in the hands of a very few, (a good percentage of whom do not live or vote in this country).    The rules of commerce favor them overwhelmingly, (there is now a convenience fee attached to the act of paying a bill in cash, rather than allowing a merchant access to my bank account).

 

This is deregulation gone amok!

 

If the government wants to give me a little relief, it needs to first level the playing field, and stop the hemorrage of wealth.  Right now, throwing money into the economy is throwing money into the same funnel that sucked the life out of us for the last eight years.    It accomplishes nothing save finishing the job.

 

Then, there is the other side of the coin.

 

Are we worth saving?

Most days I have to say that I doubt it.   We are a culture that lives vicariously through text messaging and the pornography of talk radio and news TV.      What is there to save?     Family values?     C'mon---name one and show me how it is practiced on a wide scale here in the USSA.

We used to say that the times, they were a changin'.    Geez did we ever undershoot on that notion......

 

Now we have to live with it

As I begin this post, the polls will remain open another three hours in my home town.

I picked up my daughter at college, (not that far away), and we drove to the polling place together.     It was packed.      It looked like chicken gumbo day down at the mission....

A it would be expected, the opinions were all over the map in the car to and from the church where we did our civic duty, and the rationale behind our respective decisions went from rock solid (mine) to, well, elsewhere.

But, like the title bar says, now we have to live with it.

The euphoria is over, now we all have to cry a little, the reality of our situation will begin to take shape.    It may not be as bad as we feared.      It might be worse.

By the end of the year, I am going to close this blog, and maybe start a new one, with a ne and maybe more disciplined direction.       Follow the lead of some other pioneers who have matured a bit.

If you have any ideas, or want to form a circle, a sor of cyber Algonquin Round Table, let me know.

Y'all take care

Kill em all, yada yada yada......

The government appears to be considering the acquisition of a 'stake' in the banking system to give it some stability and restore confidence to the financial markets.

Goodie.

At various times over the past couple of years, I have noted, (a nice way of saying "whined about") the trend towards the concentration of wealth in the hands of the very few through otherwise friendly and benign means. Reverse mortgages, financial contracts that limit access and flexibility in handling your own money, (who hasn't heard the tagline, "it's your money, use it when you need it! The kicker is in order to do that, one gives up 60% or more of "your " money).

We have entered an era of government control of our lives, and very soon, (if not already), we will have passed the point where any change short of destructive revolution will be impossible.

In what was generously called a debate this week, the two major presidential candidates postulated on what could be done to alleviate the plight of homeowners who were caught in the financial crisis that they had no part in fomenting. To my and many others surprise, it was John McCain who out liberaled the liberals with the idea that his plan would buy mortgage notes, renegotiate the principal amount as well as the interest rate and thus make the investment a bit more affordable for those who would try to stay in their homes. I really wonder what percentage of the bad loans that is? And I wonder what the endgame is? Will the government remain in the housing business, subsidizing mid-priced as well as low cost housing, or will this real estate become another sweetheart deal for campaign contributors down the road.

Just because we don't know who they will be just yet, the amassing of political as well as financial capital in the hands of a political administration stinks. It is not simply influence, but the ability to buy power, and it is dangerous.

I hate to say it, but the time has come to let the whole mess crash.

Write in Ron Paul.

Throw Out the lifeline part deux

I don't think we will make it to the election.


So many crisis', all at once, so many candidates pontifications, I predict we will all suffocate in bullshit prior to November 4th.

Sorry.

Just my $0.02.

Throw Out the Lifeline....

That is a pretty decent Jerry Garcia band tune if you are interested.

Since I got a mac, (you know, it just works), I don't get any audio with the blog, can anybody tell me if it is still there?

But I digress...

Last night, apparently, the lame (duck) president addressed the nation on the importance of taking action on the economic crisis that faces us.

Duh.................

For the record, I am not certain that the plan that seems to be taking shape is for the best, it will greatly devalue the dollar, not that it is worth a lot, and make the government the owner of a lot of the now private property in the nation. Taken in one light, that is a form of enslavement and one ugly facet of facism, (not that I am making accusations here...).

I am not sure that I will be better off under this plan or under doing nothing at all.

I mention that just so I can say I told you so when the next Joe Stalin emerges from the economic ashes next year, when fuel prices skyrocket, (again) and we are back over a barrel.

That is not what this post is about.

John McCain has announced that he is bailing out of tomorrows debate to work on the economy, has stopped campaigning, advertising, the whole nine yards. Talk about catching a break! Every time he or the Vice-Bimbo opened their mouths something embarrassing emerged, and now he has a good reason to stop embarrassing himself, hell he may even come out with a boost from it.

Dan Quayle should have been so lucky....

some more political bullshit

the "A" and "T" words

I got into a bit of a discussion on the 'A' issue this weekend, (actually, I was on the periphery of the discussion--I kept my mouth shut and attempted to learn something), and all I heard was a round robin repeating of the same emotional appeals and the same mantra's.

First, I need to say that these are not invalid, and the truth is, I share the emotion and believe that the mantra's are for the most part, true. They are just ineffective, and as moral as they are, they do tend to shine a bright light selectively on one side of some situations and tend to selectively ignore all the other details that often go with these circumstances. The discussion/recitation that I witnessed reminded me a lot of a scene from a film called "Animal House", (and please, this in no way is intended to ridicule anyones position or manner). The scene depicted a marching band in a blind alley, up against a brick wall, still marching and attempting to go on as if the wall did not exist.

I had to ask myself, what is this issue, in social and political terms, and how can change really be effected? The answer to the first part is that it is a whip or a club, (depending on who is doing the wielding and the metaphor one wishes to use). The short answer to the second part of the question is I don't really know, but I truly believe that a solution to the issue will depend more on the caliber of the people involved than the rules or laws governing them. Keeping this an "issue" in the manner that it is, by all parties, on all sides of the argument, does no good service to the public or the problem that they appear to address. It's function, is a fundraiser and a teaser, it attracts attention and draws a crowd which in turn allows the airing of other "issues".

