Politics in Moderateland

2009-01-12T10:57:00.001-08:00

Some quick post-Golden Globes thoughts:

You KNOW I hate the Golden Globes, so I couldn’t let the most recent abomination pass without some commentary. OTOH, Wifey lurves the Globes, so this made for an interesting night in front of the new HDTV.

- Hollywood (liberal) + Foreign (liberal) + Press (liberal) = painfully, predictably LIBERAL

- Anytime “30 Rock” was up for an award, it would win. Not because it’s any better than any other show, but because the Hollywood Foreign Press wants people to watch it. Seriously, if it was really good, it wouldn’t be the 7634th rated show.

- And, Tina Fey, try to get it through your overrated, scarred Tootsie Pop of a head; with the slavish adulation of your peers and the liberal media, comes unwanted, unwelcome attention from people who don’t think you deserve it. If you can’t hack it, go back to Weekend Update, and the anonymity that came with it.

- Ricky Gervais was just what was needed. A person who didn’t take himself or the entire bloated extravaganza seriously. “Kate… didn’t I tell you that if you do a Holocaust film, the awards would come?” Priceless.

- Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie really need to take their posse of Cambodian slaves refugees, and go away. We know you think you’re very important. We know you think you’re changing the world. We get it. Now go away.

- Tight buns in dresses = good. Tight buns in hair = not so good. Maybe some of the older women are using the hair buns to pull wrinkles tight, but it looks like they’re all ready to split their facial skin like Vincent d’Onofrio in Men in Black.

- Is Shirley MacLaine still alive? After seeing her in the audience, I’d have to say “No”.

- Heath Ledger’s victory was as predictable as “30 Rock”. Uh, he WAS excellent in “The Dark Knight”, and probably deserved the award. But to claim he had a “legacy” or an “incredible place in the history of cinema” was overstating his accomplishments by, I dunno, a ZILLION-FOLD. Unless, of course, you consider stupid, irresponsible use of prescription drugs and alcohol to be “incredible”. Most actors consider that “Saturday”. Hell, Mickey Rourke calls that “lunch”.

2008-11-13T10:41:00.001-08:00

Odd that nobody seems to be talking about this latest fiasco from our completely corrupt and financially incompetent friends in Congress led by the botox-riddled corpse of Nancy Pelosi.

Another bailout. Except this isn’t for an important part of the financial infrastructure, nor is it for an industry that has been over-regulated by Congressional acts and presidential ineptitude. NO, this is purely as a political favor for the U.S. automakers; a group that has long resisted modernization, demanded protection from better managed foreign companies, and continually pumped out inferior products.

This will be an interesting test of the nascent Obama presidency. Clearly, the Pelosi-led Democrats are floating this bailout balloon to see how Obama reacts. If he’s going to be a presidential ATM for Congress, he’ll approve it without a second look. If he’s going to start out to be a slave to the polls, he’ll bide his time and make non-committal public statements about “looking into the issue”. Or if he might say “Enough is enough” and squelch this obvious political kickback.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone outside of Michigan or Capitol Hill actually thinks this bailout proposal is a good idea. Obama is around my age, so he surely remembers when the Japanese car manufacturers squeezed into the US market and quickly proved how archaic and antiquated American car manufacturers really were. Toyota, Datsun/Nissan, and Honda cars were better, more reliable, and more economical than the dinosaurs produced in Detroit.

Rather than actually IMPROVING their cars, the US automakers have long argued for protection from the Japanese in the form of tariffs. Consumers can see through this and have been willing to pay a premium for the better cars. But now Congress is not considering tariffs, they’re actually considering just a straight, no-strings-attached, taxpayer-funded DONATION to these corporate troglodytes.

Kind of a nice perk, don’t you think?. Run an entire industry into the ground with decades of incompetence and get a big check from the taxpayers.

Listen, I can understand propping up the banking industry. We don’t want a run on the banks to expose the fact that our currency is essentially an illusion. We don’t want the world economy to come to a screeching halt because the dollar collapses. I got that when I took Macroeconomics in my freshman year. Plus, a lot of the problems can be attributed to some government programs that failed. Fine, I GET IT.

But Ford, GM, and Chrysler? Those are businesses that could disappear TODAY and have no effect on the worldwide economy. People would just buy Toyotas and Nissans and Hyundais and Hondas and Mercedes and Volvos and Saabs and BMWs . Pretty much like we’ve been doing for the last 30 years.

Nancy Pelosi must be stopped! And Obama will hopefully be the guy who stops her.

2008-11-06T16:23:00.001-08:00

OK, now that the dust is settling on the election and the media is already cooling on their anointed one, I’m ready to give the President-elect a chance to prove that he won’t be a socialist lapdog for Nancy Pelosi. But other matters are more pressing than even our faltering economy.

The Russians are already posturing with new weapons.

Israel and Palestine have already abandoned the cease-fire.

Kim Jong-Il might be dying. And dying insane dictators with nuclear ambitions tend to want to go out with a bang.

All you Americans that thought the economy was going to be the biggest problem for Obama were wrong. It’s international relationships, whether the “war on terror” or the new Cold War or the perpetual unrest in the Middle East or the rapidly deteriorating situation in China and Korea.

These are life and death.

The economy is just fucking money. Comparatively, no big deal.

There are already rumors that John Kerry is politicking to become Secretary of State. Oh, good lord, don’t let it happen. I would rather see Bill Clinton get the job. Granted, he might take huge bribes speaking fees for each appearance, but at least he wouldn’t be laughed at for being a complete douche. Do even Democrats consider Kerry to be a suitable representative of the country at this point?

Put Colin Powell in. Now. Gain whatever international cred we lost during the Bush years.

The economy can wait. Seriously.

2008-11-05T10:51:00.001-08:00

Welcome to Day One of the Welfare States of America!

Now that the American people have overwhelmingly shouted their love of government financing for everything and handouts to the ineffectual and useless, it’s time to put down our cardboard signs asking for food and/or money… and celebrate!

Once again, my fundamental faith in the stupidity of the American voter has been proven to be gospel as the media-worshipping sheep successfully voted in a Senator who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his two years of active Senate service, except for publishing two autobiographies.

Congratulations to the Obama machine, CNN, CBS, CNBC, ABC, and all of Europe. The media’s unprecedented adoration of your candidate resulted in the most lopsided media coverage since… well, ever. And we all learned another fundamental truth about the American people: they will believe what they see on television. And this might ultimately be the lesson that the world takes from this debacle.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." – Ben Franklin

Other thoughts on this post-election day:

o Sun came up… check. I’m relatively healthy… check. Wife and kids are healthy… check. Work sucks… check. Life goes on.

o OK, like I said before, I really don’t care if gays get married, but the law is the law. Gay marriage has been voted down TWICE in California, of all states! Take a hint, people.

o The amazing thing is that Proposition 8 lost in a state where Obama completely obliterated McCain 61%-37%. Even if one assumes that every single McCain vote = a “Yes” vote, that means about a quarter of the Obama supporters joined them in voting against gay marriage. Think about that. Oh, and I know at least one person who voted for McCain and against Prop 8.

o Equally amazing is the overwhelming success of Prop 2, what I call the Chicken Liberation Act. Apparently, chickens and pigs in California felt neglected and cramped in their cages before they were slaughtered to make delicious KFC buckets and yummy bacon slabs. So, in an appeal to the bleeding hearts, pictures of chickens in itty-bitty cages were shown as evidence of the cruelty towards our future meals, and it worked.

Now, here’s where it becomes pretty clear that these liberal whiners don’t think things through. What do you think will happen to those chickens now? Do you think that the chicken and livestock farmers will suddenly spring for chicken condos and pig apartments to follow the law? Or do you think they’ll just pack up their undersized coops and pigsties and mosey on over to a less humane state? One thing for sure, the price of those whole fryers just got a whole lot higher. And not one single chicken was spared. Imagine that.

o Last night on HBO, I watched a documentary about the US Olympic Hockey team’s transcendent Gold Medal victory in 1980. They pointed out just how far down America was during the financially disastrous Carter administration with double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Cold War, and a nationwide malaise. And they pointed out how this scrappy band of hockey unknowns was needed to raise the spirits of an entire nation by beating our mortal enemy of the time, and the best hockey team in the world, the USSR.

So, watch out for the US Diving Team against the Chinese in 2012!!

o Nancy Pelosi won her seat in the House of Representatives. Considering she oversaw the biggest financial collapse in 80 years, her re-election shouldn’t have been so easy, but San Francisco liberals are funny that way.

o Al Franken is neck-and-neck in Minnesota to be elected to the Senate. HHH, Mondale, Jesse the Body, and now Al Franken? What…, was Joe Piscopo busy?

o Just so you know, I received at least two write-in votes for Vice-President.

One last plea for sanity...

2008-11-03T10:59:00.000-08:00

OK, I'm just going to say this one more time.

George W. Bush has not been a very good president and probably deserves most of his bad press and dismal approval ratings.

Congress has also been abysmal and deserves their bad press and dismal approval ratings.

Why would people re-elect their liberal (and conservative) Congresspeople then? Shouldn't the House flip over completely?

And why in God's name would people want to elect a rubber-stamp Presidential/Congressional pairing when nobody likes Congress to begin with?

Whatever happened to checks and balances?

Anyone who votes for an incumbent Congressperson and Barack Obama is an idiot. If you think the economy was FUBAR under Bush (and it was), it'll be 1,000 worse with a spend-happy Congress and a liberal rubber-stamp President.

If all of the rhetoric about "change" was legitimate, there's no way in hell you should be re-electing the Pelosi's and Frank's of the world. In other words, anyone who votes for Obama in the name of change, and still votes to re-elect their incumbent (whether liberal or conservative) is a hypocrite and/or an idiot.

