Hypocrisy and the Inauguration

In an open letter to Senator Anthony Weiner of New York I discussed my concerns on what I view as hypocrisy on the part of Democrats regarding this election:

I noticed that in the year 2005, you were adamant that President Bush should eschew a public inauguration ceremony and instead spend the $42,000,000 plus dollars on our military. So where is the letter to the Obama Inauguration Committee stating similar concerns over a ceremony that will cost an estimated $150,000,000.00? Surely they could spare half of that for our military personnel. Considering how vociferous some of his supporters were of even a simple home wedding for Jena Bush-which was hateful, mean-spirited and supported by the likes of Arianna Huffington-shouldn't these same pundits, politicians and supporters be concerned about what could be one of the largest public displays and expenditures by the office of the president for a ceremony? Where is your written complaint about this issue? I am posting a copy of this letter on a public website. I will also post your written concerns, if you dare to write them. Unfortunately, I think the DNC has tied your hands. I predict a rubber stamp Congress. And that is NOT democracy-that is dictatorship.

If he replies-which I seriously doubt since I don't live in his district, then I will publish that he chose not to reply. Sometimes a lack of words speaks volumes.

Paying For College

Do you know how much it costs to go to a state university per year? Includingtuition, books, transportation, food and housing, it's pretty much in the $25K per year range. It's a hefty chunk of change and due to the sinking level of spending by states, it's rising every year. On top of all that, every single student pays fees based upon the number of hours taken. Some fees pay for the library, or the computer network or parking. And some fees pay to subsidize athletic programs. Frankly, that's pretty underhanded when you consider that so many athletic directors like to falsely claim that their programs are self-sufficient. But let's imagine just for a minute that they were. If that is the case, wouldn't it leave a huge hole in their budgets to have players come out for the professional draft early? And isn't that basically just like taking money from the average students-you know, those kids who work at IHOP and Whataburger and live in dive apartment on cold pizza because that's all they can afford? Don't those students, who pay the full fare, fees included, deserve some sort of compensation for the Crabtrees and such of the world who are prepared to go onto the millionaire status after just a couple of subsidized years of college? How about this? If you look at some of the most highly ranked schools athletically, they often have some of the LOWEST rates of graduation. So are the regular students at that school just expected to pay for the gifted athletes to have their two years of college ball before jettisoning college life for the NFL, NBA or MLB? I think that when you sign with a college, you sign a contract that is binding. And unless you are willing to pay back the university for the education you recieved free and clear, you should not be able to enter a pro draft. Now I am sure the NFL and other major sports leagues won't like this, but I have to tell you that times are getting tough. And while UT and Alabama and Miami may fill the stadium, there are many students that are forced to drop down to smaller schools, community college or drop out completely due to the burden of college debt. What are these schools going to do when the student population realizes how they have been had? At some point, it will be too much.

The Pelosi Vehicle

A Look at this Meltdown from Ground Zero

My husband was laid off.

For the first time in thirty years, he was involuntarily let go. Part of it is the bad economy, but the problems that drove this situation are many and varied. What they share at the core is greed with a capital G. First of all, he worked in a telecommunications company through that meltdown. As credit became cheap after 9/11, upper level managers and stockholders pushed for more and higher compensation. During a bullish market, you can do those things like providing country club memberships or golden parachutes. But when the economy of a company or nation is crumbling, sometimes the stockholders and managers have to take a hit. In the company where my husband worked for 22 years, the managers were busy lining their own nests and the stockholders just cashed their checks and didn't ask questions. What was happening to sales, distribution and manufacturing was quite a different story. Staffing was cut, but the same sales, manufacturing and distribution goals were in play. So less people did more work. Then they cut overtime. Then they laid off more people.

At this point, my husband changed to a manufacturer based in Obama's former backyard. It was sales working for a manufacturer that made key products for the communications industry. The dollar was undervalued in comparison to world currencies, so when the offer came to the owner and founder, he took the money and left the company in the hands of an international corporation.

The goal of the corporations was NOT to make a good product, or to offer good customer service, or to sell more. Its goal was simply to make money. And to make money at any cost is what they did. First of all, the British corporation that owned bought out all competing manufacturers. That gave them a virtual corner on their product's portion of the market. Then came the job cuts. They closed factories in Utah and Colorado. Sales forces were narrowed, but target goals remained high. Then, as manufacturing was brought into an already overburdened factory, supplies became short. Salesmen would get contracts that could not be fulfilled for weeks, sometimes months. Customers started looking for other suppliers-mostly overseas.