This is a very significant matter, the lack of a civil and intelligent discourse is the wall that the band are marching against. It is time to change all that. Thing is, that might be like holding a boating safety meeting on the Titanic.

The other issue, the "T" word is coming into its own in this role. One could insert that word into the above paragraphs and be pretty much on target. these two nouns are coming online just in time to replace the "D" word, a dimension where we are beginning to show signs of saying No to "Just Say No".

As a follow-up to something I mentioned in my last post, I want to say that I have a friend whose wife is running for a local position in an adjoining county, something akin to an alderman in a very loosely incorporated area known for its snobbishness and low taxes. The position is on a board that is responsible for water usage, (they are too cheap to improve or expand the local water system), and, oddly enough, regulating the types of grass that is planted in local lawns, (again, related to water usage and soil conservation). In her fifteen minutes of political fame, (an interview in the local newspaper), she cited illegal immigration and terrorism as the most significant issues facing the district. I have no doubt that the county is swarming with terrorists who are peeing on the lawns and spreading crabgrass. (It won't be long before jaywalking and speeding will be classified as 'terror' crimes, just so the police can get some really cool tricked out stuff to play with).

Where do we go from here?

I really would like to hear the party on the right talk, at length and in great detail on the topic of family welfare, planning and how these issues tie in with the 9th Amendment, (on which the historic Roe v Wade decision was predicated), and the governments role in fostering, encouraging and enforcing these concepts.

I would like to see the party on the left address in a similar manner the notion of taxation and gun ownership, (both longarms and handguns) and how these issues tie in with the 2nd Amendment, and how the government can both uphold our freedoms while protecting the people, and where lines in both should be drawn.

Finally, both parties should address the issues that arise in the so-called war on terror, which is a war on an unseen and undefined enemy, that has served, to this point, only to exact a cost on us, in terms on our rights and liberties, and now, our economic well being, (more on that in another post).

Over the past year or so, I have often closed with the line, 'stay focused'.

I think it's a good idea. From this point forward, I might add, keep your powder dry and your head down.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

In scanning todays news, (Thursday, 9/11/08), I saw two competing headlines, one from the Boston Globe, and one from Fox News.

I am not real familiar with the Globe, but I suspect that it may have a bit of a liberal view of things, but the gist of its story was that the war on terror has slipped a little in ther minds of the electorate in terms of its weight in the decision making process on what candidate to support on November 4.

The Globe pitches the statistic that 30% of voters fear a terror attack 'in the next few weeks', down from last year and down very significantly from the first anniversary of the attack in 2001. The modifiers, "fear" & "in the next few weeks" throw me a little. For the purposes of this poll, what do they mean?

Then we have FOX News. Fox reports that 80% of Americans think that the war on terrorism is as important today as it was on the day of the attacks. That is the headline. The fine print goes on, (admirably), to break down the stat's by party affiliation and circumstances, although the modifiers are still a bit slanted towards a Republican outcome.

As a well known movie character once lamented, "what we have here, is failure to communicate".

Maybe not. What we have here, is repetition of a notion that somebody wants to stick in our minds on election day. The so called "war on terror" is quickly taking its place along side abortion as one of those clubs that mean everything and mean nothing. It won't be long before we see the term creep into local issues, such as street repairs and local community elections.

"Vote for Joe Blow for Dog Catcher, he's tough on terrorists".

In my own community I have seen local politicians state, for the record that illegal immigration was the biggest problem that we face. This, in a state whose closest border is a mere 800 miles away, that, by its own audit, has eliminated most, if not all, undocumented persons from the relief rolls, and cut benefits by a large percentage for the documented, (of all ethnic persuasions).

The time has come to ask simple questions and demand simple answers.

What is "the war on terror"? What are it's goals? I have a sick feeling that there is no clear answer, and that the driving philosophy behind it is that "doing good has no end".

If Obama or McCain wanted to impress me, they would deliver bin Laden and ten miscellaneous al Qaida stooges and parade them through the US before they were tried and convicted. They ought to be stored in a nice prison someplace, maybe with Charlie Manson, or a few lesser known serial killers, and trotted out every year or two for a procedural court appearance, just to show we care. The rest can be shot while escaping. The chief cash crop in the Afghanistan region, opium poppies, should be purchased at a very fair price and eradicated. teach them to grow something else and warn them that we are watching and won't pay the next time we burn the fields. The world will scream for a week or so, then move on to the price of music downloads from iTunes or something really important.

My point is that there needs to be a clear ending to these issues. If they pop up again, take care of them in a decisive but quick way. Sooner or later, it will no longer be advantagous for them to pop up. I am tired of messing with them. There is a middle ground between just stopping and saving the money, and milking things, hoping for an everybody wins victory. it ain't pretty, in fact it is ugly, but at least the ugly gets spread around.

a good comment

Penn Jillette made a pretty good commentary on the CNN webpage on what he wants from the election, see it here.

Knocked Up

 

 

That seems to be a pretty apt description for this particular presidential campaign.    Both of the conventions have been beset with little drama's of their own.  The GOP had Hurricane Gustav stealing the show.    The Dem's had Hurricane Hillary.    Both turned out to have been a tempest in a teapot.    But hey, not watching that stuff beats not watching a bunch of drunks raising their hands, stomping their feet, showing theirenthusiasm, and trying not to puke or fall over while the camera is on.... 

It may be my age speaking, or a certain myopia regarding the 'good ol' days', but it seems that we have no statesmen left, just a bunch of guys of questionable character and qualification in suits trying to sell us something.

This is a lot like trying to pick between the lesser of Jimmy Hoffa or John Gotti.   Anyplace I look, in any particular race, I don't see a candidate who conspicuously passed on an opportunity, (I might add the adjective consistently to that phrase) to enrich themselves in their present positions while they tireless strove to defend the rights and ideals of the little guy.

Face it, those that want to end the war are not getting enough of the profit from it, and those who want to make health care universal are heavily invested in that particular industry.  The other party seems to think that there are a few dividends yet to be had from the status quo, then they will get on board with something that will pay.

There are no good choices here.   We are on our own, very literally.

