The Messiah Makes Mistakes?

Michelle Malkin on Barack Obama on National Review Online

I have no problem with BO making mistakes. He is a human just like the rest of us and no doubt he has some glaring weaknesses, since he seems to have excellent communication skills in both speaking and writing. It appears that numbers may be a large problem for him. A year ago he confidently talked about "Ten thousand killed in a tornado in Kansas".

Most people that have a standard grasp of numbers would immediately sense that was a VERY wrong number, especially when the real number as TWELVE. BO didn't. As I said then, that doesn't really mean anything, it just means he is human and since he is a Democrat, we all just go on without him being called stupid because of it.

There are a number of gaffes where he seems to not really have a solid grasp on how many states are in the US. The one Michelle quotes is pretty cute, I'm sure he FEELS that he has covered 57 states with 1 to go.

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Again, the primary problem here is that media bias prevents us from getting the full benefit of the humor of having a young guy with no leadership experience and a wife that is obviously pretty bitter about a lot of stuff run for President. There is no reason that it can't be even a bigger hoot than W mangling his prose with regularity. The Presidency is a job that no human being ever has or ever will handle with anything like perfection. The media loves to make a joke of Republican Presidents and if they get any chance they make them into a strange comedy of evil and incompetence that would seem to be metaphysically impossible in the real world.

Their love of Democrats drive them to work very hard to push all flaws and controversy aside as "unimportant", "politically motivated", etc. Sometimes, like with a Carter, the feet of clay just get so obvious that they can no longer keep up the fiction, but sometimes, with someone like Clinton they are able to "stand by their man" no matter how clear it becomes that even the clay is more like regular old dirt ... shit even. I Slick had been an R, his memory would be something like this in the minds of every American.

It is going to take a lot for BO to lose the MSM, and I suspect that "Bush Blame Syndrome" will hold him in good stead for one term no matter how bad things go. Republicans always have one weakness, we still love the country no matter how bad the odds against her may look, maybe especially when it looks dark. My prayer at this point is that BO will be about 100x as lucky as Reagan was, from the way he looks so far, he will need that and more.

Newsweek's Decline

America’s Decline Is Largely Self-Inflicted | Newsweek Voices - Michael Hirsh | Newsweek.com

I'm always heartened to read such a cold and level headed assessment of the Bush Presidency. One can tell that News Speak is a bastion of lack of bias and realistic appraisals of world affairs. Oh, the heaven that Bush was handed in 2001 -- a nation 10 months out of a major stock market crash, already in recession, so on top of the terrorist problem that the USS Cole had just been attacked and we were less than 8 months away from 9-11. Talk about a country in GREAT SHAPE!!!

I think the following shows how realistic this guy is about the position of the US (or any country in the world):

What an exercise in the judicious use of our great power that would have been, and what a trophy to place on the shelf after Germany and Japan following World War II! America would have been widely admired.

He is talking about "fixing Afghanistan" as the "use of our great power". I wonder how Germany and Japan feel about being "trophies on the shelf"? No "imperialist pretensions" on the left are there? The guy looks like he HAD to be alive in the 80's, maybe he was just on drugs or something. I read a WHOLE bunch of books that seemed to indicate that at least our Japanese "trophy" was very far from inert and was supposed to be eating our lunch.

I'd have no problem with the DNC printing this, it sounds exactly like the kind of propaganda that they BETTER believe if they think that you can hand the keys to the worlds only Superpower to a freshman Senator with no executive experience and have success. But a magazine that people are supposed to buy as "objective"? Wow.

Unacceptable Wife?

ABC News: Spare My Wife, Please: Can Chivalry Exist on the Campaign Trail?

Gee, BO thinks it is "unacceptable" for his wife to be brought into the campaign. I'll give ABC credit, they point out in the article that Democrats are already targeting Cindy McCain in a number of ways. Heck, during the campaign of 2004 Kitty Kelley came out with a book asserting that Laura Bush was a big drug user, potentially even a dealer during college. She got coverage on the Today Show and other MSM outlets. Oh, and the MSM and the Democrats ALWAYS kept Nancy Reagan out of it! Never heard stories on dresses, White House china, astrology, potential affairs with Frank Sinatra, etc, etc. Those Democrats are always big on "practice what they preach". I'd argue that Laura, Nancy, and at least so far Cindy McCain have kept themselves FAR more out of the media spotlight than old "I'm not proud" Mrs BO. No matter, if you have an "R" next to your name, you ARE "fair game" no matter what.

