My Interview, Part II

This is a continuation of an interview by me, of me. I started this interview as a way to answer some questions that have been posed to me from a number of posts. It didn't feel appropriate to answer them then, so I decided to create a time to answer them. My interview series is that creation. I hope you enjoy…

We took a small break while Andy grabbed us fresh coffee. I learned that one of Andy's vices is an addiction to coffee. Who knew?

Interviewer: Let's break from definitions for a few minutes. One of your readers asked, "The underprivileged and minorities have the right to be outraged by a political system that doesn't truly represent them since the majority of elected officials are privileged wealthy white men." Would you agree with this?

Andy: I don't think so. Where I live, I have a wealthy (compared to me) black man who is my representative in the U.S. Congress. He doesn't represent my views not because he is black, but because he is a Blue Dog Democrat. I don't think a person has to be from my same background to represent me. That would be a bit of a narrow viewpoint. I believe it is racist to think a Black man can't represent me. Similarly, I think it is racist to think a white man can't represent underprivileged people or minorities. An elected official has to try to view issues from his constituent's viewpoints. I think many do a good job of it, and some don't. I don't think it has anything to do with what race the representative is.

Interviewer: So you don't think minorities should be upset with their representation in government?

Andy: Look at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a woman, a black man, a Jewish man, and the son of an Italian immigrant in addition to the white men on the court. I think that is a diverse group of people. Our current presidential front runners are a white woman, a black man, and an older white man. While there are a lot of well off white people in government, if we were ruled by elite white men, surely John Edwards would be well on his way to the presidency. Instead, he bowed out some time ago.

Interviewer: Another question we received for you surrounded Rev. Wright…

Andy: Uh-oh.

Interviewer: What do you mean by that?

Andy: I am starting to look at him the same way Obama does, he is becoming more and more trouble for me. Many of Obama's supporters can't stand the fact that Obama might have someone around him that has some very bad ideas. If the Ayers family gets much more coverage, those Obama supporters might really be upset.

Interviewer: Well, I leave the discussions surrounding those three to you. Anyway, the question was about Rev. Wright, and the reader wrote, "A wise person is not an infallible person…

Andy: … I would agree with that…

Interviewer: …Should you castigate a trusted advisor because you disagree with them on one or more key points? " The reader pointed to examples of Rev. Wright encouraging his congregation to get tested for AIDS and wanted to know if you thought the congregation should dismiss this advice out of hand because of Rev. Wrights more controversial remarks.

Andy: The short answer is no, you don't throw an advisor under the bus simply because you disagree with them on a point. I think most people, and the reader who asked this question, would agree with me on this point. But this begs to other questions: Since Obama threw Wright under the bus, was he a trusted advisor? And secondly, should Wrights congregation ignore this advice.

Interviewer: What are your thoughts on those questions?

Andy: Well, to the first, I take Obama at his word on this point. Obama had noted numerous times how important Wright was to him. He called him his mentor; he was the individual that brought Obama to the Christian faith. Wright was definitely important to Obama. But I think Obama threw Wright out because it was the political thing to do. Obama is a politician first and foremost, no matter how much he would like to be perceived as above politics.

Secondly, I think Wrights flock considers him a trusted advisor. I also think many of them would agree with Wright's "controversial remarks" as you called them. Because of that, they would see no reason from Wright to avoid getting tested.

And on that note, we will end this portion of the interview. There are still more questions to answer, so look for another installment of the interview. Feel free to throw any other questions you would like to see answered in as well.

Quick Notes -- Issues for November

Don't worry; another segment of my interview will be coming up soon. Between now and then, I wanted to hit on what I think the issues in November are likely to be. It is still too early to tell which of the three candidates are going to be our next President. However, if we can guess what issues are being discussed in November, we might get some insight towards who might be ahead right now, no matter what the polls tells us.

Iraq and the War on Terror. This is McCain's number one issue. It is also the number one issue for a significant number of voters on both sides of the aisle. We have had a number of victories in Iraq and Afghanistan on the military and the political fronts. If this keeps up, McCain may be able to hang his hat on that. If there is another terrorist strike in the U.S., there is no telling what the voters will do. On the other hand, if things in Iraq take a nose dive for a few months during the summer, Obama or Clinton may be able to use the War in Iraq as their number one issue.

The Economy. No matter what you think about our current economy, you can bet candidates from both parties will be talking about it. If the Republicans can do a good job talking about the negatives of ethanol, and the need for more oil production here in the United States, this could be a good issue for Republicans. However, they have to couple it with real answers, and it will be a tough sale. People will look for leadership, and if the Republicans don't talk about solutions, you can bet the Democrats will get big points from the economy.

Gay Marriage. California may have given an issue to the Republicans that the Democrats wanted to see left alone till after November. Many conservatives and centrist aren't comfortable redefining marriage. The California Supreme court has done that, and there are groups trying to get a California Constitutional amendment on the ballot for November. I expect Democrats and Republicans are going to have to explain to voters how they feel on gay marriage.

The Second Amendment. Like gay marriage, this is usually a thorny issue for Democrats. The last few elections, Democrats have tried to avoid talking about gun laws. In 2004, Kerry even went looking for a hunting license. The U. S. Supreme Court is hearing a case involving a D.C. handgun ban. This could keep the Second Amendment debate going on until well into 2009.

This list is by no means an exhaustive one. I have also only highlighted issues I think might benefit McCain, if he handles them correctly. What issues do you think might have an impact on the November election? Are you a "single issue voter"? If so, what is your issue?

As an aside, I have added a link to allow my readers to buy their own authentic Political Friends t shirt. I think they are the wave of the future, and if enough people buy them, I might be able to afford a real journalist for my next interview.

I Interview the Writer Behind Political Friends

I have been asked to answer a few questions on here from some of my readers. I thought an interview might be the best format for this. I also thought it might be fun. However, with the limited budget available to me ($0.00), I had to do the interview myself. Here is the first in a multi-part series where I try to answer questions that were asked of me that had nothing to do with the post at the time. Enjoy.

I arrived at Andy's house one evening to begin our interview. Andy invited me into his office where he had been playing Kingdom of Loathing before I arrived. We sat in comfortable chairs, drinking coffee while we discussed some of the questions his readers had asked.

Interviewer: First, thanks for taking the time to have me here today. I am looking forward to your responses to the reader submitted questions.

Andy: Your welcome. I am glad for the opportunity. I am very excited to discuss the issues my readers find interesting. I created this site to discuss politics in a civil forum. Too many sites like this degenerate into name calling and insults. I have tried to avoid that with Political Friends.

Interviewer: I think most of your readers would agree that you have avoided it. But onto the questions. First, how would you define "Anger" and "Hatred"?

Andy: I think both of these words are thrown around to easily sometimes. "Anger" is an emotion that can be brought out in someone, but is usually a stronger than just being "mad". For example, if someone cuts me off in traffic, that usually gets me pretty mad. A few seconds later, the feeling has passed or I might not even think of it any more.

