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?