So what does BO mean by: ""If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in
this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable," ?? Does he mean that he will "negotiate" then? Would there be "conditions" to THOSE talks, or is it just "sit down and talk anytime"? I have no doubt that would be a real threat, since I'm convinced he could talk anyone to death.

It reminds me of the Billy C finger wag. Potentially old Billy and BO can work on their statements without the Secret Service guys around? It seems to me that it is much more "manly" to give your big "unacceptable" talk and bluster when you don't have top notch guys with guns arrayed around you and trained to give their lives for you. Those agents would even give their lives protecting a woman that isn't even proud of the country that they serve. What a world.

Hopefully Hamas, Iran and Al Qaeda will be a lot more impressed with BOs "unacceptable" than I find it to be.

Buffalo Theory of Drinking

It doesn't get much clearer than this! ;-)

The Buffalo Theory

In one episode of 'Cheers', Cliff is seated at the bar describing the Buffalo Theory to his buddy, Norm. I don't think I've ever heard the concept explained any better than this:

'Well you see, Norm, it's like this . . . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the lowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.'

The Fall of Conservatism

The Political Scene: The Fall of Conservatism: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

I thought this New Yorker Article was well on the longish side, but had some points worth looking at. The following is something that I think bears comment:

In its final year, the Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles. Buchanan said, “The conservatives need to, in Maoist terms, go back to Yenan.”

The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reëstablish dominance.

My fundamental analysis is that "Conservatives became too purist". The Buchanans and Wills just think that things will be OK if the Republicans "get back to the basics". The problems I see with that are:

1. Republicans never successfully REALLY sold smaller government. They sold the IDEA, but when they actually cut the RATE OF GROWTH in programs, they paid dearly for it and Clinton took the credit for the resulting budget surplus. This hurt them in MANY ways. Politically, it was expensive and simply ended up handing a feather to Clinton, and internally, it made Republicans feel that cutting spending wasn't worth it.
   
2. Tax cutting has pretty much OVER run it's course. The fact that people below say $50K pay so little tax today is dangerous. Much as a tithe to the church isn't about helping God, it is about helping YOU (because you see that this is a universe of plenty and gratitude for that is critical to your well being), paying some taxes on your income isn't only about "government revenue", it is about all Americans feeling that they are "paying their fair share". When folks decide that "taxes are for people that make more money than me to pay", we have a big problem, and I think we have it.
   
3. Republicans QUICKLY forgot how painful it is to be in the wilderness. They only controlled all three branches from 2002-2006, 4 short years out of the last 50+. When handed the keys to actual governance without the excuse of "the other party", the coalition promptly decided "this better be perfect or we are going to pout". Without a recession, with only the smallest of military difficulty relative to history (see WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc), and a natural "disaster" that hardly even qualifies as such (try <2k>

This quote is unfortunately exactly where I think we are at. The remaining issue now is "how long will Republicans be in the wilderness"? Unfortunately, I have to HOPE that it will be a long time, because I think it is going to take a national disaster of something greater than the late 1970s but hopefully not as bad as the depression.

Sam Tanenhaus summed up the 2008 race with a simple formula: Goldwater was to Reagan as McGovern is to Obama. From the ruins of Goldwater’s landslide defeat in 1964, conservatives began the march that brought them fully to power sixteen years later. If Obama wins in November, it will have taken liberals thirty-six years.

BO Anti-Bombast

Obama blasts Bush, McCain over 'attacks' - CNN.com

"I don't take what Bush says personally, but I was offended by what is
a continuation of strategy from this White House, now mimicked by Sen.
McCain, that replaces strategy and analysis and smart policy with
bombast, exaggerations and fear-mongering," Obama said.

How many times have we heard that "The policies of the Bush Administration have made us less safe"? If that phrase has any meaning, doesn't it HAVE to be "fear-mongering"? In the fall of 2000 the Cole was attacked by suicide bombers with 17 sailors killed. Hopefully we remember that on Sept 11, 2001 the US was attacked and 3,000 were killed. Since BO, the MSM, and the Democrats say we are "less safe", they are either just saying nothing, or saying that we will have greater and/or more attacks than we had in 2000 and 2001.

