Weed Salad

The Invisible Work of the POTUS

2011-03-16T13:23:00.005-04:00

Japan's nuclear sites are burning. Egypt is allegedly giving birth to its first democracy. Libya's Colonel-in-Chief is beating back rebel (democratic?) uprisings. Bahrain is perhaps the next Middle-East domino under threat, after Yemen. Iran and China are pressing their respective lids down on their boiling pots. The Economy is not recovered. Unemployment is not improving. The Federal Govt is limping along on continuing budget resolutions instead of having a permanent budget. His vaunted Health Care Act is doing poorly in court. Utah just signed Immigration Reform to combat the Fed's inaction. ...And what do we see and hear of from the POTUS? Final 4 brackets. Golf outings. Talk of the epidemic of school-yard bullying. A wholly ignored call for a more civil tone. Trivial nothings.

But, to be "fair", let's blame this on the Media, since all we see and hear of the POTUS is what they choose to show and tell us. And we're assured by all his supporters that he can handle all of the important stuff concurrently with all this unimportant stuff, because he's just so amazing. If that were so, why would his adoring Media buds show us only the unimportant stuff, thereby creating the impression that he is letting his real duties slide? Why would they do this? And why is it that the real work of the POTUS should be so invisible? Surely, some of his workings do need to be beyond our sight. ...But all of them?? Why is so much about this man such a vacuous mystery?

War on Sale

2010-04-13T12:33:00.005-04:00

If a leader were foolish enough to want to encourage a tactical-weapon attack upon their country, what would such a leader do? Well, they would essentially put war on sale, by lowering the cost to the aggressor. On the other hand, if one wanted to discourage any sort of attack upon itself, one would keep all options on the table for retaliation, and would make that policy known to all the world, repeatedly. They would reinforce the high cost of such a mistake.

Well, President Obama has issued a revision to our policy for nuclear weapons use, clarifying that we will not resort to nukes when attacked by a non-nuclear aggressor. So you decide: is he discouraging attack, or encouraging it?

Now, you might say that those foolish enough to attack the U.S. wouldn't be the sort to worry about retaliation anyway. Nukes or no, they would attack regardless. So then Obama's policy change brings no benefit. It brings only increased risk, and unnecessarily. Risk that is upon his head.

The Unsavory Side of Chicago

2010-03-22T13:33:00.004-04:00

I enjoy Chicago-style hot dogs. Yum! Jam 'em down. Chicago-style pizza? Double-yum! Jam it down. Chicago Jazz, and Chicago architecture? You bet! Eat that stuff up.

...But then there's Chicago-style politics, as has been on full display in that past few weeks, pushing this abomination of legislative slop. YUCK! Looks horrible, stinks to high-heaven, and tastes even worse! But like it or not, it got jambed down all our throats. Even many Dems were holding their noses on this one!

Prediction: We better get used to foul and reeking meals from these modern Chicago-style gangsters running D.C. This latest win will not mean sweeter or smoother things to come for us. The political filth is only going to get worse. Open wide, and eat what you've voted for, America.

Paying It Forward

2010-03-10T13:02:00.005-05:00

The Obama Health Care plan would apparently have us paying now, or soon enough, for health care coverage that would kick in later. Some 4 years later. The argument is that a certain amount of funds need to be on hand before coverage can be provided, and it will take that long to gather up the necessary fund balance. Let us suspend all reason for just a moment, and just let all of that go as is. Instead, let's focus on what this "plan" represents. It would mean that the government would be accumulating revenues that are reserved for covering those eventual health care costs. Our federal government...hauling in billions...to be spent later...on a promise. ...Riiiiiight. Let us now count the times that our federal government actually kept its greedy, grubby mitts off of any revenues within its reach or imagination, and resisted spending those funds elsewhere. Who among us really believe that they will not spend every single accrued health care dime, and dimes they've not yet accrued, on something and everything other than what it was accrued for, leaving behind yet one more unfulfillable promissory note to us. Don't you fall for it!!

Where there's Smoke, there's Weakness

2009-11-19T11:12:00.005-05:00

Government-mandated healthcare; driven down our gullets by a man too weak of will and mind to successfully quit his own smoking habit, which is acknowledge as perhaps the single-most avoidable of all causes of health problems and costs. Further, none of the health bills put forth even attempt to nationally outlaw smoking. Just two more astounding, illogical aspects of that man's ascension to and use of power.

Guns for Babies

2009-11-13T12:26:00.004-05:00

What would happen if the pro-Abortion crowd were required to swap out fetuses as their point of focus and replace that with guns, but had to retain all of their established argument logic? For example, they would suddenly find themselves arguing that firearms are a Constitutionally-guaranteed right (which they are), and that the government and insurance companies should provide funding for those who cannot afford them. Anti-Firearm activists would have to stay 50 feet away from all gun shops, and would by default be blamed for all gun shop fires and all "accidents" that might befall any gun shop owners. Firearms would be argued as a Healthcare issue, since it could be shown that being denied them would seriously risk one's health, even one's life. The entire matter of licensing would be argued an undue restriction on one's rights, since owning and carrying a gun would be a matter of discussion strictly between the individual and their gunsmith. Anyone who wouldn't agree with ready access to firearms would be labelled a fanatic radical extremist, completely out of touch with the mainstream. Schools would hold educational sessions for students to understand proper firearm safety and use. If students were allowed to opt out at all, they would need prior parental approval. Imagine.

