Friday, December 26, 2008

Some More Random Thoughts

I thought it was kind of ironic that on Christmas Eve, while Fox News was running a two hour Christmas special with readings from the Bible and Christmas music . . CNN was at the same time running a special of their own honoring their Messiah: Barack Obama.

Am I the only one who is getting tired of all the global warming hype? Yes, I do believe that by and large it is all hype. On the one hand we have a warming period that is milder than previous warming periods experienced (the last being about 500 years ago). The warming period we are experiencing now comes after a relatively mild ice age period. So this is nothing new. Secondly, the global warming experienced 500 years ago predates any impact man would have had with burning fossil fuels. In other words, the more serious version of global warming that occurred 500 years ago came at a time when our world wide population was a fraction of what it is today, and it came when there were no cars or planes. So who, or what, was responsible for global warming back then? Is it not possible that the same who, or what, could also be responsible now? For a great overview of some of the science (or lack of science) behind all the hype, please read this now.

It's hard not to get sucked into all the financial doom and gloom we're hearing about today. It can be pretty depressing. Not sure what all it means for you personally, but this is a good time to realize where our real security and worth lies. In the scope of things, what really matters are our relationships: with God, with family, and with friends. The financials will work themselves out in time. I can certainly remember a couple periods in my lifetime when companies were making layoffs or going out of business, the economy was hurting, and so were people. And yet in time it would all slowly come back around. Through those up and down times the one constant who was, and is, always there is God. Much better to build our house on the rock than on sand.

Friday, November 28, 2008

More Old Family Photos






Here are a few more images from my dad's negative collection. I have scanned over 3000 images so far. These here are my mom, one of my dad with his painting, and the boys.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Photoshop



In scanning my dad's old black and white negatives, a bunch of them have scratches and dust marks. The great thing with digital is being able to go in and clean out those blemishes. It can be time consuming, and sometimes the results are not all that great (this photo being somewhat an example); but still, it is better than having all the blemishes. If you click on the images, you can enlarge them and see the before and after. I've been having fun seeing a bunch of photos that I have never seen before. I'll post some more soon.

Little Nemo

This video is one of the most watched on YouTube. As someone who has done the Little Nemo skit a few times in the past, this really is fun to watch.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Just A Matter Of Time

It seems that every few weeks we hear that another high ranking terrorist has been killed, either in Iraq or in Pakistan. It shows that our troops are actively engaged in hunting down these people. Some people believe that Osama bin Laden is already dead, but if he isn't, it is just a matter of time before he is found and killed. My guess is that the timing of this will be at some point during Obama's presidency . . and he will get all the credit.

Our economy stinks right now. Even though our economy always goes through cycles of good and bad, everyone believes what we are going through now is unusually bad. It appears to be even worse overseas, which is little comfort; but when it comes to blame it is hard for me to pin it on any one thing or any one person, including President Bush. Our economy though will bounce back . . it always does. My guess is that the timing will be at some point during Obama's presidency . . and he will get all the credit.

Things are going fairly well in Iraq right now, certainly better than they were just a year or so ago. Everyone wants our troops to come home from Iraq . . the real question is whether to bring them home without any conditions, or to bring them home as we become more confident that Iraq can stand on its own. The timing seems to indicate that that can happen sometime over the next few years, in other words, at some point during Obama's presidency . . and he will get all the credit.

Just wait and see.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

How Obama Got Elected

I'm sure there are uninformed citizens on the right just as there are on the left, but after watching the following video you have to wonder if it is a disservice to encourage anyone who is this uninformed to vote. It's also interesting how people's impressions are formed, and the power of the media to sway thoughts and opinions. Probably my own biggest objection about Obama is how he has been given god-like status among his followers, and yet how little they seem to know about him. There are very, very, very few (if any) people who deserve that kind of status, and that is especially true when you are speaking of a politician. Let's all say this together: Barack Obama is a politician. Nothing more.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Found Treasure




When my dad was in his early 20's and 30's he took a lot of black and white photos of my mom and us boys. He did his own developing and printed a number of those images, but I always wondered what happened to all his negatives. My dad passed away in 1989 and I'm pretty sure my mom said she thought all the negatives were thrown out at some point. Well, last week I found them, thousands of them, in a box in my mom's attic. I've already scanned about 1400 images, finding a bunch of images that we have never seen before. And there are thousands and thousands more. Over the past several years I have been compiling all of our family images, digitizing, keywording and indexing them, so that everyone in the family can have their own full digital album of all of these images. Right now that album contains over 30,000 images. Finding my dad's negatives could add another 10,000+ images to the collection. Yikes!

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Is Obama Invincible?

It didn't take long for the American left to really turn on President Bush. They have called him names (Hitler, dumb, a terrorist, etc), mocked him, protested against him, and spread unrelenting hate toward the man. It doesn't speak well of the left, a group that says it wants tolerance and peace, but sure has a hard time living it out. I tend to believe that a sizable bunch of loud mouths on the far left made a point of pulling Bush down through trashing him and altering the public's view of him. As for me, I've always liked the guy. If Iraq is given the chance to succeed, and becomes a positive influence in that region, Bush should be given full credit and be seen as a liberator on the grandest of scales. He has implemented humanitarian aid to a degree that previous presidents never did. For most of his presidency the economy was cruising along at a great pace. It is unclear whether the crisis we are in today has anything to do with this administration's economic policies, or if it is the result of a global perfect storm of failing institutions. He of course is the president, so he will get the blame. President Bush has not been perfect. No one believes he has been. Nor has he been a failure, despite what the left wants us to believe.

So here is my question: what would it take for these same people to turn on Barack Obama? Is he invincible, immune to any criticism? Would the left ever criticize the guy? This is The One after all. It sure seems like they see him as being someone who can do no wrong. He is "cool", the breath of fresh air, the one who has come to save our country and our world. He is already being set up as the greatest president this country has ever seen. It is only a matter of time before we see an Obama movie, staring Will Smith, where Obama is larger than life . . can do no wrong . . has no flaws . . no sin. I just don't see anyone on the left turning on him. Any mistake will be seen as showing his humanity, and quickly forgiven. If he opts to prosecute terrorists a la Clinton, rather than taking the fight to them, he will be heralded as a Nobel Peace prize candidate, even if years later it proves to come back to bite us (a la Clinton). All of this is especially true of the press. Will they continue to suspend their journalistic integrity by blindly supporting this guy, or will they investigate, ask tough questions, and demand answers? That will be our first sign: if the press starts asking questions. I would like to think that it is only a matter of time. Not convinced about that though.

Political Science

When it comes to politics, I'm one of those who enjoys observing it like a science as opposed to actually getting in there and doing something. I'm the movie critic, not the actor. So I always appreciate it when I get to read something intriguing about the political process, or something that to me just makes sense. Jonah Goldberg writes today an article that questions the merits of getting more people to vote, particularly the youth vote, as well as putting so much emphasis on undecided voters. I find it hard to argue against what he is saying here. Take a moment and read it . . it's short.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Respect For Obama

Obama and his team ran an impressive campaign. Organization and control are probably the two words that I would use to best describe Obama at this moment. Those are two good qualities, although control can easily morph into oppression if not careful. At any rate we as a nation should allow Obama the opportunity to pull together his administration and their policies. This could be a good time for our country to honestly debate several issues that have festered along the surface for years: most notably health care, taxes and wealth distribution, and our role internationally. I do not believe that any of us should roll over and just let Obama have his way. Many beliefs are worth standing up and fighting for . . hopefully not only will people do that, but their rights and ability to have a say in this administration will not be oppressed.

On the humorous side, Ann Coulter wrote today something that made me smile: "For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president."