I think that all there is left to decide is whether we the people wait until the system collapses on its own, and there is nothing left to salvage, or whether we bring it down beforehand and have something left to (possibly) build with.

 

I want to see and hear a candidate who favors the individual, a strict de-constructionist if you will.   I am not against the rich, (hell, if given a choice, I would choose to be in that class, but I hope I would have the scruples not to step all over my peers getting or staying there), but I am not in favor of government defending and protecting their position at the expense of all else.   I am in favor of a tax code that protects individual effort and rewards initiative, but taxes speculation and usury in all its forms, (btw, usury is not necessarily a bad thing).    

 

The Constitution of the United States gives no rights or prerogatives to business or corporate entities, and yet our government seems to exist by and for them, even at the expense, (literally and figuratively), of the individual.  The questions of legality and constitutionality are covered and mired in so much legalese BS that even the most seasoned of jusists couldn't reason his or her way through it with any degree of certainty of outcome.   Legal principles are so murky that they need to be restated in simpler terms, distilled if you will.  That process entails some risk as well as benefit, but inaction entails all risk and no benefit.

In the past twenty years or so, there have been a couple of candidates that have really caught the imagination of the public, albeit for a short while, (the kinda faltered when it came to donations and popular support when the full extent of their agenda's became known).    Think Steve Forbes and the flat tax and Ron Paul and his smaller, non-intrusive government.   Their ideas were not bad, it was just perceived by many that they went too far with them, or that they were slanted in favor of one demographic over another.    A successful candidate would do well to use the ideas of the libertarian movement as a sort of moderating element, to keep from becoming altogether too Democrat or too Republican.   

Just a reminder:     a restructuring of the tax code is a good way to keep everyones attention.    

Do you think it will happen?     Don't bet on it.

 

How is that for a stark vision?   A bit like a "Mad Max" sequel, crossed with "Escape From New York".

 

     _______________________________________________________

In other news, Karl Rove was heard at the RNC to refer to Joe Biden as a  "blowhard doofus".   He must have seen him at a club meeting or something.....   

It seems that the seventeen year old (unmarried) daughter of the GOP VP nominee is in a family way.    And the nominee's husband has had a DUI.     Kind of refreshing really.    After all, they are living out on the last frontier, and its not like they are better than the rest of us or anything.....

Mr Obama should quietly issue a denial that he is the father of the child and let it go.  That  should be followed by a similar release from John Edwards.   And maybe a sly grin from Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton....

 

 

There.   Those are my observations for the week.

How the hell are you guys doing?

 

....somebody cue the dead horse please....

Right now, in an election season awash in issues that neither campaign can really get their hands around, (and the electorate can get their heads around), the sitting administration and one of its many lapdogs, the FDA, has proposed a rule that is sure to get just a little attention.

The FDA proposes to define the term abortion as "the termination of any pregnancy at any time between conception and birth".

The ramifications of the adoption of such a rule could be quite severe. The sale and use of any birth control medication or appliance could become illegal, or at best, restricted. The battle over this dead issue would reignite one one or more of several fronts. The issue here is not family planning.

The issue here is two-fold. First and foremost is to take the minds of the voters off the most pressing issues of the day, and not to lose this election. After all, the GOP is out there, defending itty-bitty babies. Secondly, the issue is control over the individual. The GOP has a hand in everything that we do, (so does the other party, and the government, and a bunch of interests, but the GOP is to Big Brother what the Teamsters are to trucking...).

Piss on them. The time has come to take a few hits because when we do, they will take bigger hits. The hard art of this is that this process will have to be repeated every other year, with Congressmen and Senators and presidents for quite a while.

Use every opportunity to throw the old out and bring the new in, shrinking government, perq's and privileges at every turn.

just my $0.02.

hope to see you around sometime.....

is the McCain campaign part of a strategy?

The guy seems to have a lot in common with Dan Quayle, Mr Potatoe-Head.

I never would have believed it, and I really want desperately to think that he has a lousy campaign staff to blame for all this. The GOP campaign this year, (not that I wish them well, if anything, I want them to have a quick and painless death--not the long and protracted demise that they seem to be going through now), seems to have a lot in common with the revived career of Desi Arnaz.

Huh? What?

What gives?

I have to wonder if McCain hasn't been given the nod here as kind of a "thanks for your years of service" nod, a bit like Bob Dole against an all-but-unbeatable Bill Clinton in '96. You know, they have to nominate somebody, why put somebody with a future up when it is almost a sure loss in the post Bush environment. The whole point of this election is to back the party on the left into a corner that they cannot get themselves out of. In four years, when the country is still in the toilet, (and it will be, where else can it be?), the party on the right will be there, relatively clean, having not dealt with the shit that was left behind, saying "had enough?". It is a play that has worked pretty well for Vladimir Putin. Of course he is a motherf**ker, but at least you know what you are getting. And yes, he promises that you will get screwed, big time, while he and his family and friends make out like bandits, but at least he delivers on that, and isn't that what values are all about?

Stay focused.

the price of gas

In my humble opinion, which, as you know, is always excruciatingly correct, this is a pretty good article, something for the intellect to chew on for a bit.

Ask yourself if there is a candidate, anywhere, that can have any measurable impact on this kind of behavior.

We hear a lot about domestic sources of oil and natural gas, and a lot about why and why not we shouldn't be exploiting them. Like everything else, I see this as a tangled up mess of separate issues, not the least of which are these, (in no particular order) :

1) the environmental impact of exploration and exploitation.

2) the economic impact of these initiatives.

3) the issue of dependency on carbon fuels.

I am sure that there are more, but these three are more than enough to mentally chew on for decades, (the nation has not come to term with these issues since the seventies, you expect me to do it in a couple of paragraphs?); but if suffices to say that in order to make any progress, the country needs to separate these questions and get a clear understanding of what is involved and at stake, who stands to gain and lose, and the prioritize our responses.