But what of the other way around you say, where Gun Rights activists would have to take on the cause for Abortion rights? ...Well, show me where the Constitution actually identifies an Abortion Right, and we'll talk.

Liberalism has no equal, and no value!

2009-10-28T13:03:00.003-04:00

Conservatism and Liberalism are typically thought of as equivalent alternatives in the realm of philosophies or value systems; that they're opposites. But I submit to you that this is not a proper portrayal. Rather, these are like light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance, matter and space, goodness and evil. These are not opposites; they are contrasting states where one represents the presence of a value, while the other is merely the absence of the value. To be a Liberal is to be deficient in Conservatism. One can invert the statement, but to do so puts the emphasis on the absence rather than the presence. For example, one doesn't say that light is the absence of darkness, since darkness is merely the absence of light. Knowledge is not the lack of ignorance. Matter is not the absence of a emptiness. Goodness is not the absence of evil. Being a Conservative cannot be described as being deficient in Liberalism, as that would be saying Conservatism is the lack of lacking Conservatism.

Ultimately, we should not use the term Liberal. We should instead refer to such people as Anti-Conservatives, since they suffer from the lack of the Conservative value.

Taxes: they're not just for revenue any more

2009-09-17T09:34:00.004-04:00

It can now be considered official: taxes are no longer merely a governmental means of raising revenue to cover expenses. They are become the new penalty for misbehavior. Oh, there have been hints of this for some time. For example, cigarette taxes. Those are not disproportionately high in order to re-coup costs from their use (though some would argue this), rather they are set so as to discourage people from buying them. Though the government coffers would suffer if all smokers suddenly quit, cold-turkey!

The newest proof of taxes-as-penalty comes from an unnamed group of "health experts" who are pushing the Obama administration to instantiate a tax on soda pop, because of its involvement in the obesity epidemic. Again, the government isn't bleeding money because people are drinking pop (though again, some would argue), and needs to recoup those losses via such a tax. No, this is merely an idea intent on discouraging the purchase of such heinous products, and therefore is a penalty paid by those who continue.

So, the truth is out and cannot be denied: punishment for misbehavor is no longer the sole purview of the Judicial wing. The Executive branch now owns the power to assess guilt and to levy punishment. Will some wise legal council come forward to explain the unconstitutionality of this creeping assault on the balance of powers and abuse of the tax mechanism? Do we need to grab our 2 liters and head for the nearest harbor to pour their contents overboard in protest? Do we now need Pop Bottle Parties, ala the Tea-Baggers?

Cost-Cutting Measures for the Family

2009-01-27T10:07:00.004-05:00

From the genius of Dem-Queen Pelosi comes the brilliant revelation that society can avoid untold expenses if it only increases its abortion practices. You see, those awful little things (aka children) become a tremendous drain on our society, what with their ceaseless and costly needs. Just imagine how great things would be if we stopped the madness, and stopped child-birth! Why, we'd become the most prosperous nation in the world, like...China!

Wait...whassat? Fetuses grow up to become voters and tax-payers? Whoa, then let us not be so hasty here! Quick, somebody sanction a financial impact study. We must get to the bottom of whether the burden of children might be outweighed by their future benefits. Let's get someone from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on this, right away. Time is of the essence here! ...And maybe we can even identify the gene that predetermines a fetus as a Democrat, so we can know which ones to keep.

Color-full Times

2009-01-20T08:42:00.004-05:00

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

How many people can honestly say that the excitement and interest that they feel about today's inauguration is not driven primarily by the fact that Obama will be the nation's first black president? And how many can say that they truly know the content of his character? If you have these factors out of proper balance, then you're not honoring the core of what MLK stood for. You've hi-jacked his cause and perverted it into what he spoke against...just like the radical Muslims who have perverted their religion to justify their murderous ways.

It's not about being pro-black, nor anti-black; it's about being color blind! It doesn't matter what color is his skin. What matters is what he stands for and how he intends to go about governing this land.

Without getting into the arguments about what he will or will not do as president, and all of the other endless points of disagreement, just stop and ask yourself whether you honestly and sufficiently know the content of his character. Is it that knowledge that has you so excited for today...or is it the shallow pride of witnessing the first black president being sworn in?

Care about what matters.

