From Euripides' Blog

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Kissy Kissy
Homosexuals made news this past week by kissing in front of a Mormon temple in San Diego in protest of....two homosexual men who were asked by security guards to leave private property in front of the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. The protests against the intolerant, bigoted, horrific, hateful, spiteful, anti-American, actions of security guards (or was it the Mormon church?) sparked huge waves of protests across the US, such as this "kiss-in" staged in San Diego. (Sign On San Diego)

About thirty protesters showed up. Ten homosexuals kissed. One couple brought a sign.

The sad thing is, there were more reporters than protesters. It looks like gay activists lost this round as well as losing Prop 8. They've no one to blame but themselves.

His Majesty
I don't care that President Obama makes a lot of money. It doesn't bother me that he and Michelle make millions more than I'll ever see in my lifetime. I don't have a problem with him spending money. Obama merely demnstrates the basis of a capitalist economy.

What irks me is his two-faced liberal approach to money. It's wealthy Obama who tells us that the wealthy are too greedy. It's cheapskate Obama, who pays little to charity, who tells us the wealthy don't pull their weight in this country. It's "use taxpayer money" Obama who insists "they - the wealthy" must pay for all of government's dubious solutions to social engineering and fiscal irresponsibility.

Then we turn around and read this:

Mr. Obama and the First Family are planning to spend their summer break on a $20 million retreat on the wealthy playground island off Cape Cod and even seem undeterred that the property is owned by a Republican. (Times Online UK)

Admittedly, Bush spent a lot of his time on his ranch in Texas and Clinton frequently stayed at Martha's Vineyard for free. Those two were amateurs compared with Obama's socialist-statist agenda, anti-rich rhetoric, and hidden oligarchy of the Privileged Few. Obama's rhetoric just doesn't seem to ever apply to himself and his ruling class of czars and elites.

I suppose we'd better start practicing bowing and calling The One "Your Majesty." Does this mean that Nancy Peolosi or Joe Biden is the Court Jester?

Poll Droppings
President Obama's approval rating has dropped significantly in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls. Gallup daily tracking shows Obama edging downwards to the 50% approval. The disapproval rating hit the 40% mark. More telling, Rasmussen reports that only a third of Americans now think the country is moving in the right direction. (Admittedly, Nancy Polosi and Harry Reid do drag this rating into negative numbers.)

In response to his approval disater, President Obama has responded as a true liberal, by blaming someone else - in this case, turning once again against George Bush and Richard Cheney:

In his White House press conference last week, Mr. Obama referred to the Bush era at least nine times, three times lamenting that he "inherited" a $1.3 trillion debt that has set back his administration's efforts to fix the economy....

As he took power, Mr. Obama promised a "new era of responsibility" that would transcend partisan politics. (The Washington Times)

You know the old adage: When the going gets tough, the Left points the finger.

Or gives us the finger, or something like that.

Capitol Woes
The economy and budget in Arizona has gotten so bad, legislators threaten to sell the state capitol building. (azcentral.com) The idea is to sell the building, lease it for awhile, then buy it back when the economy picks up again. The transaction supposedly will put over $700 million into the state budget.

Here's a thought for government. Instead of running money around and around and borrowing on the future, why not, say, balance the budget and make do with the money we have?

Just a thought as I watch the city tear up the street in front of my office for the third time this year.

Hypersexualization
The saddest news of the week came out of Arizona as well. In Phoenix, four boys, aged nine to fourteen, took turns raping an eight year old girl. (azcentral.com) Where is the cultural morality that would have taught these boys to behave better?

And some still argue that the hypersexualization of children has no bad effects? Pornography, television sex, internet access to , teaching sex in schools, condom programs, immodest clothing - this doesn't have an effect on children?

Bull pucky.

Beer Hall Putsch
We've all heard the news about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, the vilification and later exoneration of Sgt. James Crowley, and the foot-in-mouth disease that Barack Obama suffered when he weighed in on the story without the aid of a teleprompter.

In the aftermath, the news media harpies have run up and down this non-story in an attempt to...what? Convince the American people that we are either racist or that we are not racist or that we are both? In the meantime, we have to listen again to Obama tell us how crappy the United States is and apologize for our historical insensitivity. This time, at least he apologized for America to our face instead of to some corrupt foreign leader.

Thank goodness Obama agreed to sit down with the two belligerents and have a few beers and sing Kumbaya. The news media calls it a Beer Summit. I call it and the whole race-baiting episode stupid, egged on by a news media which cannot tell the difference between a few beers and a Beer Hall Putsch.

To Healthcare or Not to Healthcare?
Obama and Congress insist on steamrolling their government-run healthcare bill past unsuspecting Americans before we can all wake up to the looming disaster of socialization, legal obfuscation and fiscal irresponsibility.

Here are some of the week's highlights, tracing the strange journey of a bad idea gone wild.

• Democrat leaders in Congress saw the hopes of a deal collapse, sparking a mad dash to "fix" the bill so it could pass before the summer recess, whether anyone liked it or not. (Reuters) Obama rushed to the aid of the failing bill just in time to blame the Blue Dog Democrats for stalling the bill.
• A few folks realized that the healthcare bill could have an adverse effect on the young, the old, small business owners, big business owners, employees, employers, Health Savings Account holders, and Medicare recipients. (Wall Street Journal) In fact, the only ones who think the healthcare bill is a good idea are Obama and the congressional leaders.
• The bill stalled, prompting White House Chief of Staff Rahm "Ennoodle" Emanuel to promise that Nancy Pelosi would have the bill ready to pass before the summer recess. (NPR)
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stunned the White House by announcing that the Senate would not, indeed, be able to meet the August deadline. (Breitbart)
• During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill. (CNS News) In one statement of utter honesty, the House Judiciary Chairman admitted what Americans have suspected all along, politicians are useless.
• President Obama, recovering from his disappointment in not being able to steamroll the bill through Congress like he did with the stimulus and cap and trade bills, pretended that putting the vote off until the fall was really his idea. (Breitbart) "We won't even vote on it probably until the end of September or the middle of October," he said, apparently forgetting that the president of the United States doesn't get to vote on bills.
• Congress, perhaps realizing for the first time that there is an American people who suspect that Congress was not acting in our best interest, started flinging blame wherever it could in order to misdirect us from learning the truth: That Obama and Congress are not acting in the best interests of the American people with this healthcare bill.

In true liberal style, blame flew everywhere:

Obama blamed the Blue Dog Democrats, then the Republicans for stalling the bill.

