Jimmy Fallon strikes again...

Boys Club?

It seems that there's a debate going on about whether our President is a so-called "good old boy". Betcha never thought that would happen, but it has.

Obama's golf pals are all men. So are his basketball pals. I wasn't paying attention to how it all first got started, but NBC's Savanah Gregory asked him in an interview if he thought he shouldn't be playing with a co-ed group (paraphrasing heavily here). To wit, he replied that idea was quote-unquote Bunk.

Well, many talking heads weighed in and people are generally all over the place on it but a slight majority so far have agreed that it is a faux-pas on his part. The idea is that women are once again being left out of the networking circle and out of the decision-making circle. The ladies of The View mostly thought so, except for Whoopie, who just thought it was silly. (Bunk, perhaps?)

Here's my take. I actually think that Whoopie made a good point when she noted that no other President has had to have a co-ed sporting cadre to prove he's a feminist. That is true. And, I really don't have an opinion on it one way or another. To me, it's kind of a non-issue, because I'm thinking that if Obama wants you in those circles, he'll call ya and you don't have to play golf to be wanted. Which is kind of the opposite of the way the Good Old Boys did it back in the day.

According to Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone, who appeared to debate this on The Factor, all the financial deals are being done between Good Old Boys at the strip joint and the steakhouse. At least Obama isn't hanging out at those places.

Actually my apathy about this has a lot to do with my theory that Obama is hen-pecked. Maybe that's not quite the right word (down here in the South we say 'pussy-whipped'), but what I think is that Michelle wears the pants. Most definitely. And while I generally cheer on that kind of thing among the common folk like me, in my President it's not a comforting trait. In him or her.

But let's just assume that he is pecked or whipped. Now, wouldn't he want to just get away from all that occasionally and play with the boys? Just boys? I don't see that as unreasonable. After all, and let's keep assuming that Michelle calls all the shots she can, if there are women in the group, how's he gonna explain this to her? Remember a while back when that story came out that during the campaign women kept grabbing his ass? And that Michelle gave him the silent treatment? Lord knows what would have happened had he been asking for it! I thought giving him the silent treatment for being groped was a bit much. Our First Lady might be the Jealous Type. So, how does he escape all of that, especially since he's also saving the world and all that?

That's what I think. If he wants to get away from all the women who manage his life and his politics, then I'm not going to demand that he do that with more women. I think he's kind of a joke in the situation, but I don't think he's really being a "Good Old Boy". I don't even think he talks shop on his golf outings.

What I Read

The old adage says, you are what you eat. If that's true, then, because reading feeds your brain, you are what you read to a certain extent. At the least, I think it informs this blog's reader a bit as to my political mindset to know where I get some of my brain food on that subject.

So, I thought I'd blog tonight about what and who I read for political info on a daily or consistent basis. Let me just reiterate: I was a card-carrying Democrat my entire life until last year. I now call myself a moderate or centrist, not so much because I changed in my beliefs as much as my party left me, and I do mean LEFT me (literally).

The people I choose to read and the places I read from were not fed me by anyone's list or philosophical expectations. I've found my list by trial and error, meaning I have read a wide divurgence from left to right and quit reading where the intent seemed cubbyholed, stereotyped, too predictable or just plain boring and vapid. What remains isn't written by people ideologically identical to me; rather, be they left, right, middle or all over the place, they make me think and they win me over sometimes.

On any given day, my first trip is to USA Today. My reason: I've found they give the best snapshot of the pulse of America in general and overall. I peruse their top stories and move on.

Next, I usually check out my main Leftist literature: The Daily Beast. I like how they have created their summary pages, which are stories from the Big Box Lamestreamers (WaPo, NYTimes, Wall St Journal, LATimes) and I like reading Meghan McCain's blog which is published there, as well as occasional reads of other blogs. Reading the Beast enables me to avoid HuffPo and Daily Kos in order to get the Left-ish perspective.

Then, to get a bit of conservative with chutzpah, I surf to the NY Daily Post. I confess to a Page Six weakness, which is gossip, but I generally find their take on issues to be a good counterpoint to the Left without getting too far right.

The three sites above usually give me a broad view. My next stop is for a broad stroke of politics. For that, I first go to Drudge and read the headlines, then I go to Politico and surf around.

Then it is on to specific writers, columnists and essayists. Not all of these folks publish daily, but my list includes Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Camile Paglia, S.E. Cupp, Margaret Hoover, Peggy Noonan, and Craig Crawford.

When I have the time or need, I also check out the Times of London and the Daily Telegraph, The Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin, and Breitbart .

Krauthammer's my go-to guy, my favorite of the columnists. I always enjoy Paglia and she doesn't write frequently enough for my taste. And I like the young women columnists Hoover (Herbert's granddaughter) and S.E. Cupp for their fresh perspectives.

Well, there you have it. No matter your beliefs, I encourage everyone to develop their own lists in order to stay informed and help develop where you stand on the issues that affect us all.

Repeat Play-ah

I'm sorry (not really, but it sounds good) for not having blogged here in 6 days, but every damn day I sit down to type and the beef's the same.

It's always something to rag on Obama for.

Now, he may totally deserve it, I usually think he does or I wouldn't feel the need, but that's not the point. Point is, I get so tired of it. How much longer again?

THREE YEARS!?!?!?!?!? WTF?

Oh, jeez, I'm either gonna have to lower my standards to where I like play-ahs and posers...or, I'm going to have to learn to like disliking them  and not worry about seeing America sink into economic ruin due to their policies.

I think either option is an extreme injustice, yet, such is life. Right now, I'm ticked off over a few things, but I'll just mention one now. President Thin-skinned would rather issue Executive Order # We-Don't-Need-No-Stinkin-Freedom-of -the-Press than just suck it up (criticism of him on Fox News). Don't ever believe this guy does not believe his own press. I really don't know any women that vain. Wow.

Let's see, why is he doing this? The excuse is that Fox is just one long conservative GOP talk show, and nothing could be futher from the truth. Anybody who is not a weenie knows the way to beat any negative press is to engage, engage, engage. Put in so many requests to appear on Fox that Dizzy wouldn't see Dean in front of him with his eyes open.

Why won't they just do that? Gosh! Oh, okay, because then they'd have to admit...well, they in fact did admit this yesterday...that it's just the 5pm and 9pm time slots that swing that way. Beck and Hannity. Still, they're not gonna get on there and engage.