At this point, my husband left this job to work for a smaller sales company. But even in this situation, the men running it were far more interested in getting money out of the company than in putting time into building up a clientele and following. My husband was laid off from that job. It's been two months now. I hear all this talk about public works programs a la WPA, but seriously, where are the middle class jobs that have gone away? I hear the media and politicians complaining that Americans won't work, but I know several middle aged, middle class males who are more than willing to take ANY job. But no jobs are to be had for middle class workers. We have become extraneous. The needs of the poor and those here illegally carry far more weight with the incoming administration.

And what is worse, the left has been very vocal about bringing home the troops. Sure, I don't want any American in harms way, but if they bring home the troops and muster them out, where are these guys and gals going to work? Where are they going to live? I truly don't think this administration has all the answers. What scares me more is that they think they do.

I'm Baaaaack

I haven't posted for awhile. The general bad taste left in my mouth from a very partisan driven and media manipulated election just left me,honestly, without words. But it's a new year, a new day and the menace is upon us. First of all, while I hope to see improvement in the economy and the way our nation is run, I doubt very much that Obama can do it. From what I have seen, the DNC is continuing to talk out of both sides of their collective mouths. They sign papers swearing that they won't accept a Blagojevich appointee, then backpedal under the threat of bad press, and do it. Obama's appointees to upper level positions are also under the microscope, although the mainstream press is content to let that slide as well. The biggest concern is and should be the Gaza/Israel conflict. How many rockets has Hamas fired into residential area of Israel? Answer: 5000. How long should ANY nation, including Israel, have to put up with such actions? Answer: Not one day. So how come the media is willing to manipulate its coverage to give aid and comfort to a nation that would gladly produce suicide bombers for Al Quaida? CNN seems to think the news is up to their interpretation. Evidently, they think the America public is just too dumb to get the nuances of what is politically correct for International Debate in this Day of Obama. The more things change, the more they stay the same. This is the same fight Israel has been fighting since it was created. The Palestinians are despised by other Middle Eastern nations EXCEPT when they oppose Israel. In fact, many Middle Eastern nations don't mind using Hamas and Palestine as a catspaw to lure the Israelis into a bigger, less manageable conflict. So folks, stay tuned. Let's see where Obama leads, if he leads at all, which I very much doubt given the present leadership in Congress and their obsession with doing what is popular, over what is right.

Jewels On Your Crown In Heaven

The easiest route any of us can take is to pop off at the least little thing. It's easily done and we see it on blogs, at work and in our media every day. The wiseguy attitude as personified by popular culture is viewed as an acceptable response to all questions and concerns. I admit, I can be pretty quick with a quip, although I do try to put some thought into things. But there are those out there who simply spout off because they truly think they are the belly button of the universe and all things should bow down to their will.

Back a few years ago-okay many years ago before cable-I would be bored on Sunday and would watch some of the television preachers. One that caught my attention was an African American preacher who talked about how every good act was a "jewel on your crown in heaven". I really liked that imagery then and I like it now. I like the idea of shining like the stars and becoming dazzling in spirit.

So here's my proposition-for the Christmas, Hanukkah and holiday season but also for all seasons-stop before you speak. It's easy to get offended over the most petty and cursory of slights, but quite often when out in public, individuals stop seeing working people as people. I have worked in retail, my kids do currently, and you would be shocked at what passes for normal in even the more upscale retail stores. Could we stop seeing all other people as drones and begin seeing them as people? That sales clerk may have learned her job will go away after the season. That man who cut you off could be heading for a job interview. That kid who put something on top of your bread could be helping to pay for rent. You don't know what they are dealing with-all you know is that you are mad. Ask yourself this-if the world ended right at that moment, would whatever is bugging you really matter? Choosing to defer your momentary anger or to act graciously when slighted is a sign of being a true adult. Lashing out in anger is the act of a self-pitying child. Don't you want jewels on your crown?

By the way, this doesn't meant we can't disagree because everyone has the right to their own opinions. And this doesn't mean we can't complain when we are honestly injured or shorted. But the way we choose to do these things make up far more of the measure of a person than what car they drive or where they live. Reach out, seek those who need a smile, compliment those who work hard and get little in return, act politely even when others do not and find opportunities to respond in a positive way even when you are the injured party. The ability to do this is called Grace. But if you prefer, consider each selfless act another bright and shiny jewel on your crown in heaven.