Senate Democrats blamed the media for imposing an artificial deadline (The Hill), conveniently forgetting that Obama was the culprit who set the August deadline. Senate Democrats, in a new era of bipartisanship and goodwill, then turned around and blamed the Republicans for keeping them from their August deadline.

Nancy Pelosi blamed insurance companies for the healthcare mess, accusing them of unethical behavior in preventing real reform. (Reuters)

"They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening." (Reuters)

And the Urban Institute "weighed in" on the blame to accuse fat people of draining the system and creating a healthcare crisis. The Institute went so far as to say that food taxes should be increased in order to offset the costs of healthcare for the obese. (LA Times) Hey, it worked so well for smokers.

Once again, we see the true colors of the liberals, when things don't go their way, blame anyone and everyone for the mess they've created. Just be sure to not accept any blame for your own actions.

From Euripides' Blog

I finally met up with the informant I'd been after for two years. Before we met, he would pass information along by leaving rainbow-hued sticky notes to the underside of my Ford pickup. At first, I thought it was a joke, but the information on each sticky note would always predict the actions of Congress with at least a day's notice:

Nancy Pelosi will have her maidservant pick up her dry cleaning at 3:00 p.m. today.

Steny Hoyer will fall asleep during the reading of H.R. 748.

James Clyburn has developed an embarrassing case of jock itch.

Always, the predictions were dead on accurate.

I started writing sticky notes back, leaving them exactly two inches to the right from where the informant stuck his notes, per his instructions. He always answered my notes within a few hours, always finding my Ford wherever I happened to leave it. On three occasions, he left me notes while I was on the expressway from Dulles International.

I decided I had to meet him. I had to find out how he knew so much about future events in Congress. I had to find out what Congress' next moves were. I had to find out how he arranged to attach sticky notes on the bottom of my truck while driving full speed down the expressway.

In all this finding, I had to know the answer to The Big Question.

After two years, he finally agreed to meet me in the parking garage at a high-class hotel in Anacostia. I asked him what I should call him. He would only identify himself as "Shallownostril."

On the forth level, ten meters to the south and seventeen meters to the west of the elevator, I first set eyes on Shallownostril. He wore a dark suit, dark shirt, dark tie, dark shoes, dark hat, and white socks. He nodded once at me as I departed the elevator. I nodded at him in return, tripping on a drunk who had chosen to pass out just outside the elevator doors. I sauntered over to him, trying to impress him with my swagger. He didn't look impressed. So I stopped sauntering and walked the rest of the way.

Once we stood face to face, he carefully set down an obviously heavy, metal briefcase in front of me. I, in return, set down a ripped pair of pants on top of the briefcase.

"Euripides?" he inquired.

"Eumenides?" I replied.

He nodded once and took the ripped pants.

"Does this contain what I think it contains?" I asked, indicating the briefcase.

"It does," he replied. "It's the answer to The Big Question."

We stood in silence for a moment, staring at each other, waiting for the other one to make the next move. Five, then ten seconds passed. The silence grew uncomfortable.

I guess I was too nervous. I broke first.

"Well thanks," I said. "I've got to get home. Haven't had dinner yet."

Shallownostril nodded with understanding. "Yeah, I know what you mean. I came straight over here from work and I haven't had anything to eat since lunch."

"Well. See ya'," I said.

"Nice to finally meet you."

I nodded in agreement and picked up the briefcase. We walked away in opposite directions. Shallownostril headed toward the fire escape. I sidestepped the drunk as I returned to the elevator.

I shook with anticipation as I sat in my pickup truck with the metal briefcase on my lap. Inside contained the answer to The Big Question. I could scarcely control my hands as I reached for the latches to pop them open.

Inside the briefcase was a sticky note. The note was penned in the finely crafted handwriting of Shallownostril. I strained to read it under the flickering sickly orange-green light, broken from its cage on the side of the concrete garage wall. Shallownostril had indeed found the answer to The Big Question: Who drafts the healthcare bill that Congress wants to desperately pass?

The answer to The Big Question took hundreds of hours of research, untold thousands in bribes, and an uncomfortable afternoon spent watching Nancy Pelosi at a local spa getting a body wrap.

Despite the hardship and overtime hours, I have discovered the author of the healthcare bill.

The healthcare bill was written...

I closed the briefcase. My perception changed. My paradigm shifted. My left eye twitched, but that had nothing to do with the answer to The Big Question.

As I pointed my Ford Pickup toward home, I pondered the answer in my mind over and over again. The answer made perfect sense.

The healthcare bill was written by a small monkey who has been fed an exceedingly large amount of gin.


My thanks to Brandon Sanderson whose brilliant writing inspired me to write this extemporaneous piece. You'll find his inspiring line (though with a completely different context than the one I just gave it) on page 341 of his latest book, Warbreaker (New York: Tor, 2009). I highly recommend this and his other works to you.

From Euripides' Blog

My friend Eutychus found this gem from Front Page Magazine.

The chart above is an excerpt from an Excel® spreadsheet released by the White House showing their figures on the Gross Federal Debt, taking into account the current and projected budget debt proposed by the Obama administration.

There are two certainties with this current administration. One certainty is that President Obama will continue to steamroll policy-dictated legislation through Congress as quickly as he can and for as long as he can, or until the 2010 election season puts the brakes on our representatives, whichever comes first. A second certainty is that all of his policies will be terribly, terribly expensive.

Well, there's a third certainty. Obama will continue to support social programs that reflect the far left and not the majority of Americans: abortion, same sex marriage, protected class status for homosexuals, anti-gun laws, neutering marriage. The list goes on and on.

Back to the budget. The most astounding and newsworthy statistic is the growth of the Federal Gross Budget as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. From the end of the fiscal year 2008 to 2009, the projected increase in the budget (this is just the budget debt mind you) is just over 20%.

Let that sink in.

Obama's budget produces a 20 percent increase in debt.

Note, the budget debt approaches, then basically matches the GDP for the foreseeable future. That debt figure counts only the budget. It does not include the deficit spending from two stimulus packages, nor does it include deficit spending that may arrive in the form of cap and trade, as well for government-run healthcare.

The last time we saw any percentages like this was during World War II, when the federal budget demanded increased spending to fund huge military and industrial programs to fight the war.