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

President Obama

For the past few months I have been pointing out aspects about Barack Obama that I found troubling. Despite his presidential victory, those aspects still remain, and I still remain troubled by them. I've heard several pundits and news people over the past couple days conclude that they still don't really know who Obama is, and yet now he is president. We know he is ultra liberal, but we don't know how that will translate once he is in office. We don't know how much power Pelosi and Reid will have over Obama. We don't know what kind of constraints will be placed on all of them by the current economy or by the unknown "9/11's" that may come along and change their course. We can assume that Obama will be calm and slow with decisions . . we just don't know whether his decisions will be sound or if they will end up causing even more problems.

These next couple years will be "fun" to watch politically. I'm not sure Obama can live up to all the hype he has created for himself. He is sure to disappoint people who have blindly followed him, counting on him to provide free gas, a free education, free health care, free housing, no wars, and no taxes. No doubt Obama will conclude at some point early in his presidency that the economy handed to him was so bad that he will not be able to fulfill his promises. We still have not heard an exit strategy for Afghanistan. We know taxes will go up once the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 . . still no talk about that. Still no real understanding what kind of class warfare he is about to unleash.

Today I am mildly depressed. Listening to Pelosi, Reid, and now Obama is like fingers on a chalkboard. Everything is now on them though. They cannot pass along their excuses or their responsibility onto the Republicans. They have to answer to their miscues and their own policies. At least you would think so. But one look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and you realize how accountability has a short memory. And so do promises. How many people can remember the promises made by George Bush in 2000, or even in 2004? I do know that "change" was part of his campaign in 2000; but the point is that within a couple years we usually forget what a politician was promising during the campaign. So 2-3 years from now most of Obama's supporters probably won't care that he is not giving them free anything. They probably won't realize that his brand of politics is pretty much the same as every other politician who came before him, and that Washington is still much the same. They may not even recognize the slow erosion of the 1st Amendment.

Up to now Obama has had virtually no record. For the past couple years he has been speaking in nuances that fit well in a college classroom or on a stage, but now he has to mold those nuances into policy. We'll see how all of this jives together. This is what we get when we hire someone who is inexperienced and untested. We have no idea what he will do or how he will perform. We have nothing to look at for an example. Like I said, this should be fun.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Obama and Fundraising

Whether Obama wins or loses the 2008 presidential campaign, there are questions about his fundraising that hopefully will linger large enough to catch the eye of an otherwise sleeping media. I don't mind using the word "fraud" in describing what presumably is taking place. First of all, there is absolutely no accountability in who is donating money to Obama. I thought there were rules about this, but either they don't exist or the Obama team is ignoring them or they are simply not being enforced. How can people contribute money via a credit card without any kind of verification? And how can people contribute without a disclosure by the Obama people of who and how much is being given? It is no wonder that he backed out of his "commitment" to use public finance. If you want a quick, 5 minute overview of what is going on here, please check this out. Don't expect a Reid/Pelosi/Obama team to ever look into this.

Obama and the Courts

Barack Obama has said that when it comes to appointing judges to courts, he will be looking for someone with "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." What? Is this really the stuff that makes for a good judge? I mean, sure, it sounds nice; but should this be part of the equation when it comes to selecting a person who's sole responsibility is to decide whether something is lawful or constitutional. By and large the law is dispassionate. If I do something unlawful and go before a judge that knows me, that judge will most likely bow out because they cannot be dispassionate in this case. Making judgements should be based on the facts of the case weighed against existing law. Empathy is not part of that, at least not for a judge. What if Obama said he would be looking for judges that understood the negative impact abortion had on our society and had empathy for drug dealers and domestic terrorists, and for wealthy businessmen? Wouldn't the public say "you got to be kidding"? No, what you look for is someone who understands the law, someone who does not invent law, and someone who has a track record of making decisions, not based on their own feelings and empathy toward certain people, but rather on the law . . period. The qualities that Obama wishes to find in judges are noble, but this just shows another aspect of Obama where he just doesn't get it. It also shows that maybe Obama really doesn't respect the law or the Constitution.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Consistency

Back when the Patriot Act was news, liberals were decrying it as a tool for the government to invade the privacy of American citizens, all in the name of national security. I applaud them for wanting to protect an individual's privacy and property. We should all be concerned about a government (or even a press) that seeks to destroy individuals or intrude into their private concerns, especially if it has absolutely nothing to do with the government or national security. But for liberals, their concern with the Patriot Act was a phantom hypothetical. There was no evidence that the Patriot Act had ever been used in that manner. But still it was enough to get them all worked up about the Bush Administration going too far. Because of that they now want a new administration that would not seek to invade privacy. If they think an Obama administration is the answer, they are in for a rude awakening. They have not seen anything yet.

Obama comes from the Chicago school of politics. Adversaries are to be destroyed. Get whatever dirt you can on them or just shut them out (Palin, Joe the Plumber, any journalist that doesn't ask friendly questions, etc.), whatever it takes to take them down. The Ohio government official who authorized the search of Joe the Plumber's records is an Obama supporter. The search has been characterized as unusual by those who were asked to make it. In other words, there was no reason for it other than political reasons. Even more disturbing is Obama's lack of regard for a person's private property. In his world anything that a person owns is subject to the state. Whatever money I make is not mine, it belongs to the greater good of the people. If it is deemed that I have too much money, or have too many things, the state is permitted to come along and take whatever it deems as "fair" in order to give it to someone else who has less. This is not a phantom hypothetical. It falls into place with much of what Obama has expressed during the campaign, and it falls into place with the philosophy he seemed to embrace during his life. How it will play out should he be elected will be interesting to watch, although I doubt it will be pleasant to experience.

I would like to believe that our Constitution and our American society is resilient to any outside political or economic system that a person or group would try to impose on it, whether it be Marxist, communist, atheist, or totalitarian. There is no question in my mind though that any "revolution" would be subtle, undertaken over years rather than overnight. Our country has seen a slow erosion of our moral compass (same sex marriage and abortion to name two obvious areas) in recent years. We have seen our schools and our press overtaken by a decidedly very liberal agenda that is shaping public opinion like no other force can. And we have seen a young, telegenic, inexperienced, untested, arrogant lawyer/politician come along and swoon the American public into believing that he is "The One" that will save us all. It makes me wonder if our country really can stand up to this kind of movement. The liberals who voiced their outcry about the Patriot Act were noticeably silent when it came to Joe the Plumber. Here they were given an actual American citizen, who's only transgression was in asking this young, arrogant lawyer/politician a question; for this his privacy actually was intruded upon by the government . . by an Obama supporting government official . . and the left was silent. Where is the consistency?

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Friday, October 31, 2008

Chicago Style Politics

I mentioned yesterday how Joe the Plumber has been under investigation by the press and by the Obama campaign because he dared to ask a question. This was not the first time the Obama campaign has used Chicago style politics in this campaign. When Obama ran for state senator he aggressively set out to discredit and through loopholes find ways to knock his opponents off the ballot before there was an election. He was good at it. Today Anat Hakim writes about other tactics recently used by the Obama campaign to shut up anyone who opposes Obama (some excerpts below). And this is from someone who claims to bring a new kind of politics and who promises to reach across the aisle. I guess that becomes possible if you first destroy everyone on the other side of that aisle. It is chilling to consider what this country will look like should Obama become president.


On August 27, 2008, respected radio talk show host, Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, to his nightly program in Chicago. Kurtz had been conducting thorough and in depth research into Barack Obama's extensive ties to the radical left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz was at that point already investigating Obama's connection with Bill Ayers and their collaboration on a left-wing education "reform" organization. After Rosenberg's producer called Obama's Chicago headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz's claims, the Obama campaign declined and instead sent out an Obama Action Wire email to its supporters encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg's station with complains and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed. A slew of enraged Obama supporters in fact bombarded the radio station's switchboard demanding that the interview not go forward. The Obama followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign's official website.