Anger is feeling that you might get if you have been seriously wronged by someone. For example, if a co-worker stabbed you in the back at work, you are probably going to go past the "mad" stage and into the "anger" stage.

Hatred is an ugly feeling that is in an entire realm past anger. There are abstract concepts I might hate, and actions I might hate, but I can't think of any individual I hate. My faith teaches me that to hate is wrong. I can't off the top of my head come up with a person I hate. This may be a terrible definition, but perhaps my readers can come up with a better one.

Interviewer: Fair enough. While we are on definitions, how would you define a "patriot"?

Andy: I think many people think of different things when they think of patriots. If someone asks for a definition of a patriot, I think they are really looking for two other definitions: patriotic, and unpatriotic.

I think it is easy to describe patriotic: a soldier in the field fighting for his country or an athlete representing his country in the Olympics. For the most part, whenever you put the nations interest ahead of your own, you are a patriot. I like to think that I am patriotic because I try to teach my daughter and others about the history of our great nation. I try to convince people who believe our nation is no better than any other nation that they are wrong. I wouldn't call myself a patriot though.

Since 9/11, many people have used the term unpatriotic. I think in some cases it was used appropriately, and in some in wasn't. It isn't "unpatriotic" to question your country's actions, or the motives or actions of its leaders. It isn't "unpatriotic" to argue against your nation using military force. These are all arguments that fair and sane people with the best of intentions can disagree on.

However, I dont' think it is patriotic to attack the motives of our soldiers wholesale for political reasons. I don't think it is patriotic to blame the worlds problems on the feet of your country. I don't think it is patriotic to try to weaken your nation. I don't think it is patriotic to put the interests of foreign powers ahead of your nations. It's one thing to argue that getting into a war or a military engagement is a bad idea. It is quite another to try and weaken you nation once it is engaged in that war.

Being a patriot doesn't mean blindly accepting whatever your country does. However, when you repeatedly accuse your nation of atrocities, one after the other, you should expect your patriotism to be questioned. But what I really don't understand is why it is so important to people. If you truly believe you are doing the right thing, then why do you care what label people put on you? I believe I am right on the vast majority of issues I talk about on Political Friends. Many people call me names and criticize me for it. That doesn't change or impact my opinion of what I think is right.

The rest of the interview to be continued soon....as always, I welcome your comments and suggestions, thoughts and ideas.

Book Review: What’s So Great about Christianity

If you walk into any book store and browse the newest books, you are likely to see a book attacking religion in general or Christianity specifically. A market has sprung up around such books as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, or Letter to a Christian Nation. Dinesh D'Souza has written a very good rebuttal to these books. The first thing I noticed when I picked up What's So Great About Christianity is the lack of a question mark in the title. The Title isn't a question, it is a defense. In this very well written book, D'Souza attacks many of the common myths professional atheists use to attack Christianity. He doesn't use scripture to refute their claims, but history, science, and reason.

What's So Great About Christianity is divided into a number of sections. Each section is roughly three chapters long. Some of the sections include: Christianity and the West, Christianity and Science, The Argument for Design, and Christianity and Morality. D'Souza analyzes many of the attacks against Christianity using noted atheist such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens to explain the atheist viewpoint. He then tears apart the atheist claim piece by piece.

What's So Great About Christianity is a very serious defense of a key element of Western Culture. D'Souza states, "Many of the best things about our world are the result of Christianity, and some of the worst things are the result of its absence, or of moving away from it." This is a very bold statement and by the end of the book, it is one that is hard to argue against. Whether you are a believer or not, it is hard not to acknowledge Christianities part in shaping our world for the better after you read this book.

I would encourage both Christians and non-Christians to read this book. D'Souza's asks unbelievers to not, "…read this book merely as an intellectual exercise," for in a very real way, your life may depend on the questions in this book. Instead, put serious thought into it. If you are undecided, D'Souza points out that death will eventually force a choice on you. "Death forces upon you a choice that you cannot escape…when you die all abstentions are counted as 'no' votes," says D'Souza.

I have read very good books about religion before. I think this one is a step above most of them. I would challenge any of my readers who think Christianity is the root of many of today's problems. I would ask you to go into your local bookseller and read a random chapter of What's So Great About Christianity. You might be surprised, and you might find yourself asking questions you haven't asked before.

Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar (or Burma) on May 3rd. As of the posting of this blog, the military government of Myanmar has allowed one U.S. aid plane to land, and has confiscated two U.N. aid shipments. With relief organizations forecasting the death toll to exceed 100,000 people, the government of Myanmar has yet to issue a single visa to any relief workers. The government has asked foreign countries to send aid, but not people. Many organizations and governments don't want to blindly turn over supplies for fear these supplies will never reach the people who have been hurt by the cyclone. I have seen quotes in news articles from people in Myanmar saying the government doesn't care about it's people, only its hold on the country.

The Danish Red Cross is one of the only relief groups to be allowed into the nation so far. They are reporting that many of the dead are still floating in the water around the villages. If people with the knowledge to deal with this kind of devastation aren't allowed in soon, things could go from tragic to catastrophic. The UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian affairs says, "If we do not act now, and if we do not act fast, more lives will be lost." To make matters worse, the region is expected to get more rain in the coming days. With this in mind, I offer my humble solution:

Operation Merciful Python

As drastic times call for drastic measures, I offer what may be the only hope for ten's of thousands of people still holding on in Myanmar. This solution requires fast action on the part of the U. S. government, and a true re-ordering of priorities for the military government of Myanmar.

Phase I would begin with an immediate televised speech by President Bush. During his speech, the message would also be delivered to China with instructions to pass it along to their contacts in Myanmar. The message is simple: The Myanmar government has 72 hours to allow humanitarian relief in the form of aid and workers into Myanmars worst regions, or the U. S. will get the relief in by force. The President would immediately mobilize the Marine Expeditionary Force on ready status to steam towards Myanmar.

Phase II would be implemented 72 hours later. If the government was still refusing relief workers access, the Marine Expeditionary Force could create an entry point in Rangoon. By controlling this city, U.S. forces could establish a safe haven for refugees and relief workers. Supported by the Marines and an appropriate carrier battle group, this force should be able to withstand anything the Myanmar government could throw its way.

Phase III would be implemented within 3 days of the establishment the U.S. controlled city of Rangoon. The military would set up a democratic government within Rangoon, and hold free elections to govern the U.S. occupied territories. As the villages are rebuilt, and as the clean up continues, more local governments could be elected until we have replaced the military government of Myanmar with the Democratic government of Burma.

I recognize this is a bold and unheard of solution for a humanitarian crisis. However, it does three things. First, it gets aid to the victims in Myanmar who may otherwise die. Second, it replaces a military government that has no concern for its citizens with a democratic government. Finally, it gives other regimes something to think about if they don't want to allow aid from the U.S. or the U.N. to reach their citizens in times of crisis.