Unfortunately for us, we're in a recession and the budget spending isn't likely to be paid off in the near future. Or our children's future. Or our grandchildren's future. The consequences for Obama's presidency will be clear:

When the administration finally releases its updated figures, we should be ready for some really grave news. For one thing, they will show the federal debt moving past 100 percent of GDP at the end of the next fiscal year (the previous estimate for 2010 was 98.1%). This year's deficit amount will be revised close to $2 trillion (more than four times the previous record). Should these numbers become widespread public knowledge, Obama's prospects of implementing his costly agenda would effectually go down to zero. His only hope is to hide the truth. The president's concealment effort will be seconded by the mainstream media who will not do a single story on the fiscal ruin for which we are headed. We, on the other hand, will do our best to hold them accountable. (Front Page Magazine)

Here's a clickable image with the spreadsheet data since 2007. I've highlighted the Gross Federal Debt column. You can also download the spreadsheet in Excel® format from the White House budget.


Let's get moving on this folks. We need to tell the White House, our Representatives, and our Senators that we do not want Obama-led budgets that amount to a 20% increase over George Bush's. We do not want any more wasteful government spending. We do not want any more usurious taxes. We do not want the current power-mongers in power.

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

In Nothing We Trust or One Nation, Under Nothing
The Freedom from Religion Foundation folks are flinging their fury again. The group filed a lawsuit to prevent the phrase "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance from being engraved on the front of the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington. (AP)

Doesn't anyone else see the duplicity in people who claim no other common affinity than a non-belief in God, organizing into politically active group with an ideology that has no other purpose than to spread their own hatred of religion? Seems a bit duplicitous to me.

For a group which supposedly holds no beliefs, the FRF sure spends a lot of time, money and effort to prevent even the mention of God in public. I suppose it hurts their feelings and makes them feel oppressed.

Foot in Mouth Disease
Vice President Joe Biden just gets funnier every time I read about him. This past week he said...well...you'll have to read the direct quote to believe it:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.” (CNS News)

The vice president of the United States said that. We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. I just can't make that stuff up and I cannot, for the life of me, pin that statement down on economic principles that make any sense.

What are you talking about, Joe? It's so funny, it hurts.

Pelosi's Not So Popular
A recent Gallup Poll shows that Americans view Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unfavorably and that her position plummeted this past year, about the time of the first stimulus package. House Republican Leader John Boehner's rating shows that a majority of Americans have no idea who he is.

What does this tell us? Well, for one, it shows that a lot of Americans are not on board with Nancy Pelosi with regard to her heavy-handed control of the House. Her insistence to steamroll through two spending bills (or was it three) and the cap and trade bill have reduced her poll numbers over ten percent in just about a half year.

The numbers also show that congressional Republicans simply aren't getting their message out to the public.

Take a hint, Ms. Pelosi. The American people aren't buying what you're peddling.

Take a hint, Mr. Boehner. Who are you again?

Statistically Speaking
In an ever-widening search to produce good news about the economy, the White House is grasping at any straws it can find. Top economic advisor Larry Summers, incredibly, cited Google searches as a basis for confidence that the recession is ending:

The number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels, Summers said. (Politico)

During the same period, Google searches for the phrase "Barack Obama Nancy Pelosi Sex Scandal" was up ten times over normal levels. What does that say about our economy Mr. Summers?

With such Googled wisdom handed down from the White House, is it any wonder that we cannot take government seriously?

Unknown and Unheard
Congressional Republicans are getting hammered with this Brave, New Congress we have which founds itself on solid statist ideals of government control. From the Gallup Poll I mentioned earlier, John Boehner remains fairly unknown and House Democrats have succeeded in putting the muzzle on all future Republican influence on statist-leaning House bills. (Breitbart) Issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, and gun control have been removed from debate.

Is this the Congress Nancy Pelosi had in mind when she said this?

“Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.”

It looks like business as usual in Washington D.C. Now that the Democrats are in power, we've also seen how utterly irresponsible they are in social and fiscal matters. With regard to the spending bills, the cap and trade bill, the social engineering bills, the screw up our medical care bill and the take away Constitutional rights bills, take note of this quote from a long-forgotten document called the Declaration of Independence:

[Congress] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Looks like England's Fat King George was an amateur compared with our very own Congress.

Taking Down Health Care
The new screwing up medical care bill, otherwise known as "reform" is the next in the line of Obama/Congressional abuses to be inflicted on the American people. Here are some highlights:

On page 16 of the first public release of the 1000 page bill, a clause would make private medical insurance illegal. (Investor's Business Daily) This means that people, like me, would no longer be able to choose our own insurance.

Americans who choose not to have medical insurance would be penalized by a tax and forced to have medical insurance anyway.

Small business owners would be forced to provide medical insurance to their employees. The mandate could put a lot of business owners out of business. It certainly would lead to mass layoffs.

The Mayo Clinic that President Obama held up as an example of a well-run health care system blasted the current House bill:

"The proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," clinic officials said, because the proposals aren't patient-focused or results-oriented. "The real losers will be the citizens of the United States." (Washington Times)

Fears of rationing medical care looms over the entire process. Americans are worried that we'll end up like Canada with endless waiting for medical care, loss of coverage for the terminally ill and for the aged. (New York Times)

A Gallup Poll shows that the majority of Americans aren't quite ready to swallow the pill Obama and Congress are feeding them. Considering the pill looks more like a suppository, I can't say I blame them. (Gallup)

As President Obama insists, however, the recent "crisis" to push health care reform "isn't about me. Isn't about politics." (Breitbart)

I'm certainly reassured by that last statement. I'm certainly glad that Obama has my best interests in mind while he pushes what may very well be the most disastrous piece of legislation Congress has ever devised. As long as it's not about him or politics, I'm fine with that.

If It Acts Like Bush
Two news stories place Obama squarely in the Bush camp with regard to the war on terror. One story from the Associated Press tells about a Pentagon planned troop increase in Afghanistan to the tune of 30,000. Didn't we used to call that escalation? Wasn't Afghanistan a quagmire? Didn't we complain about the US getting militarily involved in a country no one's ever successfully invaded?

The second story, largely ignored by the mainstream media, was the White House announcement that it will just have to miss the deadline to review "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay. (VOA News)

This sure looks like a case of "Maybe George Bush had the right idea after all" syndrome.

My question is, where is the outrage from the mainstream media about these policies that buried George Bush? Are these actions all right just because The One Obama is doing them, or is there some kind of duplicity going on in the media?

Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Teaching the Children
Here's an interesting quote from Bob Chanin, general counsel for the National Education Association at their national convention in San Diego. Keep in mind, this is a group vying for power over your children's minds:

"We are not paranoid, someone really is after us. Why are these conservative and right-wing b****rds picking on NEA and its affiliates? (Blog)

At the same convention, the NEA voted to support same sex marriage by using members' dues. They also voted down a resolution to take no stand on abortion instead of using members' dues to help push for abortions.