A few weeks later, the Obama campaign again summoned its army of supporters through another Obama Action Wire, inciting them to once again inundate the same Chicago radio show with calls to deny airtime for an interview with author David Freddoso, author of the book The Case Against Barack Obama. The Obama campaign's justification for this attack on free speech was that providing Freddoso with airtime would lower the standards of political discourse.

A nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is headed by a former operative of MoveOn.com (which endorsed Obama) has been going through campaign-finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters intended to depress Republican fundraising.

The Obama campaign demanded that the U.S. Justice Department stop TV stations from airing an independent ad focusing on Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. Again, Obama's followers were summoned to inundate stations with tens of thousands of emails to kill the commercial. What's more, the Obama campaign has demanded that the Justice Department investigate and prosecute the group that produced the Bill Ayers ad (the American Issues Project) and the man who funded the group (Harold Simmons from Dallas, Texas). Most recently, the attorney for Obama for America has asked the U.S. Attorney General to investigate John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Republican Senators Voinovich and Cornyn and Representatives Bachmann, Blunt and Ryan because of the Republicans' attempts to draw attention to ACORN's fraudulent voter registration activities.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Joe The Plumber

History will tell us whether Joe the Plumber unwittingly made the difference in the 2008 presidential campaign. There are a few things though we can already learn from Joe's imprint on this campaign. First of all, it is possible for an average citizen to have some kind of impact on a national level. Joe did not set out to make that kind of impact. In fact if Obama had not answered his question using the phrase "spread the wealth around", most likely Joe would have been long forgotten by now. So Joe was essentially an innocent bystander, minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came calling. Joe asked a simple, no nonsense question about Obama's plan to take even more money from wealthy people and give it to others. Obama made the news with his "spreading the wealth around" comment. The second thing we learn from Joe the Plumber is that if Obama and his followers do not like a question, or if Obama messes up an answer, their immediate action is to discredit someone else. In this case it was Joe. All the attention went toward digging up any dirt on this guy. His private records were accessed and he was dragged through the mud. So while one individual can make a difference, that difference may very well come with a price.

But there is something else we learned from Obama's response to Joe the Plumber. Obama believes in a "trickle up" theory of economics. He believes that if the waitress, the mechanic, or the taxi driver is making substantially more money, then anyone who traditionally earns more would equally benefit. In other words, if the waitress is earning more, she will enjoy a higher quality of life, spend more, and consequently drive the economy upward for the higher earners in the world. While this sounds nice, there is a part of the equation that I don't understand: how does the waitress, the mechanic, or the taxi driver get paid more? Where does that money come from? My best guess is one or all of the following: 1) profitable businesses would need to forego any profit in order to pay higher wages; 2) businesses would have to charge substantially more for goods and services; or 3) the government would need to intervene with subsidies (taxes) or by taking over certain businesses. None of these fit into our traditional concept of a free market capitalistic society. Without profits, companies will not grow, hurting our economy in the long term. If companies are charging substantially more in order to pay their employees more, fewer people (including those employees) will be able to afford their goods. All you are doing is shifting numbers higher. And no one (except for maybe Democrats) believes that government should be owning private industries. So my question to Obama is to please explain how all of this happens. How does he pull off a "trickle up" economy without effectively changing our fundamental economic values? What serves as his examples of how this works or that it does work? How do you provide higher pay to these lower income people? If it is through education, then wouldn't these people elevate themselves into higher paying jobs and careers rather than stay an educated waitress or taxi driver?

Today Obama ridiculed McCain for calling Obama's economic and tax plans as being "socialistic", and his answer to that was that McCain was being selfish. Selfish? Someone makes a living, earns a good, honest wage . . the government comes along asking for an even bigger cut of that in order to give it to someone who is not earning a decent, honest wage . . and for complaining about that he is now called selfish? God help us.

Are You Sure You Want This Guy?

I've always believed that Obama was great at pursuing job titles, but not so great (or even good) at performing those jobs. He's like the guy that is all about the pursuit of various women, but once he gets them, he is not comfortable with maintaining or building that relationship. This video gives us a glimpse of Obama as a U.S. Senator. Watching it, you get the sense that his commitment toward being a senator is not all that deep. Most of these sound bites occurred prior to his run for president. Imagine if being a U.S. Senator was a real job. Would any employer be happy to have an employee who was always late to work like this, or would they fire him? Would you hire someone who was constantly late to work? If not, why give him the job of president? It's 3:00 am . . where is President Obama? Oh, he's running late again, or maybe he's now running for king of the world.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama and Taxes

Generally speaking, I do not believe politicians, especially during campaigns. They promise everything to everyone, with either no intentions of actually following through or any idea of how they could actually fulfill their promises. Obama's tax "cuts" for people earning under $250,000 is a great example. He claims that 95% of people in America would experience a tax "cut". By now most people have heard that nearly 40% of Americans do not pay Federal income taxes, so there is no way they can experience a tax "cut". In Obama's plan these 40% would actually receive money from the government, even though they did not pay any income taxes. This is all part of Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy (also know throughout the world as Marxism). Obama sees these checks as compensating and "cutting" what these people pay in payroll taxes (Social Security), hence the tax "cut". My question is what impact will this have on the future of Social Security? Isn't this working against the purpose and future health of Social Security? Isn't the concept that ALL Americans are to pay into Social Security?

But there is one other aspect of Obama's tax plan that has not been covered by journalists or by the McCain campaign. In 2010 the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire. In 2010 everyones effective tax rate will increase, regardless of how much someone earns. To Obama this is not considered a tax increase ( I wish someone would push him to explain why). For a married couple making $75,000, your taxes will go up by $3,074 when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. For Obama, an extra $3,074 is not a tax increase. How can he get away with claiming tax "cuts" for 95% of the people when he knows everyone will be paying more when the Democratic congress and Obama himself allow the Bush tax cuts of 2003 to expire in 2010? Do you think they will fight to extend those cuts? Fat chance. Democrats have complained about those cuts for the past 5 years.

If you want to read some more about Obama and his tax plans, check this article out. Bottom line: don't trust this guy.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Why I Cannot Vote For Obama

There is no question that Barack Obama is a very telegenic politician. He has managed to capture the imagination of at least half the country. But to me there is a huge disconnect between the masterful speaker and his record of accomplishment. I look at it like this: either we are electing a car salesman for president, or a surgeon. Each comes with a very different set of qualifications. The car salesman is a smooth talker, skilled in making the customer feel good about buying something they maybe don't really need. There's nothing wrong with that. Sales is their job. Contrast that with the surgeon. We want our surgeons to be experienced, well schooled, tested and competent. It would be great if they were good communicators and had a nice bedside manner, but given the choice, we would prefer knowing that they have successfully done this surgery before, many times in fact. I prefer a president with the skill set similar to that of a surgeon over those of a car salesman.

I started to write something here about why I just cannot trust Obama, and therefore why I cannot vote for him. I read today something though that lays it out much better than I ever could, and I would encourage you to take some time to read through this article and watch its accompanying support videos.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Please Help Us Avoid An International Crisis

According to Joe Biden, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." If that is the case, then doesn't it make sense that we should not elect Barack Obama as president? Biden is convinced that this international crisis will take place if Obama is president. Let's say this event takes place in much the same way that 9/11 occurred. Wouldn't it be prudent to do whatever we can to prevent that, including not electing the guy who would unwittingly be responsible for such an event? Please do your part to make sure we never have to find out.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Nice Video Showing Tolerance of Liberals

Some McCain/Palin supporters march through the streets of NYC a couple weeks ago. This video shows how the tolerant society responds. The video says it all.