Pigford Claims Remedy Act

Like any political junkie, I spend a substantial amount of time each day reading political commentary, and the "hot" news items of the day. Some of the best articles I like to clip and file away for others to read, or I may hold onto them for background information for a future blog post. When the stars are perfectly aligned, I come across an article that makes me take immediate action. I found one such article today by Ms. Jennifer Rubin entitled "Farmer Reparations". After reading Ms. Rubin's article, I started digging into the topic, and contacted my Representative and both Senators.

The Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007 (HR 899 and 3073 and S 515) is designed, "To provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were denied that determination." These bills in short are designed to extend the claims process from discrimination suits brought against the Department of Agriculture in the 1990's. To date, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has paid out almost $1 Billion for, "…alleged racial discrimination by local offices administering farm loans under the Farm Service Agency." If the USDA discriminated against a number of people, and those people are owed money, then the government should have to pay up. However, Ms. Rubbin points out that many people associated with the cases believe that a large number of the claims that have been brought forward are fraudulent.

The original case was brought forth by three black farmers in 1997 (Pigford v. Glickman) alleging that the USDA had discriminated against them and other farmers by denying loan applications to African-American farmers. In 1999, a consent decree was issued settling the lawsuit and setting up a process where those individuals who felt they had been discriminated against could file a claim. According to Ms. Rubbin, in 1997 there were an estimated 18,500 African-American farmers (remember this number) and of those, it was estimated that some 2500 to 5000 farmers were discriminated against. However, a lawyers dream was laid out in the settlement, with, "…only a simple affidavit signed by someone who alleged he had applied for a loan or merely that he had 'attempted to own or lease farm land,' $50,000 (tax free no less) would be paid out." The USDA began notifying people who might be involved, including a $500,000 TV ad campaign to get the word to African-American farmers. Meetings were held in local communities explaining how African-American farmers could file claim.

There is an Office of the Monitor website where anyone can get the latest details of the settlement. As of April 28^th, the total payout is over $750,000,000 in cash with almost $ 1 Billion total in "relief". I told you to remember the fact that there were an estimated 18,500 African-American Farmers in 1997. The Monitor's website shows over 22,000 claims have been approved. Ms. Rubbin points out that there have been almost 96,000 total claims!

Simply put, the Pigford decision has become a great money making tool for scam artists, lawyers, and unscrupulous advocacy groups. The original deadlines have now played out and some Representatives and Senators want to extend this deadline and allow more claims. Already the U.S. government has paid out $1 Billion dollars. Isn't it time to put this behind us?

Obama’s High Water Mark?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright was back in the news this weekend and Senator Barack Obama has found himself in a position he doesn't want to be in. On Monday he again defended the Reverend (he claims before he actually saw the comments). Then on Tuesday, he disowned Reverend Wright in very strong, personal language. I think this "break" with Reverend Wright has revealed the real Obama.

Many supporters early in the campaign labeled Obama as a candidate above politics, a candidate of "change". I was very critical of Obama's speech in Philadelphia. One quote from the speech regarding Obama's pastor of 20 years now really stands out. From an ABC News transcript:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me…but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street…"

I think this quote is an important insight into Sen. Obama. The focus at the time was how Sen. Obama was throwing his grandmother under the bus. How Obama was equating a few remarks made in the privacy of his grandmother's home, to the hateful rhetoric spewed from the pulpit at Obama's church in front of one of the largest congregations in Chicago. However, at the time, it was also a sign that Obama was willing to sacrifice his grandmother, the woman who loved and sacrificed so much for him, in order to win a few primaries.

Now, with Rev. Wright taking center stage this weekend, and Obama disowning him on Tuesday, the comments take on a new meaning. Obama could no more, "…disown him than [he could] the black community." How should supporters and critics view these two statements? I think the answer is very simple: Obama is a typical politician.He is not the messiah his supporters have made him out to be. He is a politician of the ilk we see in Washington and in movies. He is a politician willing to say anything and sacrifice anyone to get what he wants. Reverend Wright's comments this weekend were no different than the ones Obama was responding to in Philadelphia. However, the comments continue to plague the Obama campaign, and with Rev. Wright on the national stage, it became easy to disown him.

Sen. Obama should have said what he said on Tuesday back in Philadelphia. However, he didn't. Instead he has revealed himself as the power hungry politician his critics have accused him of being. Make no mistake; Reverend Wright will continue to be associated with Obama into the Democratic Convention in Colorado. If Obama is lucky enough to win the nomination, Reverend Wright will follow him all the way to Election Day. The Super delegates know this. They also know which of their candidates has won the big states and which hasn't. Will Reverend Wright give the Super delegates enough cover to nominate Hillary Clinton? Only time will tell.

A Bit of Historical Perspective

Without a good understanding of history, it is very difficult to understand the context of today's events. Those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it. We have all seen or read statements like the last two. Bill Bennett is fond of pointing out how short the history of the United States is. Many of the events we think of as "history" were witnessed by our own relatives who weren't too distantly removed from us.

I truly enjoy studying history. On one level, I see history as a story with characters that really lived. On another level, history can help frame debates and ideas in today's world. There are many, many lessons to be learned from the wise people who lived on this planet before us.

I just finished Joseph Ellis' Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. The book was very enjoyable, and I will probably write a book review on this site for anyone interested in it. However, one passage I came across deserved its own space. Looking at the political climate of today, it is easy to believe that we are at a low point. There is an unpopular President in Office, the Iraq war is unpopular, none of the current Presidential candidates are that appealing, the U.S. Congress seems happy to do absolutely nothing, and there are those who believe we are destroying the planet simply because man exists. However, put in it's perspective, things could always be worse:

…[John] Adams inherited a supercharged political atmosphere every bit as ominous and intractable as the tangle on the international scene. It was a truly unprecedented situation in several senses: His vice president was in fact the leader of the opposition party; his cabinet was loyal to the memory of [out-going President] Washington… political parties were congealing into doctrinaire ideological camps, but neither side possessed the verbal or mental capacity to regard the other as anything but treasonable; and finally, the core conviction of the entire experiment in republican government – namely, that all domestic and foreign policies derived their authority from public opinion – conferred a novel level of influence to the press, which had yet to develop any established rules of conduct or standards for distinguishing rumors from reliable reporting. It was a recipe for political chaos that even the indomitable Washington would have been hard pressed to control. No one else, including Adams, stood much of a chance at all.

To recap, John Adams took office with a vice president who was in charge of the other party, Adams followed the most popular president in history, the two party system was just developing and considered the other party their sworn enemy, and the press had no standards at all. During his Presidency, Adams would have to avoid war with a major European power with all of the rest of this going on.