I am not opposed to drilling offshore, to be blunt, the rest of the world is already exploting these resources, off our shores, why not us. The issues here seem to be how do we protect our environmental interests, and, since we are investing a bit of our own national capital in the effort, what is in this for the average citizen? I do not want to hear about our nations security and future and a batch of shit from the big oil companies, gasoline in Venezuela is selling for about 19 cents a gallon in US dollars. That is a tangible benefit to the average citizen from the investment made in terms of national capital. The oil companies are still raking it in, the government is still getting filthy rich from the various pools of graft and corruption that seem to sprout from sources of revenue like crabgrass on a manicured lawn, but there is a benefit to the average Jose' while we up north get screwed.

I'm just sayin'.....

The issue on ANWAR is something else. There is no competition, and the data that support drilling is a lot less conclusive. There are a lot of other untapped resources that are a lot less ecologically fragile, if big oil will just spend a bit of money looking for them rather than buying back their rather profitable stock.

That brings me to another point that is made in the artice cited above.

Why do we surrender much of our resources so a very few can get very rich screwing us out of what we own already? The energy industry is as close to an unregulated monopoly as there is today, and no one cries "free market" louder than they do. The energy consortium is owned, in large part by interests not based in the United States. They are in a position to use things to manipulate the market and therefore prices to artificially inflate the value of their holdings and sales, and to affect the economies of nations to the better and worse.

And we worry about some countries having the bomb. That friends is significant, but it is a ruse, it deflects attention from the real war.

Ask yourself who really gains and loses from the launch of a few rockets in the Persian Gulf.

You lose, to the tune of about $25,000,000 in profits per day. Those rockets? They might as well be bricks for all the military value that they have, but strategically speaking, they make the rest of the worlds arsenals look puny in comparison.

If we didn't think we were handing a box af ammo to the people holding us hostage with guns to our heads, we might be inclined to pursue a sensible domestic energy policy. But we all needa stake in it, and it needs to be a bit more than we get to go one giving all that we make to Chevron and BP and whomever.

That might be called socialism. So what? I call it progressive, and realistic. Definately necessary.

Finally. There has to be a better way. I cannot sit here at my computer and say what it is, but I know that if we do not adopt it, we will die off within another generation or two. If the nation/state is to survive we must take care of ourselves first, yes even to the exclusion of others, then reach out and help others adopt similar ways. We must be willing to negotiate, but not compromise.

I don't know if that is possible. I believe that the crop of candidates that we have know these things but continue to bellow the same old BS that resonates so well with TV camera's and pundits that have an attention span not much longer than, well, you know....

I'm glad I am the age that I am. call me a coward, but I really don't want to go through a lot of this.

Think this through, do what you think is best.

Stay focused.

Confidence

Johnny Carson used to host a program called "Who Do You Trust?".

Walter Cronkite was often referred to as the most trusted man in America.

And we had John Wayne.


Look what we have today.


Let's face it folks, it has been a while since we have had anybody in government that we really admired, somebody that, even if we disagreed with them, we could still at least respect or trust to some measurable degree.


How far back do we have to go? Clinton? He wasn't too bad, but had the bad luck to be caught with his pants down, (literally), with regard to his personal life. His involvement with some less then upright financial dealings in real estate did not help matters, evn though they were nothing that a lot of rich folks did and also got away with, not really illegal but the appearance of a sweetheart deal really didn't go over with common folks.


Bush I? My impression of the guy was that he was a gentleman, and that he had some class about him. Look where it got him.


Ronald Reagan? He had some style, and was professionally likable, like Don Rickles in the White House. He was uppity in a down home way. The guy did some good things with his aw shucks style but to be truthful, he did more harm and was possibly the second most divisive president of the latter half of his century.


Jimmy Carter was the real deal, but he couldn't throw or catch real well. There is probably an object lesson there, but I don't want to get into that here.


Gerald Ford was also the genuine article. In my estimation, like him or his politics or not, he was the underrated man to occupy the oval office in its history. He was in a position of not being able to win, but worked at it anyway, and did a great deal of good during his tenure. He was able to bring the country together in a very rough time, and got no credit for it.


Nixon. No elaboration required.


Prior to that, we had LBJ, who maintained some decorum, but was a politician of the old school, a man who knew where the bodies were buried.


So, where am I going with this?

It seems to me that we have been consumed by the practice of politics, and have lost track of the purpose of the whole endeavor. In todays world, politics itself is a cancer, it serves itself only.

How do we deal with that? Who do you trust?

As I see things, one takes a candidate and works with him/her for as long as our interests coincide, then discard them. The process works both ways. A candidate takes a constituency for as long as it takes to become embedded, or to gain a certain advantage, then moves on, giving no more. This year, it appears that the candidate on the left will be elected, as his platform appears to coincide with the interests of most likely voters. That could change of course, but that is the way things look right now.

How will things look this time next year?

How will external influences shift, how much will the candidates interests and backers, (no, not the voters...) have strengthened, will the voters interests matter at that time?

What is our exit strategy from whatever path we choose this November?

Just something to keep in mind.

stay focused.

what's new with you?

yeah, I know I haven't been around as much, a lot of changes in the life of the old recluse. (funny how a lot of nuthin' can keep one so wrapped up....).


a few new developments in the past week or so, I will pontificate briefly, and leave you all to figure it all out.


The Supreme Court held, narrowly, that the second amendment does indeed permit the individual to keep and bear firearms. Judging by the comments attached to the ruling, the justices have ruled out my right to own surface-to-air missiles and a few other esoteric varieties of weaponry, down to certain popular and readily available modifications of some guns.


I don't know what to think. I stand with the second amendment, and there was a day when I would have thought that this was a common sense decision, (deep down, I still do), but I say why any restriction. If I want to own a SAM or a sawed off shotgun, who cares? If there are no ramifications to it, why does anyone care? If I were to take some action with such a piece of hardware, then some legal action might be justified, otherwise, get the hell out of my life.


Then we have George Bush.


The guy just can't let it go. Seymour Hersch reports that the US actually has troops on the ground in Iran, in reparation for an attack on that countries nuclear infrastructure.