Barack's Socialism

American Thinker has a great article titled "Why Obama's Socialism Matters". It is a great review and description of socialism. And if you are not convinced that Obama has a Socialistic world view, check this out.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

The Rage at McCain Rallies

Over the past couple days much has been made of the apparent rage against Obama heard among people going to McCain/Palin rallies. I don't get the sense that it is all that prevalent or all that scary, but many in the press sure seem to be concerned. They don't like bad things being said about their guy. I tend to think that many of the people in the crowd are actually growing impatient with McCain himself, wishing he would "grow a pair" and start challenging Obama with more conviction and passion. Obama has gotten a free ride throughout the campaign, despite his shady background and his elusive answers, and conservatives are more than disappointed with McCain. I also have to wonder if some of those people hurling insults toward Obama at these rallies are in fact Obama followers who have infiltrated the other side, trying to stir up controversy. It fits in with the kind of tactics used by these people in demonstrations and other venues. Think of it this way: a half dozen Obama supporters at a McCain rally protesting McCain would not make much of an impact (okay, the media would make it out that there were hundreds there); but a half dozen Obama supporters pretending to be McCain supporters and then yelling outrageous insults about Obama ("he's a terrorist", "kill him") . . now that would get noticed. And it would make the McCain supporters look bad.

Regardless, Michelle Malkin has assembled an outstanding collection of rage on the left aimed toward McCain, Palin, and Bush. All of this of course is not a problem for the media or for the Obama campaign. They have no control over it. Yeah . . right.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Some Down Time

I'm taking advantage of some down time by making a trip out to Oregon. Visiting some friends in Portland and then down to Ashland/Medford area. It's always tough leaving Virginia during the fall, especially since the weather has been so great lately. But I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some old friends out west. After that trip I'm heading up to New York City for the PhotoPlus Expo. Looking at some album companies as well as hearing from some nationally recognized photographers. All in all the next couple weeks should provide some fun travel.

ACORN

I just had the displeasure of watching ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson on tv this morning (check it out below). He was being interviewed along with John Fund, who has written a book about stolen elections. I'm not sure I have seen a more annoying person being interviewed then this Levenson guy. What a jerk. It is common for people to interrupt others on these kind of split screen interviews, but this guy took it to a new level today. When he was speaking he was extremely insistent on finishing his comments, not letting John Fund say a word. When it was Fund's turn to answer a question, this Levenson guy would interupt or sigh out loud or go "tsk, tsk, tsk". I could tell that John Fund was in disbelief at Levenson's arrogance and rudeness.



I don't know a whole lot about ACORN, but it is clear that somewhere in there structure they are instructing their below entry level helpers to secure as many registrations as possible, without regard to their legality. How else do you explain that in the 20 states ACORN operates, some 13-14 states are experiencing serious problems with voter fraud via ACORN. If it was one or two states, maybe you could attribute it some rogue person; but this is a pattern that has spread throughout the country. I don't believe Obama's campaign is directly involved in any of this, even though they have contributed several million dollars to ACORN. What bothers me is that Obama and ACORN operate pretty much from the same Saul Alinsky playbook of deception, intimidation, and by shutting down any dissent. Not a good sign for the country if Obama should win this election.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Another Problem For Obama

Jack Cashill makes a very compelling argument that Obama's "Dreams Of My Fathers" was not written by Obama, but by Bill Ayers. On the surface it sounds like a stretch, doesn't it? But if you are curious to how he came to this conclusion, check this out right now. He lays out the timeline for how this could be true, but also examines the choice of words used by both men in their memoirs, as well as the cadence and sentence structure. If this proves to be true (it is certainly possible), it tells us even more about "that one". Not only is he not the thoughtful thinker/writer, but he is lying once again about his true relationship with Ayers. The proof isn't there yet to make those kinds of accusations; but Obama is such an unknown commodity that it is easy for me to draw the above conclusions. What has always struck me is the absence of writings from Obama's past. Cashill writes about this to some extent in his article. That in and of itself causes me to distrust anything Obama is now saying.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Guilt By Association

Whenever people bring up questions about Obama's relationships with people like Ayers, Wright, Rezko, and ACORN, the Obama camp cries out about the unfairness of using guilt by association. Maybe it's their way of saying "we know he is guilty, so stop making the association". But I have another guilt by association that a candidate has been and still is using: Bush/Cheney = McCain. I was thinking that the Bush/McCain relationship is probably very similar to the Clinton/Obama relationship. I don't think Bush and McCain particularly like each other. They were pretty fierce opponents back in the 2000 election, just like Clinton and Obama were in this election. Bush and McCain have never come across as being "comrades" or even friends. When pressed into duty, each could put on a good enough face for the sake of the party, but you always had a sense that in private they really had no use for each other. That pretty much describes the Clinton/Obama relationship. The thing is, we all understand what is going on and the distrust these people have for each other. Many of us have similar relationships in our lives. So inside we have to laugh whenever we hear Clinton say how much she respects Obama. And, at least to me, it seems insincere on Obama's part, and more than a stretch on his part, to try and associate McCain with George Bush or Dick Cheney. I know it stirs up that part of the country that hates George Bush, but it is clear that even McCain is not a big fan of George Bush. Sure, for the sake of the party and perhaps even for the sake of the country, McCain has in the past expressed his support for the president in certain areas; and in most if not all of those cases it was the proper thing for him to do. But if Democrats want people to stop associating Obama with radical terrorists and preachers and organizations known for voter fraud, then maybe they should consider stopping their own brand of guilt by association.

What Is McCain Thinking?

John McCain proposed during the second debate a $300 billion mortgage bailout. If I understand this correctly, it goes something like this: a person buys a house for $500,000 in 2005 and secures a mortgage of $450,000. The house is currently valued at $350,000, but the person is still liable for the $450,000 mortgage, and perhaps is unable to now make their payments (or unwilling to continue making payments). So now McCain wants the government to essentially buy that person's $450,000 mortgage, revalue the house at $350,000, and then create a new mortgage based on that $350,000. In other words, the government (taxpayers) will come in and cover the difference. For the homebuyer there was no harm, no risk. For the taxpayer there is the forced collection to cover for people's misfortune and/or mistakes and/or bad investments. Where in this entire scenario does personal responsibility fit? With all these bailouts, what's next. I've lost money on several stock investments. When should I expect my bailout from the government? Is this the essence of capitalism? And where will all of this lead? Once this bailout mentality establishes itself, what will ever stop it? McCain is treading dangerous ground here. We would expect this kind of government intervention, government is everything, kind of strategy from the Democrats; it scares me when the supposed conservative is introducing the same kind of nonsense.

Obama and the New Party

It appears that Barrack Obama really is a socialist. Back in the mid 90's Obama belonged to the New Party, a party reportedly established by the Democratic Socialists of America. The New Party apparently was set up to help socialist minded candidates secure wins in elections that they thought they had a shot at winning. The New Party also had strong ties with ACORN. Obama denies involvement with the now out of business New Party, but someone has dug up old website archives that indicate that Obama was a card carrying member. If all of this is true, and it sure seems to be, then we are about to elect someone as president who at least was (and has shown tendencies to still be) a socialist. I cannot believe we have gotten to that point in our country. And even if people had this information (I doubt the big media will follow up or expose this), it's questionable whether it would make a difference. Too many people have already drunk the Kool-Aid. Check out this article for more information.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Presidential Debate #2

Why have a second debate when all the questions are the same as the first debate? No new ground was covered. We, the American public, learned nothing from this debate. What a waste of time. For me personally, I would like to see the two candidates sit down and debate with each other. Perhaps have two moderators, a liberal one and a conservative one. Let the moderators challenge the candidates and what they are saying on the campaign trail. Get them to answer all the questions that they have been dodging over the past year. This is a job interview, and yet we keep asking them the exact same questions week after week, expecting them to give us some new answer. Instead they keep giving us the same evasive responses. It's like we're in the fourth quarter, the players are tired, they (Obama, the press) are in prevent defense, playing it safe. Tom Brokaw, being in charge of this, did a terrible job, simply because he went conventional. Again, what a waste, and what a bore.