O'Reilly Spins a Survey

2008-12-31T17:20:00.003-05:00

On the O'Reilly Factor last night, Bill offered up his newest survey question on his website, which asks whether the respondent is "rooting for Obama to succeed." Clearly, this poll is pointed at Bill's conservative listeners, seeking to determine whether they're able to put aside their 'druthers and support the man who won the election. This is the same wording that Hannity has been using as his cautious support of the POTUS-elect. That Bill would lift Sean's syntax for his own poll is rather cheap, but the intent of the question is still a worthy one. But the wording of the question is troublesome, and hinges on the definition of "succeed." If one were to answer "Yes", does this then mean that the respondent hopes Obama is successful in implementing all of the policies that he put forth as campaign promises. Even many Democrats would not like to see that, most of them being less Liberal than Obama, by record. And if one were to answer "No", does that mean that the respondent is an intractible ideologue who can't let go of what shoud've been? Or worse, unpatriotic for not supporting the President? While I wouldn't accuse O'Reilly of purposely creating a set-up, he clearly doesn't know a poorly worded question when he creates one, which is quite disappointing for such a veteran investigative reporter. What did you intend to ask, Bill?

Unqualified Management, Indeed!

2008-12-12T13:38:00.003-05:00

The honorable Congressman Dodd went before the Press recently to express his belief that top management of the auto companies do not deserve to keep their positions in light of a rescue package, because they are the people who are responsible for the current dire situation that those companies find themselves in. Yet it was Congress who ruined the Housing industry, by imposing their ideas of who should have mortgages regardless of affordability, which ruined the Credit industry, which the Auto industry is crucially dependent upon -even for the least expensive of their products, which led to the sudden collapse of auto sales and the looming failure of those companies. So Congressman Dodd, along with all who think as he does, is either unbelievably stupid not to see this, or he is flat out corrupt to his bones...or both. Regardless, he is undeniably unqualified to manage even a side-walk lemonade stand, let alone his congressional office or the Auto industry. Do us all and yourself a favor, Congressman, follow the example of Gov. Blago and step down!

A Measure of Greatness

2008-11-05T18:58:00.003-05:00

I propose the following unambiguous indicators as a test of Obama's success as POTUS. Feel free to offer up your own. The test is whether he earns a "No" on even just 6 of my 10 questions. If he does, I'll give him a passing grade, eventhough that would only amount to a D.

Did my taxes go up even one dime during his tenure? He promised they wouldn't, repeatedly.
Did the U.S. get hit by another terrorist attack during his tenure, after he slashes military spending and dismantles our nukes as he promised to do?
Is my Retirement account still below its peak value, even including my on-going contributions to it?
Are home mortgage rates higher than my current percentage, which I got one year ago, at 6.25%?
Do we still have any military presence in Iraq after his second year in offfice? I'm giving him more time than he said he would take.
Is the Dollar still weaker than the Euro?
Is the National Debt higher than when he took office?
Is our Trade Deficit higher than when he took office?
Is there still anyone left without Health Care coverage?
Is the Coal industry still operating in the U.S.? He promised to bankrupt it.

I threw in a couple easy ones for him, just to give him a jump start.

I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in his second year of office when it dawns on him that there's not any higher office that he needs to start campaigning for, and that he has to actually stick this one out. Talk about historic firsts!

Obama Confusion

2008-10-30T09:08:00.005-04:00

Earlier this week, pushing back against the growing impression that he's a Socialist, Obama chided that McCain might next accuse him of being a Communist because he shared his childhood toys with friends. But this "defense" is either a blatant effort to obfuscate, or it's evidence that Obama hasn't a clue about the definition of these terms.

When you freely choose to share your property with others whom you select, that's called Charity. The key is that it's voluntary choosing on your part; choosing whether to share, choosing what to share, and choosing with whom to share. Such is what Christ prescribed.

When a government tells you that you must share your property with others, and you have no say in whether, what and with whom, it is Socialism/Communism. It can in no way be equated with Charity. It is the antithesis of Charity. Such is what Karl Marx prescribed...and Barack Obama.

The Campaign of Irony

2008-10-20T09:53:00.008-04:00

First, Obama got a polls bump in the financial debacle, presumably because McCain is part of the failed establishment, while Obama is Mr. Change...which is incredibly ironic because it was Obama's fellow Dems who choreographed this colossal failure and obstructed McCain's (and others') warnings. It's doubly ironic given that Obama provided no leadership to help avert the situation! Yet he's the one who benefits from it.

Now we have more stunning irony. Colin Powell has thrown in with Obama. But wasn't he the one individual most influential in bringing us the Iraq War, by his speech at the U.N.? The very same war Obama says we never should have gotten into in the first place? Now Obama gladly accepts this man's endorsement, returning praise and honor to him for his great service to this country, and a promise to place him into the administration after the inevitable coronation.

Wouldn't Powell be the one most capable of explaining to Obama that the Iraq War and its justifications were not total fabrications of the Bush administration? Wouldn't he be the best person to set history straight again? But just for grins, let's just say that it all really was just a fraud perpetrated on the American people. Wouldn't that then make Powell the lowest of slime for his pivotal part in bringing the war upon us? If it was all just Bush lies, wasn't Powell the chief deliverer of those lies?

Apparently, Powell is forgiven for being satan's mouth-piece, perhaps under the notion that he was sympathetically under the spell of the evil W. And he certainly can't be faulted for being a good soldier and following orders, right? Perhaps such are the very traits that most appeal to Obama: a lack of connection to reality, a willingness to deceive for the team and cause...a willingness to be deceived himself.