Things have changed (except for the press), and I would argue mostly for the better. I don't believe we should ignore the events of the day, but I do believe we should keep history in mind when discussing issues like "the housing crisis" or "the credit crisis". Things may seem bad, but they could always be worse…

The World is Just Awesome

I don't believe I have ever written an entire blog post about an add campaign before. However, the new campaign by Discovery Channel deserves the attention.

I am a fan of many of the shows on the Discovery Channel. I will watch almost anything with Mike Rowe on it, and really, who doesn't like "Shark Week"? The Discovery Channel is running a new add called "Musical Mashes: Boom De Ah Da!". The add features cuts of many of their most popular shows, with the lyrics being song by the "hosts" of the shows. I almost tear up every time I see the host of "Future Weapons", Richard "Mack" Machowicz, fire a grenade launcher while singing the chorus.

The add ends with the tagline: The World is Just Awesome. As sappy and mushy as it may sound, the World really is just that: Awesome. I don't want to inject any politics into this one. Click on the link above, view the TV spot, and really think about just how incredible and awesome this planet is! While you do that, know that just like the guys from "Deadliest Catch", I am ready to break into song!

And the Winner Is....

Political Friends was announced as the winner of the latest Mystery Topic Challenge! I was very excited and surprised. There were some very good entries and I am honored to have mine picked as the winner. Thanks to those of you who voted for me, and those of you who put up with me writing about something other than politics on here.


However, winning does have it's disadvantages. As the winner of this challenge, I am required to name the next topic to post about. I am going to draft my readers for this. What suggestion can you come up with for the next challenge? It can be silly, serious, political or not. Do you have a question you love to ask people? Have you seen a good Miss Universe question? Is there something you have always wanted me to write on, but I have never tackled?


Leave me your questions. If there is one I really like, I will use your topic for our challenge. If I don't use it, but I think it is interesting (or other readers like it), I may make it the topic of one of my posts. Try to keep it clean, but anything else is open. Thanks ahead of time for your suggestions.

Something That Changed My Life

From time to time I participate in the Mystery Topic Challenge over at Blog Ninjas. This very rarely has anything to do with politics, so today's post will be a little off topic.

The topic is “describe someone or something that changed your or someone’s life, but the change agent has no idea that it or they had any affect on you.”

It is hard to pick something or someone that had a profound impact on your life, but had no idea they had done it. I was thinking about my last "Quick Notes" post, and remembered the first time I ever went SCUBA diving.

My wife and I went to Hawaii for our honeymoon. I had thought about getting into SCUBA diving, but didn't want to spend the money on it only to find out I didn't like it. I walked into a dive shop in Maui and saw they offered a "resort course" for $100. You didn't have to be a diver. The course gave you the bare basics, then you did two dives with an instructor. I quickly signed up.


The morning of the dives, I spent a few hours learning about diving in the shop. The instructor showed me some of the equipment, and had me watch a few videos. After lunch, we got our gear together, loaded onto the boat, and headed out.


The dive was at a location referred to as "Turtle Reef". The instructor thought there was a good chance we would see green sea turtles, but wasn't sure. We were the last to get into the water because I was a newbie, and had to be checked out on my skills. I will never forget the first moment my head went under water and I was still able to breath.


We spent about 30 minutes swimming around. I was amazed at the coral and the tropical fish. The instructor signaled that it was time to head back to the boat. As we approached, I saw something at the edge of my visibility. I stopped and tried to figure out what it was. I was about 30 or 35 feet underwater, the boat was behind me, and my instructor was in easy arms reach. The "shadow" I saw moving towards us looked like a small airplane. As it came into view, I realized I was seeing my first green sea turtle. The turtle continued towards us, then slowly swam above our heads. For a brief moment, the turtle was between me and the surface. As it crossed in front of the sun, its shell was outlined in a gold halo that I remember to this day. I was amazed at the size of the turtle, and it's total lack of concern that people were in the water with it.


Back on the boat, I asked the instructor how big the turtle was. I knew that size is hard to judge underwater, but the turtle had looked like a monster to me. The instructor told me that he guessed the turtle had about a seven foot diameter shell. He also said it was the biggest turtle he had ever seen in the area. I knew one other fact the instructor may not have known...I was hooked on diving.


I came back to Atlanta, and eventually got certified as a SCUBA diver. I now have numerous SCUBA certifications including Rescue Diver, Master Scuba Diver, and Deep Diver. The SCUBA certification also helped me get the job I have now. I have over 100 logged dives, and I can't wait to get back into the water.


I am quite certain that turtle had no idea it would change my life. The turtle barely even acknowledged that I existed that day. But my life was forever changed.



Please visit the Mystery Topic Challenge Blog to view all of the other entries. Once you've read them all, please be sure to vote HERE for your favorite.

Quick Notes: Sharks, Global Warming, and Islam

I have another issue of Quick Notes for you from my tropical retreat. There has been a pretty lively debate on a few of my previous posts, so feel free to catch up on some of the comments there.

Sharks: While on vacation with my family, I made a new friend. She is a six foot White Tip Reef Shark. She was kind enough to let me get within arms reach of her, so I thought I would make her famous and include her on my site . Enjoy!

Global Warming: I came across this article while reviewing Rush Limbaugh's site. The article, Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth, discusses recent research on how the Earth handles sun light. The overall point: we don't know exactly how the Earth handles sunlight. I would encourage everyone to spend a few minutes reading this article. I have said time and time again that we don't know enough about our Earth's climate. I usually site our lack of knowledge on clouds. This is just another area we don't know enough about.

School teaching Islam in Minnesota: I wrote about this a few weeks back. There is an article on a local ABC news site about the same school. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Minnesota is a charter school that also teaches Islam. The school has some questionable ties to foreign terrorist organizations. The ABC article says that the State of Minnesota is now looking into the school after a substitute teacher felt the school was going to far in teaching religion. Take a look at this article. I suspect we haven't heard the last of this school.

McCain - Rice '08 ?

In case you didn't know, 2008 is an election year. Hard to believe isn't it? On the Democratic side of the house, everyone is taking turns attacking Obama for his ties to Wright / Rezko or Clinton and her "memory". On the Republican side, McCain has had the nomination in hand for a number of months. This leads to the only "fun" speculation: Vice President.

The conventional wisdom is that McCain will pick someone who is strong in an area he isn't. For example, Romney ( in the field of economics) or perhaps Huckabee (as a slightly stronger tie to conservatives). Many believe McCain will pick someone who share his own ideas, think "McCain Lite". The Governors of South Carolina and Minnesota have both been suggested as well as the former Secretary of Homeland Security.

I really can't see myself voting for Obama or Clinton. Their policies are too similar and too far left for me. I don't really like McCain on a number of issues. I have been hoping McCain would pick a VP candidate who would excite me (Romeny?). So far I have been a little disappointed in the names that have been seriously considered.