Slick Willie was President in 2000 and had been for nearly the full 8 years. We KNOW that the MSM and Democrats would assign the failure for THAT attack to him, right? It is pretty hard to imagine what sort of action Bush took between taking office in January 2001 and September that caused that attack. In fact, we KNOW that the perpetrators were in the US PRIOR to him taking office, so we know that the policies that established the level of risk were the Slicksters.

Now I'm sure that no matter how risky the situation is now, a brilliant tactician like BO, using the best in "strategy, analysis and smart policy", will insure that nothing similar to the 9-11 breach happens. I mean talk about precise, direct talk -- BO is going to give us not only "hope and change", but "strategy, analysis and smart policy". How in the world can anyone argue that he doesn't have any specific plans when he is making specific suggestions like that.

Meaning and Democrats

Power Line: If the shoe fits. . .

The Power Line post covers the details. Bush says appeasement doesn't work -- it didn't work with Nazi Fascists and it won't work with Islamic Fascists now. Obama gets his undies in a bundle because he realizes that he resembles that remark. The MSM rushes to the BO defense to beat on poor &lt; 25% approval Bush some more. When the sitting President talks about foreign policy (and is a Republican), that is "politicizing it" -- when BO, Hillary, the MSM, or anyone else talks about it, especially with a good Bush bash thrown in, that is "non-divisive good politics". Simple.

So if we are in greater danger now than ever before due to Bush, why isn't that "politics of fear"? Since the Democrats have made that assertion over and over again, if we are NOT attacked prior to 9-11-2009 will that mean that they are wrong?

In another post today, BO says "The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of
problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to
be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with
violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

"compelled"? Certainly he means "persuaded", but that would sound like what it is-weak and appeasing, so he says something incoherent. BO is raising incoherency to a new art form, and the MSM and the sheep are loving it every step of the way. The problem is always that reality is a lot more coherent than imagination. One can state a lot of things, but eventually the people that live off fantasy end up facing some piece of reality--which for a good long while will just mean more "blame someone else", but eventually, reality wins.

Why Is Diesel Higher?

I heard this question one too many times, so I thought I'd do 10 seconds of looking on the net for a more detailed answer than what I was sure I'd find. "Supply/Demand and a bunch of Government messing things up -- same as always!".

Here is the US Energy Information Administration site answer:

Question: Why are diesel fuel prices higher than gasoline prices?

---

Historically, the average price of on-highway diesel fuel was usually lower than or close to the price of regular gasoline. In some cold winters demand for distillate heating oil pushed diesel fuel prices higher. Since September 2004, diesel prices have been higher than regular gasoline prices almost continuously for several reasons:
	High worldwide demand for diesel fuel and other distillate fuel oils, especially in Europe, China, India and the United States, and a tight global refining capacity available to meet demand.
	The transition to lower-sulfur diesel fuels in the United States is affecting diesel fuel production and distribution costs.
	The Federal excise tax on on-highway diesel fuel is 6 cents per gallon higher (at 24.4 cents/gallon) than the tax on gasoline.

So, the more detailed answer is:

1. Supply USED to be higher than demand for diesel relative to gas, so especially in countries where fuel prices were artificially high due to government intervention (Europe), or refining capacity was limited or simplistic (India, China), more vehicles were purchased that burned diesel. More vehicles means more demand, so the demand for diesel went up and now the situation is reversed. Sadly, for those folks that invested in diesel engines, the engines are a lot more expensive, so that demand tends to be INELASTIC ( a technical economic term that is basically "sticky". Cigarette demand is the classic "inelastic demand" -- people tend to keep buying even when you raise the price). When you have inelastic demand, producers can make more profit--at the risk of getting more competition, but see other factors.
   
2. The US has regulations pushing us to low sulfur diesel which will be even MORE expensive! While we are in the process of switching, there tend to be spot shortages that drive the price up even more.
   
3. We are short on refining capacity - mainly due to pollution controls and government making threats of what regulations "might be". Sometimes the media talks about "80% capacity", but that is very much a red herring. Most plants can't even run at 100% in any case (do you run your car wide open? If you did, how efficient do you think that would be?), and among the things limiting the capacity are regulations on pollution, hours of operation, etc.
   
4. We tax diesel more -- a built in 5% "premium" for diesel thanks to uncle means that everyone down the line from refiner to pump tends to go for their own "premium" -- more like .x%, but there are more of them than there are of the big fed, so it adds up.
   