At this point, it appears that we will have as Commander-in-Chief a man who could not qualify for a position in the same Secret Service that will be protecting him; has not clarified his own citizenship status; has built his entire campaign on a slogan that is entirely absent from his record; faults his opponent for choosing a running mate having no executive experience, while he himself has actually less than her; is defeating a proven war hero while having a past littered with Marxism.

We are witnessing the most unbelievable and improbable of scenarios.

From the Socialist Horse's Mouth

2008-10-15T13:27:00.005-04:00

"It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. ...and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

--Barak Obama, Toledo, Ohio, Oct 12, 2008, speaking to a plumber planning to buy a $250K+ business, and responding to the man's question about being taxed more under the Obama plan

This is admitting that his own plan is indeed a punishment on success, and then him urging you to look at it another way instead. This is redistribution of wealth. This is taking from the successes of others and giving to those who have not likewise succeeded, regardless of why. Will the recipients qualify for these gifts? Will they have to show that they've tried to succeed, and show cause for why they could not? No, they merely need to be less successful. This is a belief that giving people unearned wealth is good, fair and leads to everyone's success. This is anti-Capitalism. This is Socialism. Socialism is that which is promoted and practiced by a Socialist. The cornerstone of Obama's economic plan is Socialism. This is why Obama can honestly and accurately be labeled a Socialist.

This is not attacking Obama. It is not lying or deceiving. It is not a campaign tactic or mere rhetoric. It is not racism. It is not being offensive and devisive. It is merely reporting the factual record, using the candidate's own words.

Thank you Candidate Obama for your honesty, and settling once and for all that you are indeed, and undeniably, a Socialist.

Three Cheers for Washington?

2008-10-03T16:49:00.003-04:00

Golly, it sure is a good thing that the House passed the "Rescue" Bill today, cuz who knows how far the market would've fallen had they not. As it is, it ended at 158 points down ...DOWN??!! Wall Street suuuure was glad to see that turd of a legislative package get passed, huh?

...What have they done?!

I suggest you buy stock in wooden arrows, and Samoan businesses. We might also dust off our torches and hayforks, and put on our walking shoes. Time for all of them to go, starting with the esteemed Congressman Frank, choreographer-in-chief of this mess.

The Political Index

2008-09-22T12:20:00.004-04:00

Perhaps the brightest lining of this POTUS campaign cloud is that both tickets claim to be the team who will bring change (which allegedly means improvement) to our nation's capitol. So, regardless of who wins, we should at least get change...if either party is good for their word. We should all remember, 4 years from now, these claims for being the better change agents, and judge them at the voting booths in 2012. No improving changes = No 2nd term. Now, what we need is a means for measuring change. We need key indicators, like we have for the stock markets, which boil complex changes down to a single measure that indicates up, down, or flat. We need a Political Index, that factors in things like our war status, our nat'l debt, our trade balance, our energy independence, and a few other key factors. Then, when it comes time to decide whether to keep the rascals in or toss 'em, we look to the Political Index.

Honesty will get you disqualified

2008-09-22T11:54:00.003-04:00

There's a very sad and ruinous Catch-22 going on in our politics these days...though it perhaps has always been there. No one candidate (or even their entire team of advisors) can have an answer (especially the right answer) to all questions/issues/problems they are or will be confronted with. But that certainly doesn't keep all of them from pretending to. Indeed, some supporters expect this of their candidate, and even more so of the candidates they don't support. So, if a candidate attempts to take the honest and lonesome path and admits to not having enough knowledge on a given subject, or just flat out doesn't know an answer, they are immediately judged as insufficiently experienced and therefore completely unqualified for the office they seek. Seeing this as political suicide, the candidates instead pretend to know everything about everything, which of course makes them look foolish to the observers who choose to stay connected to reality. The trick is to make yourself look more informed and honest than ignorant and dishonest. This is what we've fallen to. How do we climb back out of this to a higher ground? ...Can we?

The Sleeper President

2008-08-21T12:23:00.004-04:00

Here's a wacky idea for an intrigue novel or movie...

A radical-religion terrorist organization with sleeper-cells in the U.S. selects, preens, and successfully supports one of their own to run for POTUS, under the guise of being a nice, eloquent, educated Christian. Against all odds, and with a rather shrouded and somewhat suspicious upbringing, he is able to climb his way up through elite higher education, then oddly veers away from the highly lucrative careers that such credentials are used for. Instead, our intrepid character moves into local, then state and eventually federal office to enjoy a short term as Senator before launching into his presidential campaign. Having a complete lack of executive experience, or any real political experience to speak of, he covers for that by simply being a minority, which wins him significant unwaivering support from those who see that as an over-riding benefit in itself. Once he secures the Oval Office, he then unleashes his sleeper initiatives, covertly and with deniabily of course. With the power of the Office and his supporters behind him, he brings down disabling havoc on the country's financial, energy, military and other critical systems, thereby setting it up for his overseas co-horts to come and have their way with the U.S. --the Great Satan.