Why am I, the illegitimate son of the right wing picking on this group? The answer, of course, lies in another question.

Seriously, is this the kind of group we want "supporting" the education of our children?

Years ago I lived in Bolivia. One of the major sources of wool there comes from llamas and to a lesser extent from alpacas. In order to harvest the wool from the llamas, the farmers usually kill and skin it. For the llama, giving wool is a one-time deal. You could say the llama gives up everything to provide wool to the farmers.

I always thought this was a strange way to gather wool, since I knew about the process of shearing sheep. Shearing preserves the sheep which can provide wool for many years. I wondered, why kill off the llama when you could just sheer the wool? (Since I left Bolivia, I learned that some farmers did indeed sheer the llamas instead of skin them.)

We are at an interesting crossroads in the United States. For the first time we have a statist liberal in the White House, a heavily statist Congress, and statist control of the Democratic party. What this means for the country, is that radical liberal ideals have very few impediments in the federal government. Radical liberal ideals include funding giganormous welfare programs, redistributing wealth, punitive taxation, leveling income, and, of course, increasing government control over all aspects of our lives.

Liberals have always sheared the American people through taxes, which raises money for a grossly obese government, controls spending and the society in specific ways (for example, by giving tax breaks to married people to encourage marriage), and punishes certain segments of the population (for example, those deemed to be too rich).

However, with this new administration, the wool shearers have turned into llama skinners. Instead of preserving some Americans to give wool for another day, these llama skinners are content to kill off a segment of the population in order to provide enough money to fund their version of government and fulfill their statist agenda.

President Obama made his infamous comment about "spreading the wealth" during his campaign. In cahoots with Congress, that translates into overtaxing those who make $200,000 (or is it $150,000? or maybe $100,000?) or more. The plan is to raise the top tax rate to 40% and there is talk of a "surcharge" on the rich of 5% to 6% as well. Capital gains taxes will rise. FICA taxes will increase as well for the rich. Corporate taxes take their share. For business owners, withholding and unemployment taxes take another cut. Cap and trade taxes could cost more than 5%, increasing year by year. Health care taxes will add to current medical spending and will grow unwieldy toward the rush into bureaucratic overload (think Medicare). States, forced to an ever increasing demand, have raised their top income tax rates to 10%. Added together, these taxes could take a hefty 70% from the wealthy to pay for the new slew of social and environmental programs at the core of liberalism.

The question remains, who are these "rich" whom liberals demonize as the greedy elite who destroyed the US economy? Who will fund the ever-controlling government and pay for welfare? Are they all CEOs of Enron or AIG? Are they all Wall Street moguls? In other words, who are the llama skinners going after and what is the harm in gathering wool from those who can afford it?

Most of the Americans on Obama's hit list are small business owners. They own and operate businesses and are the top employers (apart from - surprise - the government) in the United States. As an example of a small business owner, I know quite a few printers. Some are very successful and are, according to Obama, rich. Let's say one of these successful printers employs 20 people in his print shop and makes $200,000 a year. Along comes the Obama tax scheme and takes 70% of my friends's salary, leaving him $60,000 a year.

How does my "greedy," rich friend react? He cuts back on spending. He cuts the number of employees, increasing unemployment. He doesn't buy new equipment and press manufacturers go out of business. He finds his "new" salary inadequate to pay for the home he's lived in for 15 years and is forced to move. He doesn't buy a new car and the government has to take over another automobile manufacturer. He cannot afford a new computer, cell phone, iPod, or plasma TV. He thinks to himself, "Why should I work so hard anymore since the government is going to take my money anyway? I can work half as hard and make $100,000 and keep more of it than when I made $200,000." Cutting his income reduces the amount of taxes the government takes in and reduces government income.

Now think of not one, but tens of millions of business owners who will be affected by the statist government tax scheme. The "poor" didn't have any federal tax increases (let's pretend here) yet the federal government has succeeded in killing off small business and, by extension, the economy of the United States. Government has switched from shearing to skinning.

This is the essence of our llama skinning government. In the name of Robin Hood redistribution, the spending and taxing scheme created by this statist government will have a few unintended consequences - it will skin small businesses - the backbone of our national economy - and kill them off.

Write your congressional representatives and your senators today and tell them you do not agree with their radical liberal ideals to sock it to the "rich." Do not let our government shearers become llama skinners. There are better ways of maintaining the economy and funding government programs than having small businesses give up their skins to the government.

Walter Cronkite died today. He was 92. His death makes me sad for two reasons. First, because I grew up with his news broadcasts on television. I listened to him report the first moon walk. I listened to his views on Vietnam. I listened to him when he interviewed Anwar Sadat. He was an institution in the American media and we trusted his calm and straightforward reportage because we knew he was unafraid to tell the truth. Cronkite never had to borow power from brown nosing politicians. Cronkite wielded real power and used it to make America better instead of using it to tear it down.

The other reason I'm sad is because he stands in stark contrast against the loss of real reporters in the mainstream media. Instead of a Cronkite or a Brinkley or a Reasoner we are now inflicted (infected?) with such "giants" as an Olbermann or a Couric or a Gibson. When Cronkite spoke, we could depend on what he said was what we needed to know - what was, in fact, news.

Now, not so much.

Rest in Peace Walter Cronkite. You will be missed.

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

News Flash!
I just got off the phone with Arizona Representative Jeff Flake. He responded to one of my letters regretting that he had missed the vote on the cap and trade bill. He apologized and indicated that the bill, of course, won't get by the Senate so easily and also believes that if and when it returns to the House, it won't get passed a second time.

Thank you Representative Jeff Flake.

G(rrrrrrrrrr)8!
President Obama and G8 world leaders have declared that, with new global regulations, they will single-handedly prevent the world's temperatures from rising more than two degrees Fahrenheit.

The moves were designed to put the squeeze on the world’s developing nations, most of whose leaders will join the G8 for a debate chaired by President Obama today. (TimesOnlineUK)

The new plan includes reducing CO2 emissions by banning all factories, gasoline, cars, airplanes, ships, industrialized farming, electric producing plants, nuclear energy, conservative talk-radio hosts, and sanitary landfills. Russian leaders suggested a shorter term solution by offering to launch the remainder of its nuclear arsenal at the largest population centers around the globe. They sweetened the deal by offering to take out Alaska and Sarah Palin once and for all.

The expected catastrophic drop in world population was predicted to get rid of the pesky humans, the largest producers of CO2 according to Al Gore's research team, mostly in industrialized countries.

Obama told G8 leaders that he had "dibs" on being the world ruler after the cataclysm, should any people besides he, Al Gore and Congress survive the global restrictions.