A few weeks ago I heard the first possible rumblings of a VP candidate I could get excited about: Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The first time I came across this was in an editorial in the New Yorker. Hendrik Hertzberg admitted it was pure speculation, but thought it was a fun idea anyways. Mr. Hertzberg outlined a number of good reasons to pick her. She is, "...indisputably the highest-ranking black female official ever to have served in any branch of the United States government." The novelty of a black presidential candidate or a female presidential candidate would be somewhat dissolved. Second, her nomination would also help the Republican party and some of the stereotypes it has been labeled with.

But more importantly, look at her resume. She is the current Secretary of State, has served as the National Security Adviser, she served under the previous President Bush as Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Adviser. She was a Provost at Standford University and a professor of Political Science. She could arguably be the most qualified Vice Presidential Candidate in some time.

There is a chance this wishful thinking is turning into more of a reality. Matt Drudge has a link on his site to an ABC News story claiming Ms. Rice is actively seeking the nomination. Previously, she has said she has no desire for the ticket. If she is actively seeking the nomination, and McCain can be smart enough to choose her, I might have found my ticket for November.

Quick Notes -- Global Warming

It has been some time since I wrote a new installment of "Quick Notes". I am on vacation with my family, but thought I would share a few quick notes with my readers. The vacation is one of the reasons you see the odd times for my responses. Thanks to everyone for your comments. On my recent posts, and on to the new quick notes:

Ted Turner: I normally wouldn't take Ted Turner very seriously. However, in a recent interview, he voiced an opinion that many believers of Global Warming have, but don't share except in private circles. The opinion is what the real solution to Global Warming is: Population control. If we could limit the world's population, then we could solve global warming. This is interesting because most of the discussion around Global Warming is reminiscent of the eugenics discussion during the early part of the 1900's. This theory in a nutshell (the emphasis being on "nut") was to control who could and couldn't have children. This was a serious discussion with an assortment of laws passed to try to combat the "problem" (see the parallels?). For more information see here.

Enter Turner's quotes. According to Atlanta Journal and Constitution writer, "One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population." Turner goes on to say later in the article that families should be restricted to one or two children. What about Turner's own lifestyle? I have heard he has three homes and five children. But I am sure the cure to Global Warming doesn't apply to him.

Data doesn't fit the theory? Data must be wrong: One of the more recent actual scientific developments on the Global Warming front revolves around scientific buoys reporting sea temperatures throughout the world. According to Global Warming, the sea should be rising in temperature and it should be rising in temperature more dramatically than the land. However, there are around 3,000 buoys that measure deeper ocean temperatures and periodically report this data back. What do these buoys show? Sea temperatures have remain relatively constant over the last four to five years. Scientist are perplexed because this isn't what they were expecting. Under the Scientific Method (a little known, and rarely used technique for doing scientific research), scientist should now re-evaluate their theories. If the data doesn't match, the theory could be wrong, or at least have aspects that are incorrect. However, scientist are instead trying to figure out why the buoys aren't reporting back the data they expect.

One other note. One of the articles I found for this piece mentioned clouds. I have often ranted that climatologists don't understand how clouds work, but they know that clouds are important in the Earth's climate. If they don't understand clouds, shouldn't every model they build be suspect? From the article:

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [heat from the ocean is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

Very Interesting...

Gore-Obama ’08 ?

Every now and then I come across an article that wipes everything else I wanted to write about off the table. In this case, it was an article from Time Magazine on Wednesday. Is Al Gore the Answer? by Joe Klein was too good to pass up. In his article, Mr. Klein makes the argument that with Obama and Clinton going at each other "with chainsaws" the Democratic Party may need a new hope. In his words, "…I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I'm slouching toward, well, a theory: if this race continues to slide downhill, the answer to the Democratic Party's dilemma may turn out to be Al Gore."

In the remainder of the article, Mr. Klein outlines a scenario where Al Gore could be offered the nomination at the convention if the super delegates don't give it to Obama or Clinton on the first run. Mr. Klein accepts how improbable this scenario is. For example, Obama would have to go along with it, and bring his delegates with him. With the bad blood between the Clintons and the Gores, I think a Gore – Clinton ticket is even further off in fairy land than a Gore – Obama ticket. Mr. Klein says this dream ticket may be the only way for the DNC to salvage what should have been an easy victory this year.

Before I point out the problems with this scenario, I want to say that Gore getting the nomination is my dream as well. I think any ticket with the ex-VP as a Presidential candidate is easier to defeat than one with Obama or Clinton. First, there is no question that race has now been injected into this campaign. The Democratic party has long claimed it is more in touch with minorities than the Republican party. What happens if the elders of the DNC decide the only way to salvage a win is to knock the first serious female candidate and the first serious black candidate out so they can put a white male in the race? There are already threats of rioting if Obama doesn't get the nomination. If Obama and Clinton were both cast aside for Gore, I think there would be real hell to pay.

Second, I believe most people misunderstand the nature of Mr. Gore's popularity. Sure there are plenty of environmentalists that think he is the second coming. However, most Democratic politicians like Gore right now because he isn't a threat. If he suddenly looks like he could be given the nomination, I think many high ranking Democrats would turn against him. The Clintons would surely attack him, and I feel confident Rev. Wright and his supporters would be very unhappy.

Finally, I would love a Gore nomination for one more reason. If Gore was to run, McCain and many Republicans (and possibly Hillary Clinton) would start pointing to Gore's inconsistencies on Global Warming over the years. Many of the little white lies he told in An Inconvenient Truth would be pointed out. He may continue to claim they were exaggerations used to make a point, but after Mrs. Clintons troubles with her memory and Kosovo, I don't think she would allow that to go unchallenged.

Let Gore get the nomination, I have popcorn and beer ready to watch the fireworks.

The Imperfect Nothingness

It has been about a week and a half since Rev. Wrights words really hit the main stream media. It has been a little over a week since Sen. Obama (he-who's-middle-name-shall-not-be-mentioned for you Potter fans) first tried to distance himself from the Rev's words. At that point, Sen. Obama said he had never heard these remarks while in church. It has now been a little less than a week since Obama gave the speech that is suppose to end this news story.

However, the speech has become its own news story. If you get your political information from the TV, you might believe the speech was a modern day Gettysburg Address. If you read papers and opinion pieces, then you have probably seen mixed coverage of this speech. I believe most of the coverage has been wrong.

The speech, entitled A More Perfect Union, needs to be put in its proper context and then read. Sen. Obama has a gift for oration, so to cut out any of the theatrics, read it. First and foremost, this speech is damage control. The different sound bites from Rev. Wright have been hurting Sen. Obama in the polls. To continue his run for the Democratic nomination, and perhaps the Presidency, Obama needs to get this story killed, or directed in a path he is more comfortable with. Second, this is a campaign appearance. The Pennsylvania primary is towards the end of April.