Fortunately, this is total fiction, and could never actually be pulled off. ...Right?

Candidate Clinton: Independent

2008-06-03T08:57:00.003-04:00

Prediction, June 3, 2008:
Faced with the likelihood that Hillary will not be able to sway sifficient delegates over to her, driven by her all-consuming hunger to take the Oval Office she will choose to leave the Democratic ticket and take up the fight as an Independent, striking a pose as the Moderate candidate.

Regardless, McCain will win the election.

McClelland: Hero or Hack?

2008-06-02T20:58:00.004-04:00

Scott McClelland's tell-all book, What Happened, according to its author, is an attempt to change Washington politics for the better. The argument goes that the partisan bickering and undercutting must stop so that we can return to the way our capital should be run, and hopefully this book will contribute, even in some small way, towards that end. Some conclusions must be drawn from this posturing:

In the author's estimations, it will be well worth all the massive damage inflicted on the still sitting war-time president, by his enemies around the world using this fresh ammunition against Bush and the administration, if in the end his book helps even just a little bit to reverse some of our political divisions.
The author would have us believe that it is merely coincidental that the book is released in the very midst of a pivotal national election campaign. A time in which the absolute last thing any engaged member desires is reconciliation with the other side...let alone any within the same side.
He would have us believe that the sliver-thin difference between his precise wordings, and the accusations they are easily turned into by the other side, are unfortunate misinterpretations.
The author believes our political divisions are unhealthy, and need to be repaired, and that such a goal can actually be achieved and measured.
The book focuses on poor-judgement decisions made by the president and his advisers, and that those mistakes need to be rehashed and analyzed so as to properly learn and avoid them next time.

One must conclude that Mr. McClelland is incredibly naive, or uncontrollably altruistic, or shamelessly greedy, or unfaithful to his allegiances, or possessed of inconceivably poor judgement himself, or incapable of seeing the danger of his Monday-morning observations. I must conclude, after seeing his explanations on live TV this evening, that he is all of these at once, and that his strongest justifications are in reality none at all. This book is a colossal case of bad judgement itself. Not only will it not lead to improved relations between the political factions, but it will actual contribute significantly in the opposite direction. The political damage will have been made, the book will be tossed aside, and the author will have been forgotten by both enemy and former friend. The very best we can additionaly hope for is that the publisher will find itself stuck with a warehouse of books that nobody wants to buy. To that end, I pledge my part.

Obama the Great Unifier?

2008-04-09T12:11:00.005-04:00

Candidate Obama claims to be the one and only who will be able to re-unite our fractured country. Assuming for the moment that we're actually in need of a national reunion, where's the evidence of his ability to do this? Has he accomplished this even within his own fractured political party? No? Well, how about then just the disunity between himself and his sole Democrat opponent. No? Even when the two disagree about so little in the first place?! Odd.

Rather than serve as a unifier, has he not actually chosen to be a divider? Has he not chosen to fabricate or exaggerate distinctions with his opponent, for the hope of political advantage? What would make you think that he, or anyone, would not resort to this same tactic once ensconced in the Oval Office. where the demand for it may only be greater?

Great Unifier? Just more Madison Ave polish.

Barak Hussein Obama, U.S. President?

2008-02-01T08:48:00.000-05:00

Though it's now 6+ years ago since 9/11, our nation is still recovering from that event, and perhaps the largest wound yet to heal is our suspicion of all things Muslim...even things Muslim-like. At this point, Barak Hussein Obama has a real shot at garnering the Democratic nomination for president, if not the Oval Office itself. Mr. Obama professes to be Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his claim, yet his Muslim-like name remains, and surely there will be some who prefer to doubt his affiliation.

So, what would happen if the U.S. were to elect as president, in these suspicious-of-all-things-Muslim times, a man who bears such a Muslim-like name? (If our suspicion doesn't make that an impossibility in the first place.) And let's say that he follows through with his promises to get us out of Iraq in the first days of his presidency. How would xenophobic ultra-cons deal with that? Might one of the more extreme among them decide that it's time to complete the image of Obama being the next JFK?

Or, what if in taking office Mr. Obama realizes that such a withdrawal really isn't the right thing to do after all? How would the Islamic world take to the idea of a "Muslim-like" guy being our new commander-in chief, and he's choosing to continue the war against their people rather than end it? Could that turn even more of them against us?