2008-10-06T16:09:00.001-07:00

Here’s something that’s been bugging me (among other things)…

OK, we all agree that GW isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and that the War in Iraq was ill-conceived and mostly mismanaged….

And, we all agree that this whole financial cluster fuck is a bad thing, with the banks collapsing and the stock market tanking…

But why is everyone putting the economy on Bush’s back, when it’s CONGRESS that screwed up the banking regulations and put the Community Reinvestment Act on the books? If Bush is to blame for the War in Iraq, isn’t Congress equally culpable in the financial collapse and subsequent bailout?

So… we know Bush is out of a job in January… Shouldn’t we boot EVERYONE out of Congress, including the Democratic majority? After all, the financial collapse occurred under THEIR watch. Just as much as 9/11 occurred under Bush’s watch.

Am I the only person who notices the discrepancy in how the media handles these situations?
Am I the only person who notices that the liberals are horribly inconsistent in how they place blame in the case of a crisis?

Am I the only person who asks himself rhetorical political questions?

2008-09-19T11:05:00.001-07:00

Here’s a question that bears asking half the electorate:

Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world, full of freedoms and liberties and technologies and opportunities that the rest of the world envies?

If the answer is “Yes” (and it should be), why would we vote for “Change”?

2008-03-12T13:12:00.000-07:00

What’s worse?

a) Chief Executive of a state paying for sex from a prostitute who is earning a living…

Or

b) Chief Executive of a country sexually harassing an intern ostensibly working for him?

Or

c) Chief Executive of a state sexually harassing a state employee ostensibly working for him?

The guy in (a) is resigning. The guy in (b) and (c) is running for his third term in the White House.

God Bless the Democrats.

Only they could take the most easily won election in recent memory... and screw the pooch.

For those incapable of connecting the dots, this little peccadillo will re-invigorate discussions of sexual escapades from lecherous public servants. Which will lead to more discussions of how completely immoral the Clintons are...

How many democrats does it take to screw up a slamdunk election?

2008-03-07T13:38:00.000-08:00

Ahahahahahaha!

I’m pleased to say that the Democratic party is every bit as stupid and shortsighted as I thought they were. After Super Tuesday Redux tilted the board back over to Hillary’s side, the Democrats assured themselves of a colossal cluster fuck of a fight for the nomination. With Hillary just slightly behind Obama, all they gained for their time and money was an increasingly negative campaign, which gladdens Republican hearts everywhere.

And the Democrats only have themselves to blame for the entire mess. Here you have a desperately ambitious political tiger (Hillary) chasing down a free range gazelle (Obama) in the open field. Now, with the delegate momentum behind her, you’ve basically tied a raw steak to the gazelle’s tail. She smells blood and will come out trying to rip out Obama’s heart. Expect increasingly vitriolic rhetoric from the tiger, possibly attacking the gazelle’s soft underbelly, AKA his wife.

For her part, Michelle Obama continues to say the wrong things to the wrong people espousing the wrong ideas. This is a NATIONAL campaign and she is promulgating rhetoric targeted to her husband’s base. THEY ALREADY LIKE HIM! All she’s doing is alienating the moderates and the possible crossover voters with her "America is mean" pablum.

Even so, the Democrats have exacerbated this infighting by playing semantic games with delegate rules and primary dates. Michigan and Florida delegates aren’t being counted by the Democrats because of some arcane scheduling issue. Super Delegates are the 2008 buzzwords, with most of the power in their hands. Given Clintonian history, most of those will end up in Hillary’s column, which can only hurt the party.

When Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans will have a field day with the entire nomination process, pointing to the machinations of a power-hungry shrew who began pulling strings for her own presidency as soon as her horndog of a husband took office. It stinks of cronyism and manipulation, from a party that purports to be of the people.

When Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will have a field day simply by using Hillary’s ads leading up to the primary. She’s been the Republican’s most effective campaigner, resorting to slash-and-burn politics to gouge at the pristine Obama image. Two weeks ago, people were speculating about her (hoped for) graceful exit from the race. Now, with the scent of blood in her pinched little nostrils, she is clawing and scratching at the Obama exterior and voters will remember all these scars come November.

In 2004, Bush was re-elected because the Democrats were stupid enough to put an empty suit up as their standard bearer. "I’m not him" proved to be an ineffective campaign slogan for Kerry. I really can’t remember anything else he said.

In 2008, McCain will be elected because the Democrats will be stupid enough to allow their two standard bearers to rip each other to shreds just to get the nomination. Rather than an empty suit, the Democrats will nominate a bloody mess. And they’ll curse the American public for not electing their candidate, when it’s really their fault for not choosing their poison months earlier.

2008-02-12T11:26:00.000-08:00

I’m trying to wrap my head around the possibility that the Democrats would be stupid enough to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket as their Presidential candidate. I honestly can’t fathom that any group would be so shortsighted and idiotic to present such a divisive, unelectable person as their standard-bearer. But here they are.

On some level, I can excuse their hatred of George W. Bush and his various questionable policies and actions. This hatred has mobilized and energized the left who now have two putative candidates, both of whom represent a stark contrast to the likely Republican candidate. So, if both Clinton and Obama are the front-runners and both seem to poll reasonably closely to McCain, what motivates the various camps?

Well, the Obama-ites are focusing on the message of hope, the positive feelings that the candidate seems to engender among all races. It’s almost as if Obama is tapping into all of the negative feelings towards Bush and telling the voters what they want to hear; the world is a good place and we need to emphasize what’s good.

The simple fact about Obama is that he isn’t qualified to run a country… yet. We have no track record on this guy. He’s made a lot of really energetic, positive speeches, and accomplished very little on a national scale. This is like a company taking their top salesman and making him CEO of the entire operation. This is almost a vote for change… for change’s sake.

On the other side, you have Hillary Clinton. She IS qualified (or so her supporters would have you believe) because of her “years in public service”. I guess First Ladies are now considered public servants. I find it interesting that Hillary-ites want it both ways: they are trying to separate Hillary from Bill’s administration so they don’t get any of the blame for things that went wrong, but they want to count her work on the (failed) Universal Health Plan and her spousal influence as positives for her public experience.

So, while she has more experience in national politics than Obama, she also has much more negative baggage. At this nascent point in his career, Obama has no really big political red flags, while Hillary has her health plan, Whitewater, her carpetbagging to New York, Vince Foster, her law practice in general, her newfound riches (where does a First Lady get $5M of her own money to plow into her campaign?), all kinds of little “details” the Republicans are surely stockpiling for an October advertising blitz.

But the Clinton machine keeps chugging along, steamrolling through the big states, piling up the electoral votes. This is like a company taking their corporate attorney who has skeletons (and knows where everyone else’s skeletons are) and making her CEO of the entire operation. This is almost a vote for the villain… just so they don’t piss her off.

So, when choosing between the known (Clinton) and the unknown (Obama), half of the liberals are hanging their hats on the known evil, the other half are betting on the new guy who has never done anything. Which side is right? Or are they both wrong?

2008-01-18T09:58:00.000-08:00

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

I love stuff like this. By answering a series of fourteen questions on political hot topics and weighing them, you'll get your top candidate spit out for you.

Not surprisingly, my top six selections were Republicans with the moderates up top.
Giuliani
McCain
Hunter
Thompson
Huckabee
Romney

On the opposite end, my political Luthor is Chris Dodd. Out of the democratic frontrunners, Obama edges Hillary, but it's not like either of them will ever get my vote.

Politics, Democrat style...

2007-03-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

To my loving wife,

Fear not, my love. I won’t let your debilitating cancer diagnosis deter me in my quest for personal glory and power.

Your loving husband,
John Edwards

---------------------------------

Dear Barack,

I have a great idea. Why not attack Hilary before the primary? No need to hit her with a pipe, a simple internet video will do. I know some guys that will do it for cheap.

Signed,
Tonya Harding

2007-01-22T12:11:00.000-08:00

It’s interesting that even the most liberal bloggers are ignoring the major non-news story of the weekend, specifically that Hilary Clinton has announced her presidential exploratory committee. It’s non-news because, well, we expected it. The funny thing is that her hand was forced by the early entry of Barack Obama. Now the two announced Democratic candidates share the dubious distinction of simultaneously being the two frontrunners and the two least-likely-to-be-elected people in the country.

This is partially a commentary on the lack of social progress of the American voting public, partially a commentary on the lack of political acumen of the Democratic leadership, partially a commentary on the lack of likeability of both Obama and Clinton.

1. This country will not elect a black Democrat to be President. Period. It’s too easy to play on the fears of the prejudiced American public to marginalize the candidate as an anti-white crusader or a pro-black activist. A black Republican (Colin Powell, Condi Rice, maybe even JC Watts wayyyyy far down the line) has a much better chance at being considered as a centrist, especially one that’s already held a prominent national cabinet position.

2. This country will not elect a woman Democrat to be President. Period. It’s too easy to play on the fears of the misogynistic American public to marginalize the candidate as a man-hating, mood-swinging, menopausal harpy (like Hilary is already considered by more than half the country). A woman Republican (Condi Rice) has a much better chance at being considered as a centrist.

3. For now, Obama is the golden child of the media. His pre-emptive strike on the presumptive Clinton candidacy was slick and savvy… for a candidate. But it’s gonna hurt him in the long run, because it put him out front too early. He effectively is giving the muckrakers a six-month head start on creating a negative image for him, something that can only hurt as he attempts to create a national persona. It was premature and rash to announce so early, but he needed to start the fundraising asap to counter the Hilary machine.

Shit will start leaking out from the Obama camp; wait and see. You’ll still be hard-pressed to find many people who know what this guy stands for. It’s only a matter of time before someone finds a skeleton. And since he doesn’t have a historical image to fall back on, the skeleton will become his persona.