Why isn't this of interest to a newspaper? It seems very easy to look up and a lot of people seem interested? Here is why:

1. Pollution controls are supposed to be FREE -- these facts give the lie to that, papers don't like to report that kind of information. It might make people question the costs of a bunch of regulations that the Democrats and the MSM want.
   
2. The MSM believes that government intervention is "beneficial AND free (or at least "cheap/worth it"). That is what the MSM believes, but what we see in the real world is the government intervention tends to be costly and harmful. The MSM likes to report what they believe, not what is, so there isn't much reason to report this. That would be like doing a bunch of reports on a late spring, record COLD temps, less hurricanes than expected, etc. They don't talk about that in the MSM, just hot temps.
   
3. Supply and Demand are working -- and that isn't a view that the MSM really likes either. When Europe jacked the prices on gas, the people started to use more diesel, which in turn has jacked the demand on diesel. Much better to let folks assume it is some Oil Company Conspiracy, failure of the Bush administration, or just about anything else than what it actually is.
   

This is a pretty classic case of what the MSM likes. "Ignorance for the sheep is bliss". It would be EASY to report these facts and it would even be INTERESTING, but of course smart sheep aren't the kind that are likely to follow the MSM and vote for Obama! Better keep that wool over their eyes!

What's So Amazing About Grace?

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Amazing-About-Grace/dp/0310245656

I read the subject book by Phillip Yancy for the book club at our church. It opens with a shocking little story about a drug addicted prostitute in Chicago that had been renting out her 2 year old daughter for sex in order to make enough money to cover her drug habit. When asked if she had ever thought of going to church for help, she replied: "Church! Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse!".

The book is on the "scandal of Grace"-how Christ came for what we see as the "really sinful", and that the message is that WE are the "really sinful". Christ came for the prostitute renting her daughter and for the men paying for her. Hitler and even W (if you are a Democrat), and the difference between us and the worst sinner we can imagine isn't significant at all compared with the gulf between all of us and God.

Yancey was raised a fundamentalist in a racist white church. He seems to feel much worse about the racism than gays, prostitutes, adulterers, murderers or most anything else -- somewhat in conflict with his own message. The point that he makes about the fundamentalists is nearly identical to my background. "Spiritual" was how well one followed all the various rules of the church against drinking, smoking, dancing, movies, TV, rock music, evolution, etc. How "spiritual", or "likely to REALLY be saved" depended on how well you did relative to the rules.

In the Baptist Church, the prodigal son was "unsaved" -- his "return" was really "his birth", but in the Lutheran Church, the prodigal is a Christian gone astray--he was already a "real son", but he messed up bigtime. The "ungrace churches"--often called "fundamentalists" for some odd reason, make much more of the "conversion" and a lot less of the "journey" toward heaven. Since they are primarily "once saved, always saved", there isn't a lot of reason for the real presence of Christ in communion. You get forgiven once, and at least for the "big sins", that ought to be it. Yancey seems to be on the journey to figuring out that we need a lot more grace as humans than a one-time conversion.

When we DON'T get that, what we get are "fake conversions". Lots of smiles, handshakes and warmness at church, but in the recesses of the heart and the lives away from church, the "rules" at all levels of detail and spirit are being broken because just like the Scribes and Pharisees, "the rules" or "the law" has become supreme, and Christ came because it wasn't possible for humans to keep the law.

I'm not sure if Yancy ever really figures out where he ends up on a lot of issues though -- maybe just confused. On balance, it is a worthy Christian read, but at times there seems to be more "wondering" than "insight". There are certainly times where reflection vs insight is the best "answer" ... perhaps this is one of them.

Money In Politics?

Powerline has a nice little post here on Democrats working to stack the 527 deck (things like MoveOn.org) so that they ONLY have 527s that agree with them. As always, they are very strong in supporting the right to agree with them-it is only if you have some other view that you find yourself breaking some law.

What I find really interesting though is that this year Republicans are BEHIND in fund raising by a HUGE amount (like 3 to 1 or worse if one counts all the congressional races and the 527s). I'm SURE I'm wrong, but in other years when Republicans were out raising Democrats, I could SWEAR that there were a number of articles on the "scourge of big money in politics", how "big money drowns out the voice of the people", how "all that money corrupts the process and the politicians". Guess not - I'm SURE that the unbiased MSM would have the same view if Democrats were the ones with all the money, right? I mean to not believe that, one would have to believe that the MSM just cares about electing Democrats and they only used the money issue when it was going against Democrats and now that the worm has turned, they are all for it.