I don't know how I feel about that notion, but I know how I feel about Bush and his cronies. I have no confidence in this administration, and frankly, this would not be happening, (and, it may not be happening, Mr Hersch is a fine reporter, but he is just a reporter and is not infallible), if there was not something in it for Bush/Cheney Corp. if a military action were to take place, it would need to be coordinated way beyond the capabilities of this administration, and would require the buy-in of much of the oil consuming world to work. The Strait of Hormuz would most likely be closed for an extended period, and a military occupation of both banks would be necessary. Think the cost of energy is high now? Be ready for a cold winter and an extended recession/depression.


And how about that Wes Clark?


There are a lot of things that can be said about John McCain and Barak Obama, but for a retired General to belittle the record of a man who spent years in a POW camp, under torture, and lived to tell about it speaks volumes about him, not McCain. General Clark needs to shut the hell up, keep in the forefront of his mind that he is no longer a mouthpiece for Hillary, and go away.

Moving right along here, according to a CNN poll, about 35% of Americans feel that a new terror attack is likely on US soil in the next several weeks, a low since the attacks in 2001.

talk about tempting fate....

I hate to say it, but the sad fact is that terror attacks are a strategic weapon, and they are likely to occur again. being strategic, rather than tactical, they will be most useful after the election cycle, they would serve to keep a new administration off balance and to keep the country from gaining any momentum in solving any of the issues that we now face. An ugly fact, but that is the way that I see it.

Ask yourself, how would either of the candidates respond to a 9/11 scale attack? It might be more relevant than you think, (or hope). Along similar lines, I see that the two (presumed) candidates actually agreed on a topic of some import this past week, amnesty for the telecoms that were involved in the illegal and, if I may be permitted to interject, fascist wiretapping that occurred and has persisted through the present administration.

Both candidates back it. Yep, even the liberal Democrat is in favor of a police state.

To hell with him.

Let the healing begin....

Healing my a**.....

The recriminations today appear to be thicker than molasses in wintertime, what with Clinton supporters feeling that they have been cheated out of something that they are, or were, owed by somebody, and Obama supporters urgently attempting to pretend that there really is no problem over here.

Geez.

Keep this in mind.



Bob Barr. A caretaker until we can get somebody else.

Disinformation

Well, here we are.

Barak Obama has enough delegates today to win the nomination. The other candidate has even acknowledged that in a backhanded sort of way, and through a proxy, has indicated that the second spot might be acceptable, you know, if it would help.

How humble can one be?

This is not yet over.

The other candidate is going to do everything, everything, that can be done, above and below board to get the party nod, one way or another.

Start thinking of who you might vote for, and what kind of world you want to live in. Granted, there is not a lot of choice right now, and any potential change would be incremental at best.

History is being made, and exposed, before our eyes.


UPDATE

ABC News (and a couple of others) are reporting that the candidate will exit the race this Saturday. (How do you spell relief?). I will believe it when I hear it, and then wait to see what kind of deal was made prior to the announcement. I am certain that the candidate will be a major player in a democratic administration, if not as the second chair, then as a major policy seat or possibly as a member of the nations highest court. (It is possible that an ex President could be named to the court, and that a sitting senator be named to a cabinet post--wouldn't that be interesting....).

In any case, the Clinton era is not yet over.

Stay tuned.

Today's the day....

Well, today, by most account's, seems to be the day that the fate of the Democratic Party will be decided.

By this time tomorrow, one candidate will have decided to either press on, thus smothering the party in the eyes of a new generation of voters, or to gracefully back away from a long sought and cherished goal, both for herself and for a very sizable and significant constituency.

This is a historic day, and not to be wrapped in sarcasm or petty innuendo, (a couple of things that I do excel at, when I put my mind to it). In the event that I ever have grandchildren, (knocking wood here), I will remember this day and possibly reflect on how the world changed this week.

Oddly enough, the past few weeks have defined the candidate in such a way that has both emphasized the reasons why she should, and should not become president. The fact that she, (yes, I know I am pointing an identifying finger here), is still here says a lot about here tenacity and determination. Jimmy Carter did not have this particular quality, although it was supplanted by a sense of dignity and honor that worked in his favor, and was a lot more palatable with voters. This tenacity has grated on a lot of folks who, in other circumstances, would back this candidate. It seems to go against a sense of fair play and the very essential quality that suggests to ones constituency that a candidate will work for the individual rather than the suggestion that the individual may benefit more from what the candidate will do, like it or not.

This particular player would have fit right into the screenplay for The Manchurian Candidate.

Certain comments attributed to her in the past few weeks and interpreted by many as machiavellian were certainly not out of character for her. She just isn't trusted. She would be elected as the least of a couple of evils, but in a situation of real choice and possibilities, well, what does one say? When I think of this person, I think of Leona Helmsley, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, G. Gordon Liddy, J. Edgar Hoover. I don't see my well being as even showing up on their radar screens, much as it doesn't with the current administration.

How the candidates handle the next few days will tell the tale. How the party handles the candidates is just as important.

I really don't know what is going to happen, but I hope that it happens soon, so that we, the people (or victims), have time to sort it out.

See you in a couple of days.

I'm back

and I'm pretty relieved too.





for either of you that may have noticed my brief and unintended absence, I confess that I have been operating under a massive hardware failure. my old dell finally threw craps on me just before st paddy's day and that was pretty much that. for anyone interested, pay attention to the fans on your machines, they do seem to make a difference and those strange noises that they make do mean trouble.





anyway, I have been following certain blogs intermittently from terminals here and there, but have refrained from posting as my employer tends to take a dim view of personal activities through the corporate firewall.



I have learned that many of my fellow contract employees are going to be let go in the near future here, so, being on the figurative block, I have decided to throw caution to the wind and post something anyway.



My last post touched on the topic of the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries. seems as though those two non-issues are still in the news, and will be until August. I think what we are witnessing is the political equivalent of a suicide bombing, with an unnamed candidate taking the Democratic party out with her. read into that what you will. she may succeed at becoming the nominee, I seriously doubt that she will be elected to anything. Bob Barr looks more and more credible every day, and he doesn't seem to be doing anything.



