My dear mother got me a Nook for Xmas! I hear that I was pretty lucky as the current expected shipping date for any new orders is Feb 1.



I have to say that I am very impressed with the device. Unlike the Kindle, the Nook offers support for multiple formats including Epub. The nice thing about this is it is a pretty popular format for finding ebooks in. If you can't find a book in epub format, Stanza is good for easily converting anything from .lit or even Amazon's format into Epub with a few clicks.

Here is an image of just a simple Epub I pulled off the net.



Even better is its pdf support! Most ebook readers can read pdf's but seem unable to process images that are present in the document. But, the Nook is a horse of a different color. Looky here.



I know, the text is small. But you have to set the font to small else the pdf blows up and the pages are distorted. Not unreadable distorted, but enough to push things around and mess with the pictures and what not. All and all, this is a great device for all you readers out there.

It took 10 years, but someone finally decided to write the review that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace truly deserved. I could never figure out why this movie rubbed me the wrong way. Probably because I never really thought about it, but this guy summed it up for me beautifully. Basically, the story made no sense (as well as screwed up some of the things we were told in the previous episodes); characters were not relatable and even harder to care about; I could go on, but I would take away from the actual review. Basically, it was like watching a documentary.

I won't mention anymore of the review's concept except for the author's final and brilliant point about George Lucas. George Lucas has always been against the established Hollywood way of making movies. I'd go so far as to say that George Lucas is a living inspiration for all the smaller, garage founded studios out there. But, I think Lucas Films has gone the way of many successful movie studios, and additionally, George Lucas himself has gone the way of many once talented directors/writers into the unchecked, can-do-no-wrong-so-therefore-anything-I-do-can-not-be-wrong mentality.

Anyway, I let the review speak for itself.

Here are parts two, three, four, five, six, and seven.

Is this what you had in mind, or has the line been crossed yet?

I can't say that I am a big conspiracy theorist. I love to read about them and see the creative ways that people piece seemingly unrelated coincidences into massive plans of corruption and quests for power. The theory that seems most compelling to me is the "One World Order" theory. You know. That one that says there is a secret, shadow government that truly runs all the world's affairs from a single room, and all elected politicians in the richest companies are actually controlled by these guys (or gals). Exciting and compelling stuff, wouldn't you say?

Now there are plenty of variations on this theory. Is it a group of religious figure-heads? Free Masons? Who knows. But one of the predominate theories--especially after the economic crisis--is the idea that these puppeteers are actually bankers. Big shots in the financial industry with the money to effect elections and even war through armaments. Now, like I said, I don't put too much stock in these theories being actually true, but something did happen today that made me instantly think of this conspiracy theory in particular.

Today, a Senate panel decided to back Ben Bernanke for a second term as head of the federal reserve. Bernanke? The same guy that didn't see the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" (quoted for President Obama) coming? The guy who said unemployment wouldn't exceed 10.1% which soon reached a high 10.5%? Well that alone wouldn't make the case for some group of powerful bankers influencing the decision of a Federal Reserve Head. Bernanke would have to be of some use to them. Give them some edge. Well it just so happens that Bernanke does that.

One of the primary duties of the Fed Chairman is to set the Fed Discount Rate. For those of you less than acquainted with the workings of the Federal Reserve, the Discount Rate is the rate at which banks can borrow cash from the federal reserve in order to pay loans and hand out to customers. It gets all really technical. If you are still interested, check out Wikipedia. Anyway, so Bernanke has kept the fed rate low at .5% (how many of you would like that rate for your mortgage?).

So what? Doesn't mean they are getting rich off this. Aren't they? Ask yourself how banks are able to pay back TARP money in record time. Well, one way is to buy treasury bonds, which are a guaranteed up to 4% return. Even the two year bond yields .55%. So they can borrow money at .5%, use it to buy bonds for a modest return will little work on the part of the bank.

Let's face it though, it is just a conspiracy theory right? And lest we forget, failure at one's job is a resume enhancement in Washington, so all this is just business as usual right? It is all just a coincidence that with Bernanke in charge and keeping Fed rates low, banks are making bank (so to speak) while the rest of us continue to suffer, right? Right?

So, in an act of defiance to the Democrat agenda, Tom Coburn uses a parliamentary procedure and has a single 700+ page amendment read aloud on the Senate floor. Imagine! Reading a piece of legislation that will effect the lives of millions of American's health care and pocket books. Such defiance!

The amendment was offered by Vermont Independent (self-described Socialist) Bernard Sanders. His amendment's :

aim was to establish a single-payer, or government-run, health care system in the United States. Under Sanders' amendment, the nation's Medicare program would be extended to every U.S. citizen.

After about an hour of reading, Sanders pulled the amendment, thus stopping the reading.

So let me get this straight. All we have to do is read the stuff Democrats want on the floor of the Senate, and they will pull it? Are the things they offer so horrendous that if they were simply read aloud, that they will make a fast turn about, pull their ideas, and throw them in the trash? Had we known it would be that easy, I image the Tea Party protesters would have just stayed home.

The following post is a response to Rush Limbaugh and his response to a showing of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. Before I get to the letter, I want to set the record straight. I love Rush Limbaugh, and I love SVU. The following is not an attempt to smooth over a school yard bickering between two of my friends, rather I think the episode in question has much more to say about the Left and not much about Right Wing radio talkers.

Most of all, I would invite Rush (and you) to watch the SVU episode and come to your own conclusions.



Dear Rush,

To start out, let me offer Mega Dittos to you and your staff. Regardless of what any might say about you and your show, I am and remain a loyal fan and 24/7 subscriber, but I must take issue with some you mentioned on your show. I would of called in to discuss this with you had I heard you discussing it at the time (your show is an hour behind in the Tulsa, OK area), and even had I gotten through to Snerdley, I probably still wouldn't have gotten through because you only spent so much time on the subject (I have gotten through before only to be let go because you moved on in subjects and it wasn't open line Friday). But, thanks to the internet and your 24/7 email on your website, I hope you still hear what I have to say.

On, your Dec. 14th show, you took the opportunity of a caller referencing an American Thinker piece to lambast the most recent Law and Order: Special Victims Unit's newest episode. I have to admit, that after seeing a few previews, I wasn't sure how I would accept the show, but after watching the entire show, I came away with a different view. Now, it is not often that I disagree with your analysis of an issue, but I believe your thoughts on the SVU episode is a tad baseless as you yourself said you did not watch the show itself. Thought I don't expect you to become a fan of the show, I am hoping that this might clear some things up.

To sum up the episode, Detective "Fin" Tutuola (played by Ice-T) has fall into a investigating a series of child murders. All of these victims turn out to be "anchor babies", and the perp is a nut who is said to have been influenced by a Right-Wing talk host (who carries a cigar around I might add). In the middle of this fight is a bleeding heart, liberal attorney who decides to defend the perp even though the man attacked him at his own law office.

Now the part that you and others are taking offense to is one that I can understand. The liberal attorney (played by John Larroquette) is sitting on a bench with Fin when he mentions that you, Beck, O'Reilly, and others like you are a poison on this society. While I can understand your distaste for this statement, you have to understand who it is coming from. This attorney is a parody of the Left today. Instead of blaming the perpetrator of the murders for the actual evil they were, he builds his entire defense on a TV and/or radio show he watches/listens to. And this is problem with the Left today.