We all know Hilary. And many hate her. The single most polarizing figure in American politics today. Is she qualified? Oddly, I would say "yes". Is she electable? Hell no.

2006-06-12T12:05:00.000-07:00

So I see that al-Qaeda has designated the “replacement” for Zarqawi, some guy named Hamza al-Muhajer. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall for that selection process?

HR rep: I see here that you’ve been a lieutenant in the fight against the non-believers. How do you feel that prepared you for this position?

Hamza: Well, I had extensive experience torturing kidnapped civilians, as well as some work organizing roadside bombings against the American occupation forces. In my last position, I also developed a system for connecting spider holes for easy access and easy escape.

HR rep: I see. I notice that there is a gap on your resume of a few months last year. Can you explain that?

Hamza: Well, I was detained by the American aggressors briefly. Once I was released, I immediately sought out new work as an explosives distributor. I felt it was important to add to my sales and finance skills to better run a large terrorist organization.

HR rep: That sounds great. Can you tell me about a time where you faced some resistance to one of your ideas, and how you handled it?

Hamza: Oh, I ran into that all the time in smaller terrorist cells. Everyone was trying to suggest good targets for suicide bombings, and even though I had more strategic locations in mind, I let them go ahead with their targets. After all, after their ideas were accepted and they got to attack their targets, they were dead anyway and couldn’t argue with me anymore. I’ve always found that leading a terrorist organization often means allowing internal opposition to blow themselves up. Eventually, you’ll be in charge. It’s all about patience, really.

HR rep: Would you mind if we contacted some of your previous organizations?

Hamza: Most are dead. I suppose you could, if you could find their spider holes. Like I said, I designed a pretty elaborate network.

HR rep: Before we finish, do you have any questions for me about the position?

Hamza: Well, I heard about what happened to Zarqawi… what changes are you expecting to make internally? I mean, I don’t want to take the job just before you decide to have layoffs, or, excuse me, “downsizing”. [chuckle]

HR rep: As you can imagine, I can’t discuss our future plans. Suffice to say, we will have a need for a manager as long as the imperialist dogs from America soil our land.

Hamza: [rising from seat] I’m glad to hear that. I’m still very interested in the position, and I’m anxious to hear back from you soon.

HR rep: Thanks for coming in on such short notice, and I’ll be back in touch with you in a couple of days. [standing and extending hand]. Oh, and death to America.

Hamza: [shaking hands with HR rep] Thank you for the opportunity. And death to America.

Choose your own adventure...

2006-03-15T12:49:00.000-08:00

We’re gonna play a little hypothetical game now… You’ve just been elected the leader of a country; let’s call it “Capitalistia” Now, Capitalistia is a nice country filled with good people who mind their own business and, for the most part, just want to be left alone. As a country, Capitalistiacs tend to think that their way of doing things is the best way, and strive to teach other countries the Capitalistiac ways.

After some threats from a much smaller country of religious fanatics; let’s call it “Terroristia”, a group of Terroristiacs blow up some big buildings in Capitalistia, killing thousands.

What do you do?

A. Immediately declare war on all Terroristiacs, whether or not they participated in the bombing. After all, it’s their fault for allowing Terroristiacs to flourish in their country.
B. Immediately call for an international peace conference, at which the Terroristiacs control the agenda by threatening other countries with similar violence, all the while trying to build more bombs to blow up more Capitalistiac buildings and people.
C. Immediately target ONE loudmouthed Terroristiac leader, who may or may not have had any prior knowledge of the bombing plans. After all, it’ll show the Terroristiacs that we mean business when we depose the biggest bully on the block, especially if he’s the same bully who threatened your dad.
D. Immediately call for an international military action, ignoring the fact that the Terroristiacs will scare the other countries by threatening them with similar violence, and it won’t stop the Terroristiacs from doing it again to you.
E. Immediately target the PRECISE Terroristiac leader who ordered the bombing and warn other Terroristiacs that they’ll be targeted if they don’t help.

If there are other options, I’m not sure what they are. If you chose A, C, and D, congratulations, you’re George W. Bush and you’re stuck in a no-win, military quagmire in a remote land and no allies. If you chose B and D, congratulations, you’re John Kerry and the international coalition you hoped to build never materialized due to the spinelessness of most of Europe, Israel is basically blown to oblivion, and Iraq/Iran have nuclear weapons.

If you said E, congratulations, you’re a reasonably logical person with 20/20 hindsight, and we have NFI whether that would have been the best solution. All we know is that Bush made the wrong choice, Kerry advocated the wrong choice, and Congress/Europe is too partisan and pissy to help.

In other words, what would you have done? Bonus points for using the terms “bomb them back to the Stone Age” and/or “middle eastern nuclear winter”

Off with their heads!

2006-02-22T13:52:00.000-08:00

After living in California for over forty years, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me when an activist judge imposes himself upon a voter-mandated penalty. And I have to give this judge props for his ingenuity in at least figuring out a NEW loophole for the bleeding hearts to prolong a pointless life against the public’s wishes and mandates. After all, the whole “cruel and unusual punishment” argument doesn’t hold much pathos when the murderer in question tortured and raped a young girl repeatedly before killing her.

And guess who appointed him to the federal court…? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Is anyone surprised? Considering a judge is supposed to be non-partisan, it seems a bit odd that EVERY single appeal by a death row inmate is heard and actioned by a Clinton appointee. Gee, do you think they deliberately do that? Essentially, it’s a numbers game. If you file enough appeals on various spurious grounds, at least ONE of them will make it to a liberal bench, and you can pretty much firm up those reservations for the rest of your life on the taxpayer’s dime.

OK, so my arena idea is sorta barbaric. Here’s one. Since we’re so fucking concerned about humanely ending this inhumane life, why don’t we make it as fast as possible? Gas chambers are inhumane (boo hoo), electric chairs are inhumane (boo boo hoo), lethal injections are inhumane (boo boo boo hoo)… And to a small extent (very very small), I can see some of the point. We’re not sure how much gas someone needs to inhale to die, we’re not sure how much electricity it takes to kill the whole body, we’re not sure how much pain they might feel from the lethal overdose.

So bring out the guillotine! I can pretty well guarantee that if the guy’s head is rolling around a couple of yards away from his body that he’s dead. Not only that, but a nice sharp heavy blade, and the fucker won’t know what hit him. Problem solved. Quick.

The Great One?

2006-02-10T08:52:00.000-08:00

Who is worse, Gretzky or Rose?

If you had asked me this three days ago, I would’ve stared blankly at you, like Tara Reid deciphering a slide rule. Gretzky was the most prolific scorer in hockey history, and widely considered to be one of the nicest guys around, cleaner than AC Green’s bedsheets. Rose was the most prolific hitter in baseball history, and widely considered to be one of the most arrogant pricks around, dirtier than Wilt Chamberlain’s bedsheets.

My, my, how times have changed.

So I ask you now, who is worse, a compulsive gambler or a bookie? Certainly, Pete Rose’s personality hurts him here. He’s not just a compulsive (and bad) gambler. He’s an ass and a greedy one at that, so he can hardly be painted as a wronged victim. He felt his gambling addiction (by the way, apparently still in full bloom) was above the rules of the game, certainly he felt that he was above Bowie Kuhn. The funny thing is that I think people would have gotten past the gambling-on-baseball issue long ago if Rose hadn’t been so pugnacious and obstinate about his “innocence”.

But a bookie is essentially a parasite, feeding off of the addictions of others. So who is the bad guy, the organized crime boss who controls the media and runs the numbers game, or the asshole scumbag who gambles away his money and his career? While Gretzky may not have actually booked the bets, he certainly seems to have known about the bookmaking activity and tacitly condoned it. And then lied about it. Multiple times. Hell, his wife was the biggest customer. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we found out that Pete Rose booked bets through Rick Tocchet? Whose side would you be on then?

And enough about Janet Jones being “hot”. That train left the station years ago. In fact, check out “A Chorus Line” again. (Yeah, I own it. Charlie “I can do that” McGowan lived around the corner from me when I was a kid. I’m not gay. Honest.) She had a nice body, but her face was heavily lined twenty-five years ago. And she was a terrible actress. Apparently, she’s just as good at gambling.

Gretzky’s fall will be much more precipitous because he HAD our trust. We believed him. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes Tocchet to roll over on him and tag “The Great One” as the Puckfather, the great and powerful Gretz. Pay no attention to the 99 behind the curtain. All those Lady Byng trophies for sportsmanship and gentlemanly behavior (or behaviour)? On Ebay.

And Pete Rose still doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. Just because some other guy proves to be a scumbag too doesn’t diminish the dirt on Pete.

The needs of the many

2005-12-08T09:14:00.000-08:00

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…”

“Or the one.”

Yeah, I’m a geek, so what?

Anyway, we’re already starting to hear the bleats of the lambs lamenting the death of Rigoberto Alpizar. His wife is saying that he was bipolar and hadn’t taken his meds. The press is harping on the fact that he didn’t actually have a bomb like he claimed. It’s only a matter of time before the knee-jerk bleeding hearts start calling for the disarming of the air marshals.

The air marshals did their job. If the intelligence teams in the Middle East did their job as well, we probably wouldn’t be stuck in the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, I feel more confident in our national security (as least as it relates to air travel) than I have in four years since 9/11.

Let’s check the facts here.

It’s a flight from Colombia (Yellow flag!)

A clearly agitated man has a backpack (Red flag alert!)

He runs up and down the aisle claiming to have a bomb (Double Red Flag!!)