Lazy whiners.

Oh, yeah, okay, we took a shot at destroying Freedom of the Press because we don't like being criticized because it's making sense and we're losing support. But it didn't work because it was a cheap shot, but oh well. NEXT campaign-mode dirty trick !

 You know what irks me more than anything? It so reminds me of two little brats in the back seat of the car hitting each other. And as the Mom, I have to referee, and all I hear is, "He hit me first!"..."No, he hit me first!"

And once again I find myself plaintively wailing, "Where are the grown-ups?"

Oh, that's right. We told them to go home last Nov. 8th.

I dunno I dunno I dunno

I really like Meghan McCain, even still after her latest misstep, but I still haveta chuckle about it because she completely stepped in it and frankly it stinks. It was a totally "Oh No U Di-in't" moment. First, she posted this photo on Twitter:

Now, I look at that and see very nice but frankly generic boob cleavage (like I can't see the same or worse after 15 minutes of watching tv or going to my local gas station or mall). I look a little longer and it hits me that maybe she is making a sarcastic statement about her cleavage and Warholian 15 minutes of fame? Or maybe I'm hot for Andy?

But, my reactions were obviously in the minority. Meghie's photo caused so much of a stir on the Nets that CNN's Jeannie Moos even had a go at it and her and Miley, to wit:

One thing I wanted to add was that I say you go, Meghie and Miley. Both of ya. I personally liked Miley's rap message, paraphrased, that she was tweeting about pimples, living her life for people and not moments. This is pretty much why I've so far avoid Twitter like the plague and closed my Facebook account. Heck, I have enough trouble being bossed around by blogging! It's reassuring to know that others find this troubling as well.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

In other weird news, this whole Ban Rush from NFL football ownership kinda just drips with hypocracy, if you ask me. And I'm far from alone here. The double (triple? quad? quint? hex?) standards prompted one witty commenter to poetize:

The NFL and the media doesn't mind--
people who rape or sexual assault women
people who torture and muder dogs
people who are drug dealers
people who are pimps
people who beat their wives
people who commit dui manslaughter
people who owe millions in child support
Yet Rush Limbaugh is just sooooooo horrible.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Climate Change Contrarian, Part 2

The late Michael Crichton's 2005 speech "The Case For Skepticism on Global Warming" to the National Press Club in Washington D.C. (see my 10/14 blog entry) is closely aligned to everything I believe on the topic of global warming and the way the activists approach solving it. Specifically, Crichton says:

~ the summary of this speech is as follows:   Michael's detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease.

~ he admired the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and he is so correct. You should read the entire entry on Moynihan here. Moynihan was so prescient. Among his firsts was promoting both the concepts and dangers of acid rain and the greenhouse effect while in Nixon's cabinet. He also identified the dumbing down of the American public school student (remember "Why Johnny Can't Read?") and also that the Welfare system encouraged single-parent households. That Crichton calls him a hero and approaches his intellectual logic towards public policy as Moynihan would should tell you that Crichton is someone to be listened to intently.

~ he was deeply committed to the environment, considering it our shared life support, but he recognized as I have that our scientists are basing their findings on speculation. In other words, they have left the Scientific Method behind once they continue on to speculation of their findings and then regard them as conclusions. I myself became aware more and more at least a decade ago that statistical analysis and the rigor of statistical testing was being abandoned in polls. This made me very nervous, because science is nothing without these principles and processes. Crichton said that adding the additional subjectiveness of politics has corrupted much of these findings. Were he alive today, I've no doubt he'd be doing 2 things: speaking out boldly about it, and writing a new bestseller about it. He'd do both to alert us and hopefully educate us.

~ I love it that he brought up how everyone in the 1970's just KNEW another Ice Age was upon us...like in the next 10-20 years. Seriously, scientists everywhere were alarming us all, we had to DO something. Well, it's been almost 40 years now and where is the Ice Age? Crichton's point: in 2030, people are gonna be asking, well, where's the Heat?

~ In his speech, he lays out several examples of where so-called scientific results have been skewered by speculation by the scientists or, worse, by journalists writing about the science. It boils down to applying logic, stepping back and looking at the big picture by people who know about the subject. This is coincidentally the main arguments of the many scientists you and I never seem to hear from who think we are overdoing the warming threat.

~ he alludes to several ideas that people seem to be forgetting, like can we now do what's necessary to impact life 100 years from now? His example of Teddy Roosevelt in 1900 not being able to speculate in detail a solution to today's problems is right-on. This means therefore that WE do not have the right tools right now to impact stuff we don't even know will exist 100 years from now, much less 400 years from now (the global warming damage is a 400-year trend).

I've posted here before about, that even if the science was conclusive beyond doubt that the warming was here, was doing damage and would be even worse than Al Gore wants you to believe, who has proved that we can actually reverse it or even materially affect it? We are just urged to DO things, and those things are remarkably close to a political agenda. Hmmm.... This is what Crichton meant by complexity theory in nature, and the problem with applying a linear-based solution to climate when it follows a nonlinear complex function.

~ Crichton also made a wonderful point about, if we don't let the drug companies government-test the drugs they invent in order to pass FDA approval, then why are we letting the very scientists who came up with the current global warming scenarios and speculative solutions test them for scientific rigor? Are you willing to start letting Bayer tests its own drugs? I didn't think so. Why are we just blindly believing all this?

~ I love his section on there being no balance in nature and the role of mankind in it. I watched a very good piece on The History Channel about Niagra Falls' geography and changing forms, and how it is speculated to change so drastically, all because of nature only. Nothing we did. We often lose our smarts believing that nature doesn't change, but nothing could be further from the truth. What if this is the natural way it's wanting to change by raising the temps almost a degree overall? And are we gonna try to change the sun's effect on us while we are at it? Because listen, the sun plays a huge role in all this and last time I checked, it was powerful enough to do its own thing and that thing changes. Yes, even the sun.

Most of what Crichton reminded his listeners in this speech was not very comforting. Remember how Jurassic Park wasn't very comforting either? Science -- pure D science -- doesn't comfort, or alarm, it only records and most of the time does not predict, especially when non-linear complexities must be dealt with. The original 1995 IPCC report conclusively said that no conclusions long term could be drawn. Then it was corrected by one scientist to make it more of a solutions-based report, even when those solutions had not been proven. And that brings us to today. Crichton died only a year ago, so he hasn't missed much so far. This is another reason I trust him. Still another, I think like he did. I'm famous for "Wait, not so fast" or "Let me ask a dumb question" that sometimes turns out to be the disproving point. Something inside my brain sees inaccuracies in logic every day.