You and others have said that the Left does not view perpetrators of evil through a lens of reality. Instead they seek to blame society or their ideological enemies for the evil they dish out. The defense attorneys of KSM blame America for 9/11; Clinton blames you for Oklahoma City; Obama and the Democrats blame Bush for the current economic recession and Republicans for their inability to keep their own party in line. Never do they look at the actual problem, rather they use the risen problem as a platform to public denounce those they disagree with.

The worst part with this way of thinking is the final outcome that follows, and SVU demonstrated this in the last 10 minutes of the show. John Larroquette's character ends up getting a not guilty verdict for his client. The man who murders three children gets away with it, and the attorney finds this to be a victory. At least for a few seconds. During the momentary celebration, the murderer whispers something inaudible into the attorney's ear. Suddenly his smiling face turns to horror. The show when fast forwards to Fin arriving at the attorney's office with the attorney standing over the dead body of his client. Fin learns that what the murdered whispered into his ear was something like this (paraphrasing): "Thanks for getting me off. Now, I can kill the rest of those kids."

As always, the Left comes to the realization of Evil's existence too late in the game. The problem was not the cigar carrying, talking head that the liberal attorney sought to truly put on trial, the problem was this single extremist murder who used the talking head as an excuse to kill others he didn't like. But by the time the Left realizes it, all other options are exhausted or it is too late for any of them to work.

I can see how one or two lines in the show might have angered yourself and others, but just like your show, listening to only a few lines misses the true message you are trying to get spread. I feel like Law and Order: SVU has fallen victim to this in this case. Not saying they don't attempt to push some political agenda every now and even, but I truly believe that Law and Order as a whole is more about the ups and downs of crime and out legal system, not necessarily a ideological opinion. I hope this cleared things up for you.

Sincerely, your loyal listener and 24/7 subscriber,

Robert

Wow... that's it? I figured it would be more.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.

Don't get me wrong. This is a good direction. It tells me that people are starting to wake up from this childish idea that the government can solve anything, but I have a feeling that most of these people are basing their opinion on the direction of the economy which is continuing to go south, and not the fed's continue involvement in sectors they have no business or credibility involving themselves in. They probably still hold out "hope" that with the right leadership, their lives would be better.

This is the real lesson Americans need to relearn. There is only one person who can make their lives better, and that is themselves.

Thank goodness!




Is it just me, or does the Left suddenly declare debates completed when they are starting to lose?

I know this is probably a little late, but the following speech is so important on so many levels. I'll let it speak for itself.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

If you are like me, you have at the top of your head a single, good question. Why isn't this taught in school today? I can remember learning about the history of Thanksgiving in elementary school. It was all pilgrims and Indians around a long table with a large turkey that was oddly cooked to today's standards. I never heard a thing about George Washington or his and Congress's thanks to God for all that had happened during the formation of our country.

Secondly, where is the supposed "separation of church and state" that the Left actively points to to impress their secular agenda on us all? If the founders truly envisioned a society where God played no part, would they really have declared a day of actual Thanksgiving to God? While, I agree with the popular notion that our founders didn't want the church to have a first hand in our country's governance, I doubt they ever intended for God to be completely blotted out of the public sector.

So, during this weekend, take time to thank God for His role in the founding of our country as well as your personal lives.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

At some point, most American's reach a revelation about what they believe and hold dear, and they compare that what is happening in their country. Mine came about 4 years ago a few years before I rejoined the collegiate community. My father and other relatives had always told me about the leftist slant of today's institutions of higher learning, so I felt compelled to discover my own values before someone was given the chance to decide that for me.

During that time, I have seen many lines drawn on both the left and the right. I have seen how both sides attempt to define their own or the opposing sides viewpoints through titles and words--the best example being the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice titles, but oddly enough, there is one defining title that we all seem to use happily use when referring to a segment of the battle of ideologues. That is the Mainstream Media.

The Mainstream Media loosely defines those elements of the media that have the mileage to their resumes to back up their clout. NBC (now MSNBC), CNN, CBS, and newspapers such as The New York Times and the LA Times all fall under the Mainstream Media mantle. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, as you might have guessed, I have a problem with this title.

Now, my problem is not the grouping. God knows that all these institutions belong together. My problem is the classification. When I think "mainstream" news sources, I think of news sources that define or help steer the climate of political debate. Are the before mentioned institutions steering the debate? Are they steering anything at all? I say no.

Let's start simple. I would assume that in order to be effective a news organization would need people to tune in. If no one gets the information, how are they supposed to effect anything? It is no secret that this is the big handicap of the "mainstreamers". Newspapers are failing and loosing ad revenue; cable news organizations are loosing viewers. It is so bad that even the Huffington Post can't ignore the numbers. But, let's face it. There is much more than numbers to look at. Like simple coverage.

Scandals can make or break a political agenda. Watergate destroyed the Nixon administration. Lewinsky severely damaged Clinton. And with media careers being made on the coverage of scandals, you would think that any media outlet would leap at the opportunity to cover one. Not this media. As of today, we have had two major... HUGE scandals that while they are not directly tied to this President, would still be damaging if properly covered. I am speaking of course about the ACORN and Climategate scandals. And who has covered them? Not the "Mainstream" media. You'd be hard pressed to find any talk about Climategate, and even Jon Stewart thought the non-coverage of ACORN was a bit unsettling.

So where are we? The "mainstream" media obviously doesn't want to do their job, and no one wants to listen to what they have to say. Is this what passes for "mainstream" in Obama's America? I think we should redefine them. Whether should call them the "Lamestream Media" as Bernard Goldberg calls them or the "State Controlled Media" as Limbaugh says is up in the air. But mainstream? Not so much.

So, while looking at the wires at Breitbart.com, I came across a poll that says that a majority now support a public option. It showed that 52% of Americans now support a public option. Of course, when it come to any poll, you want to make sure they are legit. And the best way to do this is too look at the methodology.

We have a right to question what polls might say with CBS and others polling more Democrats in order to get a more favorable result for their programs. So, it is only logical that one might see these results as fishy. Especially with other pollers showing much different numbers. So I followed the actual wire and guess what I found... only this:

A picture:



And only what they talk about in the wire:

In the AP-GfK poll, the differently worded questions on the public plan each had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. The poll interviewed 1,502 people from Oct. 29-Nov. 8 with an overall sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Nothing about their methodolgy. Nothing about who they interview; their voter status; or even who they interviewed them. Was it a phone interview or a sit down with random college students from the Stanford campus? I have looked everywhere, and I haven't found it.

Are they hiding the methodology so that people with focus on the results rather than the methods used to get the result they wanted? I don't know. This only fuels the skepticism that the American public has for the media.

I finally got around to finishing Dan Brown's newest book The Lost Symbol. The book was long and interesting like all of Dan Brown's book, but this one is probably at the bottom of my likability scale, which is tough for me to say. I have read all of Brown's book, and I can honestly say that I enjoyed and reread every single one of them. But, this book, was definitely not one I would read again.

The book follows Brown's most popular character Robert Langdon, the esteemed symbologist from Harvard who has been used in matters of religious background. Langdon has had an interesting life, first being used by the Vatican to help unearth a plot to destroy the Catholic headquarters and second being caught in an mad man's attempt to uncover the Church's biggest secret. In this book, another mad man seeks to use Langdon to uncover the long hidden secret the Freemasons have long protected until the world of was to receive it.

My first problem with the book is the recycled plot line Brown has seemed to have suck himself in. It was a good idea for the first to books, but it seems like a person whose only real skill is deciphering is ancient, religious symbols is finding that his specialty has few customers and even fewer exciting uses for his talent. Or maybe Brown is not using his talents creatively. There is a lot of potential for a character like Langdon. Why not have him uncover some lost civilization? Solve some ancient, cross racial/religious grudge? Who knows? Brown needs to branch out from Christianity.