Air marshals identify themselves and pursue the man

They tell the man to drop the backpack

The man reaches into the backpack where he claims to have a bomb

The air marshals drill the guy between five and six times, killing him

So, what’s the problem with the behavior of the marshals?  I don’t see any.  In fact, these guys should be rewarded for bravery and heroism.  After all, IF the guy really had a bomb like he claimed, surely they were risking their lives by confronting him.  Even something as small as a hand grenade could have taken them out at that distance.  They easily could have shrunk into the corner and pretended to be regular passengers and taken cover behind a really fat dude or hidden in the lavatory.  Instead, they confronted the threat, and diffused it with no harm to innocent passengers, civilians, or even property.

Good, good, good.

And this will surely end all of that airport banter about bombs and guns and weapons.  Remember how people used to joke about carrying weapons onto planes, just to piss off the 70-year old Filipino “security” guard?  Um, that’ll stop now that people know that deadly force will be used to ELIMINATE any threat to public security.

Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the ACLU will leap aboard this and try to claim that the man somehow had the right to threaten the lives of the other passengers without being shot multiple times.  The allegation that he was mentally ill should have absolutely no bearing on anything, but somehow he’ll be portrayed as a tragic figure.  Well, as long as bipolar people don’t run around with backpacks and claim to have a bomb, they probably won’t be shot.

Sigh.

Let me be one of the first to say this, THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE AIR MARSHALS EVERYWHERE!  YOU GUYS ARE ALL HEROES IN MY BOOK!

1000!

2005-11-29T11:54:00.000-08:00

Sometime within the next 30 days, it’s likely that we will have the 1000th execution in the United States since the capital punishment law was passed in 1977.

Good.

But not good enough.

We still have thousands and thousands of murderers and rapists awaiting their legally resolved penalties, getting three square meals, free cable TV, and free access to weights and gym equipment for which most of us pay $40/month.

Why?

Because the legal system allows dozens of appeals?  Partially.  But  not inmates have appeals still in process…

Because liberal judges keep issuing dubious stays of execution for primarily ideological reasons?  Partially.  But those are usually desperation stays reserved for the last couple of days prior to the scheduled date…

So why?

Because the Death Penalty shows a side that Americans hate to reveal about themselves, that vindication and retribution is something that we believe in, but are uncomfortable about.  Because when it comes down to it, we’re just a bunch of hypocrites, voting for a system of punishment, but unwilling to see it through.

Yeah, that’s it.

Well, I ain’t a hypocrite.  The people on Death Row are murderers.  Every single one of them.  The 999 prisoners that were executed have never killed again.  Since they were executed;

They haven’t stabbed anyone during a prison riot

They haven’t kidnapped or raped innocent children

They haven’t beaten or shot their spouses

In fact, I feel confident that they will never commit another crime.  Now that they’re DEAD.

And after all, that is the goal.  Law-abiding citizens (and non-violent criminals, for that matter) just want to be safe and not have to worry about the predators that may lurk among us.  If a zoo animal goes nuts and kills a patron, do we hospitalize it?  No, we euthanize it.  Why?  Because it might kill someone else…

Now, if a person goes nuts and kills a neighbor, do we euthanize him/her?  Remember, this is a thinking beast, certainly capable of killing again.  Possibly more dangerous than the zoo animal, given the wide variety of tools and weapons that are in the arsenal.  But instead, we give the murderer legal chances to obscure the circumstances surrounding the murder.  Most appeals aren’t based on innocence or guilt, that ship sailed long ago.  Instead, the appeals are based on court procedures or legal interpretations.  Most aren’t even claiming innocence.  Some have admitted guilt long ago.

Yet I still pay taxes to incarcerate these people.  Why?  If I choose not to keep them alive, why not just tax the liberals who insist on letting them live?

Simple solution #1 – Offer $250K to each Death Row inmate to renounce his appeals and step into the gas chamber (or electric chair or lethal injection) voluntarily.  Some are probably sick of the prison life anyway.  In exchange, we will give $250K to whomever they choose.  Some of these people have family that they would want to have the money, some might want to pay off some debt.  Even if only a few dozen take the offer, taxpayers are saving money AND we’re giving the inmates a way out.

Simple solution #2 – Two prisoners per cell.  One meal.  The problem will work itself out.

Simple solution #3 – Arena.  I’ve talked about his earlier.

Simple solution #4 – During the appeal process, the inmate should be on house arrest…  at his attorney’s house.  We’ll see how many of these camera-hungry ambulance chasers really think their client is rehabilitated…

Simple solution #5 – If a judge issues a stay, the inmate should be on house arrest…  at the judge’s house.  We’ll see how many of these bleeding heart, politically motivated judges really think the inmate was mistreated.

Simple solution #6 – Did you ever see the Dirty Dozen?  Surely there are some missions in the Middle East that could be well handled by a few select murderers….

Simple solution #7 – Organlegging.  If you don’t know what that is, you need to read more.

Intelligent Design

2005-11-14T11:46:00.000-08:00

Intelligent Design?

OK, I’m gonna channel Hubie Brown here…

Let me get this straight…  You’re trying to explain the existence of the universe.  You have scientists who are smarter than you disagreeing about the evolutionary process, so you come up with a theory about a divine being that doesn’t need any scientific theories because it’s all based on faith.  To make it seem more logical, you call it “Intelligent Design”.  Well, by definition, anyone who disagrees with it must be UN-intelligent.  I see tons of upside to this theory.  Nothing but upside.

Back to Earth now…

I’ve always had SOME issues with scientific explanations to cosmic timeframes.  I mean, Carbon-14 dating might say that a rock is five billion years old… but how do we know that it really is that old?  Suppose the rock is only two thousand years old?  We have no way to verify it unless some papyrus was kept with the rock since the beginning of recorded history.  We’re only making guesses as to the half-life of Carbon in our own little cosmic window.  So “science” has tenuous threads running all through the theories that have been presented as “facts” for a long time.

But that doesn’t suddenly re-introduce the “Creator” as the best solution to these threads…  After all, where did the Creator come from?  And where did he get his ideas?  Does he wear clothes?  If not, what made him think of them?  Why would he make someone like Terrell Owens?  Face it, any theory that cannot be proved or disproved isn’t a theory, it’s a statement of faith at best, a wild guess at worst.  To have it taught in public schools is like questioning the periodic table.  Why is hydrogen first?  I don’t understand the science behind the periodic table, so it mustn’t be true.  Someone else must have “designed” it.  Like a God.

These ID adherents probably believe that “Capricorn One” was a documentary too.

Please.  If you don’t understand something, that doesn’t automatically make it God’s will.  And if you understand something, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.  If God meant for us to teach it in school, he would’ve made us all Catholic.

Election Review

2005-11-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

The average American voter is an uninformed boob.

I’ve said it many times, and many times I’ve been proven right.

The average American voter gets his information from television or the newspaper, a wholly passive exercise that depends on the media being non-partisan and unbiased.

Hah!

Congratulations to the Unions who recognize this basic fact, and use it to their advantage… and everyone else’s detriment.

Congratulations to the Gerrymanderers (read: liberals in power) who taught Arnold a lesson on manipulating the media and controlling the uninformed boobs.

I’m not a right-wing stooge.  I voted against some planks in Arnold’s platform, feeling that they were TOO conservative and/or restrictive for my moderate tastes.  Basically, I voted with the thinking moderates who were overwhelmed by many groups:

1. The thinking left – Obviously, California is under the control of these whack jobs, who orchestrated a brilliant scare campaign to sour the voters on legitimate reform issues, and managed to secure the status quo.  Unions fall here.   After all, who is more socialist than a union?

2. The unthinking left – These are the Berkeley bozos who will vote anti-Republican and pro-union no matter what.  They won’t read the initiatives, they won’t consider the pros or cons of a given proposition… if Arnold is for it, they’re against it.

3. The unthinking moderates – Most of the people probably fall here.  They THINK they know what the proposition is addressing, but since they heard it on television, they’re probably wrong.  For example, Prop 77 should have passed overwhelmingly.  It takes district boundaries AWAY from the Legislature, a logical check/balance issue given the bizarre Gerrymandered districts that have evolved through the years.  The thinking left fired multiple commercials about “retired judges” and “legal maneuvers” and scared the television-watching drones into voting down a reasonable law.  Same with Prop 75 which would have stripped many unions of their massive political clout, a good thing if you’re not in a union (which is the vast majority of taxpayers).  But again, by outspending the competition, the union stooges managed to obscure the issue and scare the simple-minded public from actually reforming a broken system of PAC and union controls.

Now, I’m in the middle class of California, which means that the status quo isn’t necessarily a bad thing to me.  I’m not the target of the left, so my money, while misspent and overtaxed, isn’t at risk of being completely stripped away.  Nor am I a target of the right, so my political clout isn’t being threatened by campaign reforms or spending limits.  No, I’m simply trying to improve my chances to succeed.  And my children’s chances.  And their children’s.  Meanwhile, the liberals are trying to fortify their positions, and the conservatives are trying to break down the walls.  And until the middle gets our collective shit together, we’re gonna be the ones who get squeezed.

Scotus

2005-10-28T14:05:00.000-07:00

Nice to see that the religious right can be just as stupid and dogmatic as the ultra-liberal left.  Poor Harriet Miers.  By most accounts, a decent and thoughtful woman, wholly unqualified for the position she was nominated for, but who would turn it an offer to be on the Supreme Court?  And the bible-thumping whackos chase her out like she was some sort of defendant treading water in Salem.

Why?  Because you’re not sure about her views on abortion and/or school prayer?  Speaking somewhat idealistically, no justice should have a definable view.  Any cases brought before the SCOTUS should be judged on their own merits and the merits of the presiding judge’s actions, not on some prejudicial lightning rod issue.  Granted, you could look at most nominated judges to see their past decisions on Constitutional issues (states rights, judicial review, Bill of Rights stuff, etc.), but even then, any decisions should have been based upon the individual cases.  Basing your confirmation vote on past decisions is somewhat like picking stocks.  “Remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.”