Crichton referenced Mark Twain, who said " Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." This is great advice when dealing with any issue, but especially good advice for scientists. I wish more of them thought like Crichton did.

Climate Change Contrarian

Thursday, October 15th is Blog Action Day and this year's theme is Climate Change. I plan to take part in that, but I will be blogging to remain skeptical about our ability to contain CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases in material enough ways as to offset climate change effects. I'll be taking that viewpoint, as the other 99% of participants will be posting to believe and take action. This is why I'll be the Climate Change Contrarian.

I thought I would post a few pre-event pieces and thereby avoid one humongous blog entry. I'll start by explaining basically where I stand after doing a lot of reading and a fair amount of research on it. I've also previously stated that what has happened in our atmosphere and what is being reported about our current atmospheric conditions is absolutely true. Where I differ is in the logic of the predictions of what it all means. And, when I compare what I believe with others who have written about it, I find that my beliefs are very closely aligned with those of the late scientist and author Michael Crichton.

You may be saying, wait. You mean the guy who wrote ER, The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park? Yes, that'd be him.

If you think Crichton was just a writer, you need some edumacation. Checking out his official website would be helpful. While you are there, be sure to read his biography. You will see he was a medical doctor and additionally, had expertise in public policy of medicine, computer modeling, anthropology and human endocrine and immune systems. He understood thoroughly how to assess good research and he knew the perils of predictions based on statistics interpreted by political idealogues.

Also on his website are copies of his various white papers and speeches. One in particular is germaine to our conversation here. I highly recommend it to everyone, especially those of you who fervently believe we must act drastically and comprehensively to save the planet from greenhouse gases, and we should have started yesterday. I grew up being taught that to really know your subject you must know the opposition's best argument, so here it is:

The Case For Skepticism on Global Warning

Read it and come back for a discussion on Thursday...

Lately...

Lots of stuff happening this past week...

First, the Nobel Peace Prize. It was over the top and I can't complain because it was a great chuckle. They are within the rules for awarding it to Obama, and he didn't ask for it that we know of. I'd be really harsh expecting him to give it back. He totally does not deserve it, but geez, what else is new. Seriously?

Second, I have finally made some progress in what I can stomach viewing on MSNBC. I now watch Morning Joe, Dylan Rattigan and Doctor Nancy, and then it is noon. Andrea Mitchell is on next and she makes me ill, so that's when I turn it to Fox FNC.  Martha and Chase, Shep, Neil Cavuto and then Beck. That's my new weekday background noise on the TV.

David Letterman's scandal: I think he should be fired for it, but knowing him, he probably has a contract clause exempting him from enforced good behavior. Criminal charges like were attempted against Clinton? If the shoe fits, but as he and Katie Couric are generally credited with carrying water for Obama during the election (remember their one-two punch hit on McCain?), so they both get light treatment.

I know he's a very bad boy, but Rush Limbaugh's comment about Obama's Nobel - "the  Ego has landed" - was too dang funny. Just sayin... and bad boys are bad, and bad. Roman Polanski bad? No, not that bad.

This whole Leftist defense of Polanski is another over-the-top oddity. Loved Mark Steyn's reply to when Whoopie said it's not rape-rape. Steyn said, no Whoopie, it isn't rape-rape. It's rape-rape-rape-rape. Priceless. Even Bill Mahr actually sense in his firm rejection of apology for Polanski.

I watched the most fascinating debate this past week between Sean Hannity and Michael Moore on Hannity. First off, Moore was utterly charming at best, disarming at worse. I was almost shocked, and wondered why...have I been led to believe worse of him all these years? Because either that is true, or he has the talented ability to morph into different temperments and personalities. I saw tremendous campassion about many different topics, but one issue still puzzles me. Hannity continually hammered him about his millionaire status whilst defaming capitalism in his new movie. And every time he flumbled a response into a nonresponse. He had nothing. It's a very convincing argument for hypocracy. All in all though, great debate.

Song lyric prophesies...

I dare you to read these songs lyrics like you would a poem, and not feel like they were written about our national politics today:

Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.


Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do,
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.


Well you started out with nothing,
And you're proud that you're a self made man,
And your friends, they all come crawlin,
Slap you on the back and say,
Please.... Please.....


Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all,
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor,
'Cause I don't think that I can take anymore
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.


Well you started out with nothing,
And you're proud that you're a self made man,
And your friends, they all come crawlin,
Slap you on the back and say,
Please.... Please.....

Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you,

Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you,
Stuck in the middle with you.

~ music and lyrics by Joe Egan and Gerry Rafferty aka Stealer's Wheel band, 1972.

What's great about America

The following was originally printed in the National Review on September 25, 2001. I am 3 days late commemorating its 8-year life, please excuse.

I am usually one of those who don't care for the average knee-jerk patriotic essay, but I very much believe this one is not like that. It made me think. The point of view in this essay stirs the soul of America.

I'm not sure that as a nation of people we are as selfless as the essay makes us out to be, but then I realized that even if we are not -- even if we meddle, subside, defend bad or questionable regimes in other countries, and we have and do -- this essay describes the fabric of America and how it is really the fabric of the world.

I believe this essay is a good checklist for Americans. I mean, when you want dissent stifled, read this. But I also think the essay could stand to be updated and I might email the author and ask if he has considered doing that. I'm uncomfortably aware that this was written before we began the counter attack on glodal terror, and I am wondering if the essay would change because of that. I know I have changed. I am more of a warrior about defense than I used to be, so the part of this essay that deals with the way we act in the worlds seems too placating to me. I find my reaction fascinating, because I am not alone, and I think it shows what 911 did to us in a lasting way and that it is an open gate that cannot be closed back. What do you think? Email me.

What Is An American? A primer.

By Peter Ferrara, an associate professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law.


September 25, 2001 9:20 a.m.

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper there an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.


So I just thought I would write to let them know what an American is, so they would know when they found one.


An American is English…or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan.


An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them choose.


An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.


An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God-given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.


An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.