The rising cost of...TV

2008-01-09T12:56:00.000-05:00

People might tell you how technology has simplified -and even reduced the cost of- living. While that might bear true in many instances, it surely isn't holding true for our TV lives. ...Not our lives on TV, but our lives with TV. Have you shopped for a TV lately?! For many years, TV set prices have been steadily falling, if not in actual ticket prices, then at least in terms of bang-for-the-buck. But now, any serious shopper is foregoing the tube-TV units and is choosing among the various LCD and Plasma flat-panel units, which tend to start at twice the price of an equivalent old-school set. And bigger units (i.e., 42"+) tend to be the more popular choices. And if you do the right thing, and hold out for a full-HD unit (i.e., 1080P), then you're looking at an $1800 pill, likely more. Now, since you went top-drawer on the set, you can't then just settle for the integral speakers that it comes with, and you surely can't waste your time watching broadcast signals on it. You've got to pony up for a worthy home entertainment system, including high-end speakers and an HD DVD player. But do you go with BlueRay, or HD? And of course your analog cable subscription won't do either. You'll need to upgrade to digital service, at greater monthly cost. Or perhaps even switch over to satellite. And don't forget costs that you might incur in getting rid of those perfectly functional analog sets you probably have, as nobody will likely be interested in taking those off your hands, given the analog-to-digital change-over that's coming in '09...just to further frustrate the situation. After all is said and done, you could easily be looking at a $3K investment for your new TV outfit...per room, with monthly fees higher than what you're dealing with now! Do any of your believe that these system costs will ever come down to the sub-$750 range. ...Fuhgetaboutit.

Hmm...giving it all up and going back to radio is looking pretty good. ...But then there's XM vs. Sirius subscriptions, and HD-Radio units. Arg!

Books!...yeah, books...good ol' cheap, paper-back books. That's the way to go!

Be thankful for Paper Tigers

2008-01-07T17:09:00.000-05:00

Is anyone else out there frightened by the unlimited willingness on the part of the presidential candidates to take on any and every cause from the Oval Office? I can't believe the degree of power that these candidates, and their followers, expect to exert once taking the helm. Mitt agrees to address our nation's pet population. Richardson will replace all of our incandescent light bulbs. Obama will bring the entire nation together in one accord, on everything. Perhaps the most confused one is Hillary, who promises as President to implement things that only Congress has direct decision over; things which she has not been successful in achieving as a Senator. ??!

I can't help wonder if these people haven't gotten confused with the holiday season, thinking that they're actually running for the job of Santa Claus, rather than President! "And what would you like for Election Day, little Johnny? ...Well sure, I can give you that!!"

The only thing more frightening than what these people expect to do from the White House would be someone who actually did have that much consolidated power.

Putting Some Skin in the Game

2007-11-21T19:54:00.000-05:00

News from the science desk tells us that some intrepid researchers have developed a method of converting average skins cells into stem cells, which then have the potential benefits that have been argued possible only with human embryo cells. ...This is HUGE, if it proves out.

Evaporate would the debate about destroying humans to harvest their stem cells. Poof!

But perhaps the best part about the news, aside from the potential life-saving possibilities, is the fact that this research was, in some part, motivated by the insistence of our president not to invest federal funds to provide more lines of human embryo stem-cells. In other words, researches had to work the contingencies. And they came up with a process that is actually more simple and accessible than the one the president denied them.

So will Bush ever get an iota of credit for sticking to his principles, which contributed to this most amazing work? Will outspoken critics like Micheal J. Fox thank the president for causing scientists to pursue other avenues, which led to this incredible new future? Don't bet your skin on it.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is coming to town

2007-09-24T09:42:00.000-04:00

Being an open and hospitable country can sometimes be a gut-wrenching thing. Case in point: the president of Iran is coming to visit. What's the right way to handle this situation? Some would argue that he should be turned back at his port of entry. However, his status as country VIP grants him undeniable access to the U.N., which is here in the U.S. And the rules also allow him access to anything else within a 25 mile radius, which includes Ground Zero.

What irony, that this man, one of the three legs of the "Axis Of Evil," will be able to stand on the edge of that sacred site, and feign his condolences to it victims, with cameras clicking and the images spread world wide. For the enemies of this country, those images will be grand trophies, and a great inspiration in their causes.

What's more, Columbia Univ has extended an invitation for M.A. to speak, risking even further the inflation of his status, and risking the outward appearance that anyone in the U.S. cares one wit what this fool has to say. ...C.U. also risks the reducing of their own status by this invitation.

But on further reflection, I've come to see C.U.'s way of thinking. Not that M.A. deserves any more microphone than he'll already have at the U.N., mind you. But if he is going to speak, why not give him all the rope he wants. Has this man ever said anything that can be rationalized or justified? Does he not always put his bloody foot in his mouth, without hesitation? Does he not always say things that are simply outrageous and undeniably mad?

So, let him come. Let him speak of the annihilation of Israel. Let him deny the Holocaust. Let him deny having any hand in Iraq. Let him deny any pursuit of nuclear weapons. Let the fool open his mouth and remove all doubt. ...But only if he must come anyway.

Abortion is "Safe"

2007-08-16T14:10:00.000-04:00

The FDA today released details of a study that concludes the "Abortion Pill" (mifepristone) is "safe". ...In other words, the pill safely kills. Let us all rejoice in this astounding oxymoron.

Evolved from Africa

2007-07-19T14:18:00.000-04:00

An article published at Nature.com settles a long-standing debate, concluding that the entire human race comes from a single, common ancestral home: Sub-Saharan Africa.

...I wonder how the NAACP will take this news --that all Americans are conclusively of African descent, and thereby qualify for recognition and representation by that organization.