And the individual scrutiny in this age of Internet and media advocacy adds multiple layers of complexity to the process.  Can you imagine Justice Whizzer White being nominated today?  He played pro football, for god’s sake.  Don’t you think there might have been a FEW groupie stories that might have come from the University of Colorado?  Don’t you think that someone would make one up, if there weren’t any real ones?

Get real, folks.  Traditionalists will say that this is the best way to do it, that it’s worked for a couple of hundred years.  Checks and balances and all that.  Fine…, it’s different now.  To argue otherwise is just plain stupid.  There are far too many checks and far too few balances.  When the scale is so skewed that Congress is openly staking out positions on past court decisions as a basis for confirmation, we’ve given the Legislative branch far too much say in the process.

How about this?  The President must nominate a block of three candidates that either presided over a trial that became a Supreme Court case or argued a case in front of the Supreme Court.  Think of this as being the basic resume qualification to be a SCOTUS Justice.  Each Representative must then vote for ONE, but can select “None of the Above”.  If None of the Above is one of the top two vote getters, the entire slate gets chucked and the Pres has to pick a new block.  Think about it, you’ll almost never get a fringe candidate, most would have to be somewhat centrist to garner enough votes from the House to make the top two.  The President wouldn’t even bother putting up a block of similar candidates because all of them could get eliminated.  The people would win over the idealogues.  For a change.

Well, duh....

2005-10-24T10:55:00.000-07:00

You are a
Social Moderate
(56% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(70% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Capitalist

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

2005-10-07T11:53:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one who sees this?

Military Humor

2005-09-30T09:19:00.000-07:00

The elderly American gentleman arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he fumbled for his passport. "You 'ave been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. The old gent admitted that he had been to France previously.

"Zen, you should know enough to 'ave your passport ready for inspection"

The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. You Americans alwayz 'ave to show your passports on arrival in France!"

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. "Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in '44, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to."

Job

2005-09-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, my job really pisses me off.  I’m a Training Manager/Consultant/Specialist, depending on who you ask.  Most around here consider me the Training Manager, mainly because I’m the only sap in this organization who has the word “Training” in my title, so they automatically confer manager status.  Technically, I’m a Training Specialist, at least according to my business card.  Hell, they could call me Toilet King, as long as the paycheck is auto-deposited.

Anyway, we have some auditor types poking around here, either for SOX or ISO or some other acronymically identified company or regulation.  Every time someone is missing some job-related documentation, the assclown managers around here say ‘Go to Todd, he has the training stuff.”, like I’m the all-encompassing repository of all documentation.  The reality is that most of these managers wouldn’t know training if it smacked them in the cranium, and like to use training as the scapegoat for all troubles.  Salesperson is below quota?  Not enough training.  Customer Service treats a customer like shit.  Bad training.  Vending machine runs out of Diet Pepsi.  Must need more training…

I’m not gonna throw out the old “if you held a gun to their head, could they do it” argument.  At least not yet.  How about this one?  If I offered them a million dollars to do everything exactly the way they’ve been told, COULD they do it?  If yes, then it isn’t a training issue, it’s a motivational issue.  For example, each salesperson is required to submit call reports via an online sales force automation tool.  They were all trained and all passed the assessment and did their call reports for a couple of months.  Now some have stopped doing them, claiming that they “didn’t get enough training”.  Listen, dipwad, if you did it correctly ONCE, it’s not a training issue.  If you did it correctly for months, it really really isn’t a training issue.  I would guess if you were offered 10x your salary to do call reports, you would do more call reports than the rest of the company combined.  That’s motivation, not training.

Balance of Power

2005-09-22T10:08:00.000-07:00

Balance of Power

No, not the Star Trek episode, though I’ll give points to those who recognize the title.  IMO, the best single episode.

Anyway, I’m referring to the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government.  Apparently, Senators aren’t happy with their 1/3 of the pie and want to dictate the Judicial side as well.  Asking direct questions regarding specific cases is comparable to choosing referees for the Super Bowl based on their favorite teams.  Asking those questions and criticizing the likely future Chief Justice while knowing that confirmation is a foregone conclusion just to get some political equity and television facetime is pathetic.

Listen, whether any of the branches choose to admit it, we’re going through a crisis of confidence in the system of government.  I’m not one (media) to point fingers (media) at who’s to blame (media), but this crisis is primarily due to the litany of muckraking and rabble-rousing from several sources (media).  I almost guarantee you that the majority of these “journalists” came from the generation that read and/or watched “All the President’s Men” and are desperately searching for their own Woodward/Bernstein moment in the sun.

C’mon, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to INTERPRET the law, and decide whether the law/decision from the lower court is consistent with Constitutional law.  They’re not supposed to make laws and, no matter what the ignorant talking heads on TV say, they never have.  Now they’ve struck down laws, they’ve upheld laws, they’ve ignored appeals that would have struck down or upheld laws…  But they’ve never taken a pen (or typewriter or computer) and written a law.  Some legislative clerk had to do that..

So, to both sides of the aisle… take your litmus test questions and stick ‘em in your briefs.  Roberts is smarter than you, and seems like a decent, thoughtful jurist.  And you senatorial hand-wringers are the ones looking like idealogues.

Headline

2005-09-20T08:56:00.000-07:00

Headline on Yahoo News: Hurricane Center may run out of names

Why not get more detailed? Like Hurricane Pickupyourshitandgetoutoftown or Hurricane Dontdeserttheoldpeople or Hurricane Hangontoyourkids?

Or Hurricane Youshouldn’texpecthelpfromFEMA…?

2005-09-07T10:58:00.000-07:00

According to SiteMeter, I have about negative-5 readers on this blog each day, which is liberating in a way. I can now use this blog as my personal graffiti, writing whatever and whenever I want, without fear of retribution or recrimination, no matter how outrageous my views may be.

For example, these idiots in Louisiana who are refusing to leave their homes and hampering rescue efforts with their pigheadedness… just shoot them with tranquilizer darts and cart them outta there like they’re livestock. I don’t understand why people are allowed to flagrantly disobey the law, and be treated like they’re making some sort of heroic stand. They’re freakin’ stupid! And it’s little consolation knowing that they’re basically living in a sewer because ultimately I’m gonna be paying for their health care when they’re dying from some bacteriological parasite.

The people I feel bad for are the elderly and the children. Many of the elderly couldn’t leave when told, some were in nursing homes, some were handicapped, some were homebound. Many didn’t have family close enough to evacuate them. I fear many of the dead will be elderly who were either trapped or incapable of leaving their homes, and not by their own choice. Similarly, children who stayed with their parents had little or no choice in the matter. Listen, if you had a car, you should’ve left, especially if you had children. Kids can’t leave on their own, they’re depending on their parents to make the smart, safe choice. And many parents didn’t, opting to risk their children’s lives to make a pointless stand.

And what’s with the flock of liberal shitheads who are trying to pin this on the President? Even the vultures at insurance companies call these situations “Acts of God”. Until W outranks God, I don’t think he’s to blame for the flooding. Now, has the federal government been completely mismanaging the relief/rescue efforts? Yes. Is the Department of Homeland Security a bunch of paper-pushing bureaucratic cubicle retards? Yes. But they didn’t break the levee. Nor did they fail to inspect the pumps that could have mitigated some of the damage. That falls squarely on the state and local governments, who were too busy trying to minimize the negative publicity (lest they damage the tourist industry which represents 99.9% of the money generated by Louisiana) to properly manage the system of levees that protected the city.

The unfortunate reality is that when you build a metropolis in a bowl-shaped valley surrounded by the Mississippi River, protected only by man-made dikes, dams, and levees, you’re asking for trouble. Especially in an area that has hurricanes, oh, every fucking year. Hello? Not a good idea unless you’re gonna spend every penny of taxpayer funds on that system of dikes, dams, and levees… and not on building a network of cathouses, saloons, and tourist traps.

And the American people have come through. Hell, we sent money to tsunami victims in Asia, we sent money to families of the victims of 9/11, we sent money to famine victims in Africa, and now we’re sending boatloads of money to the Red Cross for flood victims. Soon we’ll be sending money to our insurance companies to cover the inevitable increases in our premiums. We’re already sending more money to the oil companies who immediately hitched to the tragedy gravy train by upping gas prices. Money makes the world go around. And it makes the rest of us feel like we’ve done something to help.

In California, we live with the potential of a cataclysmic earthquake every day. No prior notification, no Weather Channel warning, no hurricane siren… nothing. Every school in California teaches an earthquake preparedness plan: water, canned food, etc. If there’s a hugemongous earthquake that cuts off water, gas, and electricity, most of us are prepared. In 1989, freeways collapsed on cars and people. Nobody sent money. Most said “Well, that’s what you get for living in California”. No warning, a mile of the freeway just dropped on top of some people. Truth be told, if given a day’s notice of such a disaster, I’d get the hell outta the Bay Area and far away from the bridges and freeways that ring it. And if I was stupid and pigheaded enough to try to stay home, I certainly wouldn’t demand that the federal government airlift me out of the area and provide me with a mega-sports complex to live in.

We have many choices in America… where we live is a huge one. Each area of the country comes with inherent tradeoffs. Horrible winter storms, blistering heat, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, monsoons… no region is exempt. If you choose to live somewhere, you’re accepting the risk. If you live on the San Andreas Fault, you should expect at least one earthquake that might level your home. If you live in Oklahoma, you should expect a tornado that wipes out your farm. If you live in Seattle, you should expect rain and mist 300 days of the year. And if you live in the Gulf region, you should expect hurricanes every year. And if you live in between a bunch of dams and levees, you should expect them to eventually break, especially you live in the Gulf region, especially if it’s hurricane season. And you should prepare accordingly. And not blame others if you didn’t prepare. It’s an ugly reality…. But it’s a reality nonetheless.