An American does not have to obey the mad ravings of ignorant, ungodly cruel, old men. American men will not be fooled into giving up their lives to kill innocent people, so that these foolish old men may hold on to power. American women are free to show their beautiful faces to the world, as each of them choose.


An American is free to criticize his government's officials when they are wrong, in his or her own opinion. Then he is free to replace them, by majority vote.


Americans welcome people from all lands, all cultures, all religions, because they are not afraid. They are not afraid that their history, their religion, their beliefs, will be overrun, or forgotten. That is because they know they are free to hold to their religion, their beliefs, their history, as each of them choose.


And just as Americans welcome all, they enjoy the best that everyone has to bring, from all over the world. The best science, the best technology, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes.


Americans welcome the best, but they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.


These in fact are the people who built America. Many of them were working in the twin towers on the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families.


So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo and Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world.

But in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there. One day they will rise up and overthrow the old, ignorant, tired tyrants that trouble too many lands. Then those lands too will join the community of free and prosperous nations.
And America will welcome them.

************

Starbucks recently unveiled its latest growth path, and I cannot wait. I am finally jazzed about a Starbucks product, and it is.... instant Starbucks coffee that is not freeze-dried (freeze-drying is why most instant coffees taste gross). Its brand name is Via, and it's apparently getting great reviews for its taste. Here is a really good informative review, I thought.

I will try their instant coffee. I'm hoping it truly will taste like real coffee.

In fact, I just ordered some.

I would love to not have to use a drip coffee maker (my second machine recently broke after 2 months and I refuse to buy another one, and have you checked the costs of most of them lately?) or a French press (mine makes a better tasting coffee without boiled water, but leaves gross sludge in the bottom of my cup and cleaning out the grounds is gross, too).  I have tried some of the instant coffee selections on my grocery shelf, but so many are flavored up.

Trust me, I'd love to sip flavored coffee all day long, but after I had to get 6 cavities filled 18 months ago (including 2 hair-line ones that my dentist says were directly caused by drinking coffee with cream in it), I have to limit my everyday intake to black coffee with sweet n low. I occasionally splurge on a McDonalds Iced Latte with sugar-free vanilla, but only once a week or so.

My order should be here October 5th - a week from today. I cannot wait!

*********

Beck-zilla Explains It All

Well, yesterday a little bit defiant Glen Beck explained what he called his "Hillary remark" that he made on Katie Couric's webcast Tuesday.

If you missed his explanation, you can catch up here , here or here.

Being that I usually always ingest Beck with a little skepticism, what he said did not surprise me. I can even see where he is coming from. However, if you thought Beck was not a conservative, he has now left no doubt that he indeed is one.

Here's the one thing:  let's forget his frog boiling for a minute and concentrate on the narrative of his analogy. He explained that Obama has galvanized the opposition much better than McCain ever could. He said to think about boiling a frog. If you put the frog in tepid water and then bring it to boiling, the poor frog never knows what has hit him and he boils. This example has the frog as the American people, the water as The March Into Liberalism (an evil), and the temperature is McCain. In other words, McCain would have brought us to Liberalism so slowly we would not even notice, thereby becoming complacent and falling right into it.

But, Obama supposedly did us the favor of his boiling water of Liberalism and requiring the frog (the American people) to be thrown into said water. He preferred it this way because we all know that frogs will jump right out unhurt.

Ya got that? Yeah. I think there was jumping, but it was Beck jumping the shark.

Included in his near-rant were his very real accusations against McCain: Progressivist philosophy, immigration amnesty, cap and trade support, and bailout funding. I agree with McCain on immigration amnesty in order to get into the system. Reagan's amnesty saved Social Security ten years later, plus it is physically and economically impossible to find and deport them all now. I disagree with McCain on cap and trade, but I really believe he would have gotten it greatly diluted and less destructive if it had passed under him. And I was not for bailout funding either, but McCain has said had he known how badly they were going to do it, he would have opposed that, so I accept that and do not hold it against him because an awful lot of people did the same or stood there like deer in the headlights.

I think Beck has been wrong-o bong-o from the get-go about McCain when it comes to the progressive label. Here's a test: the self-avowed progressive Hillary Clinton herself would not in a million years label McCain one, so Hello? Point of View here. From Beck's POV, BOTH of them are, hence Beck is far-right on this issue. Logic is a hard thing to dismiss. Trouble is, this issue affects all others in his POV. Apparently, if you are progressive about anything, then you are one? That's a flimsy stretch in my book. And, Beck's entire argument about Teddy Roosevelt's "evil" New Nationalism, IMHO, is hogwash. Is Back actually willing to be against child-labor laws? Back in that day? I suppose if one were so rigid that any tiny restraint on business was wrong, then yes. He should be concentrating on Wilson, who not only lied and misrepresented himself while campaigning with his New Freedom platform that he abandoned once he was elected, at least TR saw there could be monopolies that were good for us. Wilson was too rigid. All were bad.

Bottom line on this: Only a conservative Christian aka hard-right aka strict Constitutionalist would still choose Obama and all we have been through. I'm even more confident now that he is pretty much Rush on TV now. He may have some libertarian leanings on a few issues, but I'm thinking those are only those economic issues that Republicans believe in, too, like unrestricted and unregulated free markets. Beck is definitely not a moderate or centrist, and that, I think is his real hate-on with McCain, because McCain is a moderate. If  Beck is lying and he really is a Republican, then he does not want the party to be led by a moderate (too late for that, aka both Bushes).

All of this is backseat to the over-riding importance that McCain would have mitigated Pelosi and Reid better than Obama has. And he most likely would have been a one-termer, but that's a pure guess. Beck's popularity benefits from Obama more -- much, much more -- and I still will bet money here and now if we could be flies on the wall, we'd discover that's heavily at play here.

Which, as I said, not a cause for boycotting him. Just know what you are getting.  What Beck has done beneficial is that he has been a decent substitute for the news media, uncovering information that the Lamestream media has withheld.

It is always hard to coexist with someone who feels as if they should be your enemy, but if you are worse-off alone, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

I have to add, yesterday's on-air stunt and near-rant unsettled me a little. I guess I expect him to hold things together a little better and not be so...rigid. I see him now as less rational. And I feel myself not as open to him as before. Perhaps it is time for me to move on. I don't share his passion for his social conservatism. It's more than a little like I don't share the thirst for Obama's Kool-aid.