Obama's Aloofness

So often it is the coverup of a potential scandal that ends up bringing a person down, rather than the scandal itself. I'm not sure most Americans are tracking with Barrack Obama's past association with William Ayers, so I'm not sure how effective it has been for the McCain/Palin campaign to now make an issue out of that association. But as of today (Oct. 7), the official Obama response is that when Obama worked with Ayers, Obama never knew of Ayers' past terrorist bombings and radical statements. This is remarkable, and highly, highly doubtful. But let's take it at face value. Let's say that Obama, while serving on boards and panels with Ayers, while letting Ayers host his political launch event for state senator, while writing an endorsement for Ayers' book, while living in the same neighborhood . . let's say that Obama really was unaware of this man's radical statements and views, and his highly publicized past bombings of police stations and the Pentagon. And let's add to that Obama being unaware of Jeremiah Wright's radical anti-American rants during sermons at the church Obama attended for 20 years. What kind of picture does this draw of Obama? Seems to me that we have two choices: 1) he is an extremely aloof person, completely unaware of his surroundings; or 2) he knew exactly what these people where up to, but is now denying (lying) that he knew anything. I'm not sure which of these make him all that attractive to be our next president. For a candidate who promises to be ethical and something different, the fact is we've seen this kind of politician before. They'll say and do anything to get elected. It amazes me how so many people see this guy as representing change. When Obama first ran for senate in Illinois, he ran unopposed. Actually he did have opponents, but he sent out surrogates to destroy those opponents and knock them off the ballot. Again, change that we can believe in.

Monday, October 6, 2008

McCain vs Obama

Barrack Obama and John McCain are two very different people. Obama is young, McCain is older than most candidates we have seen before. Obama is an effective communicator (as long as he has his tele-prompter), McCain is oftentimes painful to listen to. Obama is an evangelist, McCain is the pastoral counselor. Obama has few confidants from his past (what ones there were have been thrown under the bus), McCain seems to have a large number of close friends that have stood by him throughout his life (and have not yet been thrown under the bus). This last point to me seems striking. McCain has many surrogates, among them Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, as well as a number of men who served with him in the military. All of these relationships go back 10, 20, even 40 years. There is a depth and a commitment within these kind of relationships. These are not people who are opportunistic, just hanging around hoping their guy wins the lottery so they might get a windfall. When I look at Obama however, I wonder who are his guys? Who are the people who have stood by him (and he has stood by them) over the years? Can you name one person, beyond his wife? Sure, there are tons of people supporting him now, but all of these people are new friends of Obama. I suspect that many of them have their hands open, hoping to partake of some of the crumbs that fall off his table. But there is no depth to these relationships. Many of them probably don't know Obama well enough to really know what he believes. They just like the thought of what they think he believes. Certainly there is no substance behind it because there is no substance to Obama and his past. Obama is a loner. In his world there is him and . . well, him. Maybe that makes for a good president, someone who is largely detached, unable to take meaningful stands, and has few friends or work associates. Maybe someone like that can withstand the desires to appease people or to become emotionally tied to issues or constituents. It doesn't sound too appealing to me, and I'd rather have someone who is poor at communicating but comes with depth and a lifetime of friends and associates who respect him. Two very different people.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Afghanistan

Senator Obama (and Biden) have a lot invested in Afghanistan. That is where our attention should be, as they see it. We need more troops, more money, and more attention paid to that area. But why? Why do Democrats, who 1) traditionally hate war, 2) continually tell us that money spent in Iraq could be used to improve our schools or pay for health care, and 3) proclaim that America is evil for getting involved in or occupying other countries . . why do they want to fight, spend money, and occupy Afghanistan? And they want to do this without any exit plan. I'm not quite sure I understand this. I'm not disagreeing with them. After the September 11 memorials and reminders, I still believe we need to be over there fighting and disrupting any and all terrorists operations. Presumably that is the thinking of the Democrats. I wonder though how long they could stomach seeing American servicemen and women dying in Afghanistan. How long before they lose interest in being there any longer. Again, what is their exit strategy? For years they demanded one for Iraq. I just don't hear anyone asking them for one in the fight they have chosen.

Palin Won

That's all I wanted to say. Palin won the debate. Joe Biden was so intent on not addressing or attacking her that he looked like he was on some kind of pain medication. Sure, he spouted off a bunch of facts and history which made him appear knowledgeable and experienced, but half of what he said was flat out wrong. It sounded good, but what good is it if the facts and the history he is quickly throwing out is just wrong? Palin looked good, sounded good, and came across with undeniable charm. She connected. Considering all the pressure she was under to perform and show us some depth, I think she showed a lot of courage and confidence. You won't hear the main stream media declare Palin a winner . . they have too much invested in Obama. So the best they will say is that it was a tie. I know better. Palin won.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

The Economy Part II

I just read a good article by Matt Mayer about the economy. It's a bit windy and long, but there are some great points in there about the "taxing the rich" mentality, about how taxing one economic class (the rich) excessively while doling out money to another class (non-taxpayers) creates a divided non-productive nation, and the consequences of all that. Here is a sampling:

"[As Scottish Philosopher Alexander] Tytler studied the lifecycles of civilizations and found that they last for roughly 200 years. These civilizations followed a similar pattern. Tytler categorized the pattern as such: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

In conclusion Mayer says: "The American economy is in a very rough patch. The last thing it needs is a president who thinks that the road to prosperity is paved by punishing producers, increasing dependency, over-regulating, and driving up labor costs."

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The First Debate

As I watched the debate I was not particularly blown away by either candidate. They each had their points they tried to drive home: for Obama it is that McCain is Bush, for McCain it is that Obama just doesn't understand how things work or the gravity of what we are up against. I'm sure that followers of both came away thinking their guy won, which is usually how these debates end. From my perspective I thought that Obama was perhaps too well rehearsed. We know his handlers have been working with him to stop the "hhhmmmm, uuhhhhh's" that fill up his non-scripted answers. To me he sounded much like how Sarah Palin sounds in her interviews . . overly handled by handlers and staff. For Obama though, he needs it. We've seen and heard what he is like when speaking off the cuff. And we saw it for a moment last night when Obama could not remember the name of the serviceman on his bracelet. I thought McCain could have been stronger all the way around, particularly on the first part concerning economics. He did not distance himself from Obama. He should have tied Obama with Bush in their approach to this bailout. McCain should have been more detailed in how we should get out of this mess. But he didn't. Sure it was good to drill Obama for his earmarks . . perhaps even detailing a few by name; but none of that really got to the core of this whole bailout. To me, that was the biggest disappointment of the evening: neither guy had much to offer on that front.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Will Reform vs. Have Reformed

Sarah Palin made a statement in a recent speech that I thought said it all about Barrack Obama. It went something like this: He keeps saying he WILL reform, but he never says he HAS reformed. To me, this goes to the root of what is wrong with Obama. He continually tells us that politics as usual in Washington needs reforming, and that he alone is the man to bring about that change. After nearly two years, what I am waiting for from the press is an examination into what credentials Obama brings to this job interview. Here's an obvious question: Did Obama initiate reform in Chicago style politics while he was a state senator or while he lived and worked around Chicago? If so, how? If not, why not? Chicago style politics are more notorious and corrupt than Washington. What a great opportunity for him to demonstrate his skills in this matter. Here is another question: Just exactly what kinds of reform did Obama bring to Illinois? To my knowledge, and I've been following this for some time, I just don't see anything there. How about during his first two years in the U.S. Senate? Same thing there as well. Nothing. Bottom line is that many Americans have blindly accepted Obama's word. He is a reformer because he says he is. How convenient. And easy. Let me give it a try: I am a world class athlete. I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is continue to pronounce to the world that I, Bob, am a world class athlete. Soon the endorsement deals will roll in. Talk about audacity.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Fannie & Freddie