2005-09-01T08:58:00.000-07:00

The pictures from the Gulf Coast are horrifying. The scope of devastation in that region is a sobering reminder of the power of nature. My family sends our prayers to the damaged region and the survivors, as well as money in the form of donations to the Red Cross, which is one of the few charities I actually trust to disburse the funds.

All that being said, if I were ever warned about an impending earthquake (this is California, after all) and given 12 hours to evacuate, you damn well know that I would be hundreds of miles away from the epicenter with my family, my dog, and my supplies. After the 1989 earthquake, I heard from people saying shit like “Well, that’s what you get for living in California”.

Listen, we have earthquakes all the time here. Most are small and feel like a big truck is passing by, or that a car just hit the building. We have severe damage maybe once every twenty years, and catastrophic destruction about once every century. The southeastern US has “hurricane SEASON”, an entire section of the year where hurricanes are not only common, but expected.

The smart ones are people that evacuated their homes in Louisiana and Mississippi. They lost their homes and most of their possessions. But not their lives. Why would anyone stay in the hurricane’s path? Do they somehow think that their presence would have an effect on winds of 140+ miles per hour? Leave, dammit. Homes can be rebuilt. Once you’re dead, lives cannot be resuscitated.

Now the looting has begun. Not only in the affected cities, but at every single gas pump in the country. Gas prices jumped by 10%, seemingly overnight, when the reports of refinery damage were shown. Hey, you asshole gas station owner, the price of the gas in your underground tank didn’t change. You’re just using the crude oil price jump as an excuse to jack up your pump prices despite the fact that the gas YOU ALREADY BOUGHT didn’t suddenly increase in price. So, using that same logic, the next time crude oil prices drop, your pump prices should drop immediately too. But I know they won’t, you money grubbing weasels.

Here’s hoping that the intelligent people (evacuees) get first dibs on relief, and the stubborn people who stayed against all reason don’t absorb all the money because of their more desperate situation. This’ll never happen, but I want my money to go to people who evacuated their homes and lost all their possessions, and not to people who stayed home and are living on overpasses because they refused to leave despite all warnings.

2005-07-07T09:20:00.000-07:00

Warning: Semi-political crime rant content ahead!

• Child molesters should get automatic life sentences or death… period. Only judges with children should be allowed to preside over molestation cases, and bail should only be offered if the offender volunteers for surgical castration (which should be done anyway). Any parole will be spent at the judge’s home with his children/grandchildren. Maybe then they’ll care about the rest of the world.

• The judge in Minnesota, the prosecutor, and the public defender should all be disbarred for allowing Joseph Duncan to be freed on bail. If ANY of them had been doing their jobs, four innocent people would still be alive and a little girl wouldn’t be traumatized for life. For those of you who are arguing for the public defender, I’d like to point out that DEFENDING THE PUBLIC should be his primary consideration.

• Why is Joseph Duncan still alive anyway? Can’t we just hand him a small-caliber gun and have the entire police force go Butch Cassidy on him?

• Sending your pretty teenaged daughter to Aruba for a high-school graduation bash with a bunch of drunken, party-crazy, bar-hopping teenagers is just one step below sending your prepubescent son to Neverland Ranch.

• Anyone still want to argue that we should negotiate a solution with Islamic extremists? You must not commute on public transit… or watch the news. Last I checked, there weren’t any military personnel on the London subways that were targeted, so the chickenshit terrorists decided to blow up innocent people just trying to get to their jobs. Real brave… Y’know, if they really believed in their cause and martyrdom, they’d launch a full frontal attack on the occupation forces, rather than these covert hit-and-run tactics on innocent civilians.

2005-05-25T16:49:00.000-07:00

“Journalistic ethics” has become an oxymoron.

Let’s say you have irrefutable information that you KNOW will result in widespread rioting and violence and the death of innocent people. Mind you, I’m talking about IRREFUTABLE evidence, like in Rodney King/Reginald Denny video taped evidence, not just hearsay from a guard or third-hand gossip or a shady MS-Word document dated 1968.

Do you publish it, knowing that it will cause chaos, violence, and death?

Why?

Put another way, if your son/daughter was studying abroad at a Middle Eastern university or your spouse was a contractor in Iraq, would you still publish it? Did your answer change?

Now let’s suppose you’re a pansy-assed, bleeding heart Euro-organization supposedly concerned with helping the oppressed, but really dedicated to supporting the rights of criminals and terrorists. And you know that screeching about the alleged mistreatment of terrorists will cause bloody unrest in an already de-stabilized part of the world. Do you shut your pie hole and protect the innocents in the de-stabilized area? Or do you throw a match into that tinder box and basically incinerate everyone left there, innocent or not?

Witness for the murderer

2004-12-07T14:34:00.000-08:00

OK, let’s say you’re friends with a guy. You knew him in high school, he seemed like a cool guy, pretty funny guy, beer drinker. He got married to a cheerleader type, perky and cute. You kinda lost touch for a little while, maybe you saw him around town. He seemed happy and still reasonably sociable.

Then you hear that his wife is missing. She was pregnant. Rumors start to pop up that this guy was cheating on his wife. He had a mistress in another city. He was a pathological liar. You still feel bad because he says he misses his wife during the holidays. Then his unborn son washes up in the bay. The next day, his wife’s dead body washes up. A couple of days later, the cops find your friend near the Mexican border. He dyed his hair, had his passport, and shitloads of cash.

The trial is a circus. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence against your friend, and NO evidence at all that would absolve him. After some jury drama, he’s found guilty of all charges in record time.

What kind of fucktard would still appear on his behalf at the sentencing?

So, apparently, every thinking human knows he’s guilty, but you think you know better. Not only does he NOT deserve the death penalty, but the jury was wrong wrong wrong, and he’s really innocent. You know what? We should give you the death penalty just for being stupid. Seriously.

BALCO and Barry

2004-12-03T09:00:00.000-08:00

I’m disgusted. And embarrassed.

I’ve been one of Barry Bonds’ staunchest defenders.

Now it looks like :
a. He’s a lying cheat who knowingly used steroids to bulk up
b. He’s a brainless patsy who trusted a dirtbag with his career and physical well-being
c. He’s a devious jerk who knows the phrases “plausible deniability” and “don’t ask, don’t tell”
d. All of the above
e. He’s being set up as the fall guy and there is a .000000001 chance he’s really clean

While his (curiously leaked) grand jury testimony appears to be the “smoking gun”, it still falls short of Giambi’s outright admission. Gary Sheffield’s interview with ESPN sounded almost identical to what Bonds said last year behind closed doors, leading me to believe that they are either telling the truth (they used steroids, but didn’t know it at the time) or that the responses are part of a scripted Plan B (“The player will disavow any knowledge of their actions”)

Clearly, Bonds’ records should be under scrutiny and/or disdain, just as McGwire’s and Sosa’s records should. The question is whether they should be “asterisked” or deleted altogether, should the allegations be proven. I’m one of the “Steroids don’t help you hit the ball” crowd, although I firmly believe that the McGwires and Bonds of the world surpass the Sosas and Albert Belles since the latter pair used illegal bats rather than juiced bodies.

But suppose, just suppose, that Sheffield and Bonds are telling the truth? Does that mitigate their guilt or just make them look stupid? I mean, the last fifty years are filled with cautionary tales about athletes and celebrities being lied to, misled, and cheated out of millions of dollars. We’re told that “They want to focus on their craft/sport/field, so they have to trust others”. To me, that’s a copout. Your body is your responsibility, your money and your future is your responsibility, your family and your legacy is your responsibility. People nowadays are too willing to give up self-responsibility.

Still, it remains to be seen whether some of the “leaked” testimony is just a Memogate waiting to happen. Did anyone else notice that these “leaks” come on the two days before the Victor Conte interview on 20/20? Gee, what a coincidence! The leaks are clearly timed to help publicize Conte’s “exclusive”, pointing the finger directly at Conte’s team as the source. I won’t watch the interview. I have neither the time or inclination to sit through a full hour of an interview when I can wait for the post-game analysis and get the juicy (no pun intended) bits in five minutes.

Marion Jones will be thrown under the bus, probably right alongside Tim Montgomery. It remains to be seen whether ANY of the interview will be about Bonds, Giambi, or Sheffield. There is still the remote possibility that Conte lied to Anderson and Anderson passed the lie to Bonds and the other ballplayers. Remote. At best. Until tonight, when I watch SportsCenter through my fingers, I’ll hope that Barry Bonds is proven to be just plain stupid.

Rant with much profanity

2004-12-01T16:43:00.000-08:00

I haven’t gone on a rant for, oh, like a few weeks now, and I have a whole new batch of things that piss me off.

- Slow drivers. My wife continually yells at me for tailgating and harassing slow drivers, especially in the fast lane. “Why are you always in such a hurry?” Well, if you’re NOT in a hurry, why the fuck are you in a car? Shouldn’t you be walking or riding a bike? I mean, the whole reason for driving is to get somewhere QUICKLY. If that isn’t your intention, then get the hell out of my way.

- Smokers. OK, I know this is going to piss off all you smokers out there, but frankly, you’re a bunch of inconsiderate, cancerous shitheads. Listen, if you want to blacken your lungs in the privacy your house or your car, fine. Knock yourselves out. But I’m sick of people who smoke in public polluting the air of those unfortunate enough to be within breathing distance. You know how you can tell it’s a disgusting pointless habit? Every single smoker I know rolls down the window when they smoke in the car. Why? Because even they can’t stand the fucking smell. But they’re self-destructive and selfish enough to subject the rest of us to the fumes.