Boxer Shorts
California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer announced to the world, and apparently with a straight face, that without the global climate change bill:

there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more. (Yahoo!)

That's good enough for me to justify the House cramming through a 1200 page bill, so complex no one understands what it says, what it will do, what the ramifications are, without anyone able to read it, and with only five hours of debate. Let's get that puppy passed in the Senate!

Once Americans cannot meet the tax obligation of the federal government and the US runs out of money and factories shut down and electricity is no longer produced, I'll still praise Barbara for her considered contributions to our global future.

W Is Back
In a stunning move for the hope and change crowd, President Obama admitted in a speech in London this past week, that the war in Afghanistan "has a long way to go." (Reuters) MSNBC Anchor Keith Olbermann felt the president's speech must have been rigged. "We are still unclear how Richard Cheney was able to get access to President Obama's teleprompter," he was quoted as saying.

Democratic leaders who had so carefully crafted their political positions based on hatred of George W. Bush and his continued support of the war on terror were not immediately available for comment.

W Under Pressure
In a shocking move to preserve the Obama legacy from slipping ever more into the George W. Bush camp, Attorney General Eric Holder announced this past week that he may investigate the Bush era torture cases. (Newsweek) While I'm all for investigating past presidents for abuses which they may or may not have committed in office, this particular case smacks too much of hypocrisy on the part of the Obama administration.

Why investigate the accusations of CIA torture during the Bush administration? Because it is a safe bet for the Obama administration since the CIA waterboarding ended long before the Obama administration took power - no "dirt" could possibly rub off on Obama.

Why not investigate Bush's "lies" about the war in Iraq? Because Obama's basically adopted Bush's policies on that war. What about Bush's abuse of wiretapping? Let's see, did President Obama give up that executive power yet? No?

Looks like business as usual in the Oval Office. How's that hope and change working for the rest of you?

Are You Sure?
President Obama said the $787 billion spending package (stimulus) "has worked as intended." (Bloomberg)

Does this really mean that Obama intended that national unemployment levels would creep toward ten percent, the stock market would remain basically flat, mortgage companies would continue to flounder, the government would have to take over private industries, the housing market would stall, and credit remains tight?

If that's how the spending pack (stimulus) was going to work as intended, then I guess it's working great.

It Gets Worse
A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece indicates that not only is the spending package (stimulus) not doing its job, but that the economy is really as bad as we all think.

The recent unemployment numbers have undermined confidence that we might be nearing the bottom of the recession. What we can see on the surface is disconcerting enough, but the inside numbers are just as bad. (Wall Street Journal)

I won't quote all the sordid details of the "inside numbers" but suffice to say that we're not out of the woods. With Congress considering a third spending bill to rebuild the infrastructure, the only thing to say is: It's a shame they couldn't have gotten it right the first time around. $787 billion is pretty large experiment.

Weighty Judgments
Justice Sonia Sotomayor vowed at the beginning of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would old "fidelity to the law." (Washington Times)

Are we so gullible as Americans that we actually believe that any judge can promise personal feelings and ideologies won't get in the way of their judgments? Obama nominated her because of those feelings. Can we honestly think she won't represent the policies of the current administration?

Perhaps not. You can't really predict what a wise Latina woman will do in the Supreme Court.

TOTUS
The Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS) fell to its demise during one of Obama's many, many, many teleprompted speeches. (ABC News) Obama was forced to rely on the one, remaining teleprompter and notes.

This "news" story only proves my assertion that the primary role of government is to provide entertainment and the primary role of media is to keep us apprised of the entertainment. The Great Crash of 2009 was rumored to be caused by Obama's bull hitting the teleprompter screen with too much force.

Unhealthy Care
In the middle of the economic woes, Congress insists on cramming through an emergency health care reform bill. President Obama, anxious to bankrupt the country as soon as possible, stated that he would support any bill that Democrats could force through Congress. (Bloomberg)

This brings up the important question that Congress fails to ask: What is the dang hurry with all of these bills? What is Congress hiding?

Looks like Obama's promise of "transparency" was more campaign rhetoric. What he really meant instead of transparency was obfuscation. Behind the obfuscation is political power strong enough to break the economy and remove the people's power.

There is no health care system in the world that will fix statism.

The Obama Syndrome
In Alligator, Mississippi, population 220, Tommie “Tomaso” Brown, 38, defeated Robert Fava, the mayor since 1979. (Telegraph) Brown is the first black mayor the town has ever had. Citizens speculate that since a black man get elected as president, people are more open to having black people in office.

The real reason, of course, has nothing to do with race, but with Obama liberalism. As Fava put it:

I ran on ’30 years of dedicated service’ and he ran on ’Change’. He promised a swimming pool and a recreation centre, [sic] which he can’t do. (Telegraph)

It looks like when push comes to shove in the political arena, Americans really just want government to give us stuff. Preferably by having rich people pay for it all.

Who will pay for this stuff when the rich people have all died from over-taxation?

Selling Out
In my last Snarky Files I mentioned Michael Jackson's kids being held for auction to the highest bidder. The mother of two of the children, Debbie Rowe, expressed an interest in her "offspring." It looks like she's released her claim on them after getting paid off to the tune of four million dollars. (NY Post)

And here I was all worried that parents and families were devalued in the US. I wonder how much I can get for my kids?

I Swear
After reading much of this, you might be feeling a bit worried or stressed. I've got good news for you. Recent research indicates that swearing helps to make you feel better.

Researchers from the school of psychology at Britain's Keele University have found swearing can make you feel better as it can have a "pain-lessening effect," according to a study published in the journal NeuroReport. (Reuters)

So go ahead and make yourself feel better. I feel your pain.

I can hardly wait to have my email inbox filled with Viagra-like ads for this new earth enhancement bill. There's nothing like a whole new slew of taxes to get us all stimulated.

New research shows that homosexual men and women do not suffer harm through counseling to change homosexual behavior. Though my gay friends won't agree with the source of the claim out of principle, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality announced the new findings in the Journal of Human Sexuality.

"This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality," said NARTH president Dr. Julie Hamilton. "It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists. We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs." (NARTH)

Though pro-gay and worded in the negative, the American Psychiatric Association admits that previous research was inconclusive.

To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. (APA)

The NARTH research is good news for those who find themselves confused about expressing homosexual behavior and who wish to reject homosexual behavior according to their personal beliefs. It is also good news for faith-based programs that reach out to homosexuals who desire to change their behavior. Homosexuals no longer have to feel pressure from gay activists and gay propaganda that they have no control over their lives and choices.