In vampire terms, Beck's blood is drying up for me. We shared issues but not loyalty oaths. And when one casket closes, another opens, right? LOL I've been noticing lately that MSNBC in the morning and daytime are getting a little more centrist. Apparently The Bottom Line has won out over there. I'm actually enjoying Morning Joe more than the Curvy Couch Fox Crew, and Dylan Ratigan isn't bad after that. I still cannot stand Chris Matthews so I may stay with Beck for now.

Now that we have that figured out, let me tell you where I went yesterday that gave me some well-loved stress-busting laughter and giggles. I happened upon a site called People of Wal-mart. It shows photos of Wal-mart shoppers, along with the occasional parking lot bumper sticker on shoppers' cars. You browse it by page and it goes on boringly and then all of a sudden, there is a hilarious photo. I'll cut you a break and give you links of some of the ones I laughed at: Oh..My..God, That's a First, All Smiles, Tails, and Tell Us How You Really Feel. Be sure to read the captions, cuz some of them are as funny as the photos. Oh, rated R, probably.

Stuck between Barack and a Hard Right Case

It ain't easy being in between.

Especially on days like yesterday. The first headline I read is that Glen Beck told Katie Couric on her webcast that he thinks McCain would have been worse than Obama as President, and that he might have voted for Hillary over McCain, had she won the nomination.

Those of you who love Beck and share that belief: why do you think that? Cuz I think it's just crazy talk.

Listen, I get that this is what a majority of the hard right wing of the GOP believe. They (you) have an intense mistrust of McCain. I hear it said a lot it's because he is too moderate. I suppose it is because I've never looked at McCain from that viewpoint, so to me he is conservative. I'd like him to be more moderate, as a matter of fact. But when last November's vote was clearly a choice of lesser evils, and now every single conservative Christian I talk to seems to be distraught to the point of Tea Partying about Obama, I just need to know, what the hell where you thinking by staying home on Election Day? Because, you know what, you effectively voted for Obama! Have you figured that out yet? Time's running out. Try to understand that, please.

I'm not just whistling Dixie here. The demographics have now been studied, and they show that had all of you voted for McCain (holding your nose or whatnot), he would be President right now. Yup, that is indeed why Biden made his little verbal eruption ysterday about 2010 will either reinforce or mark the end to all he and Obama are trying to do. They know the demographics, and they have finally accepted the power of the protestors, and they see the handwriting on the wall. If every Republican and conservative actually votes next year, the Dems can be defeated. So now think about what Biden said. It was a reactionary comment to that information, and a call to keep their most liberal supporters loyal and active, because they cannot have any more defections from their base.

Here's a novel idea for those of you who agree with Beck's comment to Couric: quit doing what Rush Limbaugh tells you to. He, like Glen Beck, are first and foremost conerned about their own careers and relevance. Are either one of them your God? No, so quit following them as faithfully as you do our Dude in the Bible. I'm not saying to quit listening and watching. I'm saying, think about what they say with a skeptical mind and remember that their first loyalty is not to you, it is to themselves and their careers.

Although I rarely listen to Rush, I do watch Beck's tv show, but I don't just believe him blindly. I always do my own research. I have to confess that just do not get the logic in Beck preferring Obama or Hillary over McCain. I was a Hillary supporter, but the further I get from then, the more I realize that she was not very different at all from Obama, just a bit less Left. In fact, on a political number line, Obama would be the farthest Left, then Hillary, THEN McCain, basically in the middle-to-slight-Right. So is Beck saying he voted for Obama? That's not illogical to conclude.

How would things be worse with a President McCain right now, Beck? First, it has to be accepted as fact that we would have a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress regardless. This is a statistical fact, because of the races and where they were and who was running. So, we would have had maybe a few less Democrats, but not many. I can tell you that Pelosi and Reid would have been pushing the same things, but the veto pen would be out of ink by now, that's for sure. And since Republicans aren't McCain's best friends either, he might have been able to force them to come up with some better ideas to counter the Dems. Obama has no motivation or reason to do that, none. When bills are vetoed, and when the public weighs in vocally, it forces both parties to work together. Even if the same results happened, we would at least be feeling better that someone up there was trying to govern moderately, instead of so many of us feeling hopeless despair.

Let me just spell it out for you, one more time (since I got cyber-laryngitis last year trying to tell you): the 2008 election wasn't about choosing your ideal candidate, it was about choosing who could best mitigate the effects of Pelosi and Reid in power. Maybe you can see that now, after it is too late?

Now, here is the best part of the what-if McCain presidency: We'd not be having to worry about Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Valerie Jarrett, ACORN, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Communists, Socialists, and Cabinet Tax Cheats.

Man, that alone seems worth it to me. Dang. Think about it. I'm really tired of it, myself. But I will leave you with this. Were we not having to worry about all of those players right now, would Rush and Beck be as popular or as rich? Yep, ya can't trust anyone nowadays...

It's a Mad, Mad, MadMen World

I am a huge fan of MadMen on AMC. It's on Sunday nights at 10 est and repeats through out the week. Third season already, and I've seen every episode probably an average of 3 times each. LOL I like it because it's a period piece and it is intelligent. You have to pay attention to its many nuances to get the full effect, but even if you pay just enough attention to get the plot, it's still very good.

This is how much I love MadMen: I'm watching Oprah right now because Jon Hamm and January Jones (who play Don and Betty Draper) are supposed to be on. Nothing but MadMen could tempt me to break my Oprah boycott. *Update* - it was mostly a yawn. I did enjoy seeing my old Chatty Cathy doll. :-)

MadMen won best drama and best writing at the Emmys last night for the second year. Jon Hamm and Elisabeth Moss were nominated again for best actor and best supporting actress, respectively. I think they had 22 nominations but those are all I remember. The worst part was that episode 6 was on at the same time as the Emmys. I didn't see much of the Emmys, needless to say.

Vanity Fair has an Annie Liebowitz photo shoot with Hamm and Jones, and a story. Haven't read the entire article, but the photos are great. On Tom and Lorenzo's fan blog they showed some of Fashion Week's biggest fashion outfits alongside the photos and it sure looks like the 1960's and the show inspired this fall's styles. Even down to Betty's riding outfit.

Betty Draper's horse riding digs, circa 1963.

Ralph Lauren Collection, Fall 2009

 Valentino Collection, Fall 2009.

Point of Agreement (shock!)