- Politically correct anything. Listen, it’s CHRISTMASTIME. Deal with it. I don’t even believe in God and I recognize Christmas as an important holiday for a lot of people. Sending “holiday” or “season’s greeting” cards sucks. Most of my Jewish friends don’t even care about Hanukkah or menorahs or yarmulkes. They celebrate Christmas too. Just because some whining non-Christian complained loudly, we changed Christmas Parties into Winter Formals and Holiday Gatherings. Now every freakin’ religion protests every other freakin’ religion’s practices and holidays, just to be irritating. Go back to the calendar we had in the 1970’s, those holidays were fine. Sheesh.

- Anime. When the fuck did this happen? When did Hello Kitty become iconic? These are frickin’ cartoons and teenagers (and maladjusted semi-adults) are buying this shit like it’s Soylent Green. There’s a whole sub-culture (emphasis on the “sub”) of anime collectors and readers who have somehow evolved from the socially inept D&D cretins and Pokemon nerds into Sailor Moon worshippers. I was in a Borders over the weekend and there was a whole frickin’ section of anime books, all written in the Japanese right-to-left style, like that provides some form of anti-establishment code or something. Seriously, click on the Next Blog button in the upper right corner and you’ll probably land on a blog idolizing some doe-eyed anime character that looks like Speed Racer in drag. Of course, none of these people ever have jobs or do anything productive.

Oh and what is up with this shorthand text messaging bullshit style of retard writing? That, and the aNNoyINg neW WRitinG that mixes caps and lower case letters, typically the province of rebellious and fucked-up Asians. Whatever happened to clear communicating? Why are these people bastardizing the language? Haven’t they heard about the abortive attempts to dumb down the language (ebonics and Esperanto)? Try popping some of that mixed cap writing with some OIC/LOL and throw in that pink Sailor Moon stationery for your next resume or job interview, and you’ll have plenty of time to practice your text messaging while you’re not working. Losers.

Camp

2004-11-29T11:49:00.000-08:00

I know I’m swimming against the conservative blogger tide here, but Michelle Malkin is an idiot. Well, that may be a little strong, since I agree with some of her anti-liberal political views, but I’m appalled at her current book that basically excuses FDR’s Executive Order 9066 that put all West Coast Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Since she is Filipina, I will assume that nobody in her family was stripped of all their possessions and herded into barracks in remote desert areas, despite being American citizens.

I have not read her book, nor will I. However, I have read excerpts and analyses which seem unanimous in delineating her fundamental thesis, which is that it is OK to imprison thousands of ethnic Japanese since it was known that there were a few dozen Japanese spies on the West coast during WWII. Perhaps she wants the readers to draw parallels to modern times and is making a case for imprisoning citizens of Middle Eastern descent during the current War on Terror, but the parallels are tenuous at best. There is a big difference between detaining people for questioning, and uprooting entire families, depriving them of their property and freedom, and putting them behind barbed wire for years with no due process.

My father was born October, 1941 and my mother was born in April, 1942, just prior to the actual relocation specified by EO9066. Their toddler years were spent at Tule Lake and Topaz, with armed guards and barracks. My maternal grandfather was in the 442nd battalion, the most decorated unit in WWII, and fought for the United States despite the government order that imprisoned his family. He was a farmer in Northern California when the war began, and lost his farm and land to the forced relocation. He was a citizen, born in California in 1908. He wasn’t a spy. He wasn’t a subversive. In fact, part of the problem was that the Japanese-American leadership at the time passively accepted the EO, reluctant to fight for their rights or make waves during a politically volatile time.

Michelle Malkin didn’t know my family. Her book is based upon published government reports of espionage on the West Coast, somehow rationalizing imprisonment of an entire ethnicity based upon the acts of a few. This would be comparable to imprisoning 2/3 of the black population because of the high crime rate in inner cities. Of course, she frames her pro-internment beliefs within the context of the War on Terror, trying to pander to the anti-Muslim paranoia, but using a disgraceful period of American history to further her own political agenda is pathetic. Maybe if a Filipino sets off a bomb and all Filipinos are rounded up into camps, Malkin will see the errors of her ways.

Malice in the Palace

2004-11-22T09:51:00.000-08:00

OK, we’ve all seen the video lowlights of the Malice at the Palace by now: Ron Artest fouling Ben Wallace, Ben Wallace double stiff-arming Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson daring the entire Pistons bench to throw down, and both teams just acting tough but not really engaging in any real physical activity. Most “fights” in professional team sports generally end up like this, with both teams shoving and posing and generally hiding behind their biggest players. Ron Artest actually laid down on the scorer’s table, feigning exhaustion and/or boredom. All had pretty much settled down…

Until some schmuck threw a cup of beer from the third row onto Artest’s chest. Artest, already the poster boy for anger management, leaped to his feet, hurdled two rows of seats, and began pummeling… the wrong guy. Turns out the right guy was right behind Artest and began punching him from behind. Another schmuck splashed the three of them with a full beer. Right about then, Stephen Jackson came flying in and started firing right hands at the beer splasher (roughly like pistol whipping someone that squirted your friend with a Super Soaker). After a few minutes of some wild WWF action in the stands, security and Indiana coaches managed to drag Artest and Jackson from the stands back onto the court. Of course, while security was up in the stands trying to extricate the Klitschko brothers, other drunken Piston fans made their way to the court. One particularly stupid one ran right up to a seething Artest and screamed something stupid at the 6’7”, 250lb pro athlete. Artest responded by unleashing a huge right hand and dropped the fan in his tracks.

Security got Artest and Jackson back into the dressing room through a shower of beer, soda, popcorn, and peanuts. Meanwhile, still on the court, Jermaine O’Neal decided to take a run at some probably drunk fan that had (inadvisedly) come down near the Pacers bench. The video I saw looked like the guy had either fallen or was knocked down by someone, and was just trying to get back to his feet. The 7’0” O’Neal ran up and connected with a wild swing, dropping the guy again. O’Neal then threatened to run up into the stands as the torrent of concessions rained down. Frank Francisco was there and fired a chair into the melee just to keep his arm in shape.

Yesterday, the suspensions came down. Artest – the last 70+ games of the season. Jackson – 30 games. O’Neal – 25 games. Wallace – 6 games. I have some issues with the lengths of these. Wallace’s is fine, it’s comparable to other on-the-court, hit-someone-in-the-face kind of suspensions. I think O’Neal’s suspension is too long, given that it happened on the floor, and his more penal (hehe, you said ‘penal’) punishments will be criminal/civil. Jackson’s suspension should be closer to Artest’s in length, or Artest’s should be closer to Jackson’s. If you watch the PRE-fight, Jackson is clearly attempting to provoke the Pistons, pulling at this jersey, and generally looking like a punk looking for a fight. Also, Jackson entered the stands to FIGHT, not as a peacemaker. He wasn’t trying to save Artest or drag him away, he went into the stands to kick some ass.

Regardless of the actual punishments though, the players’ union response has been predictable and completely fucking wrong. Ron Artest is a known psychopath, and has been suspended multiple times. Why defend someone who is un-defendable? In an ESPN interview, Billy Hunter actually blamed the violence in the stands on the war in Iraq adding to the heightened tension at the game, ignoring Artest’s history of unbalanced behavior and Jackson’s blatant provocation. The union will appeal all Indiana suspensions. Great, I hope David Stern sits through the sessions calmly, and says “You’re right, I’m wrong. I’m reducing Jermaine O’Neal’s suspension to 15 games, but now Stephen Jackson will be suspended the whole year too.”

The fans need to be punished too. In this high-tech era, we have cameras focused on the stands. I’m sure we know exactly who threw the beer, who punched the players, who ran down to the court, and who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every single offender should have their season tickets revoked (no refund or an onerous service charge), their rights to future tickets cancelled, and a day in court for either assault or trespassing charges. Oh, and the punishments need to be highly publicized, as least as highly publicized as the players’ punishments have been. This way, the precedent will be set for fans who get too full of liquid courage and feel like chucking stuff at the players.

Every single security guard on that side of the court needs to be fired, the referees should be suspended, and the beer sales need to be cut off at halftime for the remainder of the season (at least in Detroit). In order, this will punish the incompetent security guards who failed to keep the crowd under control, the referees who failed to keep the players under control, and the Pistons who failed to provide a safe, non-drunk-infested venue. The clips I saw showed the officials huddling at center court while the players were clustered by the scorer’s table, within easy earshot and throwing distance from the stands. Shouldn’t it have been the other way around?

Oh, and memo to all you former players who are defending the Pacers for their felonious assaults: Going into the stands to punch someone is NEVER a good idea. One, if you’re on the road, it’s about 15,000 to 12. Two, you’re supposed to be a professional athlete, heckling is part of the game, especially if your name is Ron Artest. Three, getting hit by a cup doesn’t necessitate a violent response.

One point I haven’t heard mentioned by anyone… Everyone says that Artest showed self-control when backing away from an on-court confrontation with Ben Wallace. Fine, but when provoked by a much smaller fan, Artest ran into the stands to beat the shit out of him. So, when actually punched by someone BIGGER, Artest backed down, but when hit by a plastic cup by a little guy, he’s suddenly homicidal. In fact, the guy Artest actually hit was the smallest guy out there, was wearing glasses and still had a drink in his hand! Artest ran past the guy who actually threw the beer (who was bigger than Milquetoast and therefore a less attractive target for the cowardly Artest) to beat up on some nearsighted wuss. Artest is not only a psycho, but a gutless one.

Whither Bin Laden...?

2004-11-18T10:50:00.000-08:00

Which is best for the USA?

1. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by US Special forces
2. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by Afghan troops
3. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in some world court
4. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in US District court
5. A scared Osama Bin Laden, running for his life, living in caves and spider holes

The answer is (5). Congratulations for your insight! Let’s analyze the responses.