Power Line: The Democrats Can Dish It Out...

MSM Confidential: Tony Rezko

Imagine a front-runner for a party nomination for the WH that had a close associate currently in a criminal trial for corruption. Sound like something an "unbiased MSM that wanted to sell papers" would cover? Well, certainly not when that candidate is BO and the buddy is Tony Rezko. The following links and quotes are from the bastion of conservatism, the Chicago Sun-Times

8 things you need to know about Obama, Rezko :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: The Watchdogs

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. 

The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million --$300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price --$625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor. 

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity


Link to current info on the Rezko trial.

Uh, "people MIGHT think the Rezkos had done him a favor"? Folks think this guy ought to be PRESIDENT? !! Dan Quayle not knowing how to spell "potato" was an issue for a Republican. For a Democrat, getting a $300K bargain on a house and a couple hundred K on some land might "look like a favor"!

This kind of thing has precedent of course. Hillary Clinton made $100K in cattle futures in one day of trading "legally", and only evil Republicans would pay any attention. OTOH, Cheney having a legitimate job and Bush having a baseball team have been investigated over and over and insinuations have been made right and left that "even though they can't find anything, there MUST be SOMETHING wrong SOMEWHERE".

Just how many times have we heard "Cheney / Halliburton" as if there was something evil about being employed? I'm sure that every lefty reading this finds the Hillary story to be "useless old news" -- but when CBS came out with the 30+ year old info on Bush's National Guard service, they were licking their chops with no concerns of "old news". Being a lefty means you never even consider consistency!

The MSM believes that "doing right", which primarily involves having a "D" next to your name, ought to be rewarded -- money, land, power, sexual favors, trips, star treatment. As long as you are willing to support the agenda of no personal responsibility, no morals and "equality of outcome" (meaning, get "the rich" to pay for everything), you get the goodies. If you believe in individual responsibility, hard work, and allowing people to experience the fruits of their decisions / actions, then you deserve to be destroyed by any means possible -- even if the charges have to be entirely made up.

I'm sure that the MSM will be all over whatever Republicans bring up the Rezko connection, but I bet the Democrats won't even have to bring up the Keating Scandal -- the MSM will do it for them. The only thing that MIGHT save him is that the other 4 Senators were Democrats, and the investigation showed McCain to have the same level of guilt as John Glenn. The power of the inconsistency of the left never ceases to amaze me -- though it is often the innuendo that is stronger than any facts, and they are experts at that.

BO's Gospel of Bitterness

Power Line: Michelle Obama's gospel of bitterness

What one picks up very quickly from BOs book, and here from his wife is that the attachment to Rev Wright and the comments on the "Bitterly Clinging" are part of his basic makeup. The BOs feel that the world is vastly unfair in many ways, and no doubt a lot of it is a "vast conspiracy". This isn't unique to them-Hillary notably felt that there was a "vast RIGHT WING conspiracy" and mentioned it on the today show. Lefties of every stripe have their own favorite whipping boys- corporations, big business, CEOs, the military industrial complex, the religious right, angry white men, the "God, Guns and Gays" idiots--they always have someone to blame, never themselves.

Why is it again that the Democrats set up the rules that they did for their primary's and are having so much trouble? I've actually heard them blame the Republicans, but that seems like REALLY stretching.

To have bias and thoughts of false conspiracy is as human as breathing. Democrats and liberals celebrate humanity and material existence as supreme, so trying to look into their own boogie men seems unreasonable. At least major parts of the Republican party celebrate transcendence, with many celebrating real Christian transcendence with an actual God, not just some "ultimate socialist". That form of Christianity demands that the log in our own eye be dealt with before the mote in the others eye. Is that hard/impossible for humans? Certainly, but to believe in the specific transcendence of Christianity is to believe in the divine help of a holy spirit to assist in that admittedly tough task.

When one starts out with God as creator, then we are forced to admit that we have no idea of the justice of the world. We didn't create it, and it isn't in our hands. While there almost certainly are some conspiracies from time to time, those of us that have worked in larger organizations and groups of people realize that it is tough enough to keep a secret of something that people are legally obligated to keep a secret on due to personnel, medical, or legal restrictions. It simply becomes too easy to tell a wife, a trusted friend, or someone that "you are sure it won't matter to". Before long, the secret is common knowledge. There are no conspiracies that matter. Organized crime may come close, but I think we have all heard about that, so it isn't VERY secret.