I printed out the speech from Fox News. Their printable version goes on for seven pages. The speech is much like the rest of Obama's campaign, sounds good, but really full of nothing. There are a few very noteworthy references, my favorite are those that go back to our founding fathers. Obama raises many problems in the speech: racism, health care, and the war in Iraq to name a few. However, nowhere in his speech does he give a solution to any of them. Nowhere in the speech does he tell us what would be different about an Obama Presidency.

If anything, I find parts of the speech offensive. Obama says the sermons from Rev. Wright were bad enough they have the potential to widen the racial divide. He then goes into the following paragraph:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. [Emphasis mine]

First, Sen. Obama recants what he had previously said about Rev. Wrights comments on Fox News. On Fox News, he hadn't heard these comments while he attended church. Now, he has. Secondly, no, I have never heard anything in my own church, or any church I have ever attended, that approached what was said by Rev. Wright. I am also offended that Obama condemns Rev. Wrights comments, but then assumes that every pastor, priest, or rabbi would say things equally offensive or racist.

Obama then goes on to draw a moral equivalency between Rev. Wright and his own grandmother. I won't quote the whole passage here, as it has been repeated everywhere. However, Sen. Obama seems to think that because his own grandmother confessed her own failings in private, it is the same as Rev. Wright telling one of the largest church's in Chicago that the United States deserved to have 3,000+ people killed on Sept. 11^th. Or perhaps her own comments in private that hurt Sen. Obama's feelings as a child were the same as Rev. Wrights racist remarks from the pulpit of his church.

Sen. Obama puts the racism that people today in both the white and the black community face in some historical context, and tries to explain it from their perspective. When Sen. Obama tries to explain the, "…similar anger...," in the white community, he does so in a very insulting way. To quote the Senator, "Most working – and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience…" Sen. Obama would have us believe that white Americans who were born in this country can't feel these same things?

The insults and lack of answers continue for the rest of the speech. Obama uses many of the typical scare issues used in politics today: poor schools, health care, the housing crisis, out sourcing jobs, and the war in Iraq. Like many politicians, Obama gives no answers to these issues. As with the rest of his campaign, he says great things, but they have no real substance.

If anything, Obama's speech shows he is no different from any other politician. He tries to scare voters, he raises a number of issues, but he has no answers. At the end of the day, those who supported Obama in spite of Rev. Wright will continue to support him. Those who were going to vote for Hillary or McCain won't change their mind because of this speech. It was an interesting campaign stop, but nothing more.

New School in the Neighborhood

I was flipping through the local paper this evening and found an article I thought I would share. There is a new charter school opening up in Atlanta that I am thinking of enrolling my daughter. The school, The Academy of St. Urban, is a non-denominational Christian school. In addition to the curriculum required by the State of Georgia, there are classes on the Bible and Christian history, as well as a "rigorous Latin program." The school is housed in the same building with the Catholic Society of Georgia, has a cathedral attached to it, and the Christian faith plays a very central role in the school. It is named for Pope Urban II, who was the Pope at the time of the First Crusade.

The school is very proud of the core Christian values taught at the school. Another selling point is that it is also a charter school. That means that it receives tax payer funding. According to the paper, in the 2006 to 2007 school year, The Academy of St. Urban received $65,260 from the state. I get the financial benefit of sending my daughter to a public school, with the education of a private school. What could be better?

It's too bad this school doesn't really exist. Well, at least not how I described it here. In fact, the above is based on an article by Robert Spencer discussing a new Islamic charter school in Minnesota. The K-8 school, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, has two campuses in Minnesota, is housed in the same building as the Muslim American Society, and has a mosque attached to it. The school offers a "rigorous Arabic language program", a carpeted space for prayer, and serves halal food. The charter school is considered a Minnesota charter school and really did receive $65,260 from Minnesota tax payers in the 2006 to 2007 school year.

If you're still not at least a little uneasy, the Muslim American Society has documented ties to foreign terrorist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006, during the "Flying Imams" episode, a number of people pointed out ties between prominent members of the Muslim American Society and Hezbollah and Hamas. And the St. Urban reference wasn't random either. Tarek ibn Ziyad is most famous for conquering what would become Spain in the year 711.

I am pretty sure the ACLU would be upset about my fictional school. Robert Spencer points out they haven't made a peep about the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy…

My Wife Writes to Congress.

Here is a letter my wife recently sent to our Congressional Representative, David Scott. I wanted to share this letter because I was very impressed with it. I encourage everyone to be vocal with your representatives, and my wife did just that. I have only made the most minor of changes. My wife reads this blog from time to time, so she can call me to task if I have changed the meaning of anything she wrote. My wife also mentions that the recent votes in the U. S. House place us in the "rich" tax bracket. That is because we make more than $30,000 a year combined, so if the House repeals the Bush tax cuts, our taxes will go up. I wonder how many other families out there make more than $30,000?

I am extremely disappointed in your recent votes on FISA and the 2009 budget resolution. My husband and I are doing our best to support our family on quality wages and you have the audacity to support a resolution that will ensure that you not only continue to spend, spend, spend, but that also increases our families taxes by nearly 100% over the next five years.

Your party has been beating the economic hardships into our heads for the past 2 years and yet the only thing that you think to do to help is to RAISE my taxes? How will that help my family and those business that we support? Would it not make more sense to LOWER our taxes so that we can continue to send our daughter to a quality private school (spending money on local business) continue to make repairs on our aging home (again, spending money on local labor forces and small business) and buy goods and services within our community.

My husband and I also spend many hours of our free time choosing to volunteer with our local Habitat for Humanity. This is a program that allows the local community to support those within their community without government involvement. This is the best way to help those in need. Have faith in Americans to see to their own and those that are in need. All of the government programs in the world cannot help those that will not first help themselves.

I urge you to put a stop to all of the wasteful spending that is in evidence in the 2009 house budget resolution and to make the tax cuts permanent. My husband and I are not financially rich, yet we do earn enough in our positions to place us in the "rich" bracket according to the IRS. Your "yes" vote to the 2009 House Budget Resolution will have an immediate adverse impact on my families budget and will only continue to "roll down hill" through the rest of the economy.

You can guarantee that I will do everything that I possibly can to provide as much support to your opposition in the 2008 congressional elections.

If you send a letter to your Congressman or Senator that you are particularly proud of, send me a copy along with who you sent it to and I will be happy to post it.

Senator Obama's "Hope"

Sen. Barack Obama has been campaigning on “Change”, “Hope”, and “Unity”. It would seem his long time Pastor, Mentor, and now political adviser believes in anything but that. Over the past few days, an assortment of Reverend Jeremiah Wrights sermons have become public knowledge. Many of the quotes from Reverend Wright are insulting, racist, and should have Sen. Obama supporters worried.

Reverend Wright and Barack Obama have a very long history together. The Obama’s began attending United Church of Christ in Chicago because of Rev. Wright. Reverend Wright officiated at their marriage, and baptized their kids. The title for Obama’s The Audacity of Hope is also the title of one of Rev. Wrights sermons. Barack Obama has listed Rev. Wright as a mentor and someone he bounces ideas off of from time to time. Recently, Rev. Wright has retired from the church to accept an advisory role in the Obama Campaign.