My second problem is the length and pace of the book. It didn't have the thriller feel that Brown had in all his other books. The chapters were short as you might expect from a thriller, but their pace was drawn out. And there seemed to be a lot of information that wasn't required for the book to progress. All this caused me to take at least a week to read the book rather than the average day or two Brown's other books take me to read.

What I like about the book was Brown's approach to religion that Brown has become known for. Brown seems to want his readers to see the problems of fundamentalism in religion. This, as everyone knows, created a lot of negative publicity--which might be why his book became so popular--around his book, The DaVinci Code.

Overall, the book was okay. But not what I expected from a suspense writer from like Dan Brown. If there was a star system, I'd say 6 out of 10 stars.

So, here we are. Over eight years later after the worst mainland attack in the United States, we find ourselves in a wondrous position. We have the masterminds of the attacks in a military prison. The country and more importantly, the families of the dead have moved on with their lives while still holding to the memory of those taken of them. Everything is relatively kosher for a people who have witnessed one of the world's worst tragedies. That was until today.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that they will be putting the masterminds behind 9/11 on trial in New York City. In the interest of justice, the Obama Administration has decided to take the mad men back to the city the crimes were committed and try them in civilian court.

Now, I ask a question that all of us are probably asking: Why? Why now? Why a civilian trial and not a military tribunal? Why waste the resources at all? They confessed to the crimes (if you can call them that) and requested to be executed. As a prosecutor with a full confession and a perpetrator with the willingness to receive the maximum sentence, this shouldn't even go to trial.

Not to mention the trouble the prosecution will have just taking this to trial. There is no telling how hard it is going to be to find an impartial jury in a city where everyone knows someone who died in those attacks? Let's not forget about the Defense's right to discovery. They are going to have access to undercover agents lists, intelligence reports, classified documents, the list goes on. Any prosecutor in their right mind, especially one that does not wish classified information to fall in the hands of overzealous lawyers, would NOT want this to go to trial.

I question the motives of this decision. Especially the timing of the trial. Four years? It seems odd to me that this president with his extremely ambitious list of things he wants to get done wants nothing of what he wants to get done to take effect until his second term in office. Health care, if passed, won't go into effect until 2013. This grand trial of the mastermind behind 9/11 won't be until 2014?

What are they hiding I wonder?

In a world of the brainwashed American, it is commentary like this that keeps me going.

Well done, Sonja Schmidt. It is becoming more and more obvious that the truly strong, self-respecting women that should be lifted up to role-model status in America call conservatism home. While the weak and dependent are Democrats.

"Damn this age of technology, quick recall, and brain stimulating drugs" is probably on the mind of Nancy Pelosi. A few weeks ago, after Obama released the CIA memos that started this debate on enhanced interrogations, Pelosi took to the microphone and said Congress was never told about the methods Bush and the CIA used. Well, it didn't take too long for the truth to start coming out.

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Who cares, right? Just another politician telling lies to get what she wanted. That is just the game, right?

I am sick beyond cure of these people. Why must we listen to these "leaders" decry the practices of Wall Street as selfish and immoral, while they, themselves, blatantly lie to us when it suits their political agenda?

If this country hopes to recover from this and any future economic mess, we are going to need a good dose of morality from the top, down. We need to step back to those basics that we teach our children and our leaders talk about daily: Don't lie, be nice to others. You know, those Judeo-Christian principles everyone is so glad we were not founded on.

Thank God we have a president that "believe[s] in the power of prayer". Oh... wait.

So it seems like Jeb Bush has joined the populist chorus line that the GOP should shed its conservative, Reagan roots and try to attract moderates. I don't disagree with the premise that the GOP (or any political movement) has to enlist the help of some moderates to get what they want. My disagreement is with the premise of attracting moderates by being moderate!

Let's say you are a media consultant working for a presidential campaign. Your client asks you to make a commercial geared toward moderates. What would your commercial be? What issues do moderates care about? As a matter of fact, what do moderates think about certain issues? Let me make it simpler. What would a commercial about health care say in order to attract moderates? In short, nothing.

That is because moderates--by definition--have no opinion! This is why 90% of the ads for presidential and other political candidates are negative. They are trying to attract moderates. A candidate doesn't want to say what his positions are on an issue, because it might offend someone with moderate tendencies--which are neutral in nature. Instead, the candidate attacks his opponents extremist side to point out the non-moderate nature of their opponent. It is a vicious back and forth of "I'm moderate and he's not" that is modern politics.

The fact is, you can not attract moderates by being moderate. There is nothing attractive about being moderate. A moderate presidential candidate seems weak and indecisive. They seem out of touch and favors the status quo.

Look at John McCain. Last election, the GOP nominated the most moderate and bi-partisan individual they had to offer. And he lost! He didn't attract moderates. He repelled them. To them, he seemed weak and unfit for the job. The economic crisis showed these moderates that they didn't want a man of moderation. They wanted a man of action! They wanted someone who was going to take big steps to fix the economy and fix Washington. Basically, they wanted an extremist!!!!

There is only one way to attract moderates, and that is the way Reagan did it. He did it by being conservative. He said, "this is what I stand for." And the moderates like it. They liked it so much, he won with forty-nine state landslides and elected him twice. Be conservative and Moderates will come. If they don't, either they don't get the message, or they are not moderate.

I typically don't post about something until after the story breaks. It gives me time to clear out any off-the-cuff emotional responses I might have and gives me time to think. I try to only blog in a manner that exhibits thought instead of pure emotion. This is not going to be one of those posts.

Sen. Arlen Specter (W-PA) (stick with me and you'll find out what the 'W' stands for) has switched parties from the Republicans to the Democrats, giving the Dems 59 seats in the Senate. The fate of the filibuster proof Senate now rests in the hands of that partisan jackass Al Franken. What a country, right?

Many people are thinking that signals the end of the Republican party. Or a sign that the Republicans are no longer big tent enough to win elections. As Olympia Snowe (R-MA) puts it, "it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection." Before we get to Specter, let me tackle this first.

The idea that the Republican party is closed off to dissenting voices is absurd. The Democrats are just as closed to opinion on the right as the Republicans might be to the left. Let's face it, Republicans have more pro-choice and open-borders advocates with a voice than the Dems have pro-life and closed-borders. Name for me the last Democratic presidential candidate that was pro-life? The last to presidential election cycles were a joke on the Democrat side. I watched 7 or 8 people stand on stage and all give the same answers unless they were attacking someone. The creativity of the attacks were the only thing that set each apart from the other.

Arlen Specters swap in parties has nothing to do with any lack of diversity in the party. The fact that he was in the party for so long proofs that there is diversity. Specter switched parties because he is a politician. A calculating, cold, only thinks about himself politician. But worse than that, he is a whore politician (there's the 'W'). Let's look at the politician side first.

Specter stated himself that

The Pennsylvanian said he had decided that 'the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak' in his home state, and that he is 'not prepared' to have his 29-year record in the Senate decided by the the 'jury' of the Republican Party primary.

The "jury"??!? Sir, those jurors, as you call them, are your voters. They elected you to represent them. If they feel you are not representing them in the correct manner, than they have every right to throw you out of office. That is how our system works!!! Perhaps if you worried more about representing those that elected you instead of playing nice with the Washington elite, you wouldn't be in the position. Instead, Specter looks for the easiest road possible to hold his seat.