Waste Water?

2007-06-28T14:21:00.000-04:00

A dear (late) friend of mine had a favorite notion that he liked to mention, at opportune times, to invoke a debate that he was fascinated with. His notion was, "Businesses don't pay taxes." Inspired by his spirit, and in spite of every childhood scolding to the contrary, I've come up with my own controversy:

Water can't really be wasted.

The premise is: water, eventually, always finds its way back into the world supply, ready to be re-used.

So, kids, the next time mom or dad hollers at you to "turn off that garden hose, you're wasting water!", just tell 'em wasting water isn't really possible. ...And then RUN...like water off a duck's back!

Creation

2007-06-25T15:51:00.000-04:00

Biology is the science of discovering how life functions, while evolution is the religion of explaining why.

Democrat Fruits

2007-05-21T13:40:00.000-04:00

So what has come of the Democrats securing congress in the previous elections? Well, they've pushed forward an attempt to "de-authorize" the war in Iraq, a move for which there appears not only to be little support, but more importantly has no constitutional foundation. They pushed forward a non-binding resolution to withdraw from Iraq. They're proposing a no-confidence vote on AG Gonzales. They've unashamedly attempted war funding bills that presume to take over responsibilities to prosecute war which are exclusively granted to the President as Commander-in-Chief --unconstitutional. And now they're preparing an Immigration Bill that Speaker Pelosi says she won't bring forward unless she has supporting commitment by 70 members from the other side of the isle --far more than is necessary to exceed opposition.

So, what have the Dems done with their hard-fought return to power? A lot of things that are unconstitutional, or mean nothing, and one thing that would only count if it's something the opposition agrees to. Now that's leadership.

Weather Isn't Climate...

2007-05-21T13:27:00.000-04:00

...unless the tempurature is going up, apparently.

Whenever anyone suggests that unusual snows and/or cold temps support an argument against global warming, members of the pro-GW crowd will quickly chastise that weather is not the same thing as climate. They'll explain that global warming doesn't mean we won't have harsh winters or unusual cold spells. They'll explain that it's the Earth's climates that are at risk of being changed, not the weather, per se. ...That is, unless the weather turns decidedly hot, to which these same will be the first to cite the weather as further evidence that GW is true.

Maturity

2007-05-16T15:38:00.000-04:00

A young person is like a fruit tree in spring, blooming with many answers...and with proper care and time, those can eventually mature into good, ripe questions.

Put Your Green Where Your Mouth Is

2007-05-07T13:49:00.000-04:00

OK, so the GW advocates --especially the Anthropogenic GW wing-- believe that we're all hurtling towards calamity, or worse, and that drastic steps must be taken now, by governmental mandate, if we're to have any hope of surviving the inevitability that looms before us. Then there are those who do not subscribe to any of it. Both sides claim the truth while chastizing the other. One problem is that there's no accountability, on either side. So, what if the members of both extremes were required to formally record their predictions regarding specific, measurable events? (Actually, many already have.) And what if the losers had to forfeit certain societal privileges, like free-speech or voting rights, as the cost of being wrong? What if there was a tangible risk to taking a position in the debate? ...What if?

It's Not Easy Being Green...

2007-04-30T16:09:00.000-04:00

...but for some, it sure comes easy being a green-hypocrite! The Oprah is a prime example, hilariously highlighted for us by the Daily Show's awesome Lewis Black. On Earth Day, she awarded her live audience members with free compact flourescent lamp (CFL) bulbs, with which they are expected to go home and promptly retire their perfectly functional incandescents, thereby saving the planet from those awful devices. Furthest from her mind, surely, is the fact that each CFL contains enough mercury that, should it be dropped and broken, would require a HAZMAT team to clean up, at the expense of hundreds or thousands of dollars to the owner. The worst thing anyone likely received from a regular bulb is a finger cut. Ironically, this is the same benevolent and concerned giver who, months earlier, awarded each live audience member with a brand new car. ...A gas-powered, internal combustion, CO2-emitting car, by which each person massively increased their carbon foot-print...to say nothing of their tax liability!

...Say, you don't think she would stoop so low as to do these contradictory things just for the ratings of it all...do you?

Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science

2007-04-27T09:46:00.000-04:00

Part of the argument from the pro-abortion crowd has been that the zygote/fetus is not a human, but is merely a lump of tissue --a mass. In their view, removing this from the womb is akin to having an unsightly mole removed. They also hold that humanhood is not achieved until some undetermined magical point later in the pregnancy term. For some extremists, that point doesn't arrive until the completion of birth, and some even deny that it's even human until then. However, these views fly in the face of undeniable science, from which we know that each human bears a unique genome, made up of the parental chromosomes joined at the moment of conception. A DNA test of a freshly fertizlied human egg would show that even the first single cell is both related and unique to the biological parents, and just as complete. No mere fleshy growth has different DNA than its host. And no fleshy growth can ever continue into a fully formed human when given only sufficient nutrition and time. From a scientific standpoint, there can be no argument against the "growth" being anything less than a unique and instant human. The problem is with the popular notion of "human." The proper definition must undeniably include the moment of conception. There was a time when blacks were denied human status. To deny a zygote its rightful status is to be just as dishonest.