For anyone who is confused about who is to blame for all this economic meltdown (and I am one of those who has been confused by it), here's some perspective that makes at least some sense to me: back in 2005 legislation was proposed that would have imposed a much stronger oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was apparent that both were heading for trouble and that reform was needed. It's impossible to know whether the legislation, if passed, would have averted today's meltdown. But we do know that the legislation was defeated along party lines, with the democrats (including Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd) voting to defeat it. And we also know that Barrack Obama and Chris Dodd were by far the top two recipients of financial donations from Fannie and Freddie in its history. There were three co-sponsors on the reform legislation. One of those three was John McCain. I'm not sure why we don't hear all that much about it today from not only the press, but from the McCain campaign. Sure seems like there should be a lot of 3 year old video and sound bites from all of these people speaking out about this piece of legislation, both for and against. Seems like it would make for a nice ad for McCain. Instead we hear McCain flailing around with mixed messages, many of which ring as off the mark. Obama is not any better. His problem has been his slow response and lack of committing to any ideas for resolving the meltdown. Bottom line: neither candidate seems to know what to do here.

UPDATE: In 2003 the New York Times printed an article detailing the Bush Administration's proposals for reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Within the article was this statement: "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Why isn't Barney Frank being called to the carpet today? If George Bush had made this statement, and it was the Democrats who proposed reform, the press would have been all over it.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Weddings & Weather





You wouldn't know it from the photos, but over the past two weekends I had one wedding take place during Hurricane Hanna and the other outdoor one delayed a half hour due to a fairly heavy rain. Fortunately neither one was a complete washout.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The Economy

There is no doubt that many people are hurting financially. Primarily this all seems to have its origin in the housing downturn and problems people had with overextending themselves with debt. And so maybe it doesn't sound right for McCain to say that the fundamentals of our economy are solid. That comes across as being out of touch, and Obama wasted no time in pouncing on that. But when you consider all that has been thrown at the economy over the past seven years: a recession coming out of the Clinton years, 9/11, the demise of the technology bubble, Katrina, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the housing meltdown, and now the demise of several financial institutions, the economy is still plugging along fairly well. Unemployment is in okay shape, interest rates are reasonable, 95% of people are able to meet their mortgages, people are still buying things. Sure there are some people who are living day to day, and some people are hurting, but the emphasis here is on the word "some". Things could be much, much worse; in fact if they do get worse, people will look back on this current time as being pretty good.

I'm a little dismayed that McCain does not seem to have a solid grasp of what to do. Actually, to be clear, Obama is even more clueless, so I am not saying that Obama is speaking with clarity on this issue. But McCain seems to be aimlessly trying to please everyone here. He is bashing big business and Wall Street, attempting to push a more populist mindset. He seems to want more regulation, which means more government. There is a place for government, but government doesn't really understand Wall Street, or business for that matter. Most politicians are lawyers, not business people. I tend to think that our economy goes in cycles much like our weather does. If it's cold outside, give it a few days, or a few months, it will warm up eventually; and we really don't need to intervene. I suspect that in time people will realize that there are bargains out there in the housing market and they will start buying. Before long it will once again heat up.

Just one more note: the economy was smoking and doing really well up until the end of 2006. Up to that point President Bush never got any thanks for just how well the economy was at that point. So what has happened since? A Democratically run Congress!

Monday, September 15, 2008

Jesus As Community Organizer

This phrase "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" must have had it's origins among the community organizer crowd back in the 60's. For a bunch of leftists (I'm not sure I have ever heard of a conservative community organizer) who were often demonstrating and fighting against the establishment government, the phrase probably sounded cool. I never heard it though before this past week (thankfully I have never been a leftist) when it was used several times by Democrats in comparing Obama (= Jesus = community organizer) with Palin (= governor = Pontius Pilate). I believe it is a very offensive comparison, both to Jesus, who I doubt would be happy having his divinity stripped down to a community organizer, and to Sarah Palin, who I doubt would appreciate being compared to a man who is mostly known for his connection with Jesus' death. But there is a larger, more important question that I find much more compelling: just who is Jesus?

You might think it would take a book to answer that question, but I believe the answer is really quite short and simple: He is the Son of God. Now some people are happy just calling him an honored teacher, while others look at him as a great prophet, and apparently some see him as a community organizer. But these perspectives of Jesus are flawed. C.S. Lewis probably said it best when he challenged people with this thought: either Jesus is a liar, or He is a lunatic, or He is Lord. Jesus made it very clear who He thought He was: that He was God, that He was here to die on a cross for the sins of mankind, and that He would be resurrected from the dead. Now, if anyone else made those kinds of claims, that person would either be locked up as a crazy person and not really knowing what they were saying, or they would be seen as a liar, knowing full well what they were claiming, but trying to deceive people. If Jesus was lying or was a lunatic, then there is no way anyone could call Him an honored teacher or a great prophet. It makes no sense. So, if you cannot accept what Jesus says about Himself, then you really cannot and should not view Him as a teacher or as a prophet. On the other hand, if you do accept what Jesus claimed about Himself, then that must mean that you believe He is God . . that He really is who He claimed to be. There is a big difference between defining Jesus as a community organizer and defining Him as Lord and Savior.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Bias


For anyone who doubts the bias of the media, take a look at this image I found on the Yahoo site today. It's an ad for the Charlie Gibson interview. Looks like Gov. Palin is calling the Iraqi war a "holy war". Wrong. Charlie Gibson asked her if we were fighting a "holy war". He was the one who used that term. She never used did, and in fact stated very, very clearly the exact opposite. Charlie Gibson quoted parts of a previous statement by her twice, both times taking each part completely out of context. It was disgusting, particularly for a "respected journalist". Watch the video here. Before you watch it though, here is what she said in her original statement: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

UPDATE: Want a good side by side comparison of questions Charlie Gibson asked Barrack Obama vs questions he asked Sarah Palin, go here.

Beyond The Title

Much as been made about past positions Barrack Obama has held, all of which it has been argued gives him experience to be President. But few people, especially within the media who typically love to investigate these kinds of things, seem to care what exactly he did while in those positions. In other words, did he hold a title for a few years before moving on to another title, or did he actually make the kind of monumental change and improvements that gives him the right to claim that he is an agent of change? Heath Shuler can say that he played quarterback in the NFL, and by saying that he can equate himself with someone like Brett Favre, who also played quarterback in the NFL. But Shuler was no Favre . . he had a terrible NFL career. And the NFL is littered with players who are good enough to make a team, but not good enough to be known for their merits on the field. So it begs the question: as a community organizer, for example, was Obama a Shuler or a Favre? As a state senator, was he a Shuler or a Favre? And now as a U.S. Senator, Shuler or Favre? I don't know the answers to these questions (I do have an idea about it though) because the press, who in two weeks has done more research on Sarah Palin than they have done in two years with Obama, has not told us a whole lot about Obama's past. How many interviews have you seen with those steelworkers who lost their jobs in Chicago back in the early 80's? Where are the people from Chicago who can vouch for all the great things Obama has done for them and their community? With McCain we hear all kinds of interviews with other former POW's who were with him 40 years ago. We also saw them at the Republican convention. So where are the people who were with Obama 15-20 years ago? The people who's lives were changed because of his greatness and his propensity for change. Do you ever get the impression that for all the talk Obama gives us about change, that it is just that, all talk? Two people put "NFL Quarterback" on their resume, one is Heath Shuler and the other is Brett Favre. Enough said. 