But that doesn't hold a candle to this. You might be surprised to know that this isn't the first time Specter has done this:



Specter is a whore. He sells himself to highest, political bidder in an effort to further his own career. The man has no principles (what are moderate principles anyway). His services (in this case, his vote) is up for bid to the person or person's willing to give him the most for it.

This man is the sad, but accurate, poster-child for what is wrong with Washington today. Politicians spend more time and effort trying to figure out how to bolster their careers and political futures than doing the job they were sent to Washington to do, represent the people.

So take him, Democrats. As a Libertarian, I couldn't care less. But be forewarned. The minute you spot being profitable for Specter, he is gone. Its happened several times before, it will happen again. Enjoy.

I know you all have been waiting with baited breathe for this, so here it is. The loser's blonde, trust-fund daughter comes out with her plan for the Republicans to turn the youth vote around and potentially save the Republican Party.

It may be satire, but all comedy must have an element of truth in it in order to be funny. Right?

Los Angles should be on their knees thanking God that George W. Bush was in office in 2003 and not Obama. The Washington Post has released a story saying that after waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, they received information that allowed them to break up another attack. I'll just post a few quotes from the article. It is quite good.

"Soon, you will know." That is the ominous statement an uncooperative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, told his CIA interrogators when they initially asked him - after he had been captured - about additional planned al Qaeda attacks on the United States

...

As CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo explained in a 2004 letter to then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the CIA would only resort to waterboarding a top al Qaeda leader when the agency had "credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent,"

...

"Both KSM and Zubaydah had 'expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was "weak," lacked resilience and would be unable to "do what was necessary" to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,' " the memo says. "Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, he resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon, you will know.' "

After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that enabled the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already "tasked" with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles

There are times I wish I had a magic crystal ball that could tell me an alternative reality based on the simplest change in decision making. Today, nearly every liberal in L.A. is apoplectic over the idea that Bush's CIA used waterboarding on anyone. These high and mighty examples of God's finest gifts to humanity would never change their minds on waterboarding based on something as insignificant as their own lives. They would say (in their classic fashion of regurgitating talking points instead of actual thoughts), "If I had to die to save America's morality, I would." After I finished vomiting, I would pull out my crystal ball.

The fact is, Bush can't win here. If he hadn't waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and fouled the plot, the liberals would have cried that Bush was incompetent and couldn't do the most basic job of keeping Americans safe. The fact is, the left can not be pleased when a Republican is in the White House. Even when that Republican is more liberal than conservative. I gave credit to Obama for saving Captain Phillips from the pirates. Why can't the left give credit to Bush for saving multiple American lives?

Lastly, I am sick of liberals getting to set the premise of any political debate. But, I guess I must except it. So, let's apply their premise and logic to what we have learned with this story:

1) Torture never yields any reliable intelligence.

2) Waterboarding gave us reliable intelligence, therefore

3) Waterboarding is not torture.

Did I get that one right?

It's been all over the news. Miss California giving a politically incorrect answer that cost her the pageant. Perez Hilton video blogging his anger, calling Miss California "a stupid bitch" as an obvious means of keeping the political debate above personal attacks. None of this surprises me. I see the direction our country is headed. One where only mainstream thought is acceptable, and those that disagree are degraded and shut up. But this video made my day:

A few points I think are worth mentioning. Let's start with Perez. Perez has said that if she would have given an answer along the lines of "let each state decide", he wouldn't have marked her off. That it would have been the best answer. Where is the evidence that Perez would have accepted that answer any better than the one she gave? After all, Perez is a huge advocate of abolishing Prop 8. Prop 8 was voted on and passed by the people of California. If he truly believed in federalism, he would support Prop 8 as a staple of a healthy democracy. Instead, he advocates the will of the people be overturned in a courtroom. Not surprising that he supports federalism when it shows results he agrees with (hello Vermont), but despises it when it is against him. What a patriot!

Of course, like most liberals, they don't afford the same privilege to those who disagree with them. He asked for Miss California's opinion, but it is obvious he didn't want her actual opinion. Instead, he wanted the typical politically correct drivel that the left expects from the right, but never expects of themselves (explain to me how "Dumb Bitch" is politically correct).

Of course, like most small scale things, they are a prefect metaphor for what is happening to our country. Liberals, for too long, have been allowed to say what is and isn't okay to say, do, or think. Now we have reached a tipping point. A point where un-pc speech no longer just results in sharp, scathing looks or gossip behind that persons back. Instead, un-pc behavior results in lost opportunities and destroyed lives. Politically Correct behavior is now expected of any person who operates in the public. This is the soft fascism that people like Ron Paul have warned about.

A final point. Bravo to Miss California. She was asked her opinion and gave it. Even after the attempted destruction of her character, she stands by her statements and thanks God for the trials of her life. This is a girl we could all take a lesson from. She is a true American hero, and my Miss America!

It has been mere days since President Obama releases CIA memos on their enhanced interrogation techniques. As expected, those on the right are taking exception, and those on the left are foaming with glee. Talk Radio and the right-wing blogs are talking about the disenfranchisement of the CIA operatives and the opening for another attack to occur. Based on the facts given, I would have to agree, but I want to look at this in a different light. A light that might be deemed more wishful thinking than reality, but one that I find more believable when you examine the character of our new president. Simply: He can't be that stupid...

Let's look at why he released them first. Despite your feelings on the interrogation methods used during the Bush years, you have to conclude (if you are intellectually honest) that they worked. We got the information, and we were kept safe. If these interrogation methods worked and they kept us safe, would getting rid of them make us less safe and open up the possibility for another attack? Obama has to know this, so why release them? Only two reasons come to mind: he's either trying to help the enemy (which I don't believe) or he is trying to make his political base happy.

For years, the base of the Democrat party have held rallies and protests against the CIA methods of the Bush years. Now that Obama is president, they thought things would change. Troops pulled out of Iraq, Gitmo closed, and the Patriot Act repealed. Oh how they were wrong. Instead, Obama is keeping troops in Iraq, keeping Gitmo open until he figures out what do with the prisoners (which no one will take), and is strengthening the Patriot Act. Too much longer, and his will start protesting him. Ah, but how easy it is to please the left.

Obama releases CIA memos of past interrogation methods. Now his base can become preoccupied with suing the Bush administration, and believe that Obama really is for change and transparency.

Now, you might be thinking, "Right, he made us less safe to pander to his base!" But did he?

You have to understand something if one wants to truly understand Obama. He is a politician, and he has big plans. In order to do what he wants to do on health care, energy, and other issues, he has to have the backing of the people. His high approval numbers are the main reason the Republicans are weak kneed in opposing him. What would happen if there was another terrorist attack on American soil? What would happen if that attack could be traced back to the release of these memos and his lax in strength on foreign policy? His approval numbers would plummet, Republicans would have ammunition, and American attitude of urgency would shift away from domestic policy back to foreign policy. Leaving Obama's plans in the dust, only to be written about in his post-presidential memoirs.

Obama is a cold, calculating politician. Washington is full of them. The idea that he would risk his political clout and popularity on the chance of a terrorist attack is absurd. He would never risk a speed bump in his plan such as that. So he releases a few memos on past interrogation methods and keeps safety procedures and renditions in place. Everybody has bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Now, I could be giving Obama a lot more credit than he is due. I'll admit it. Maybe this is wishful thinking. But, I just can't believe Obama would risk another attack when he has so much left to do. Take care though American. Cause if I'm wrong.... Well, pray I'm not.

... I had to both tweet and post this video here. Well done, pajamas media!