So why be bitter? Well, as the article says, America today is a place where "outrage is honored". Approaching issues in a way that once seemed too juvenile for a teenager is now "honored" for ministers, candidates and candidates wives. In fact, the curl of the lip or the wag of the finger is considered perfectly acceptible--you are outraged, that is valid, no reason at all that you should need to produce any further facts.

How different George and Laura Bush are from that style. The level of pounding that they have taken from all sides is amazing, and there is absolutely no evidence that either of them did a single thing for motives other than a belief that it was the right policy to be followed for the country. What a contrast to the Clinton's that grasped at power and targeted everyone that pointed out any of their flaws for any personal accusation that could be found or made up. I don't think I've seen an angry word from either of them, and while the "claim" was made that Valerie Plame was "targeted", it finally came out that Richard Armitage was actually the one that "outed her" inadvertantly.

The Bushes, continue to soldier on doing the best job they can and turning the other cheek. If someone without bias was to look at the accomplishments of the administration -- 1 quarter of negative growth following the worst attack on US soil ever, most consecutive quarters of economic expansion in US history, largest increase in personal income since the 60's, Taliban defeated and elected government in Afghanistan, Saddam defeated and elected government in Iraq ... it might look pretty good compared to the accomplishment of Clinton "first Presidential semen identified on employee clothing".

If GW's approval numbers go any lower, I may have to put him in the slot of my #1 President over Reagan. Anyone the MSM hates as much as they hate him is someone that I have to give a lot of credit to.

House Progress, Rafters Up

We moved out of the old bedroom over the weekend and today the contractors made tracks on the addition. The rafters are all up, some new pictures are in the gallery. It was also a nice day here today, easily breaking 70, so it was fun to walk out in what is still a bit TOO open of a bedroom.

70% Think Things Are Bad

Poll: 70 percent in U.S. say things are going badly - CNN.com

Last night I heard on NPR that "some economists say this may be a mild recession". That is pretty interesting in a week in which we discovered that the economy GREW by .6 in the last quarter and that unemployment DROPPED with a loss of only 20K jobs rather than the predicted 80-100K.

I also watched the movie of "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand last night, where Gail Wynand states that "The masses will believe whatever I tell them". NPR and the polls show that Ayn was right on that front. One of the reasons that "Bush is a bad President" is because this is his SECOND recession! The problem is, that if we used numbers and facts as a measure, CLINTON handed Bush a recession as he took office and Bush presided over a hugely difficult RECOVERY that included 9-11 and ONE QUARTER of drop in GDP - which, if we believed numbers, wouldn't be a recession at all.

We haven't had ANY quarters of decline in GDP yet this time, so by the numbers, this "recession" isn't a recession. BUT, thanks to "the masses believing whatever the MSM tells them", 70% say "things are bad". Most people are drawn to being in agreement with the majority, and the idea that one needs to think critically and use your own mind is a dangerous idea to those that seek collective power. It is also the founding idea of this country and what has historically made us special and great. The individual freedom that makes us special is NEVER "free" however. It requires a significant number of people to stand up for principles that are NOT going to be popular with "the masses".

Say it Isn't So

More signs the world isn't ending - May. 2, 2008

Wow, available on CNN by just linking off the main page. UNBELEIVEABLY, the econonomy isn't as bad as the MSM and the Democrats have been saying!!! As the title says, the world actually doesn't seem to be ending. Even with what we have been told over and over again is just a horrible President and record high oil prices, we seem to be narrowly avoiding a recession (even though the MSM and the Democrats have told us over and over we are IN one). This is INCREDIBLE? I wonder if that means that there might be other things that the MSM is wrong about? Nah, can't be, those folks are just too intelligent to make more than one mistake every century or so.

Since we are on AMAZING revelations from the MSM, I'm still confused as to how it was obvious that Bush went into Iraq for oil, but the prices have just kept going up? Was it sort of like the WMD, eveyone thought that Iraq had oil but it turned out that they really didn't? I mean, I know he led us in there "all on lies" for SOME reason - and I thought at one time I had it straight that he was "lying about WMD to get oil". Since I always believe the MSM, I've been waiting for all that cheap oil that we were going to be getting out of Iraq since that was the real reason we went in there.

I'm generally a red state kind of guy, so not very bright, I'm sure they will be explaining it to me soon.