Warming to Global Warming

2007-04-25T11:16:00.000-04:00

I've been slowly coming to realize the good of the Global Warming controversy. Largely, that it has stirred debate (and no, there isn't concensus), and has highlighted troubling tactics committed by both sides of the debate. In the meantime, there is a fairer middle ground where honest and reasonable action is taking place. Who would argue that mankind is stewarding the Earth to his greatest ability? Surely there is room for improvement, as with all things we undertake. There is useful commerce occuring in that middle ground, as well as good conversation, and discovery of effective and non-burdensome steps we can all take. In fact, perhaps it's best not to bring too much attention to this good work. Let it be overshadowed by the warring extremes, so that it can continue along in its substantive work. I will remain a decided skeptic of man-caused global warming, of his ability to influence it, and of the foretold calamities to come. But I'm a firm believer that we can do things better than we have, and we should. Just don't tell me that CO2 is the biggest threat facing civilization, when in reality it is more likely those who try to tell us so.

Square Advice

2007-04-23T11:19:00.000-04:00

Performer Sheryl Crow, via her Stop Global Warming College Tour, has handed down a couple choice examples of how we can all help in the fight. According to her deep considerations on the topic, we should all be using just a single square of toilet tissue per visit, except in those extreme instances where two or three squares are demanded. She also advises that we eschew the wasteful paper napkin and adopt her concept of a re-useable dining sleeve with which we're to wipe our messy, consumer-oriented faces.

...So now we can know a devoted Greenie by their doubly-soiled apparel, and aroma. We also know how seriously they are to be taken.

Bill O'Reilly Defends

2007-04-20T09:03:00.000-04:00

Last night on his show, Bill provided his defense for why it's a good thing to run the V-Tech gunman's video, and states that he would do it again. He feels that it's a necessary part of drumming up sufficient public outrage to motivate us to pressure our leaders into making laws that would make this sort of tragedy harder to pull off. His position is that we don't value enough the grief and loss of the victims and their family; that only the lunacy of the killer will move us to action. He further explains that the risk of drawing out would-be copy-cats is outweighed by the greater good of a motivated public.

Perhaps Bill needs to ask himself how he will respond when a copy-cat does come forward and chooses to send his video to Bill instead of NBC, and in it states that he was motivated to his crime by seeing the prior broadcast on Bill's show. ...Would you run that video, Bill?

A Supreme Decision

2007-04-19T14:11:00.000-04:00

Surely there will be much arguing over, boasting about, and railing against the Supremes' decision yesteday to uphold the constitutionality of banning "partial-birth" abortions. This is both a major and minor victory for the anti-abortion crowd. Major, in that this opinion cannot be appealed to a higher court, and is therefore law of the land. Major also in that it further curtails abortion practice. However, this is also only one finite step on a very long journey ahead in reversing Rowe v. Wade, making it a minor victory in that sense. It's minor also in the fact that it ceases what surely is one of the lesser practiced methods. The vast majority of abortions are still available to be employed. But, all storms begin with a first drop of rain.

One might see this as the greatest positive and lasting accomplishment of the current Whitehouse administration, even if the Iraq situation were to end up exceeding anyone's wildest hopes. As seen purely from a standpoint of lives saved, it would be interesting to see which would be the greater accomplishment.

VA Tech Gunman

2007-04-19T11:30:00.000-04:00

Let us all agree that the deluded gunman deserves neither to have his face nor his opinions broadcast over our public airwaves. Let us all agree to change the channel, or turn off the receiver when either appear. Better yet, let your local broadcaster know that you don't want them to grant him these posthumous honors.

I don't want to know what he looked like. I don't want to know what he thought. I don't want to know his failings, nor his opinions about ours. Tell us about the victims, if you must, though there wasn't much interest in who they were when alive. Why do we value them so only now?

If this came in part through negligence, let those be investigated by the authorities. ...By the way, the Press are not them. Let's not allow this to become just another "more on this after a word from our sponsors..."

This was an awful tragedy. It was senseless, and should never happen anywhere. But it does, and with far greater frequency, in other parts of the world. Why do we not consider those events equally? Do we place our victims on a higher pedestal? Were ours less deserving; more valued?

VA Tech

2007-04-19T11:11:00.000-04:00

The tragic events at VT will surely provide a launch pad for the anti-gun crowd. Much can and is being written/said on the topic, but the argument is really a non-starter, and doesn't require much to be said. The pertinent fact is that this crime occurred on gun-prohibited ground, where the victims had been stripped of their God-given and Constitution-affirmed right to self-protection. No gun law, written or conceived, can keep people from being gunned down. Laws can only define the penalties for non-compliance, and thereby attempt to be a deterent. Any attempts to leverage the given situation towards greater restrictions on gun acquisition and ownership can only be unwarranted, counter-logical, and motivated by raw emotion (i.e., standard M-O for the radical left).