Now I don't want anyone to have a stroke, so sit down before you read further....

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

I agree with the Obama Administration's plan to enforce a limited pay plan structure on the nation's bank officials via Federal Reserve review of current structure.  The reasoning behind it is to enforce proper compensation for ensuring prudent value and responsible sound growth in the banking system. The most cited example of why it's needed, aside from obscene CEO pay scales in general, is the all-to-many cases of bank and financial loan officers approving tons of too-risky loans in order to justify or earn their bonuses and high pay.

Let me ask you: if all public school teachers earned their incomes piecemeal, in other words paid by the passing student, would there ever be any students who failed? Right. This is exactly why we do not tie teacher pay directly to student success, and the lesson should be applied to other professions when applicable.

The current structure (ie, anything goes and to the highest bidder) is simply too tempting to be implemented ethically. The government already has their hand in the banking cookie jar, so while it is there it might as well try to re-introduce self-discipline.

This isn't a stand-alone belief of mine. I think that all executive pay should have caps. At the very least, I believe that any company that pays its executives more than twice the pay of its overall employee pay average cannot then lay off or fire any employees, not any, as long as they are paying their execs so lopsidedly. Yeah, pass that law and you'll see that limit self-induce in a New York second.

Before I explain further, please know or remember that I have over 30 years experience as a tax accountant in public practice. I've done hundreds of business returns and dozens and dozens of sets of books. I understand the history, theory and practice of corporations. And I am here to tell you that they get far more priviledges than they deserve, legally and legislatively.

Corporations can well afford to have some more restrictions. It wasn't always this way. Up until 30 years ago, they did a decent job of policing themselves as related to executive compensation. When the pension tax laws were first written, there weren't any participation or percentage restrictions, because the vast majority of companies played equitably in order to keep employee unions from growing (and because of concessions unions demanded and fought for). It was only during the Reagan-era Congressional overhaul of the pension benefits tax laws that restrictions were mandated. The reason was, companies were beginning to make unequitable decisions. The shareholders-as-God era was beginning, and with that came the out-of-sight CEO pay scales.

So, now, if they won't self-regulate, someone needs to force them, because we've played this era out and we can no longer continue the Greed-is-Good-Gordon-Gecco philosophy. Let me explain the implications nobody else writes about. If a company with 12,000 employees pays its CEO $36.4 million a year plus stock incentives that veritably promote insider trading when it's highest-paid average employee earns $40 an hour, that's the kind of executive pay structure that needs to be limited. Here's what we never stop to consider, if the CEO gets that much, what about his president, 12 vice-presidents, CFO, and department managers? As the price on the top dog's head swells, so then does the little dogs' prices. Pretty soon, you have a ton of money being spent administratively...for what? Seriously. I think the jig is up about how hard these CEO jobs are. As in, they are hard, but nowhere near that hard.

So it's time to re-introduce America to regulation. (That's the whole reason I'm not for Obama's version of healthcare reform. I feel it needs to just re-regulate a variety of things, enforce the existing laws, make new ones...to regulate, and that is all for now, to see if it improves costs and procedures.) Sending a message to America's corporate boardrooms that publicly traded funds cannot be used to buy people would be a step in the right direction, and starting with the bailed out banking industry is the correct first partner on the dance card.

I told ya I'm no longer a Democrat, but I'm also not a Republican with the knee-jerk unfettered capitalism blood in my veins. Nope. As much as I hate to agree with a tax-cheat, I gotta go with Geitner on this. People should be free, and contrary to the last 30 years, corporations are not people. Let's quit treating them better than we treat ourselves.

ACORN Video Not Surprising

But does it surprise you? When I tried to tell you about ACORN, did you think I was just a worrier, an alarmist, or worse... a conspiracy theorist? Maybe even a RACIST?

"Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the red-hot word of the 21st century, guaranteed to silence your thorniest critics in one fell swoop! Position yourself today to be able to harness the Power of Skin-Deep Shame!"

Last year, I warned you about ACORN. I also warned you to read radical Marxist and the Father of Community Organizing Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals if you wanted to know the real definitions of Hope and Change. Alinsky's book is ACORN's playbook, so there are even more little kernels of snappiness and awareness in it. Just sayin...

At any rate, state and federal officials are now beginning to acknowledge that something might just be a little illegally nutty with those ACORNers. That's all we who questioned boldly, saw the truth and spoke want. An objective and independent investigation, and no Census affiliation. No federal money at all is icing on the cake, but we feel that the investigation will reveal the motivation to cut off every government-appropriated cent and that is how it should work.

It was just getting people to do the equivalent of "Oh alright, I'll look at the elephant in the room, damnit." So it's a good start, but it still requires vigilant heat on our officials not to back down if ACORN says they've changed and fixed their problems, because they have said that so many times before and kept on with their bad ways.

One thing that I am very happy about is seeing a new generation figure out methods of getting a hearing for justice when the establishment wants to be ostrich-like. The pimpin' and prostitutin' undercover work of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles was not only ingenious, it was effective. O'Keefe is 25, Giles is 20, and their budget was 1300 dollars, not million or billion or trillion. If you read in O'Keefe's own words what they did and why, and you have read your Rules for Radicals, you realize that O'Keefe and Giles have read it too!

My spirits are lifted by the fact that the moderates, independents and conservatives in this country who are protesting against our government are not backing down, even in the midst of being called racists, violent, argumentative, rude, disruptive, stupid, lemmings, sell-outs, I mean, you name it. If it's bad, it's being used against us. And it will just get worse. We will see people come forward, as they are now beginning to do, and pretend to be social scientists who explain that anyone (or that magical elusive "some" and "certain") who disagrees with Obama is in the end, acting with a racist motive.

Ok, well, where does that leave dissent in this country, then? Last time I checked, that was the First Amendment. I have no doubt that there are racists who are against Obama's policies. It's not only an experiential conclusion, it's a statistical certainty. But it does not then stand that all dissenters are racists, or even most of them. We have just had unprecented, historic changes made and proposed to our government. It is ridiculous to expect no dissent. End of story. Period.

But the bigger point is that dissent is a protected right, still, anyway. Those of us who choose to use it shouldn't have to be labelled so hatefully, but hey, what I've noticed in the last few weeks and months is, that which doesn't kill us is making us stronger. So, bring it on, I guess.