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Another Reason Why You Can't Believe Obama

This whole lipstick on a pig thing is kind of dumb. I'm not convinced Obama meant it in the way it was interpreted, but it has been reported that immediately after he said it that a large part of the crowd started chanting something about Palin. That would indicate to me that his audience interpreted his remark as a reference to Sarah Palin. If that is the case, then the McCain camp has reason to interpret it that way too. (Seems to me that a person with judgement would have recognized right away that he had a problem on his hand and should have dealt with it right there, but that's just me.) I was struck however by Obama's response the day after. Within his response Obama talked about this is why people are sick of Washington, because "they (the McCain people) seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context." Let's see, hasn't it been Obama who has taken McCain's $5 million dollar definition of rich joke out of context? Wasn't it Obama who has consistently taken McCain's 100 years in Iraq remark out of context? Wasn't it Obama who continually takes McCain's "let me have my staff get back to you" about how many houses he owns completely out of context? Sounds to me that Obama has this Washington thing down like an old pro. 

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Diversity

When you hear the word "diversity" you usually think in terms of race or gender. A room with 20 whites, 20 blacks, 20 asians & 20 latinos would be considered diverse. Take those 80 people and make 40 male and 40 female and you really have diversity. But that kind of diversity only goes as far as a photo opt. Is it real diversity if all 80 people hold the same beliefs, or if 90% of the people hold the same beliefs? And can an organization that says it represents a certain kind of person, let's say women, as the National Organization of Women (NOW) claims, really make the assumption that all those people hold the same beliefs of that organization?

NOW assumes that all women believe and think the same. They assume that all women favor pro-choice policies and they see anyone who is not pro-choice as essentially being against women, or at least against the cause of women. Clearly a large number of women, perhaps even a majority, are not pro-choice. They are in fact very much pro-life. These women are every bit as much female as those who identify with the NOW agenda. Many of these women are highly accomplished, very independent, and probably more liberated than any of those in NOW. And yet they are ridiculed and treated as unequal by their counterparts. To me it seems odd that an organization that perhaps at one time was all about the equality of women has its own problems when it comes to equality. It also seems to me that NOW is not really about choice. To please NOW, women are required to accept the pro-choice mantra. In this sense, women are not free to think for themselves and to hold opposing views.

It seems pretty obvious to me that classes of people do not all share the same beliefs. Whenever I hear someone speak of or for the "black community", or when I hear someone say "as a women" before they state an opinion, I tend to believe that this person is being pretty arrogant to think they are speaking for and representing an entire group of people. Nonsense. All they can really be speaking for is themselves. Period. If NOW wants to be the Organization for Liberal Women, that's fine, but even then I doubt that all liberal women share the same beliefs and ideals. One thing is certain though, there are many, many women who have no use for NOW and would never identify with their ideology. And I'm sure they are offended anytime NOW presumes to speak for them. Okay, maybe I'm speaking for them here as well, but you know what I mean.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Obama's Dilemma

Barrack Obama has been campaigning for nearly two years. When He first started, His charisma and tremendous oratory skills drew large crowds and the kind of buzz most candidates would kill to have. Today, His speeches are a bit more tiresome. We've heard all of this before . . not only from Him, but from others in His party as well. After nearly two years, Obama has been in the news so much that He can now be perceived (falsely, I may add) as an experienced old sage. Of course the only experience He has now that He didn't have two years ago is running for President. He didn't have foreign policy experience back then, and He still doesn't. He still has no economic experience, no military experience, no executive experience, no experience reforming anything. But because Obama has been so visible for so long, many people will perceive Him as having all that experience. Of course all of this works against the image of Obama being something new . . and people want something new. Enter Gov. Sarah Palin. Over the next couple months Gov. Palin will most likely wow the crowds in much the same way Obama did during His first few months. By election day she will still be seen as a fresh face . . an outsider out to change Washington. Obama's dilemma is that by then the general public may see Him as old news, and compared to Gov. Palin, He might just not measure up. Or at least that is my hope.

US Weekly Scandal


I switched the headlines for the two US Weekly tabloid covers with Gov. Palin on one and the Obamas on the other. It's amazing how it changes the perception.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Experience: Obama vs. Palin

Want a good comparison of Barrack Obama and Sarah Palin, go here. Just keep in mind that Obama is running for President, Palin is running for Vice President. There is a huge difference.

Friday, August 29, 2008

We've Heard These Promises Before

As I listened to Barrack Obama's soaring acceptance speech, I kept thinking that, boy, this all sounds familiar. No doubt he delivered it well, but I'm speaking of the content. It sounded all too much like the stuff we've heard from these guys before: disgust with how things are done in Washington . . the opponent has been there too long . . how terrible the economy is . . how poor America is perceived outside the country . . all couched in the context of how the speaker rose out of difficult circumstances, elevating themselves to greatness. By comparison I thought I would look up Bill Clinton's acceptance speech back in 1992. It's striking how similar the two speeches are in terms of content. Even some of the catch phrases are similar: for Clinton it was the repetitious "we can do it" . . for Obama it's "yes we can".

Bill Clinton talks so much now about what needs to happen: health care, global climate change, poverty. He and Al Gore had 8 years to follow through on these issues. In some cases they kind of tried (Hillary Care), but they never provided the kind of dedication and intent needed to really make significant changes. 8 years later they didn't have a whole lot to show for their time in office. Obama is now making the same kind of promises. His biggest problem could be that he has always been a loner. He has lots of followers, but where are the people who have worked with him throughout his life, championing the causes that he has been working on over the years? How is he going to pull together both sides of the aisle when he has not invested the time to get to know these people? Where is his record of accomplishment that proves he can follow up on these promises?

It was a soaring speech, full of Hollywood special effects, a large crowd, and lots of celebrities. But it was just a speech. After Bill Clinton came close to destroying the office of the President through his sexual addictions, the country was ready for someone like George W. Bush . . and President Bush has brought integrity back to the office. But George Bush is not a great speaker. In fact at times he can seem a bit awkward. Along comes Obama and people are seemingly ready for a President that can deliver a good speech. But good speeches are not enough, and they are not indicative of a person's ability to lead. A good speaker is not much more than a good sales person . . they can sell anything. When Bill Clinton mentioned in his speech this year that Obama knocked it out of the park with his selection of Joe Biden as VP, it sounded sincere, and you knew right there that this guy could sell anything. The same goes with Obama. Be sure to look under the hood before you buy.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Democrats Confusing Message

As I listen to some of the featured speakers at the Democratic Convention, it sure seems like they give a very confusing message. On the one hand they speak of their upbringing, the struggles they and their parents faced, the obstacles they had to overcome, and how all of that proves that the American dream is alive and that all things are possible. If this is all you heard from them you would be led to believe that they believe that government played little if any role in their advancement. It was a personal struggle and a personal triumph. So why are they running for office? Well if you listen to their other message you would get the impression that the American dream is only possible if government is involved. They want to be in office so they can impose all kinds of programs and entitlements, because without these things people will not be able to overcome their own struggles. I can understand that not all people have the support system that these speakers apparently had while growing up; and I can understand the desire to provide opportunities for people, but can't these people see the disconnect between their own lives and stories (if their stories are what they say they were) and what it is they want government to do? If their stories are true, they make for good, inspirational stories. And it shows something about their character, which is why they are telling these stories. But what makes them so compelling is that they are stories of personal sacrifice and dedication. Seems to me they would be less of a story if all the credit went to some impersonal government program.