I personally have no problem with any of the McCain's. John McCain was given his shot, and he blew it. But there is one person who is truly getting through this thick skin of mine and starting to get on my last nerves. His daughter, Meghan McCain.

No matter what you think of her, she is trying to actively help the Republican Party. She has gone on several venues saying the Republicans should accept homosexual marriage and pander to as many groups as possible to get their vote (she is particularly in love with the youth vote). Who can blame her? If you believe in something, you should stand up for her. I don't agree with her, but I appreciate her vigor. But does she have the clout?

I had completely forgotten that Meghan McCain had admitted to Alan Colmes in an interview (Hannity not available?) that she had voted for Gore and Kerry in previous elections. Now, I don't care who you vote for, but admitting to voting for the other parties nominee then try to reshape the Republicans? Why should we listen to her? She hurt on her credibility. Well, here's the problem:

Meghan McCain said Tuesday that she voted for Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race. But McCain, who was born in 1984, was too young to vote in that race.

The fact is, Meghan McCain doesn't give a rat's rear end about the Republican party. She is simply on a one woman crusade to become more excepted by the mainstream media and pals in L.A. (I followed her for a while on Twitter. These were the highlights of her life, far and away). Look at what she's been doing since John's loss. Ever since her father's loss, Meghan McCain has been on every news venue that will waste air time to interview the daughter of the loser. While on these low rating, low content shows, she has taken the opportunity to blame everyone under the sun for her father's loss. It can hardly be blamed on her. She is just doing what every Republican has been doing for the last few years. Trying to become excepted by those that control the mainstream media: liberals.

Don't believe me? Look at who she has been criticizing. Has it been Democrats, liberals, television or print media, or her own father? Nope. The only people she has blamed are those that have carried the Republicans to success in previous elections, Conservatives and Talk Radio. The same people that those in the media and pop culture view as the enemy.

She might not know it, but she has become the perfect metaphor for the Republican Party. Running around from media outlet to media outlet without any coherent message. Their only quest is a never ending hide-and-seek of looking for acceptance from the very people that are trying to tear them down. It is sickening to watch.

Edit: Looks like I am not the only person tired of Meghan McCain.

Welp, it happened. Not three days after posting about my displeasure with the direction of 24, this happens:



I tried. I really didn't want to abandon one of the last television shows I enjoy watching, but I can't do it anymore. There is nothing more to say except to Garofalo herself.

Typically, I would try to set her straight in an act of charity to the human race. Having such a skanked up, washed out piece of gutter trash with a sense of fashion stuck in the 1960's and a debate mentality stuck that the average kindergartner could strike down free and wondering the streets hurts all of humanity. Especially when that person is given camera access on many of the increasingly less popular cable shows. So, I find myself attempting to educate and set them straight before they pull the entire world into that hollow, black emptiness of space that an average intellect should occupy. Unfortunately, for Garofalo, I got nothing.

We all know she has no factual information to base her opinions on. She is simply using the consistently recycled, left wing method of ending dissent. A tactic so old, it's usage by Garofalo probably outnumbers her lifetime usage of soap. I'm talking, of course, about the "you're a racist" comment. For decades, the left has used this tactic to shut up dissent where ever they find it and deem it appropriate (they do try to at least fit it in situations where it will make sense).

Unfortunately for the left, this is obviously not a viable tactic anymore. You really think the participators of the tea parties didn't know they might be portrayed this way? Admittedly, we hope for a little more creativity and effort from whose like Garofalo, but we knew what was coming. We knew it would be used before Obama was elected to help push his agenda, and we knew it would be used now. But like a virus whose only treatment is a single antibiotic, we have evolved.

The tea party protesters are angry. Angry over spending, misrepresentation, over bailouts. We think this needs to stop. Calling us racists and stupid is not going to weaken our resolve or change our minds. Garofalo might care what others think of her, but we don't. Lying about us and misrepresenting us will only make us angrier and strengthen our resolve. Yes, that is right, Janeane. Your stupidity makes us stronger.

BTW: Like most on the left, I find it very telling to see Garofalo's opinion on dissent change the instant she gets her guy into office.

Everyone knows of Oprah and Michael J. Fox's advocacy of embryonic stem cell research. Well, here is a video of Dr. Oz, a highly respected American doctor from Columbia Institute, lays out a bomb shell to the two on a recent Oprah Show. Basically... the debate is over.

Two things of note before you watch the video. One, look at their faces as Dr. Oz explains this to them (you can tell they are just shocked and have no idea what is going on). And two, notice what Dr. Oz says could have happened if stem cells had been injected (hint: it starts with a 'c').

There are very few television shows I enjoy watching enough to be sure I am in front of the TV for each episode. Not much comes out of the left wing paradise of L.A. and Hollywood twists my fancy and sparks my intrigue. As a matter of fact, to me, Hollywood has so little talent to point to that the most profitable movies are either recycled 1980's memorabilia (Transformers, Indiana Jones) or comic books (300, Watchmen). Network television is the only place originality and true creativity can be found. And there are only two shows that I truly enjoy: House and 24.

I have been a 24 fan ever since my dad introduced me to the series 3 years ago. The iconic American cowboy doing what he has to do to defend his country and it's people from the threat of terrorism. Regardless of whether or not Washington and it's suits agree with his methods, Jack Bauer is going to do what he has to to protect everyone around him. This is the type of man I want protecting me and my family. But, this past season has started to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

It seems that the show has taken a sharp turn off stage left. The show has taken up a personal crusade against Global Warming, pitted private security companies as the enemy of the show. They even went so far as to cast the left wing radio bomb out and D-lister Janeane Garofalo who has no credible acting talents worth mentioning (trust me, I looked). All of this pales in comparison to what almost pushed me over the edge.

Now, I unfortunately can't make every episode. Sometimes school, work, my writing, or my wife just seem to take precedent over a TV show, but something Glenn Beck said on one of his radio shows caused me to go back and find the episode on hulu. NOTE: Spoiler Alert!! Skip the next paragraph if you don't want to spoil anything.

In case you haven't seen it, the antagonist of this season  is private security company Starkwood (oddly similar to Blackwater, wouldn't you say?). In true cliche fashion, the real trouble begins when Starkwood gets ahold of some biological weapons. Through a series of twists and turns, Jack is exposed to the biological agent. After talking to an FBI doctor, she tells him about an experimental treatment using.... wait for it.... Stem cells.

Now I don't really take issue with stem cells per say. Rather my bias is against embryonic stem cell. The stem cells the doctor of 24 referred to were adult stem cells (much like bone marrow transplant) which show much more promise than embryonic stem cells. So, while 24 might be slowly liberalizing its message, they are not quite there yet, but this did make me realize that I have subconsciously put 24 on notice. I was ready to write 24 off after hearing Beck talk about it. Luckily for them, I am known for formulating my own opinions instead of relying on someone else's.

So be warned 24. You are on notice. Your popularity and success was founded on your portrayal of reality. That evil does exist, and the best way to deal with it is to obliterate it. Not bargain and talk to it. If Jack Bauer talks appeasing and playing nice, you are going to loose your audience. But then again, it wouldn't be a surprise if it did happen. I forgot to mention one Hollywood's true talents... taking good, original ideas and, like a fabled anti-alchemist, turn the gold into crap.

To lay out the background of this video, Tom Tancredo is speaking to a relatively small audience about opposition to the Hope Act. Peaceful, right? Not until a group of left wing activists decide to get involved.

Again... They call us extremist?