Here's a bit of news that the mainstream media won't touch. Stand for Marriage Maine has collected more than 55 thousand signatures and has stopped Maine's legislature from neutering marriage for the moment. Pro-marriage forces collected the signatures after Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed legislation in May that allowed for same sex marriages. With the signatures, the attempt to neuter marriage will now go to a public vote in November. Marc Mutty, chairman of the coalition supporting the ballot proposal and Public Affairs Director for the Catholic Diocese of Portland had this good news to report:

“There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November.”...

“We look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage. Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine.” (Catholic News Agency)

Support the efforts to save natural marriage and visit Stand for Marriage Maine.

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Maine Marriage
Maine citizens are up in arms about their governor and legislature redefining marriage despite the overwhelming opposition to it. Stand up for what's right and support the people's veto at Stand for Marriage Maine in their quest to take back marriage from the politicians who put self-interest above the will of the people.

Circus Circus
It isn't just me. The media coverage of Michael Jackson shows just how shallow and irrelevant the news media has become. Does the American people really deserve to be subjected to 24/7 coverage of just how dead Michael Jackson is? Do we really care about the family squabbles? Do we really need to know how many drugs the man took? Do people all over the world really self-identify with an aging pop star/recluse/drug addict/inhuman alien?

Here are just two examples of how silly the whole media thing is. Jackson's ex-wifeDeborah Rowe, who was essentially paid $8.5 to have Jackson's children now asks for custody.

The future of Michael Jackson's children was thrown into question Thursday when his ex-wife emerged and won a delay in a custody hearing while she decides whether she wants to raise her two offspring....

Rowe, who met Jackson as a receptionist in the office of his dermatologist, has characterized their relationship as strictly for the purpose of birthing Jackson children. She is the mother of his two oldest children. (Yahoo!)

Now that is a healthy and caring family for you. "Hold on a minute, children, while mommy decides if she wants to raise her offspring." Not that they fared much better with Michael "hold my child over the balcony" Jackson. And people wonder why some of us worry about the future of families and parenting?

The second example shows just what a media circus looks like. The Sun's coverage of the funeral calls it a "macabre circus."

BROOKE SHIELDS rambling, MARIAH CAREY warbling, USHER touching the coffin and the decision to sing Heal The World, all seemed wide of the mark.

Shields' speech would have been apt for an awards ceremony, but not a memorial.

It wasn't the time or the place for REV AL SHARPTON to be preaching about Michael's good work for black people.

Or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee to be reminding us all you are "innocent until proven guilty" under the American constitution. (The Sun)

Sounds like a zoo, not a circus. However, when I go, I hope that Al Sharpton will put in a few words at my funeral that are totally irrelevant to the gathering.

That's Fine
On to real news. If a US Senate bill becomes law, Americans who refuse health care coverage may be fined $1000. (AP) Anyone who thought they could escape nationalized health care, will find themselves basically paying a penalty tax, estimated to raise $36 billion in revenue. This won't, of course, hit poor people who will be on the government dole of health care. This will hit the average small business owner - the ones who cannot afford government-meddled health care at the present. Add this to the energy cap and trade and we have some serious taxing going on here folks.

HELP!
National health care is the hot topic of choice for both the president and Congress. Now that they've destroyed US foreign policy, destabilized the Mideast, kicked up the national debt to three times the Bush years, overextended US credit to the breaking point while selling off US interests wholesale to the Chinese, and have set up the largest tax increase in US history, now that they've done all that, they're ready and willing to take on health care. Here's the latest idea:

According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. (TheHill.com)

First off, whose brilliant idea was it to name that Senate committee HELP? Is that some sort of congressional code word for extortion? But let me see if I get these numbers right. At a mere cost of $611.4 billion, the federal government can extend health care to about six percent of the population of the US? Be still my palpitating heart.

There are two things I do know with all this talk of health care reform. I know I will not benefit from it and I know I will be paying for it. How do I know this? Because along with teaching I own a small business. In all this high-falutin government talk, the small business owner is always the one to get the short stick. Then again, who cares about small business? We only represent about 54% of the work force in the US. Hardly a drop in the bucket.

Microsoft Works Is An Oxymoron
Microsoft is the devil. You heard it here first. Well, maybe you didn't hear it here first if you've had to suffer and curse through Microsoft's Vista, the Edsel of operating systems.

It turns out Google is trying to take on Microsoft. Google announced that it will release a new operating system, open-source of course, based on their new web browser - Chrome. (My Way)

The two can duke it out. I'll stick with Mac OS X and Unix.

Attack on DOMA
The Defense of Marriage Act is under attack again, not for the first or the last time. Now, the attack comes from Massachusetts, land of same sex marriage and the homosexualizing of children in school.

The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004. (Reuters)

DOMA protects marriage by declaring it to be a union between a man and a woman. It also protects state rights in upholding natural marriage. If successful (this is the second time Massachusetts has brought up this law suit), the suit would deny federal authority marriage laws and challenge the majority of state laws and constitutions which also define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The suit claims the following:

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples." (Reuters)

This is all a bunch of legal hooey and a severe misrepresentation of the gay activists' true agenda, to redefine marriage in order to make it meaningless. In reality, gay activists are pushing the federal suit to wrest marriage from state authority and create a federal definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. This is the exact opposite of their stated intention in the law suit.

It's the bald-faced lies in gay activism that really disturb me.

Palin Politics
You've all heard the (repeated and repeated and repeated) news that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will step down from office. You've also heard the repeated attempts to explain her motives, from her desire to spend time taking care of her Downs Syndrome child, to positioning herself for presidential election in 2012.

Whatever the reason she left office, can you think of anyone in modern history who has been so lampooned and vilified by the main stream media as Sarah Palin? Well, except for George W. Bush, I mean? Anyone who can stir up the media like she does gets my vote for whatever she decides to do. Sarah Palin shows exactly what a strong and capable woman can do to improve politics in this country.

Al Bore
Former Vice President Al Gore took his rhetoric up another notch against climate change non-believers. Apparently, we have to gear up to fight global warming as we did to fight against Hitler. It's that serious. (Times Online UK)

If he's going to throw in the Hitler argument, he should take it all the way down the road and be really offensive to those who fought and died saving Europe from fascism. He should diminish true evil and talk about the polar bear holocaust, greenhouse gassing those poor creatures to their extinction. He should compare Cap and Trade to a modern Blitzkrieg. (Oh wait. That would put the US Congress on the side of Germany.) He should talk about how global warming legislation is the unrelenting advance of Stalin's army into Germany. (Since we we're headed toward full-blown socialism anyway, we may as well emulate Stalin.) He should hide the real facts of global climate change like Goebbels hid reality from the German people. (Oh wait. He's already done that.)