And how about the president? damn is that guy charismatic or what? his response to the economic crisis that is the price of gasoline is to fly at Saudi Arabia and ask for more production and a discount. I am willing to grant that the situation is not his fault, and that there is not a lot that he can do directly, but the leader of the nation could take some initiative on educating the public on the 'whys' of the situation, and by being honest on how we got to this point and how it is likely to play out, but that would not work well for his party or his constituency. So, we get the same old BS and the same old lack of any meaningful action and there you have it.

more when and if I get a chance....

Let's Do the Election Over.....

Oh for cryin out loud!

(are you impressed that I cleaned up my language?).

Florida and Michigan are said to be close to a plan to redo the primary elections with a mail-in ballot. I am not wild about the idea for two reasons. First, the idea of a mail-in ballot will begin to undermine the voting process in this country. The chance of fraud is already significant, being able to mail a ballot in will not improve things.

Second, the issue here is NOT how the elections in Florida and Michigan were conducted, it is when. The primary elections were conducted on dates that were in violation of both Democratic and Republican party rules, and as such, the results of both races, delegates to the national conventions, were sanctioned in a manner that was deemed to be fitting by the leadership of the respective parties. The dates were selected in those states in an effort to make those states primaries a bit more important, to carry more weight that they ordinarily would in the overall scheme of things. They do affect the national elections, in that they carry weight with a national party, but they select no officeholder, nor bestow no power or authority on anyone. They are, in a sense, private, in that they carry no governmental or public authorizations. This is not an issue of denial of the right to be heard, or to have one's vote counted by government or some other authoritarian rabble. It is an effort for a candidate of one party to pull a lot of strings and call in a lot of markers to make an end run around the rules of the game in order to better his/her positionin the race for the parties nomination.

Period.

It is cheating.

It is the kind of bullshit the Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would come up with, then sit and keep a straight face as they explained it away in a perfectly low-keyed and reasonable tone of voice. It is the kind of bullshit the the likes of Rush Limbaugh would come up with as a fair way of winning without having to use a gun.

This kind of crap is why G.W. Bush is the kind of man and President that he is.

Pay no attention to the man/woman behind the curtain.

This is embarrassing. And painful.

The states of Florida and Michigan, behaving like two screaming toddlers, are in talks to weasel under the sanctions imposed on both states over their violation of the rules of both major parties in moving the dates of the primaries up this year. In the case of the GOP, the outcome of this effort will have little impact as the nomination has been sewn up, one way or another. On the Democratic side, guess who benefits by an easing of the rules.


Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Between the yet-to-be seen arsenal of super delegates, and the threat of a challenge to the party sanctions on the convention floor, Ms Clinton gives herself the air of an old time machine politician, determined to get the nomination at all costs. If she succeeds, (as opposed to honestly winning), her credibility will be just below that of the current maggot-in-chief, GW Bush, and she will make Karl Rove, (in comparison), look a lot like a modern day saint.


From my point of view, the party that best represents my interests, (and that is being magnanimously generous), is doing its best to kill itself, and me with it. Hillary is a political Jim Jones. Should she become the nominee of her party, (I don't know if I can claim affiliation anymore...), I might expect to see a large keg or tank or nice red kool-aid at the convention, with smiling, contented delegates lining up for a nice drink. As late as a couple of months ago, I had nothing good to say about the party on the right, (and come to think of it, that hasn't changed), but this weeks withdrawal by Mike Huckabee was really a class act, something not seen at this level in American politics. Whatever you might think of that party or the candidate, the way that the campaign was handled was first class. Hilly, take note. Even if you pull it out, your reputation will always precede you.


And these are the people that I am hoping will protect me, at least marginally, against warrantless wiretapping, national ID and tracking systems, data mining and other hallmarks of the apocalypse.


I would say that it is time to leave, but there really is no place to go.

the game is still afoot. or under foot. or something.

A lot of writers and pundits seem to think that today is the day for the Democratic Party, or, conversely, that today is the day that the party's over for Hillary Clinton.

Not me.

She, (or at least a spokesperson for her campaign), has said for the record that she will stay in the race until the convention.

One has to wonder whether she has something up her sleeve, whether she is channeling the spirit of Dick Nixon in attempting to capture the nomination, and whether she thinks that the American electorate would not see through such a maneuver, and go with a candidate that is widely perceived, (at least today), as being not too bad, even for a Republican?

How the race unfolds in the party on the left could speak volumes about how it will govern, the conduct of the candidates, (and one in particular), will be the focus of much deserved attention in the coming days and weeks.

Please, please pay close attention to the actions as well as the words.


And now, a few words about something on my mind.

Rush Limbaugh.

Ann Coulter.

Bill O'Reilly.

These are the new pornographers.

The product that they sell is something that really does not exist, it is a fantasy that exists only in the back of small minds unable to digest a reality that does not resemble the expectation that they have made and harbored. They are irrelevant, they contribute nothing. They use their audience to serve another master, in the short term its name is money, in the long term its name may be perdition, (utter destruction).

I don't hate or despise them, I just ignore them.

Any attention that they are given strengthens them, so, to these people, I say, so what?

stay focused

vote. or not. I wonder if it really makes a difference.




Late Breaking Update: (5 hours later):

from the New York Times. I told you so.

and, speaking of politics...

I really wish that i wasn't, it seems so pointless.




not that it matters of course ....


Some of you/us may have an opportunity to actually meet, and/or pose a question to one or more candidates at some level this year. consider one of these topics. they are timely this week, but may have faded from the scene somewhat depending on the drama of the week.

Much has been said about offering various private companies, mainly, (but not limited to), telecommunications carriers retroactive immunity for actions taken on behalf of and in concert with the government in regard to various forms of wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance following the incidents of 9/11. Ask a candidate where they stand on the issue of retroactive immunity, ongoing immunity from prosecution, lawsuits and oversight of any meaningful kind, and how they would deal with the issue. If they do not give a short, clear answer with a defensible thesis statement up front, consider the answer to be bullsh*t.


Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that a patient cannot sue for damages over a defective medical product if the FDA approved the product, (it is not clear if the defect was a design flaw, affecting the entire product line, or simply a bad unit). This is a bit confusing, as it denies a plaintiff his or her day in court for the adjudication of a grievance, citing a government agency that has already cleared a potential defendant of any wrongdoing. Except in most cases, it hasn't. Another branch of the government, in the interest of efficiency, has left industries of various stripes to police themselves, to certify that they are doing no harm or wrong and to promise to fix any mistakes that they make in exchange for an endorsement from the appropriate agency, like say, the FDA, and it seems, the Supreme Court. How does a potential executive feel about this bit of legal circular logic, and how would they deal with it, as well as the the potential bloat in our already supersized bureaucracy?


Another issue, not on too many radar screens, but symbolic, (in my view), of a growing trend in American life is something that has been called Net Neutrality. We hear much from many of the larger telecom carriers, (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, to name just a few), that their networks are being inundated by more and more internet usage, and thay have no way to recoup the cost of providing service. This is largely a load of crap, but it does have a bit of truth to it. These large carriers own what is termed the backbone of the net, and traffic that neither originates nor terminates with their users travels across fiber-optic highways that they own. So what? The backbone providers charge smaller, 2nd tier users, (ISP's) to connect to the larger network, just as they charge us to connect. That should be the source of revenue, not who pays most for preferential treatment, or who'se traffic gives the carrier the most advantage in a "you scratch my back" business world. The internet was, and is, a government sanctioned network, its charter specifies neutrality in connectivity. That principal should not be sold to the highest bidder.


And finally.


The twentieth century, (and I bring that epoch up to this day...), saw some pretty monumental changes in human history, advances in medicine, space travel, yes, the internet, the proliferation of weapons and ideas, but can you guess what the single most ubiquitous "advancement" has been?


The cellular phone.



According to the Washington Post, as of now, there is one cell phone for every two people in the world, and in a short time, there will be five for every six. The other billion or so will follow along shortly. One can think about this in all sorts of contexts, but I have to wonder if this is the beginning of, or possibly just symptomatic of our downfall. If I was a religious fatalist, I would say that this, among a few other things, may be the mark of the beast as mentioned in the Book of Revelation. We are no longer free just to be ourselves, we are tied to a central (as of yet) indeterminate being. Even now, we cannot communicate on a human level. I see people talking to each other on the cell, text messaging and web chatting with others who are less than ten feet away. I guess it is less threatening that way.



Combined with the advances in reproductive technologies, well, married life just ain't gonna be the same in the next century....


Have a nice day.

YIPPEEEEEEE !!!!!!!

Our troubles are over friends, a new day is upon us!

Ralph Nader is running for President.
He must be trying to give the Writers Guild a boost or something. Anyway, welcome back Ralph!
Now, get a cookie, and go back to your room.

it was bound to come to this

I just didn't think it would happen this soon.

The primary season is all but over. On the right, kudo's to the pachyderms for running, more or less, a higher level, (or maybe a less imaginative or less energetic) campaign than the jackasses on the left who are still engaged in the grade school tactics that usually mark election year tactics.

Against most odds, Barak Obama seems to be headed towards the winners circle on the left side of the field, much to the chagrin of the lady who has waited oh so very long for her turn. It is my opinion and suspicion that she will get downnright nasty in the next few months, turning what is left of the democratic race into a scorched earth battle for the ideological soul of the party. It seems to be the principle of the thing.

That is probably the big reason why she is not winning. (There are others of course, not the least of which is her surname and the reputation that she built in her last period of residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).

Ideology. Mitt Romney has it. Fred Thompson seems to sweat it. Look where those guys aren't right now. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly have it. They would be great in a Broadway revue together, or in a travelling roadshow like the Blue Collar comedians, but they are not being taken real seriously these days, a lot like the other over-the-hill entertainers, televangelists. Good to listen to while you are driving to get your unemployment check, but not much else.

The (apparent) candidates to be give a sense of being genuine and being pragmatic. They are not afraid to try something new, even if it is something that the opposition might suggest, and if it doesn't work, they seem to be the type of people who will try something else. They seem to understand enough about the times we are in to understand what people expect from a leader.

It will be an interesting summer and fall, if the far right and far left don't cripple the guys first.

In other news this week:

The air force killed a satellite. My favorite analysis of the event came from a 'name the project' contest in "Wired" Magazine: Anything Hu Can Do, I Can Do Better.



Lindsay Lohan proved, once and for all, that those are real.

Are we really up for this? (I hope so!)

We could be in for some serious trouble. The GOP primary race has been all but won by John McCain, but he is being bird-dogged by a faction of his party that is devoted not to a candidate, but to a notion of ideological purity that would make the Taliban turn green with envy (before they detonated the body-conforming bomb....).


This is some serious stuff. On the other side of the fence, we have an ongoing fight that looks to turn into a stalemate between ambition and idealism. If the electorate settles that question, it will be anybodies guess, if it comes to a brokered convention, my money is on ambition.


On the right, the veneer is coming off the party structure. The ideologues are laying claim, or trying to, and will settle for ruining the chances of a moderate succeeding, thus depriving them of a member of a party on the left to demonize in the next election cycle.



This particular brand of politics is quite disconcerting to me. I know that both parties have their own faction of "purists", but these people seem to be the kamikaze's of the American experience, those who know what is best for us and are willing to do whatever is necessary to get what they know to be best and to hell, (literally, it seems), with those who might not agree.


I am not sure how to describe this strategy and behavior. I cannot call it undemocratic, but it really is. It reminds me a lot of what is termed obstructionist when these tactics are used in the Congress. It is a form of fillibister, but its intent is not to bring compromise, it is to wear the opposition, and the electorate down, in order to secure a bit more power, that is a bit less restrained.



We are the targets. Not the Liberals. Not the Extremists. Not any of the other -ists. Us, the ones that can really hold an agenda back or push it forward.. This election is a test of us. What happens this year will determine to a great extent what will happen for years to come. This is not your run-of-the-mill presidential election, and not just for external reasons. The power structure within the nation has shifted, who comes to power this year, and how, will determine how things run for a long time to come, certainly for the rest of my life, and most likely for the largest part of the productive lives of my family. That is a sobering thought.



Is there a practical alternative here? I honestly don't know, (the term practical being an inconvenient modifier).