But heed O'Keefe's words:

"ACORN has ascended. They elect our politicians and receive billions in tax money. Their world is a revolutionary, socialistic, atheistic world, where all means are justifiable. And they create chaos, again, for it’s own sake. It is time for us to be studying and applying their tactics, many of which are ideologically neutral. It is time, as Hannah said as we walked out of the ACORN facility, for conservative activists to “create chaos for glory.”

This generation may be ready to take it up a notch. Rather than arguing in each other's faces with the extremely rare violent act of biting off a finger or stealing someone's sign, these kids may act if we cannot get it together. We may be wishing for those town hall arguments. It just depends on what the chaos turns out to be. So far, it's been smart, effective and nonviolent. So far. Still, they got results when no one else could. And for that, they earn my respect and admiration.

Joe said it's so

By now I'm sure you've heard about the South Carolina Congressional Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during the Presidential address to Congress last week.

You know, when he shouted out, "You lie!"

If you are looking for me to condemn him, don't hold your breath. I've been calling Obama out as a liar for over a year now!

Joe Wilson, while not my hero, is in my opinion, someone who has guts and ain't afraid to use them. That's a breath of fresh air.

At the same time, it's a no-brainer that he broke House rules when he did it. His fellow Representive James Clyburn is, if nothing else, completely consistent, and is leading the charge to have Wilson tarred and feathered censured. This is the man who race-baited Bill Clinton in the primary last year. Every time anyone says or does anything he doesn't like, Clyburn accuses racism. What a joke.

So okay, Clyburn, have your little censure. Wilson, take it like a man and get your little rap on the knuckles and move on. Because it is meaningless. Maybe that is precisely why, when Dems did basically the same thing to Dubya, they did not get censured.  I guess Dems aren't even as grown-up as the Pugs. {Sigh}

Nobody Put These Two in a Corner

Mourning the deaths of two great leading men today...

First, Patrick Swayze (this is a favorite photo of him):

Then I saw this photo taken of him days ago out in L.A. with his wife, and it was very painful to look at. Look if you dare, it is very sobering. Pancreatic cancer sure took its toll on him. He was 57, same age as The Hubster.

I guess everyone has a favorite movie of Swayze's. I liked most everything he did, even the often-panned Grandview, USA he starred in with Jamie Leigh Curtis. Then there was the other movie of his considered a bomb: Red Dawn. I liked that movie a lot...Wolverines! It made a big impression on me at 28 in 1984, because even though I had been in my share of bomb shelter fire drills under my desk as a schoolkid, I'd never before really thought about what it would be like to be invaded by an enemy. Red Dawn brought that home to me.

So, the next year when he played Orry Main in the TV mini-series North and South, I was in looooooovvvvvve. OMGawd. For me, it was Nick Nolte's Tom in Rich Man, Poor Man in the 70's and Swayze's Orry in the 80's that defined awesomeness for a television mini-series. He was perfect in that role and America began to take notice.

Then came Dirty Dancing. Nothing I can say that hasn't been said, except that he made Jennifer Gray sexy. No small task, as she was Jewish cute at best. When Ghost came out in 1990, he was set as a major star, and he made Demi Moore sexy-sensual, not just sexy-cute like she was in St. Elmo's Fire. He also played a great straight-guy to Whoopi's Oscar-winning role. Suffice it to say he made both his leading ladies classy in his presence.

After Ghost, he battled addictions and rehab, but managed to hang in there and give us two more of his best performances: as the awesome, awesome, awesome, did-I-say-awesome surfer-bank robber Bodhi in the ultimate xtreme sport action movie Point Break (with an also awesome Keanu Reeves in his first big break role). For those of you who have never seen this movie, I feel sorry for you. The photo above is Swayze as Bodhi. Here's another:

Oh, man. Hubba hubba and great acting, too. Plus, check it out: Swayze was the better surfer of the two, despite being 12 years older. Yes, they did their own stunts. Ya just gotta rent it if you haven't seen it.

The other great performance was as the sweet and graceful drag queen Vida in To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. Wow, what an amazing cast in that movie, and several of them were standouts. Still, Vida tends to be everyone's favorite. Even Roger Ebert's, who remarked that Swayze made a pretty nice looking woman. What do you think?

Swayze, a Houston native who graduated high school with actress Shelley Duvall, was in my opinion a pretty good actor when given decent material who put 200% into every role he played and made several less than decent roles presentable. I believe that he was vastly underrated because of his chick-flick roles, much like a beautiful woman is never believed to be a brain. Those of us who liked him, however, know the truth of his talent.

We also lost actor and Broadway star Harve Presnell this week. Younger fans will know him as the SOB father-in-law in Fargo, or Mr. Brooks in Dawson's Creek. But those of us who grew up watching the color musicals of the 50's and 60's will remember Presnell as Debbie Reynolds' husband Johnny in The Unsinkable Molly Brown movie (as well as on Broadway opposite Tammy Grimes), and in one of my favorite movie musicals, Paint Your Wagon, he sings the song They Call the Wind Mariah (as in Carey, and I betcha $10 bucks that's where her mom got her name from...just went to check and I am correct...yes!). 

Presnell then starred as Daddy Warbucks in Annie on Broadway and in between Fargo and Dawson's Creek, he appeared in the movies Saving Private Ryan, The Legend of Bagger Vance,  Flags of Our Fathers, Face/Off, Patch Adams and Old School. He was 75.

I remember when I first saw Presnell sing Mariah in Paint Your Wagon. I was awed by his rich baritone voice, but I was stubborn in my insistence that was Howard Keel. In fact, the two actors looked like brothers. Here's Keel young and old:

Not only did Harve and Howard look alike, their singing voices were alike, too. Both were rich, deep baritones. I had known Keel from movie musicals like Annie Get Your Gun, Show Boat, Calamity Jane, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Kiss Me Kate. Later on, he was Miss Ellie's 2nd husband on TV's Dallas.
But I digress. We are here to remember Harve, not Howard. I think it is a compliment to mistake Harve for Howard; that is how good Presnell was in musicals and then later on as a straight dramatic actor. Both Presnell and Swayze did their vocation justice and had many fans worldwide. They both loved to work and were complete professionals at it. Their deaths are our loss. God speed, gentlemen. May you sing and dance all you want to now.

More Than I Thought

It was brought jarringly home to me Saturday that some of the media really are covering up news and slanting what they do report in favor of the Obama Administration.