A lot of outrage and debate has been generated by the release of a DHS report on The Rise of Right Wing Extremist and how to identify them. Many have talked and even blogged about it. Veterans are angered by it. If you haven't heard about it, read it. It is a beautiful hit piece stamped with the seal of the President, but does it have a point? Let's cut through the fog of anger and examine the premise. Where does the extremism in this country truly lie?

The left loves to recycle the now dead whipping boy of extremist behavior when it is trying to make a point about right wing extremism. Timothy McVeigh. In a spot of class and complete non-partisanship, the DHS report even quoted McVeigh. Just in case their media lapdogs couldn't figure out the parallel. Now, what McVeigh did was extremist. As a resident of Oklahoma, anyone here will tell you that day is Oklahoma's 9/11. But, is McVeigh a phenomenon only found on the right?

Allow me to recycle my own tired old extremist person (or in this case persons). The Weathermen. This group of radical leftist bombed the Pentagon and set fires in New York to protest the Vietnam War. Its funny how quickly we forget about something. Especially when one of its members was held up as a well pointed talking-point for the right this election cycle. See how annoying it is when the opposing sides only reference point is something that happened years ago? How about we move on from the years-old examples, and we look at the here and now.

It is no shock that this report was released the day before national protests were scheduled in the form of Tea Parties. And, like a plant root to water, the media quickly lapped up the White House talking-point and ran with it. Not only did they drawing similarities between the Tea Parties and extremism, but they also found time to inject racism into the mix of intricate butt-kissing they pass as journalism. But, where is the proof of extremism at these rallies? Anger could be found in bulk, but violence? Law breaking? A call to arms? All were noticeably absent. Instead these protests were filled with silence occasionally broken by the "whoop" of approval directed at comments of the speakers. The best and sometimes only way to find out opinion and thought was to read the signs and billboards held overhead by those present.

Is this right-wing extremism? The gathering on public grounds to silently protest the motives and vision of Washington with clever and whity signs held in the air? Are they afraid the "whoops" of agreement might shatter a window? Let's compare this to the left.

On the left, you have groups like Code Pink, who smear themselves with blood and approach the Secretary of State within sneezing distance and always seem to get into Congressional hearings to disrupt and protest wars. The left has groups like PETA, whose signature demonstration is to throw blood on innocent passer-bys for wearing fur coats and break into research labs to free animals. The left has groups like ACORN, who load up bus loads of people to protest outside private citizen's homes and break into houses that have been foreclosed on. "Stealing" them back for--who they deem--the "rightful owner." The left has groups like the Black Panthers, who stand outside voting centers with clubs, while innocent people exercise their right to vote. Are these groups supposed to be the model of peaceful demonstrations that the right can take a lesson from?

The writing on the wall is clear. An anger is festering. It is not from those who have been angry for years now, yet still vote for those that promise everything but give nothing. It is the anger from a group who have gone unheard for so long. A group that goes to work, pays their taxes, and never ask for anything. It is a group that has sat silently as left wing groups and politicians have for far too long clipped away the freedom we so love. It is a group that sees protests and marches from people who have been given much but expect more. This group doesn't think government has the answer. To the contrary, they believe government is more often the problem rather than the solution.

And worst of all, this group has this administration and this congress scared. Not because they are truly scared of violence. As they know, this group is not violent. As a matter of fact, this group would rather not protest. They would rather live out their days being left alone with the freedoms and opportunities granted by our founding documents. What this group does do is vote. And all it takes is a small portion of their votes to swing the other way to lose their stature and their power.

I'm speechless. I am completely lost on what to think about this report from Homeland Security to local police, so this will probably be a short post. Just some excerpts:

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Really? I mean, really? This must be a joke. Does the department of homeland security understand that they just labeled every supporter of the constitution an extremist? Were the Founding Fathers "rightwing extremist"? If they were, then I am happy to be along side some of histories greatest men.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

This has to be a joke! ONLY those that OPPOSE these issues?!?! I'm speechless. So your average political dissent is now labeled as extremism?

This is fascism. So many people believe that fascism could not happen in this country, but it's presents is reinforced daily. Either pull the state approved line, or you will be labeled an enemy of the state. Funny how this report came out the days before national demonstrations against government waste and abuse were scheduled to occur.

In a piece of good news this Easter Sunday, it has been learned that the American Captain previously taken captive by Somali pirates was rescued unharmed. Aside from this being excellent news for both the captain, his loved ones, and the country altogether, I think enough time has passed that we can now have a pretty good idea of President Obama governing style. This is my take on it anyway.

1) Obama is going to say whatever he deems necessary for his own political expedencey. This includes all things foreign and domestic. If saying "no lobbyists in my administration" means more political clout, he is going to say it. Regardless of what he actually plans on doing (putting lobbyists in his administration). This includes his foreign policy.

2) When comes to military activities, he is going to allow the Joint Chiefs and the Generals make policy. He is going to basically do what he is told is best on Iraq, Afghanistan, the missile shield, and even small encounters with pirates.

I will have to continue to add to this list. To be honest, Obama is a tough one to pin down. Overall, I still believe he is a puppet. For the liberal machine? Something more sinister? Who knows. We are only a few months in. Three and a half more years await us.

Update: Oh my. Interesting take from Blackfive, but, like most truths, we will probably never know the real truth.

I have often thought that the creators of South Park were geniuses of their ability to take your average, most mundane issues and morph them into humorous parodies that always make a point. Now, their resume has been strengthen by their impressive timing on today's issues.

If you haven't heard, Vice President Joe Biden has been running his mouth saying:

"I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden began, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"

Karl Rove has since refuted this assertion, but that is not the point of this post. This is: (The whole clip is good, but start at about 2:35 for the main course.)

Bah, wordpress.com doesn't support southparkstudios.com videos. I'll upload a youtube video once I put it together.

I found this site through a contact on Twitter. Regardless of your political pursuation, you should agree that this amount of spending is out of control. Sure Bush did it too, but I didn't support his deficits anymore than a Democrat. Enjoy.

http://www.stopspendingourfuture.org/

Okay, I'm getting a little sick of this story. Everyone who follows politics knows about this story: Sarah Palin bought a bunch of clothes. My thoughts on it at the time? "Well whoopty-fickin doo. Who cares? She is campaigning for Vice President. How much did Obama spend? Biden? Michelle Obama?" This is the most unpartisan response a person could have. Honestly, why care? Where are the stories about money spent on clothes for women going to the Oscar's? They are just going to an award ceremony. Palin was running for the second highest office in the land.

But, of course, put a pile of crap in front of the media, and they will step in it:

Closing a loop on the campaign finance side of the Sarah Palin clothes saga, the Republican National Committee late last month filed an amended report detailing exactly which disbursements were clothing purchases for the Republican vice presidential candidate and her family.

The amended report shows that the committee paid about $23,000 for clothing in the three weeks before and after Election Day — which is actually $7,000 less than previously reported.

Why is this still an issue? "Closing a loop"? The Republicans are amending reports for financial reasons, and the media is acting like this is news! And besides this, where is the balance? Where are the stories on Michelle's wardrobe now that she is first lady? Hillary's? Pelosi's? McCain's? ANYONE BESIDES PALIN?????

This is the best example of the absolute, blatant bias of the very institution that is supposed to protect us from the oppressive hand of government.

Oh but it gets better. Remember when Palin said she would donate the clothes to charity after the campaign? Well, it seems that the media believes that Palin can't even do that right. Here's an idea. How about newspaper and the media get back to reporting on some of the stuff that matters, like the economic crisis, if the stimulus bill is actually working, or one of the many foreign policy crises out there, instead of going through an ex-vice presidential candidate's trash bags.