There are fairly stressful times, it is easy to not be engaged, to just go with things and keep ones blood pressure low, but I don't think we can afford that. There has been an old adage that we need to simply turn the government over every few years, (the old "throw the bum's out" school of thought), and there is something to that, but for that to really be effective, the shape and footprint of government is going to have to change, radically I think. We need to pick our battles, literally and figuratively, and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.


Right now, (and I admit that these are really vague and nebulous terms), I see the themes of the election shaping up this way: ambition, idealism, pragmatism or ideology. Speaking for myself, I can safely eliminate ideology as a choice, (I think those folks are a bit more dangerous and just a tad less tolerant than say al Quaida), but as for the other adjectives, I will have to wait and see which of those fades first...


Stay focused. Stay very focused.

Super Tuesday

Well kids, tomorrow is the big day. He or she who has momentum at the end of the day tomorrow will really have something. In the past week or so, there has been some weeping and gnashing of teeth in the popular media over a couple of the candidates, but surprisingly, (to me anyway), this time, (much of) the babbling seems to have come from the party on the (far) right.





On the other hand, it really shouldn't be a surprise. News has become entertainment in some segments of our society, and entertainment has become news. Take a look at the headlines, we look for blood, suicide bombings, wars, rumors of wars and Britney Spears. Last week, Max Baer, Jr, who made his mark on the world playing Jethro on The Beverley Hillbillies in the 60's, suffered the loss of his (much) younger girlfriend, and the headline was right there next to Ben Bernake.





But that is not what this is about.





Last week, such noteworthy's as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter publically bemoaned the lack of a Conservative leading the republican pack in the race for the White House. ms Coulter even went so far as to say she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain, because McCain isn't a Conservative.





(Note the capitalization, making the 'C' word a noun, rather than an adjective).





Methinks that Rush and Ms Coulter, along with other noteworthy's such as Bill O'reilly, are merely feathering thier own media nest for the next four years, just so they have something to attack in the event the party on the right becomes dominant again. (Nothing could be worse for the news/entertainment industry than to first get what they want in terms of electoral results and then have things go south anyway...)



So, this makes me ask, what is a Conservative, (again, note capitalization)?



A Conservative seems to be a person whose political bent adheres to a philosophy under any and all circumstances, regardless of the apparent need in any given situation. The philosophy is not rigid, it is, what a somewhat nebulous "they" says it is. In economics, the Conservative creed holds that fiscal resposibility and minimalism in government spending is the path to true prosperity, but in the face of record spending deficits, the true Conservative plans to cut taxes and spend even more as a path to the balanced budget. An explanation of how one leads to the other need not be presented. Ron Paul may be considered a Conservative, but that apparently is not the case.



The true Conservative recognizes that threats to our cherished way of life and our liberties must be defended at all costs, even if it means having a Conservative taking our freedoms, in order to prevent a Radical from taking them. The fact that we lose our freedom is secondary, apparently, to who takes them. It can be assumed that the true Conservatives will retain their freedoms.

The thing about the use of the term Conservative as opposed to conservative in the broadcasr media is that the listener/viewer cannot readily determine which part of speech that he or she is dealing with, the noun, denoting something of an exclusive group of pretty smart people who seem to be, collectively anyway, always right, and if they aren't they will modify the record later so it appears that they were; or the adjective, which can be taken to mean "marked by moderation, tradition, or caution". I sometimes translate that to mean common sense, with a knack for not reinventing the wheel when the situation does not require it. That is sometimes confusing to the listener, and in some, but by no means all, circumstances, it can lead one to believe that one might be in accord with the beliefs and objectives of another, when in fact one might very well be the polar opposite, simply because of the use of a word.

Garrison Keillor made a good point about Liberals and Conservatives in his column this past week, (he was actually aiming at Liberals, using education as an example). The Capitalized folks seem to be tied to dogma, even if an idea is getting good results at a practical cost. They are tied to the idea that the other side is never, ever right, and results be damned.

So, as you get the recorded messages this evening, and listen to the commercials, and hear the speeches and endorsements and commentaries, ask yourself, what sense of the many words that you may hear is that person using?

This year, I think that the top two candidates will be the two that least fit the mold, just because most people who case enough to vote are the ones most fed up with molds. Who do think that will be?

Stay focused. This is no time for idle assumptions.

a little weekend humor, (not an endorsement)

just keepin things on the light side...

mid-week ruminations

the market and economy in general are taking a bit of a shellacking this week. I for one, am worried. I am a guy on a fixed income, who is being particularly hard hit right now with health care costs and a few other things, not to mention the various trends in the pricing of necessities these days. I am, as the saying from the old movie goes, mad as hell, and, to paraphrase, am on the verge of not taking it anymore. Lou Dobbs makes a pretty good point here.


there. now that I got that out of my system....


what we are seeing happening to our economy is a correction. it may be more of a felony conviction, but stay with me for a moment, it is a correction. when it is over, our economy, and all the others, will be back into something of a balance, (they may be in small pieces, on the floor), but they will be in a state of equilibrium.

the same type of thing is going to happen to our culture as well. we are a people who are dependent rather than independent, and in becoming this way, we have created a situation where other peoples depend on our dependencies to survive---an ecosystem of negativity in a manner of speaking. we may not be the first to collapse, but when one culture goes down, others will at least stumble if not fall, and there will be a chain reaction. just how bad it will be is anyones guess, we will just have to wait things out.


I was reading an article from Computerworld magazine, (see it here), about yet another threat posed by the modern conveniences of our lives. Yes friends, yet another danger posed by the use of our computers in the wireless world.

The ingenuity of some people amazes me. We spend as much time keeping ourselves safe as we do being productive. Any more, in an age where some of the companies that I do business with force me to get my bill electronically, I still mail a check, (although they would much rather I sent my bank account information so they could simply withdraw the funds at their own pleasure. -- truth is, I don't trust them as far as I can speak to a real person). when I need to do some banking, I do it in person, (although it is via TV screen in the lobby of the building).

computers are great fun and somewhat handy, but in the world we live in today, I wonder if they are really worth the trouble?