Maybe his reference to Hitler is an apt one after all....

Third Stimulus
In the strange and wacky world of Obama's government where there is no time to debate the issues, where a good crisis should never be wasted, where money and debt mean diddly squat, in such a world, what's wrong with another stimulus package? (Bloomberg)

The second spending bill hasn't even taken off the ground and the Obama administration is already talking about another spending package? (Let's not forget Bush caving in to Congressional spending in 2008 with the first stimulus bill to save the banks.) Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President Barack Obama. (Bloomberg)

Even the news media can't keep count of the stimulus money spent and since when are $500 billion and $787 billion "a bit too small"?

Who are these people and what planet did they leave to invade us? It looks I finish up this column with how I started - wondering about inhuman aliens like Michael Jackson and government.

This movie p*ssed me off.

No, I haven't suddenly turned into a movie critic, nor am I planning a whole series of movie reviews, nor am I likely to take up any reviews of Hollywood or movie stars or even famous people. (Go back into my archives and see how many times I blogged about Michael Jackson, for example.) (OK, I did talk about Kim Kardashian once, but I can explain that.)

The simple reason I tackle Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs is because the movie made me angry.

First of all, I paid money to take my family and see the movie. That makes me surly and a bit curmudgeonly, but that doesn't make me angry. I found the movie's storytelling to be laborious and dull. That makes me bored, wondering when the movie will end, but it doesn't make me angry. I found the characterization shallow, the exposition blatant, and the premise unbelievable. That makes me dislike the movie but it doesn't make me angry.

No, what made me angry about the movie is the insidious anti-family message buried within an animated film aimed directly at children.

Of course, this isn't the only movie that's ever chiseled away at family values. Hollywood has no end of such films. The anti-family messages in this movie are hidden and completely destructive of family values. Parents and children could go to this movie and never realize the movie-makers had hidden their anti-family agenda within it. Except the agenda wasn't clever or particularly well hidden.

I should give you a spoiler alert but since I recommend that you avoid this movie, I could care less if I ruin anything for you. Seriously, don't watch this film. Don't take your children. This movie is offensive to parents. This movie is offensive to families.

Offense 1 - Selfish Obsession
In the first Ice Age movie, the character Scrat is funny and provides a cute side story to the main story. In the current movie, the writers seem to have forgotten what made Scrat funny in the first place. Scrat chases after his beloved acorn, only to have it stolen by a female version of Scrat - Scratte. The two fight over the acorn throughout the movie (losing any comedy in the process). Scrat and Scratte finally end up together, the acorn long forgotten. They share a happy time with each other until the end of the movie. In a final scene, Scratte stereotypes a witchy wife who makes Scrat move the couch around their new home. Scrat hates the work, sees the acorn out of the window and, of course, obsesses about it again. He and Scratte fight over the acorn again, Scrat dumps his "wife" for the acorn, succeeds in escaping with it, only to lose the acorn and his love.

Moral: In a relationship, it's all right to be selfish and think only of your own needs above those of your partner. As long as what you do makes you happy, no one else matters. Not even your wife.

Offense 2 - Stupid Males
The two woolly mammoths, Ellie and Manny, are going to have a baby together. When the group goes to rescue Sid the sloth, Ellie is the first to jump into danger, showing how strong the woman can be, then bogs down the entire group when the baby arrives at an inopportune time. Manny becomes the stereotypical man who lacks any common sense or ability and must be directed by the woman or by Diego in order to show any sort of brains. Ellie is saved by Diego who can't seem to quite help out and needs the strong woman to finally get rid of the evil predator dinosaurs.

Moral: Without women, men are useless. This, of course, has been a main theme of Hollywood for years. Will Hollywood stop with this "role reversal" when men become completely emasculated and women dominate? Probably not, since Hollywood thrives on maintaining sex and class warfare as its bread and butter.

Offense 3 - Gay Is OK
Hollywood has taken up the homosexual meme and now feels it is time to promote homosexuality at all levels of film. Ice Age is replete with homosexual innuendo, dumbed down to teach children that it's OK to be gay. There are several overt homosexual jokes. One involves Diego and Manny in close quarters with a reference to sexual excitement.

Same sex marriage and other gay activist issues are addressed. For example, Sid the sloth is written as the compassionate homosexual or transvestite, a man who wants to be a good mother.

Sid finds himself lonely because Ellie and Manny are married and going to have a baby. What does Sid do? Does he go find a mate for himself? No, according to the movie, he's too ugly. So he finds three eggs that apparently don't belong to anyone and steals them for his own children. He wants to be their mommy. The eggs hatch into dinosaurs and Sid spends a day as an incompetent parent. The natural mom of the babies comes looking for her children and carries them and Sid off to The Land of the Lost, The Land the Time Forgot, or The Journey to the Center of the Earth. Take your pick. Eventually, the natural mother comes to accept Sid as mother to the children as well. Sid tells the mother dinosaur at the end of the movie to take care of "our" kids. Mannie then praises Sid for being a good parent.

Morals: As long as we laugh at implied homosexuality, we can allow our children to accept it and be taught how to express homosexual desires. Two moms is OK. Men can become moms. Stealing children makes them your own. Sid finally accepts that the natural mom is a parent as well. All you have to do to be a good parent is love your children - all failures in parenting will be forgiven because love is enough.

Offense 4 - Testosterone Males Are Evil
The big, bad dinosaur who terrorizes the whole dinosaur kingdom is just an overgrown, testosterone-laden male.

Moral: Any self-expression of male strength is always dangerous to the community.

Offense 5 - Family Can Be Any Group
The first Ice Age movie showed three unlikely heroes come together to form their own "herd." The idea could apply to any close-knit group which comes together to create a stronger whole. Ice Age 3 takes this idea and turns it from group or community, to family.

Moral: Any collection of people who agree to be family, is family. Blood ties are irrelevant. Species is irrelevant. Sexual preference is irrelevant. Legal boundaries are irrelevant. Sanity is irrelevant. Through love, any group can be a family.

To say that these messages are prevalent in Hollywood entertainment is an understatement. To place them so blatantly in a kid's film can only mean one thing. Hollywood producers want these messages inculcated into the minds of our children: marriage is not necessary, homosexual sex is normal, sex holds no taboos and children need to be a party in the discussion, men are incompetent, women are superior, family is merely a social construct unrelated by blood relation, gender is merely a social construct, anyone can be a mommy, love is the only thing a parent needs to succeed.