A Prayer for the Middle Class

Dear Lord,
We thank you for what we have.
We appreciate what you have done for us.
Please, though, Lord, remember that we are weak
We cannot know what tomorrow brings.
We hope, but we also fear.
We aren't asking to get rich, Lord, we are simply asking to get by.
We've been promised hope by politicians and business leaders and evangelists
But that kind of hope is just for show, it's not the substance that we need.
So, Lord, if you can find a way to do it
Please remember us and bless us in spite of our weakness
Or perhaps have mercy on us because of our weakness.
Watch our leader, give them wisdom.
Watch our enemies, and allow them to open their eyes
And watch those who have their own avarice, greed and vanity in the forefront
Before the needs of those who want or suffer.
For this we pray, in Thanksgiving to You.
Amen

Four Bad Bears- Not a Bedtime Story

If you feel the need to get any more depressed over our current economic fiasco, feel free to meander to the linked blog and take a gander at the graph. I am at the point that I am planning to build an ark because if it rains any more like this, there's gonna be a flood.

What Would a Statesman Do?

There have been countless queries of what would Jesus, Ghandi, and other do in various ethical situations. I think in this day and age what we need more in Washington is a true "statesman" And by that I mean that we need someone who is willing to rise above the party biases and make moves towards truly creating changes in the economic environment that will benefit everyone. And that is not to say a socialist view will make the cut. In regards to the Big Three automakers, this problem is especially vexing. By allowing them to go bankrupt, the nation risks allowing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of smaller suppliers and their companies to go belly up. Most large corporations have enough hard cash and materials that they can sell their way out of bankruptcy. Not so with small manufacturers, specialty suppliers or mom and pop companies that do contract work. So it's not so easy to simply let the Big Three slide. On the other hand, it is foolish to reward bad business practices to be rewarded. The idea that CEO's, higher administration and corporate boards should still make out like bandits in spite of their failure to achieve is the antithesis of what free enterprise is about. That's the one thing that liberals don't seem to grasp-freedom allows you permission to succeed or fail on your own recognizance. It is also problematic that the domestic auto industry has been plagued by the two pronged attack of expensive union contracts and burdensome legal demands and intervention created by the government. This has almost nationalized the auto industry without papers.

So what do we do?
First, let them go bankrupt. A wise executive would be on the phone to the heads of Nissan, Honda and Toyota talking about the opportunity to buy into the American market with a set American profile. Like it or not, there are still folks who are born into Chevy or Ford families. Create the situation where Congress butts out and allows the market to work. As the value of GM, Ford and Chrysler stock dips, help these other manufacturers to see this as a chance to broaden their market with already recognizable brands. Hopefully both President Bush and PE Obama are currently doing this behind the scenes.
By allowing this bankruptcy to proceed, this would negate overpriced American union contracts that have made American cars too costly for their reliability. When Honda can get higher quality for $42 per hour per employee cost while GM stumbles with $71 per hour per employee cost then there is something wrong with the system. Let this streamline and make American auto manufacturers return to their primary status as car makers. This would also cause some overpaid top brass to move onto other lines of business. A bankrupt company can't provide golden parachutes before they pay bills, so that would solve the bloodletting that some CEO's seem to do before they leave.

There is no good way to do this. Frankly, you shouldn't prop up support for products that aren't in demand. That is what we have been doing with corn via ethanol and with cars via bailouts. While there is not a good solution, someone has to be willing to make the hard decision to allow the markets to work. There's a reason why we don't have many farriers and wheelwrights anymore-their services aren't in demand. So why should taxpayers support companies who are too bloated and overcontrolled to make the moves they need to make in order to be profitable? This won't be popular with unions. It won't be popular on Wall Street, but if this truly is a "global economy" as the pundits claim, then it's time to really let it work. and believe me, I say this as someone who has a husband who is job hunting. This isn't a good situation. But I don't see throwing more money at it as being a win-win either.

Media Bias: A Writer's Personal Angst

I don't usually post things in their entirety. But this is such an important topic and ABC has such a history of burying stories that make them seem unbalanced or unAmerican, that I felt it needed to be recorded somewhere. I have include the link to the story in the title.

"Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE

Oct. 24, 2008 —

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country &

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000."

How Come They Are Doing This to Military Voters??????

The Democrats, alleged umbrella party of all that is warm, squooshy and nice, wants "everyone" to vote. Homeless people, people here illegally, people in prison---they should all vote.
But....
Not the military. This happened during the Gore campaign as well. In Florida, military votes were tossed as well. Could it be because of a technicality. Or is it because the military has voted for McCain in epic numbers according to polling? At any rate, this should be something that raises suspicions of even the most benevolent of apologists.

A Democrat Shall Rat Them Out-Journalists Fail at the Truth

Well worth a read. It's something I have been saying since the earliest primaries. The media has become so entranced by the sound of their own voices and by the way they can shape the opposition that they have lost sight of what should be their jobs:

TO REPORT THE FACTS!
TO ASK WHEN, WHERE, WHY, WHO AND WHAT HAPPENED.
NOT TO TELL US WHAT TO THINK!

Excerpt:
"

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?..."

Story here

Economic Terrorism And this Election

(Cross posted at MyFoxDFW.com)
Imagine if instead of bombs and weapons, if terrorists used our own economy against us? What would be the outcome? Jimmy Carter lost an election because of overt terrorist actions. The Twin Towers were bombed out of existence as the result of overt terrorist actions. But what if terrorists, rather than loading planes with suicide bombers intent on a paradise complete with 72 virgins, instead focused on the grease that runs us, and by that I mean money.

There have been signs before, but we didn't grasp them. The precipitous rise in oil prices when the supplies were adequate. The strange altering of the international economic landscape as the EU tried to circle the wagons and much of Asia, especially China, used fire sale prices to entrench themselves in the American economy through purchasing corporations outright or making them partners with factories in less expensive Asian locations. Who benefits from this?

On one hand, you can say that stockholders benefit because they see return on their investments. But if you undercut the value of dollars, then you shortchange the value of the return. CEO's might get a golden parachute, but if their worth is based in corporate stocks, then their parachute could crash and burn just as easily as the average worker with a 401K.

The push of the federal government as far back as the Clinton years to make home loans to underserved communities is documented fact. There is no argument over that. The way they were implemented and the type of Congressional manipulation that put these funds into play in risky, often unqualified loans is part of the story. Franks, Dodds and other do not want that story out in the press. So what better way to distract the American public than to create a diversion. In this case, it's a pretty catastrophic diversion.

But who would have the economic leverage to pull of such a stunt? And why would they do it? My money is on George Soros and his like. They want to push America to a socialist reality at all costs. And they mean to force us if we won't go willingly. By pulling money for no particularly good reason from the stock market, they create the type of emotional response that makes other less financially solid stockholders leave as well. And if you force the market lower, you can come back in and buy the same doggone stocks at fire sale values. If in addition, you can to stage manage the economic views of the media to support your candidate, then you can shape the vote. If that's not warping the intent of the freedom of Americans to vote, then I don't know what is.

Mark my words-you heard it here first. If the day after an Obama election, the market soars to 14000, the you will know that we have been had, that our votes were bought and that our legislators have sold out to the highest bidder. Don't believe me? Then read on...
Story #1
Story #2
Story #3
Story #4

The VP Debates: The Media Chooses, You Lose

So once again our mainstream media has weighed in with what they think is best for all of us. See, we, the American public, are too stupid and ignorant and attached to our religion and guns to really know what's what. Frankly, it's a wonder we can feed ourselves. You may think I am over the top on this, but there are countless blogs, wikis and other media out there who not only think we are wrong to support conservative ideals, but that it is the result of a mental deficiency. So the Media, in their gracious benevolence, has once again chosen for us. They have decided that Joe "I'm An Average Guy" Biden won. Frankly, I don't think either candidate did a bang-up job, but the constant self-congratulatory tone of the Obama campaign has worn thin.