Saturday was the nationwide 9/12 protests and march on Washington, DC. By Saturday evening the internet was a-buzz with rumblings that the likes of NBC, ABC and the New York Times were estimating the DC crowd at 60-70,000 (most sources settled on reporting "tens of thousands"), yet when the DC National Parks Service (whose responsibilities include handling events like this) was asked how many came, this response came from spokesman Dan Barna:

"It is a record.... We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."

Oh my God. Seriously? Ever? That includes the 1963 March on Washington. That includes Obama's inauguration.

DC participants were reporting that event was forced to start a couple hours EARLY because there were too many people gathered at the kick-off point, and that is a first. They also reported that the Metro train system was running every 20 minutes all day long that were constantly full and reminded the DC residents of weekday rush hour on steroids.

Once again, internet bloggers were carrying out investigative legwork that only a year ago was routinely done by the mainstream media (msm). I know the msm had dropped the ball during other stories, but seeing this one worries me for real.

I mean, what if something really big and dangerous and scary and necessary for us to know in order to safe our own lives comes up. Should the msm be trusted to alert us, in no uncertain terms now? Cuz I mean, what if us knowing this horrible thing would be troublesome for the Obama Administration? Add that to the hypothesis and see if you have 100% trust in your msm of choice (or even the same level of trust you had in them a year ago).

This is pretty much the same way I lost belief in anything Obama says anymore. Things would be pretty bleak, except for the knowledge that there are a lot of other folks who see it like I do. Whether the msm admits it or not.

Always Remember

On 9/11:

On 9/12: 

The Week in Review

Emails, I get 'em. Probably 80% supportive/agree, 15 % disagree civilly and 5% Nutcase. I love 'em all, keep 'em coming, please. And now, everyone who reads me can sign up (see my sidebar at right top) to get my blog posts in your email inbox. It's a new thing I am trying out to see if it's helpful to you. Since it's new, if it doesn't work right in any way, please let me know, so I can fix it, okay? THANKS!

Moving right along...My, my, my, lots happening in our national politics lately.

1. Van Jones, the Green Czar (who's a self-professed *Red*, as in Communist) resigned Sunday at the stroke of midnight and blamed his departure on being pushed out by a smear campaign of lies and hatred. No names on the campaigners, but it is generally assumed that would be Glen Beck, since no other media channel but Fox has been covering Jones' escapades in any depth. I've watched Beck every day and heard all of the questions he raised about Jones, and while the Left would have us think Beck is Rush on TV, 95% of what Beck has presented has been in Jones' own taped and written words. It really boils down to whether one thinks a radical activist can do a fair job implementing Cap and Trade if it becomes law. I can look the other way to a point that he called Congressional Republicans "assholes" in a public meeting. I can even discount somewhat him signing the 911 Truther petition, although prior to his apology for that last week, he lamely tried to say he hadn't read the fine print on it and to me that was almost worst, as in playing us for fools, a stunt I figure he would likely pull again had he gotten away with it. What gets me is that he and those who he works for think it's fine to be a Communist and large in charge. I draw the line at that.

It bothers me that Obama's Gal Friday, Valerie Jarrett is on video saying "they" just love Jones and his work and what he stands for, and "they" have been watching him for a long time. Apparently, "they" includes Michelle Obama and probably then, by deduction, President Obama. And, they all vacationed together this summer. I know it's a stretch to deduce it, since our chief executive can sit in a pew for 20 years and not notice that his pastor is a racist and a race baiter, but I think it's important enough to make the leap.

So, it must be okay with them to appoint Communists to Cabinet-level jobs? Not in my world. And, shouldn't all Czars be properly vetted?

Trust me when I say I hate to bring this back up again, but it's the Donkey in the Room: this reminds me of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. This is nothing to worry about, I'm sure Obama would say...again. So, excuse me while I continue to not believe a fricking word our President says.  If you feel something covering up your eyes, that's probably wool, okay?

2. Obama spoke to the nation's schoolchildren yesterday, after much ballyhoo and protest from the citizen heartland. It's fair to say that the details of it changed as the protests escalated. At first, the administration was furnishing a lesson plan (against the policy of the Dept of Education before now, by the way) that included the assignment to have the kids write an essay describing how they could help Obama. Say what? That right politicized it. So, all the flack Obama got was deserved. 'Went too far' would be an understatement. Stupid? Or Conniving and Caught? You be Da Judge. I just wanna know, if this was all innocent, why does Obama have to do things so differently than before, if it's the same as before and nothing to worry about?

In the end, the speech ended up being a good one for the kids, although I continue to believe he's not yet said Word One to students like my daughter, a great student and high achiever. And once again, the Heartland voices of "mob" dissent had to reign him in from an over-reaching intent. Still, his final version ended up being similar to those of our previous Presidents, which is how it should be.

3. Obama will address Congress tonight in a speech on network TV and the subject will be the health care bill. You know I'll have to force myself to listen, but hey, there is a chance that he might actually explain well enough just what he supports and wants in a bill, or maybe explain well enough what is in the bills being considered. I say "explain well enough" because most people I talk to cannot figure that out, even if they have researched it.

There seems to be undertones of expectations that if he doesn't turn things around with this speech, the bill -- and maybe he -- is done for. I'd never bet on that happening because I think if he still has 5% of the people's support, he'll keep on doing what he's doing. Seems like it was years ago instead of a month or so ago that Team Obama was encouraging citizens to snitch on each other if they knew people who were perpetuating "fuzzy" info on his healthcare legislation.

And you wonder why someone out in Middle America or Any America might be suspicious of his school speech when he originally wanted to indoctrinate kids to help enact his policies? And that'd be on top of possibly being labelled a mobster or domestic terrorist for attending a town meeting and speaking out in dissent.

I don't know, maybe I'm hoping he will be different, because if it's another "teaching moment" like his Rev. Wright speech, I may just hurl. Did you know that his approval ratings went up a little bit during the time he was on vacation and not giving speech somewhere?

To me, the fatal part of this legislation was letting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid create it. Why hasn't Obama steered this with a stern firm hand from Day One if it is his centerpiece legislation? Sometimes I think we have an actor who answered a casting call as President.

Personally, I would like to see healthcare reforms. They just are not in this bill. So, I anticipate a little nap tonight, unless I hear something shocking like the Dems would be willing to take on tort reform.