My wife and I are huge House fans. Every Monday night, we have our "House date" were one of us makes dinner, and we sit on the couch together and watch House. The build up to last Monday's episode left our breaths' bated in anticipation. And we were not let down. Kutner committed suicide.

I thought it was an odd "twist". Like the show said, he never seemed like he was suicidal. It didn't make sense. It was obvious that the spontanious death was triggered by something other than the need for a plot device. Our first thought was that he (the actor Kal Penn who played Kutner) died in real life. So, I hit the internet and found this:

"House" star Kal Penn -- whose character was killed off on Monday's episode -- is taking a sabbatical from acting to work for President Obama. The 31-year-old actor, first launched to fame as a stoner student in the "Harold and Kumar" movies, is coming to Washington to be associate director in the White House Office of Public Liaison, Entertainment Weekly first reported yesterday.

My wife and I rolled our eyes (we are not Obama supporters in case you can't tell) and shrugged it off. What was done is done. But then I was reading one of my more favorite blogs and found the blogger, Ed Morrissey, thought this:

Actually, I found the suicide to be the most objectionable part of the story, and I’m not sure why.  Maybe it’s because the series treated suicide as an easy way out of a staffing jam rather than a serious subject.  It seems almost grotesque to concoct a character’s suicide just to get the actor a gig in politics.  Why not just give the character a job somewhere else?

I thought this was profound. Why did they have him commit suicide? There were better ways to do this. He could have taken another job. That job could have been at the White House, actually putting the truth in the plot instead of killing him off. They could have used Kutner's death as a good plot device. House thought he was murdered at one point. They could have ran with that. I even came up with the theory that Taub killed him because of jealous over the last case (let's face it, Taub is a train wreck). Instead, they are letting it be. No more investigation into his death. Just, "he's dead, oh well, except it."

So why the suicide? Could it be a statement? Could it be a metaphor for Kal Penn's future with the Fox network or acting in general? Could it be as simple as the writers lashing out over the bomb shell Penn dropped in their storyline? I mean, he is dead. Now there is no way he can come back.

Whatever the reason, I wish Penn the best, and he will be missed as Kutner.

I was surfing through the net, and I saw an interesting question that someone had asked to disprove the existence of God. I can't find the exact link to the question, but needless to say, there were not good answers used to help this logical-thinking atheist along.

I went something like this:

God is all-powerful. Can God create a rock that even He can not move? If He can make the rock and He actually can't move it, He is not all-powerful. If He can due to the fact that He can move any rock He wants, then again He is not all-powerful because He failed to create an unmovable rock.

I'll spare you the answers used and just dive right in with my own explanation. This question, on its face, is logically flawed. Let me start by giving you an analogy:

Humans can create triangles, yes? Sure they can, do it now. Go ahead; get some paper and make a triangle. Good. Now, make a 2-sided triangle. Can't do it? Well, by using the same logic the original questioner afforded above, you do not exist.

The idea of an unmovable rock is logically flawed. Every rock in the universe can be moved. As a matter of fact, there isn't any material object in the universe that can not be moved one way or the other. Planet sized asteroids drift through space and no one thinks twice if that piece of matter can be moved or not.

The "Logic Bomb" ends up being a Bomb lacking in Logic. Asking if God can create an immovable rock is like asking if God can create a circle with 3-sides. It can not be done. Besides, there are many things that God can not do. God can not lie (Hebrews 6:18), He can not be tempted (James 1:13), and there are others. In order for God to exist, He, Himself, must exist within a certain set of parameters in which we can define Him. If we were unable to define God, then we would have a real crisis of His existence. Likewise, we could name anything God (including a Flying Spaghetti Monster). We have to have something to point to when describing God, else we could define Him as anything! If He is everything to everyone, how do we know He is anything at all?

The bottom line is this: Christians need to stop accepting the questions of non-believers as if they are correct on their face. Many non-believers do not want nor care to believe in our God, so if an illogical question will make a Christian go "wide-eyed" than, rest assured, they will throw it around any chance they get. Just remember:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26: 4-5

Let me finish up by saying that this "skepticism" I am advocating towards a question like this should be used for many questions and objections atheists have for Christianity. Consider the questions about Christianities roots in pagan religions. And that is just one example.

For those few who actually follow my blogging, your probably asking yourself, "Didn't you just create a new blog?" Well, yes. And though I can't guarantee that I won't move in the near future, I can tell you that I feel certain that I won't be moving again.

There are several reasons for the move. None that matter to anyone but myself, but then again, who else matters? First of all, I didn't like the name of my last blog. Intellectual Solider? Admittedly, I just kind of thought that one up on a whim and ran with it. Free-Hand Thinking is a much better description of me and my blogging techniques. My blog posts tend to be long runs on a single thought I have on a particular issue (be it economic, political, theological, or whatever).

Another reason is that one of the blogs I read on a daily basis (HotAir.com) requires you to have a wordpress account in order to comment. So, after creating the account and looking around at some of the blogging tools and templates they have available, I decided to make this my new home.

So! Change your bookmarks folks! I will be here for a while.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

So, today the DOW hit 8000. World markets are starting to surge. So, how long will it be before all the credit for this action--which is historically cyclical--becomes an accomplishment of Obama and his administration?

A better question, though... How long before our economy falls into another recession thanks to the massive injection of printed money meant to get us out of the current recession?

The magic number strikes again! Plastered at the top of Drudge:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says leaders at the G-20 summit have agreed to give $1 trillion to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help struggling nations around the world.

Brown also says the 20 countries at the summit will enact common policies to crack down on tax havens, regulate hedge funds, and rebuild trust in the financial system to "prevent a crisis such as this from happening again."

If $1 Trillion didn't help our country, why do we think it will help others?

As usual, it takes a satirical take on a serious issue to make it make sense. Here is South Park's take on how the government comes up with all its policies during this erratic economy.

I never understood the thought processes behind highly paid Hollywood actor/actresses and athletes back of Democratic candidates when they talk constantly about increasing taxes that would directly effect them and their very high salaries. Well, with the wealth and class envy rhetoric being amped up out Washington, these power players might end up finding themselves in the political cross hairs:

While a great deal of public anger is focused at corporate executives these days, Johnny Depp and the Boys of Summer don’t fare much better. Thirty percent (30%) of Americans believe the government should make it illegal to pay movie stars and athletes more than $1 million per year.

Now, Rasmussen mentions that 59% of people oppose such action. But it remain that way when all the political capital from Wall Street is spent? I've mentioned before, the power brokers in Washington need an enemy to keep the heat off them. Watch out, Hollywood. You could be next.

The current recession in America has caused more and more laymen to begin paying attention to the economy. News outlets have presented wall to wall coverage of economic conditions featuring full page stories and segments to any up-tick or down-tick in economic news and markets. A lot of economists and new personalities that interview them throw the term "Keynesian" around with hints of both positive and negative connotations, but do people really know what this means?

I contest Keynesian methods are the wrong methods to use in any economy, but the average laymen probably does not understand what is implied when Keynesian Economics is used. To understand Keynesian Economics, one must first have a basic understanding of economics in general--which I also contest that a majority of Americans do not have either. Let's look at a basic blueprint for economics.

Many people would be shocked to know that economics is the study of how to solve a basic problem. It is not the study of the economy. If that were the case, economics would differ from geographical region to geographical region. Economics actually has a mission to solve much like any other science does. The basic economic problem is this:

In economics, the problem posed by the fact that human wants are infinite but resources are scarce. Resources therefore have to be allocated [in a way that offers the most consumer satisfaction possible with the resources available].