Write Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and let them know that you don't appreciate anti-family messages in their family films.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
10201 West Pico Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California 90035

Mail: P.O. Box 900,
Beverly Hills, California 90213
Phone: 310-277-2211
Fax: 310-203-1558

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

What a banner week for snark! I wanted to take on so much but my editor made me cut down my post to the bare minimum. Such a shame. There was a lot of good stuff he made me take out.

24/7 Porn
Apple now allows the iTunes store to sell pornography apps (Wired). Isn't this taking the accessibility and spread of porn a wee bit too far? Don't people spend too much time looking for the stuff online, that they need it on their iPhone too? Is the world too porn deprived that we need an iPhone app for it? Will drivers now watch porn while driving? Will executives now demand their companies supply iPhones so they can get their thrills during boring board meetings?

Update: Apple announced that it will not sell this app on iTunes. Thanks Apple for holding to standards of decency! (Wired)

Affairs of the Media
Remember James McGreevey, Antonio Villaraigosa, Gavin Newsom, Kwame Kilpatrick, or Jim Gibbons? Me either. What about Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Eliot Spitzer? What do they have in common with Mark Sanford? They were all politicians who had affairs. (Well, all except Spitzer who insisted this week that meeting up with prostitutes does not constitute a "real" affair.) Somehow, when a politician has an affair, we all get a bit overly excited and the news media goes into a frenzy of activity. The real question is, are any of us all that surprised that politicians, who regularly abuse their power, also abuse their marital fidelity? Mark Sanford put it this way:

“I don’t know how this thing got blown out of proportion,” the governor told The State newspaper of Columbia, S.C., after he landed at the Atlanta airport Wednesday morning. (Politico)

If politicians can't keep their libidos under control, how can we expect them to act in the best interests of the people of the US?

One note of caution for all power-hungry, affair-starter politicians: Remember that anything you write on the internet will eventually surface and come back to haunt you. Read the juicy Sanford email conversation here!

Economic Recovery
Warren Buffett doesn't think much of Obama's economic savvy:

While the economy is a "shambles" and likely to stay that way for some time, he remains optimistic there will eventually be a recovery over a period of years. (CNBC)

The key word is eventually. (Did we really need a trillion dollar deficit to "eventually" recover?)

I've noticed that with the economic "shambles" of the economy, Obama and Pelosi still insist on pushing through more legislation that would strain the economy under the best of conditions. Are the leaders of the free world really that blinded by their ideologies that they can't see economic reality?

Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Dodd and Dodder
Senator Chris Dodd is another politician who ignores principle for political expediency. Case in point: This week he gave up any shred of pretending to be a Catholic and weighed in on the side of same sex marriage.

[Dodd] declared he had changed his position on same-sex "marriage," and now calls law defining marriage between a man and a woman "archaic" and "unfair." (Lifesite News)

Now that's a sound basis for changing a fundamental social institution like marriage!

Here's a thought. I think Chris Dodd is archaic. He certainly looks like an old, hardcore, power-hungry liberal to me. And his views on marriage are patently unfair to the vast majority of Americans who don't agree with him.

Capped and Traded
Most Americans know that the US House of Representatives passed a bill to cap carbon dioxide emissions - the "climate change" bill or the "cap and trade" bill or the "Waxman-Markey" bill.

Is there anyone apart from the deluded Obama-Pelosi ticket that thinks this is a good idea? Does anyone really believe this bill is in the best interest of Americans? Does anyone doubt that energy costs will skyrocket and put us all in the poor house? Didn't the House push this thing through a bit too quickly, since no one had the opportunity to actually read the thing? What's in it for Waxman and Markey?

And why is government so interested in light bulbs?

Even the Wall Street Journal is skeptical.

Meddling
When Iranians took to the street in favor of democracy against a totalitarian government because they thought their election was rigged against them, Obama sat on the fence trying desperately not to meddle. He eventually came around to condemn the violence - too little, too late.

When the people of Honduras threw out their totalitarian dictator in favor of democracy, Obama immediately declared the coup illegal.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. (Reuters)

I don't get the warm fuzzies when Obama denies Iranian democracy over dictatorship then supports Honduran dictatorship over democracy. Just what is Obama's plan in all this?

Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

Mad About Madoff
I don't know what to make of Bernard Madoff's 150 year prison sentence for fraud. Compare his sentence with accused child molester, rapist and p-mp Frank Lombard who faces a whopping 20 years for sexually abusing his five year old son. At least the sentencing of Madoff made a lot of liberals happy for sticking it to the rich guy.

Liberal hearts will mend and the economy can now heal knowing that Madoff is behind bars and a rich guy got what's coming to him.

Sorry Soto
Judge Sonya Sotomayor's judgment denying discrimination claims by New Haven firefighters got overturned in the Supreme Court. While Republicans are having a field day with the news, this does pose serious questions about how much Sotomayor could influence the high court if her appointment is confirmed. If Obama's intent in naming Sotomayor was to include a liberal voice on the court (which is precisely the reason Obama named her for the appointment), liberals may be in for a disappointing time. Time Magazine concludes:

Until Sotomayor settles in with her new colleagues, Souter's departure and her arrival may represent a net loss of liberal influence rather than a gain. (Time)

That's actually a bit of good news, just in case you missed it.

Corruption
The last two stories are connected.

Minnesota finally declared Democrat Al Franken the winner in the senatorial race. (Was there ever any doubt considering Democrat power?) This, of course, is just what the US Senate needed to consolidate power - another bad comedian turned politician.

In a related story, the Gallup Poll announced:

A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. (Gallup)

That's a huge percentage increase from last year. Maybe Americans are finally waking up to the mess we've created by electing the most liberal of liberals to the White House, the most liberal of liberals to the vice presidency, the most liberal of liberals as Speaker of the House and then filling in the ranks with Democrat ideologues?

Let's hope the change in Americans isn't too late.

In 2006, three white Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black exotic dancer. Though the three were later acquitted and all charges dropped because the accusation was false, the initial outrage at Duke University was palpable. Eighty eight faculty members signed a statement condemning the three for their racism. The lacrosse coach was forced to resign. The university president kept the lacrosse team from further participation the rest of the season. The three accused were vilified up one side of the mainstream media and down the other.

However...

Frank M. Lombard, associate director of the Center for Health Policy at Duke University was arrested and charged with offering his adopted five year old son for sex acts. Video evidence of his sexual acts exists. And by the way, both of his adopted children are black.

The Duke University 88 are silent on the matter. Duke University officials are silent on the matter. The mainstream media is silent on the matter.

Where's the outrage for a white man who is accused of raping his black child?