In Rev. Wright’s December 2007 Christmas sermon, he attacked Hillary Clinton for not being black, for not knowing what it was like to live as a black person, and because she, “…ain’t never been called a n-----r!” These were the Reverends words. He also said that President Clinton wasn’t good to black Americans. According to Rev. Wright, “Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky! He was riding dirty!” These comments were greeted with cheers from the congregation.

There are now circulating plenty of hate filled quotes from Rev. Wright’s sermons. The ones that I find the most alarming are from 2003 and 2001. In 2003, Rev. Wright said, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America? No, no, no! Not God bless America! God d—m America! It’s in the Bible – for killing innocent people! God d—m America for treating her citizens as less than human!” And in 2001 sermon, Rev Wright says that America deserved the attacks of September 11^th. He emphasized this by saying, “America’s chickens are going home to roost.”

Barack has said in the past that Rev. Wright is like family and he doesn’t always agree with the things he says politically. That simply isn’t enough. If Barack Obama is going to be President, he must condemn many of these comments in the strongest terms. Are we ready to elect a President who might share any of these views? While I haven’t seen anything conclusively proving that Sen. Obama was in the crowd at any of these sermons, there is no reason to believe he wasn’t either. Sen. Obama has called this pastor a mentor. It is very easy to believe that Sen. Obama and his family were present at these sermons, or at the very least were familiar with the Reverends beliefs. With these comments, one starts to understand why Michelle Obama said she never been felt proud of our nation. If you believe the comments of Rev. Wright, why would she be proud?

Many people have said they support Sen Obama because he wants change. Is this the kind of change they are looking for? A President who may believe “God d—m America?” A President who may believe that America got what it deserved on September 11^th?

California Court of Appeals Strikes Again!

In February, the California Court of Appeals ruled that parents do not have a right to teach their own kids in their own home. The Court of Appeals decided that homeschooling was illegal, and was not protected by the constitution. The Alliance Defense Fund has a few articles up about the decision and has a link to the 18 page decision by the court.

There are a few facts that might be of interest. First, California law does not address homeschooling one way or another. According to the San Francisco Gate, “There is no provision in the California Education Code or elsewhere in state law that addresses the issue of homeschooling.” All the code says is that kids are required to attend school. In California, most parents fill out the proper paper work to have their home designated as a private school. According to the Gate, there are over 18,000 private schools in California with less than five students. However, where there is no law, the California Court of Appeals has taken it upon themselves to act as the Legislative Branch and write their own law.

Second, the original case didn’t deal with the homeschooling issue for these children. Again, in the words of the Gate, “[a]lthough the case did not involve the question of the children’s truancy, the court decision broadly addressed the legality of homeschooling in California.” The original case involved a charge of physical / emotional abuse by one of the parents. Apparently, the courts have decided that the best way to monitor this is to force the kids to enroll in public schools.

Finally, in the words of Bill Bennett, every parent is a teacher, but not every teacher is a parent. Parents are responsible for teaching their children many of life’s lessons. I think very few of my readers would argue for religious instruction in public school. The debate surrounding evolution usually touches many people’s nerves. However, if as a parent, I don’t like the way these topics are treated in school, I always have the right to teach my child at home. Children have been home schooled since before there was a United States. To have the California Court of Appeals decide parents don’t have a right to teach their children shows just how out of touch with reality the court is.

Worried about Global Warming? See an Eco-therapist

I have become more and more reluctant to write about global warming on this site. It isn't because I think I am wrong. Every day more evidence comes to light that seems to indicate that I am write. What worries me is the attitude of some of my readers who believe in "man-made global warming". These readers seem to be getting more and more upset at anything that contradicts Mr. Gore's movie. I have always assumed these people simply can stand being wrong. However, I have found there is another reason: Eco-anxiety.

I wish I could take credit for discovering this. In the interest of full disclosure, I heard about it on today's Michael Medved show. He was interviewing an Eco-therapist named Melissa Pickett. Could this be the answer to the stress some of my readers have been feeling? I did a search on Google for both Eco-therapist and Eco-anxiety. Unfortunately, this field seems to be so new that it is hard to find anything on it. However, I did find one article from Columbia University written by Justin Nobel. With a name like Nobel… [insert Nobel Prize joke of choice here].

According to Mr. Nobel, "…a growing number of people have literally worried themselves sick over various environmental doomsday scenarios." This worry is apparently called "eco-anxiety." The "therapist" Medved interviewed today is also quoted in the article as seeing anywhere from, "…40 to 80 eco-anxious patients a month." Some of the symptoms of her eco-anxious patients include panic attacks, irritability, sleeplessness, and an "…eerie feeling that their cells are twitching."

If this sounds like you (and I know this does describe a few of you), there is hope. First, neither I, nor Political Friends, are licensed to practice Eco-therapy in this state, the state you are in, or the country you are reading this from (unless you are currently in Florin). Having said that, and if you think you might have eco-anxiety, I would recommend trying some of the remedies the eco-therapist recommend in this article. Some of them include: carry natural objects with you (they recommend certain minerals, I recommend grass or kudzu), or make environmentally friendly lifestyle changes. Personally, I would also recommend drinking. Again, I am not actually an eco-therapist.

I hope this has proven helpful to those of you who think we might destroy the planet in the next ten years due to those evil fossil fuels. If the environment should suddenly turn cooler, instead of warmer, then obviously any eco-therapy you have been going through should be continued.

Book Review: Lone Survivor

I was out of town this weekend (hence some of the delayed responses for other posts). I took a copy of Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 by Marcus Luttrell and Patrick Robinson with me. I started the book at the airport on Friday afternoon, and finished it Sunday morning. This was really an incredible book and I couldn't put it down.

Lone Survivor is the story of Operation Redwing in Afghanistan. The operation called for a team for four Navy SEALs to stalk then capture or kill a known Taliban leader. Intelligence indicated that this particular leader could have 80 to 200 soldiers with him. Operation Redwing would end in the largest loss of life to Navy SEALs and U.S. Special Forces in America's history. 24 hours after the operation launched, Petty Officer Luttrell would be the only member of the operation left alive.

Luttrell’s recount of the firefight he and his teammates were in is incredibly gripping. His recount of what happened with his family in Texas during all of this also jumps off the page. When the media reported that the entire team had been killed (including Luttrell), an incredible five day ordeal began for his parents and brothers. Luttrell’s twin brother never once thought the missing SEAL was dead. The Navy also refused to list any of the SEALs as anything other than “Missing” until bodies could be found. Support began to come out of the woodwork for Luttrell’s family.