(1) – Clearly not a good solution. Martyrdom is huge for Islamic fundamentalists, and the void left by Bin Laden would possibly encourage violent auditions to be the next big terrorist figurehead. Plus, if the US killed him, guess who would be hosting these auditions?

(2) – Hmmm, closer. This way, it would show that OBL didn’t have the full support of all Muslims, and also establish the newly elected Afghan leaders as men of action. Of course, this could also spark theocratic wars against the new government by some of the fundamentalists and could potentially undo all of the gains made by the democratization process. Not bad though…

(3) – Please. This would only provide a forum for this camera-hungry lunatic to vent his anti-American and anti-Israel venom, and rile up the other terrorist cells that might currently be dormant. Also, do we really want a court where France might have a vote? Any bets as to which way they’re gonna vote?

(4) – Ooooh, Johnnie Cochran would love to have this one. The videotape of OBL admitting guilt in 9/11 would somehow be found to be inadmissible. There is no physical evidence linking him to the hijackers other than the confession. He was thousands of miles away when the attack took place. OBL couldn’t get a fair trial because of the media coverage. Blah blah blah. But all questionable legal tactics aside, what state would even want to host this trial?

(5) – OK, think about this. Before that video blurb right before the election, when was the last time we had heard from our little robed buddy? Have there been any terrorist strikes against Americans…. anywhere? Have there been any terrorist activities directly tied to Al Qaeda? Even the most rabid anti-Bush folks have to admit, OBL has become a non-factor in recent months, perhaps due to the constant pressure of the American and Afghan forces chasing him all through the hills. It seems like many of the old Al Qaeda forces are either dead, captured, running scared, or just waiting to see when/where OBL will pop up next.

Except for one guy, Al Zarqawi. He seems to be the one who is trying to fill the void left behind by the fleeing OBL as the new top terrorist jihadist du jour. He seems to be satisfied and proud to kill unarmed civilians as his form of expression, and is either unwilling or incapable to expand his horizons into large-scale violence outside the Muslim world. By all accounts, he is much more shortsighted than OBL and seems to be content with the frequent small strikes rather than the years-in-the-making-mega-strikes, and consequently, will be much harder to pin down.

Regardless, OBL has seemingly been taken out of the equation, and capturing him is not nearly as important as keeping him powerless. What does this mean? It means Iraq and Zarqawi need to be the focus of our forces now, not Afghanistan and the increasing irrelevant OBL.

Some Views from the Commish's Desk (recap)

2004-11-17T10:48:00.000-08:00

On post-election GOP bashing - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/11/im-really-not-sure-gloom-and-doom.html

On election-day reportage - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/11/almost-midnight-out-here-in-california.html

On the liberal strategy - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/10/one-for-thumb-now-ive-won-sng-at-five.html

On, well, just a rant really... - http://toddcommish.blogspot.com/2004/08/some-quick-political-thoughts-fighting.html

CARE

2004-11-16T16:27:00.000-08:00

OK, show of hands… who here thinks that we should be negotiating with the Iraqi insurgents? Anyone…?

Here’s a news flash for you terrorist-embracing “negotiators”, “You’re welcome to try.”

They killed the head of CARE. Shot her. While she was blindfolded.

Sean Penn, you try. Michael Moore, get in line. Jeanine Garofalo, your ticket is waiting.

CARE. Not the Marines. Not the Army. CARE.

She’s probably never even held a gun, much less used one. CARE.

If you think talking to these animals helps, just remember…. CARE.

An exercise in generalizations...

2004-11-09T10:02:00.000-08:00

Many people have asked how I can be pro-choice, pro-gun control, and ambivalent about gays and gay marriage AND still be a Republican.

Simple, I’m concerned about MY family, MY finances, and MY security. It’s truly selfish, and the Republicans protect my completely self-centered view of the world. None of the social issues above are as pressing or as important day-to-day as keeping my family safe, paying taxes, and protecting the country.

Some others around the Internet have tried to prove demographic relationships between education, income, race, sexual orientation, and voting patterns. I think the truth lies in population density, because vote-able issues for individuals will vary based upon where they live, because that identifies their lifestyle choice just as much as education, income, etc. Densely populated urban areas tend to lean Democratic. These can be broken into low-income, multi-family housing (slums) and high-income, vertical housing (luxury condos and apartments). Less sprawling suburban and rural areas tend to tilt Republican. These are your single-family suburban Americana, Leave-it-to-Beaver neighborhoods and the farm/country areas. Vastly different priorities can be seen in WHERE people choose to live. Granted, there are gray areas in between these lifestyles, but the lifestyles tend to be pretty stark.

WARNING: GROSS GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD! PREJUDICE ALERT!

1. Low-income, multi-family (slums) – They tend to vote Democratic because they are at least partially dependent on government entitlements. It is in their best interest to have a liberal congressman, governor, and president to keep the gravy train running. I have no problem with them voting Democrat. It makes sense for them.

2. High-income, live in the city – A couple of possible crossovers with suburbia here. One big difference separates them though… NO KIDS. When was the last time you heard someone say “A big city is a great place to raise kids”? Never. Unless pissing winos, crack-addicted panhandlers, and pot-smoking bicycle couriers is your idea of a great place to raise kids.

So these might be recent college grads that got a job in the city because “that’s where the action is” or “that’s where the jobs are”. Idealistic and irresponsible, they vote Democratic because they’re young and rebellious and want to vote against the big business machine, ignoring the fact that the big business machine built their apartment/condo and owns their employer.

Single, rich city folk also fall here. These are the people you see in movies who have a ritzy apartment, usually with a doorman, but live empty solitary lives. No telling which way they will vote. If they’re completely self-centered, they’ll vote Republican because they hate taxes and want to hoard money. If they’re ex-flower children made good, then they’re vigorously liberal, feel guilty about the millions they made in the dot-coms, and vote Democrat through some sense of noblesse oblige.

3. Suburbia – OK, enough about “security moms” and “soccer moms”, dads vote too. Multiple schools of thought here, enough for a separate discussion, but several key groups:

· Union workers – Democrats. Period. And they should be. I’ve got a whole ‘nother essay about how Unions protect the incompetent and shaft the exceptional worker.

· Yuppies – Republicans. Yes, I know it’s an eighties term, but it fits. Dual income, kids in soccer, Little League, dance class. Own a minivan, want to upgrade houses but are settled into a comfortable mortgage that allows them to take vacations. (Yes, this is me). I want lower taxes, less spending on government entitlements like Welfare, farm subsidies, etc., better homeland security, and three strikes. Domestic security and taxes are the primary motivators here.

· Yuppies, but sensitive – These are Yuppies who have all of the above, but want everyone to have what they have. They might feel guilty that they work for a company that rapes the land and environment, and builds ghastly buildings that block the view, but they still accept their paycheck. They think that we shouldn’t build bombs but more doggie parks. They send money to Sally Struthers and do things like 5K walks for charity. Depending on the candidate, they can vote either way.

· Old, grumpy farts – These people bought their houses when the neighborhood was first built in the 1950’s. They don’t like paying taxes and they want to keep getting the COLA in their government checks. They’ll vote against the parcel tax for rebuilding the schools. After all, why should they pay more if their kids have already moved out? Taxes and Medicare/Social Security are the primary motivators here. Depending on their depth of religious conviction, they can vote either way.

· Softheads – I know a LOT of people in my little neck of suburbia that are complete softheads. They watch the news on TV or read the paper and parrot the views of whichever channel they watch or paper they read. CNN, Fox, CBS, NY Times, you can almost see someone else’s lips move when these people try to talk politics. They are so busy (or so ignorant), they don’t bother processing the information, so they merely regurgitate it as their own. Depending on which channel they watch, they can vote either way.

4. Farm/country living – Typically Republican. Moral values, family values, blah blah blah. They live outside of the city and suburbia because there is just too much damn crime there. They wanna raise their kids to learn the value of a hard day’s work, blah blah blah. This might be your God, gays, and guns arm of the GOP, but not necessarily. This is certainly the Democratic leadership’s opinion of the Republicans, which is a big reason why they’ve lost the last two elections.

I’ll bet you know people in every single one of these groups. Granted, the war on terrorism (and its bastard cousin, the war in Iraq) has added a new group to this analysis that has allies in all groups, the anti-war-at-any-costs brigade. This is the group that the Democrats counted on in the last election. The problem with that approach is that this group is a SUBSET of the other groups, and often, personal needs and values took mindshare and priority from an overseas war. Unless people were DIRECTLY touched by the Iraq war, it was unlikely to resonate in the voting booth as much as their personal convictions and self-interest.

Introduction

2004-11-08T11:03:00.000-08:00

If you’re coming here from The Commish’s Desk, this will be the political arm of that blog, amputated and placed here for convenience and distinction. And so I don’t bore the poker bloggerati with my political rants.

My name is Todd. I am 41 years old. Married almost 15 years, two kids, minivan, pickup, mortgage. I live in the frighteningly liberal Bay Area in the only city in Alameda County to have more registered Republicans than Democrats: Pleasanton. I’m a training specialist for a large bio-tech firm. I’ve worked in high tech for most of my career, marketing and/or training for the last 17 years.

Why is any of this germane? Why should you care? Because I’m a Republican. In California. Who doesn’t believe in God. Who is Pro-choice. And who is sick of the liberal gasbags in the media presenting the GOP as “God, gays, and guns” when those are the exact three issues where I diverge from the party lines. I think I am part of a growing section of the population that are social moderates, international isolationists, and fiscal conservatives. I think that this section is the plurality of voters in this country, and is ignored by the mainstream left-wing media since the media trumpets the left-wing, demonizes the right-wing, and ignores those of us in the middle.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by just this once. If you don’t come back, I won’t take it personally.