One more Convention note: Did you notice that they were playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" when Bill Clinton was introduced at the convention? That was his campaign theme song back in 1992. It made sense back then. Now the words "yesterday's gone" brings new meaning for the Clintons. I thought it was a bit ironic.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Bush Legacy

I've always been a George W. Bush fan. Sure, there have been some times when I thought he could have been more conservative, but I still see him as a man of great integrity, good humor, and sound mind. Watching President Bush in action reminds me just how creepy and self-absorbed Bill Clinton was (and still is). At any rate, the following is a very nice reminder of what has been going on during the past 8 years while George Bush has been president.

A Brief History of Bush's Time

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Michelle Obama's Speech

I thought Michelle Obama did an okay job with her opening night speech at the Democratic Convention. She did a lot toward at least trying to appease her critics by sounding patriotic and moderate. This is contrast to many of her stump speeches during the primaries where she sounded angry and not particularly proud of her country. There were three things that she said in her speech though that made me cock my head and ask "what?". First, she mentioned that her husband wanted "to end the war in Iraq responsibly". Oh yeah? Her husband wanted to pull out all our troops during a time when Iraq was in chaos and we were "losing" the war. It would have been the most irresponsible thing we could have possibly done. Fortunately better judgement was in play and the surge was implemented. The second thing she said, in reference to her trying to give back to this country, was "that is why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service". Sounds like a big sacrifice, doesn't it. What she didn't mention was that her public service job now pays her over $300,000 a year. That's a job change that we can believe in. Finally one of Michelle's biggest crowd pleasing lines was "that is why I love this country". For most people in her position, that line would not have been necessary. Because of her previous quotes however, this became a line that people were hoping to hear her say. The question now is whether that was enough.

Added thought on the convention: Barrack Obama has built his campaign on the concept of change. He has blasted John McCain for being in Washington too long . . it's time to make a change. Of course this doesn't seem to carry over to the old timers in the Democratic party. There on opening night at the convention were Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. Between the two of them they represent about 80 years in Washington. And yet you don't hear Obama saying they have been in Washington too long . . it's time for a change. Instead you hear that they are "of the people", that Joe Biden is a "working class kind of person", born in Scranton, PA. Thirty five years in Washington, most as a U.S. Senator, and he is "working class"? And he hasn't lived in Scranton for probably 50 + years. I've heard of political spin, but boy, are they ever stretching.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Democrats and Conservation

Democrats are always talking about the merits of conservation. Usually it is within the context of the environment, but there is also the context of living within our means and by living simply (so others may simply live). If this was all the Democrats meant, and if they really meant it, I would have more respect for them. But Democrats are all too quick to show us that what they really want is for everyone else to conserve, but not necessarily themselves. The Democratic Convention is a case in point.

All was well with the convention as originally planned for the Pepsi Center. But then Barrack Obama and His handlers came up with the great idea of moving His acceptance speech to the larger Invesco Field. What is the cost of such a move? I'm sure it has been calculated somewhere, but the financial toll on Denver, the networks and cable news companies, the Secret Service, the Democratic Party, and numerous others will be much, much higher than if the convention stayed put at the Pepsi Center. Plus there is the environmental impact of traffic and lighting. Obama wants His big splash, His big impact coming out of the convention. Fine. But so does the person wanting to drive a Hummer, or the person living in a 10,000 square foot house, or the person who flies in their own private jet. And for that matter, so does the 'average" person wanting to enjoy their motor boat, or their air conditioned house. All of these people are told, for the good of the earth and the nation, that they need to conserve and cut back. Make sacrifices. We're told that we cannot continue to spend recklessly, especially when you consider how many people that money could have fed, or how many teachers could have been hired. Wouldn't you expect the same kind of sacrifice from our leaders, especially the ones that come up with this stuff? Is there no end to their ego?

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Obama's Record

Barrack Obama is relatively young for a presidential candidate, which means there should be plenty of records and people around who could speak of his greatness and all of his accomplishments. There was his time as president of the Harvard Law Review, his years as a community organizer, his stint as an Illinois state legislator, his brief time as a U.S. Senator. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't hear the testimonials pouring in. These past jobs are included in his resume, but there is never a mention of any accomplishment while in any of those positions. It's not like he is widely known for transforming poverty or education in Chicago. In fact he is not even known for changing anything while in Chicago. If that was the case, don't you think you would hear something along the line of "where he was widely credited for . ."? As president of the HLR, Obama apparently never wrote an article or opinion. My understanding is that, along with being able to add this position to your resume, writing for the Review is a big reason for seeking this position. Obama apparently was satisfied with just obtaining the position. All of this to me just goes to how little we really know about this guy. All we know is what he and his campaign tells us, which is a lot of fluff and little substance. This is the kind of stuff that is typically attributed to someone who can talk a good game, but cannot deliver when it matters. We all know Obama can deliver a nice speech. What no one knows is whether he can deliver when it matters. He's never done it before.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama & Abortion

It was an easy question, one that he has probably been asked numerous times before. Rick Warren phrased it a bit differently: when does a baby begin to have human rights? Others might ask it this way: when does life begin? There is a certain point when you can say "only God knows for sure", but this side of heaven God has given us the ability to reason and judge for ourselves the answer to that question (there's also that nagging verse in Psalm 139 where God says he knows us in our mother's womb). It's called conviction . . a personal belief based on reason, observation, our understanding of God, and what we deem to be right. And the man who wants to be president acts as though he hasn't really thought this crucial issue through before. He has no conviction on this issue, apparently. Or does he?

Obama has a problem when it comes to abortion. He clearly does not believe that life begins at conception. If he did his answer would not have be so convoluted ("beyond my pay grade"). For Obama, life begins at some point after conception. In fact it apparently begins at some point after birth. It recently became known that while in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against a resolution that would have protected born babies from purposely being killed after their birth, even though this resolution contained language that protected Roe v. Wade (Obama has lied about this vote). His position was more extreme than even the most liberal members of Congress are willing to go. So a baby is born alive, but because the mother had wanted an abortion, the baby is put to death. Again, a baby is born alive, outside the womb, independent from the mother, but for Obama it is apparently okay to put that baby to death because that was the will of the mother.

If someone does not have the personal conviction that this is wrong, then they should not be president. It's that simple.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

So Where Did This Ice Come From?


The picture to the left is the usual kind of image that Global Warming alarmists use to make their claims of the affect of warming on the arctic. Two satellite images of the same area, taken one year apart, with one image showing less ice than the other. If you look at the dates however, you will notice that the larger amount of ice is for the most recent photo. In other words, one year later there is more ice in the arctic than there was the previous year. How can that be? For Global Warming to not only be real but also be a crisis, shouldn't it be the reverse? Will Al Gore use this image in his slide show? Of course not. It seems to me that the debate is not over, and that we should be skeptical about any and all efforts to change our society and our economy by implementing "green" measures that costs billions and ultimately may not do one bit of good. Of course I would half expect Al to take this image and say that there is more ice because of the great strides we have taken to save our planet.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Investing In Great Equipment


I've always believed that mediocre photo equipment in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is better than great equipment in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. Having said that, I would much rather have great equipment. I just recently made an investment in Nikon's latest full frame digital camera, the D700, and wow, what a great camera. That coupled with some of the best glass around has me excited about hopefully capturing some stellar images. I'll post some soon.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Obama's Racial Accusations

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

With these words, Barrack Obama gets to make an accusation about something that has yet to happen (and very well may not happen) without having to prove anything. "They're going to try" means they have not done it yet, but watch out because they will. Obama's inference here is about race, even though he and his spokespeople deny that. Bottom line, Obama is calling McCain and conservatives racist, and he doesn't have to prove anything because even he admits that it hasn't happened yet. I find it ironic that Obama here is using a very common scare tactic, trying to raise fear in his listeners to beware and avoid those nasty, intolerant, racist McCain followers. In other words, he is already doing the very thing that he is accusing his adversaries will do.

Labels

Blog Archive