But more than that attitude thing, I am truly wondering if the mainstream media has given up all pretenses of impartiality. The choosing of Ifill for the moderator was questionable considering her worshipful attitude towards all things Obama. But the way the media has chosen to ignore some very worrisome and possibly disastrous economic attitudes on the part of Joe Biden, is frightening.
To quote "Average Guy at the Home Depot" Joe, "

"we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe. That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under"

Excuse me? Banks are businesses. They run on the money they make from LENDING MONEY. That's known as INTEREST. The interest is set by the government not to exceed certain rates, but there is a great deal of leeway and consumers are more than welcome to shop around for better rates. Herein lies the problems. Congress literally forced lenders to make loans available to what is termed "underserved populations." The reason Congress did this was , according to them, to get rid of the vestiges of redlining and racism in the system. Instead, what really happened is that borrowers who could not prove income, had horrible credit history or who didn't have the financial stability to afford the lower interest rates of a conventional 30 year fixed loan, were leveraged into loans that had balloons that would rise after a certain amount of time or loans that were interest only. The stated reason for these types of loans to even exist was to help subprime borrowers improve their credit and possible refinance at better rates. Instead many of these borrowers went for the maximum amount they could acquire and when the balloons went up, they couldn't pay the mortgage. Now while this is sad, it's not like this was foisted on them by jackbooted thugs in dark alleys. These were free American adults signing contracts where all of the details are laid out in copious minutae. Every payment, every escalation, every interest rate is spelled out in writing. Why is it that only the people that PAY THEIR LOANS ARE GETTING SCREWED?

In the end, it's popular now to picture CEO's with golden parachutes getting the largest portion of the bailout. And maybe to a certain extent that's true. But what's really happening is that this is keeping the lights on at the bank on the corner and making payroll for the tellers and loan officers who don't have those cushy jobs. It's easy to blame some guy who gets away with a cushy retirement, but why is it that the media doesn't want to place the blame where it really belongs, on borrowers that didn't pay for their loans.

And this is why Joe Biden and Barak Obama should scare you silly. They have no intention of shoring up the banks for longevity. They simply want them shored up for now. They intend to allow judicial fiat to rip profits from banks. That means that people who actually put money into banks could see their interest and deposits dwindle as more people discover that paying out a loan is foolish when the government will bail you out. And what about retirees who have stock in bank corporations? They will also see their stocks value erode. This isn't the first time this has happened. My parents lost $200K when the savings and loans went belly up thirty years ago. There are still a few people around who should remember that. Unfortunately, none of them are running for president this year. Watch your pockets-these guys are NOT your friends.

Here's What a "Community Organizer" Does

There's been a great deal of debate over the role of community organizer in one's resume. In most cases, I assumed it was the role of volunteering to tutor in reading with the local library, coaching children's sports teams or doing something such as leading a Scout troop. But evidently, I couldn't be more wrong because in some cases "community organizing" means setting up programs to indoctrinate young people into the PC mode of performance. Here's a quote from the article linked below. I would warn you, if this is what is meant by the activation of America on the part of the Left, then we are in huge trouble here.
Full story here
Excerpts:
"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent..."

"..."If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government..."

"...Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege...."

Now tell me again how the role of a community organizer is beneficial in the role of president. Tell how a "community organizer" will govern. Is this not an attitude of imposing ones individual socio-economic and political views onto someone else using the pressure of the office? And why are more people not concerned about the prospect of a very real erosion of the freedoms we hold? Right now, I know people who will not publicly state their personal conservative views for fear of retribution. And the Left says conservatives are fascists? I hate to be a gloom and doom deathsayer, but if Obama wins, watch the courts flood with cases of alleged discrimination based on the most tenuous evidence. While real racism should be rooted out and destroyed, too many people will see this as a chance to get a free paycheck on the taxpayers dole. And that along with all the other freebies Obama is promising should warn you off immediately.

While you are at it, you may also want to ponder where a young Barak Obama got the funding to attend Harvard. Here's a link that illuminates that aspect of his past and should make you wonder a little bit about the types of international alliances he would forge. It should also make you curious about where his campaign money originates and how it is being handled.

Story here.

I Am Sarah Palin.

I am Sarah Palin.

Like her I work for a living. I have kids, which I love very much. I married my high school boyfriend. I went to college outside the Ivy League. I worked for the issues in my church, in my community and at my job that I felt were important. I am outspoken and I am intelligent in a way that an Ivory Tower advocate cannot be. I have screamed my head off at soccer games, football games. I have argued with teachers and principals. I have had many successes in life and with my family.