The last part was taken from my Macroeconomics textbook I have from college. Now, there are two factors, based on that problem statement, to economics: supply (resources) and demand (human wants). This is where backbone to these "laws" we hear thrown around known as supply and demand. I'll spare you the details of how one effects the other, and we'll just step right into the predominant theory used by our government today: Keynesian.

Keynesian economics is a demand side economic theory. Basically states that the best way to produce the most consumer satisfaction is to curb demand. Make the people want less! This is the theory behind Obama's energy plan:

This investment will place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely and make it easier to use clean energy.

These meters "report electricity consumption on an hourly basis. This enables PG&E to set pricing that varies by season and time of the day, rewarding customers who shift energy use to off-peak periods." Essentially, these meters promote changing consumer behavior. This theory stretches to the financial industry when the FED buys back Treasury bonds in an attempt "to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans". The government is using these methods to lower the demand for energy (whose supply is currently low) and strengthen the demand for consumer spending (whose supply is currently high).

What Washington fails to realize is the demand is too elastic to control. Telling someone to want something less actually makes them want it more (got any teenagers?). Not only that, but the two positions mentioned above are counter-productive. If a person were to go out and get a loan for a house or a car, aren't they going to energy to power said new purchase? Even if the car is electric and uses no gas, it will still need the electricity from the house to operate.

People might think that fixing and tampering with demand is the only choice we have because, like the basic problem says: resources are scarce. What you have to understand is that resources are scarce in different ways. Certain resources are only scarce for a certain amount of time before they are renewed, like food and cotton for clothing. Televisions are scarce because the factories of the world can only produce so many at a time. Energy is scarce because there are only so many power plants and oil wells available to produce the energy. Rather than worry about adjusting human behavior, why don't we adjust what we can adjust? The supply. This is known a supply side economics.

Supply side economics accepts human nature for what it is: greedy. I know, its a horrible word, but it is true. People want houses, cars, clothes, food, electronics, and the energy needed to power them all. Instead of trying to subvert or trick human behavior, it actually embraces it! If there is an energy shortage, we should create more energy to met the demand, aka. building new coal and nuclear power plants and drill here, drill now! If the demand for financial assistance is low, we lower the money supply so that interest rates can reach a responsible and non-inflationary level. If people don't want to borrow money, they aren't going to borrow money. Similarly, if someone wants to turn the thermostat to 80 degrees, they are going to turn the thermostat to 80 degrees.

Many in Washington talk down supply side economics because you are unable to regulate it. This is simply untrue. The elimination of monopolies was a supply side regulation. Having only one firm in complete control of the supply could enable that person to charge whatever they want. Competition, many firms competing for one consumer sector, allows prices to remain at a fair market level because if one firm overcharges, the consumer can move onto one of the firms that charges less.

Of course, like most things, the government has to stick its nose in where it doesn't belong and subvert what would otherwise be seen as economic progress--at least though the eyes of those that understand economics. The problem today is that the firms that charge more (GM) than its competitors which charge less (Toyota) for the same product are being bailed out. Thus, the firm that charges too much has no incentive to lower its prices and remain competitive, but this is a topic for another day.

The facts are these: the power brokers in Washington have latched onto an economic philosophy that attempts to subvert and change humans from what they want to what the government believes they should want. As I understand it, this is known as tyranny.

So, I finally sat down and watched Media Malpractice, a film by John Ziegler who followed the media's coverage of Obama through both the primaries and the general election. Here are my thoughts on it.

To start out, to contrast documentaries of the past that contained a political subject, this movie was not partisan in the same way one might view Michael Moore's movies. The movie in no way attempted to promote a political philosophy, rather it was a step by step coverage of the media roll in the last election cycle. It might seem like the movie was overly kind to Sarah Palin, but only because Ziegler attempts to shed light on the press-based attacks on Sarah and her family. When it comes to Mrs. Palin, Ziegler never says anything that he doesn't back up with another video or news story.

My initial impressions when I saw the trailers and promos for the movie could best be described as a "Tell me something I don't know" attitude. Having the 20/20 vision that is hindsight, any person can go back and see the blatant cheer leading that the news media put forth for Mr. Obama. However, this movie does an excellent job of showing just how egregious it truly was. I found myself calling for and showing my wife--who is a big Palin supporter--clips of the movie that left her with that wide eyed and disappointed expression that she gives when she truly could not believe what she just heard. I couldn't believe half of what I saw.

This movie does give me a new respect and feelings toward talk radio. In his movie, Zielger makes no reference to talk radio, a medium that was overly supportive of McCain/Palin. Lately, there have been stories of talk from Senators and bureaucrats saying that the need for a fairness doctrine on talk radio. Media Malpractice screams in response that a fairness doctrine should, if enacted, also encapsulate the television news media, newspapers, and alike. There is definitely bias in these mediums as well. The only difference is that talk radio admits the are bias. While the other mediums hold their objectivity up as a badge of honor and attacks any who dare say otherwise.

Overall, it is water under the bridge. Obama is president. That is change we can't believe in. But, with the economy being what it is, I am curious if any of those in the media who carried the man to the top of the mountain now regret any of what they did. After all, they have pensions and 401k's as well. We'll never know for sure, but my curiosity remains.

Welp, tonight is the big night. Tonight, the President of the United States of America is going to do what any other has done and go on a late night television comedy show. It is easy to see both sides of the "effects" coin, here. On one side, the president is obviously lowering himself to the position of the jester, and on the other side, the president comes off as a normal guy in a normal atmosphere in which he can state his message. Of course, the reason for doing this is definitely that of Obama's making.

It is obvious that Obama is still cruising in campaign mode. I image that it would be hard to just switch that off after nearly one and a half years of campaigning for the position he now holds. It is obvious why he is doing this. He did it with the passage of his not-so-stimulus bill, and he now has to campaign for the results of his stimulus. Tonight, his message will most likely consist of a positive message about the economy, because it is effecting the rest of his agenda. Even the Duke basketball coach is joining the drum-beat of "eyes on your own paper!"

A good question would be: is all this campaigning necessary? For Obama? Oh my, yes.

I enjoy studying human nature. Maybe it is my marketing degree or my love of story telling, but I am intrigued by the most complex of all God's creations. And what I have learned--that has anything to do with Obama--is this: humans are more likely to unite in opposition to an enemy than unite behind the positivity of a leader. I might create a post on the subject later, but for now, just remember how everyone felt after 9/11 for an example.

Now, Obama was elected under the positive message of change. That same message saw his voters turn into a cult-like following of crying men and women who looked to Obama as a rockstar with the power who execute what his songs sang of. Well, time has passed and Obama's numbers are starting to slip. Obama saw what happened to a president who cut himself off from the public (Bush), and he is not going to see this happen to him. If Obama does not reach out and keep his support in the pool of positivity, he might see them slip into an opposition against him. The anger is fomenting, but as long as he has the voting majority on his side, Obama will be able to get his agenda passed. This is why Obama will never leave campaign mode.

Now, his numbers are still pretty good, but not near where Bush's were when he took over. Obama's message tonight will be a positive one meant to draw up support for the economy and his agenda. He will plea that health care reform will help the economy rebound (it won't), and he will assure his sheep that the stimulus bill is hard at work. But, the overall message will be that he is doing what he can for the American people, and he might even throw in a few jabs at Bush.

I, personally, will not be watching it. I'll wait for the sound bites.