I have also had those failures that prove I am human. And what is more, I am not alone. I am every woman who ever bounced a check, had a fight with her husband, embarrassed her kids or dented a fender. I am also the woman who gloried in the successes of her children-no matter how insignificant. I am the woman who defended her loved ones even when the outside world sought to tear them down. I have dried tears from my children's broken hearts. I have helped type essays. I have called on the phone to get people to vote. I have done all that and more.

Sarah Palin, her life, her experiences and her honesty speak to me far more than the ramblings of someone who has never really had to work to make their way in the world. And those words that she speaks may seem like political rhetoric to those who do not and cannot understand. But she speaks for me, to me and people like me.

I am Sarah Palin.

I Said It Was Time For A Woman

I had said all along that time was way overdue for a woman to be in the upper levels of power in our nation. But I didn't want it to be the conventional liberal women such as Pelosi or Clinton. I wanted a strong woman with convictions and values. I think we have that in Sarah Palin. I am so excited by her nomination for VP.

What I have found appalling is how the usual suspects in the liberal media are already on the path of character assassination and slander regarding Palin's resume. They have claimed that her youngest child is actually her grandchild. This assertion not only wounds her, but both of her daughters. The "proof" was the oldest child holding the baby-something that happens in families-but I guess liberals wouldn't have a clue about that. Secondly, the liberals at The Daily Kos and Moveon.org and Arianna Hufflepuffle's site are putting down her college education because she's just from Idaho. Excuse me? Do they not get in the least how freaking SNOBBISH they sound? It's like a meeting of the Atlanta Junior League! Then there's the downgrading of her professional experience as a *gasp* reporter. I bet the Fourth Estate is not too happy to have someone who knows their tricks of the trade. And finally, the Neo-marxists are denigrating her political experience as a mayor, then governor in Alaska. Both of those roles involve balancing budgets, implementing reform and producing position outcomes-somthing that the Congress-approval level at 9%-hasn't been able to do.

So what is the problem with Palin and why are the liberals screaming? Maybe its because they know in their hearts that this could be what changes the political tide for the Right.

Cutting Teachers Off At The Knees

The DISD, herein known as That District in Dallas, has once again hit a new personal low. In their dubious wisdom, the board has decided that homework won't be given if it will lower a student's grade, no grade lower than a 50% will be given and if a student retakes a test, the higher score will be used.
Story here

*slow simmer*

This is ridiculous. And it's also probably the result of a teacher publicly outing a coach for placing pressure to pass a student/athlete. Ironically, while this played out in the press, the adminstrators and coaches all seem to be pretty much in place. The teacher who reported the actions was non-renewed-educationspeak for "fired". How is this going to work? Kids can do nothing and get a 50%. They are free to sleep, to be disruptive, to generally cause havoc. And they don't really have to stretch to learn ANYTHING. The problem is that they will still have to pass state mandated tests-TAKS this year, end of course testing next year. How is that going to play out? How are kids who have partied their way to a 50 going to pass a state test? And when they don't, who will be blamed?

Answer: The teachers. The teachers will be blamed for all miscues, failures and mistakes. They will lose their jobs. And frankly, at this point, working at Walmart might be a relief.

The Dallas Independent School District has decided they won't teach anything to a student that doesn't want to learn. And they will blame teachers when these same students fail.

Yeah, that's fair. *sarcasm*

I understand that not all students learn at the same speed. My district even has reteach/retest policies in place. But we do expect students to turn in work. We do expect them to learn. And frankly, for students that do nothing in my class, I have given scores lower-much lower-than a 50%. To give a student that much for just showing up is tantamount to paying a clerk for showing up at the door, but still doing nothing. This is just another great example of nanny state mentality and the acceptance of mediocrity as the norm. And this is why we are playing economic catch up with the rest of the world.

McCain, Not Obama, Right This Time

Courtesy of the Chicago Sun Times

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

American Travesty

The linked story is to a fund raiser for the families of Ramos and Campeon. If you are unfamiliar with the case, these are two border guard charged in what amounts to a tainted trial of the shooting of a drug runner. The special prosecutor sealed key documents with the court's approval. When those documents were unsealed and shown to former jurors, they were appalled at the malfeasance and misplacement of justice. Now these families are suffering. They have lost everything. If you want to offer meaningful support, please consider donating to this cause. As for all the apologists for illegal immigrants everywhere, it's funny how emotional you are about keeping families together, but I guess that only applies to illegal immigrants, not citizens doing their jobs.