While Luttrell's family tried to get information, Luttrell struggled to survive. A local tribe took him in and protected him under Lokhay. Lokhay means, “…the population of [the village] will fight to the last man, honor-bound to protect the individual they have invited in to share their hospitality… [t]his is strictly nonnegotiable. “ Once the Taliban found out the village was hiding Luttrell, things continued to get tough for Luttrell. However, without the village, Luttrell never would have survived.

Lone Survivor is a page turner. The fights really come out of the page, and the ordeal Luttrell’s family goes through tugs at the reader’s heart. Luttrell explains his own feelings on the liberal media and on our own Rules of Engagement. Whether you agree with him or not, his words are worth considering because of the things he has seen. The teammates Luttrell describes are real Hero’s. Three of the members (including Luttrell) were awarded the Navy Cross for Combat Heroism, and leader of the group, Lt. Michael Murphy, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I would recommend anyone studying the war in Iraq or Afghanistan read this book. This book will become required reading for anyone studying the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wouldn’t hurt to have a few people at different news agencies read this as well.

I am an Angry White Man.

This is not the blog post I intended to write tonight. It isn't even my original idea.

 

I have been working on a book review that isn't going the way I wanted. I was planning on posting that tonight. If I just couldn't get that written, I thought I might write about Nancy Pelosi's failure to pass a FISA bill. A 500 word post is always easy if you think about Nancy Pelosi for about a minute and a half.

 

However, Fate had a different idea. Today at work I was catching up on my Rush Limbaugh podcasts. I was listening to his show from last Tuesday when he began talking about an article from Gary Hubbell in The Aspen Times. In his article, Mr. Hubbell sets about to discuss the group that will most likely decide this election: The Angry White Man. As Rush began to read the article, a tuning fork was struck for me. I believe there are events or messages we receive that resonate deep within us. These messages I call tuning forks. I know it isn't very original, but it is the only way I know to talk about it. As Rush read Mr. Hubbell's description of the Angry White Man, I thought more and more that he was describing me.

 

I am not going to tell you that I match every single category on the list. However, I do recognize a lot of the traits in myself, and I admire the people who have the traits I don't have from this list. I encourage everyone who is reading this to go read Mr. Hubbell's article. I know at least 5 or 6 regular readers from this site that fit this list as well. I am sure there are more, and I suspect a few of the lady readers even identify with this message.

 

Those of you who think Hillary Clinton should get elected because she will take care of our Health care needs should read the article. If you believe Obama is the coming Messiah, please read the article. Sit back for a minute and think about the person Mr. Hubbell is describing. As of the posting of this blog, there were 933 comments to the article. Some of them were angry, some were not. I decided to add number 934 to the list with a very simple response:

 

"Amen, Brother."

 

 

Conservatives to McCain: Told You So!

The New York Times ran a story in their print edition this morning that has been in the works since at least November of last year. The writers for the New York Times hint that McCain may have had an affair eight years ago. They never come out and say it directly, and they never discuss any evidence (unless you count unnamed sources). Even worse, the not-really-alleged affair was with a lobbyist. The article is a very long one, and dredges back up many of the embarrassing moments McCain has had in his Senate career going back to the Keating Five Scandal. The article has done two very important things: embarrass the Times, and send a shot across McCain's bow.

 

McCain has said he is very disappointed with the article. I have to agree with him. Even given the low standard I hold the Times to, it reads more like an article you would expect in one of the supermarket tabloids. There is gossip that is confirmed by "two unnamed sources", and hints of a sex scandal in McCain's camp. Of course, the Times never actually says there was anything improper, thereby carefully avoiding a lawsuit. If you have the endurance to read the entire article, you will find there is very little meat to this story. Other news agencies are now attacking the Times for running the story at all. The New Republic says that the most incredible thing about the article is, "…that it appeared in the paper at all." There seems to be a small firefight going on between a few news agencies on this. I can only hope that this firefight grows and consumes as many of these publications as it can.

 

The second lesson was for McCain and is something conservatives have been warning him about for a long time. Simply put, no matter how liberal I think McCain is, the mainstream media still sees that (R) by his name. They will talk about his "maverick" tendencies, his positions on global warming, Gitmo, torture, and free speech. At the end of the day, he is still running as a Republican, and to most of the media, that means he is one of the bad guys. Conservatives and most Republicans know what that means. It is only a matter of time before the media he has been buddies with for so long starts turning on him. Today appears to be the first shot. Even with Hillary and Obama at each other's throats, McCain can expect more of these attacks. Heaven help him if any of it turns out to be true.

 

Of course, I don't think there would have been any articles about extramarital affairs with a Romney candidacy.

Keep Earmarks from Berkeley

"I've been working with Code Pink, and I believe in their cause and I believe that what they're doing is the right thing, they are bringing maximum pressure to bear on the whole question of the Marines being in Berkeley, they don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here and they should leave."

 

If you read this quote from Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, you might be under the impression that Karl Rove took over the military and has ordered the military to capture this poor, defenseless town. You might even believe that Mayor Bates would be open and honest about his feelings towards the military.

 

You would be wrong on both counts.

 

It seems that the City Council of Berkeley, California recently passed a resolution that has many outraged. In it, they call on the Marine Corps to leave their recruiting office in town. If the Marines refuse to listen to the City Council, they will be considered, "…uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

 

Just in case the Marine Corp didn't catch the hint, the City Council next gave a parking spot to Code Pink in front of the recruiting station, a matching noise permit, and the thanks of the Council for Code Pink's work to, "…impede, passively or actively," the activity of the Marines. While the Marines have a long history of fighting and dying for the United States, Code Pink has a history of donating aide to the families of Islamic terrorist (to the tune of an estimated $600,000). My wife points out that the Marine Corps probably doesn't want a recruiting station where they aren't wanted. If the City of Berkeley truly wants the Marines gone, maybe they should just buy out their lease on the property she suggests. Sanity appears to be in short supply in Berkeley.

 

As these resolutions gained press coverage and outrage (and the City Council claimed they were misunderstood) some began taking matters into their own hands. Sen. DeMint (R-SC) has purposed withdrawing recent federal money from Berkeley. He points out, "I do not believe a city that has turned its back on our country's finest deserves $2 million worth of pork-barrel projects." A portion of the $2 million was originally to go to Chez Panisse restaurant to design school meals that promote "environmental harmony". (My wife asks where the "environmental harmony" appears when insulting the military.) Instead of the standard school lunches, students would get "Comte cheese soufflé with mache salad". Perhaps the Marines could leave their MRE's for the students…

 

A California Assemblyman is pushing to withhold state transportation funds from the city. Others have sent emails to the city council blasting their decision. Move America Forward is collecting signatures condemning the actions of Berkeley's City Council.

 

Catherine Moy reports that the "anti-war anarchists" have shown themselves to be as reprehensible as the city council. At protest last week by pro-troop and pro-Marine groups, the anarchists tried to provoke people into fights. One person reported that the anti-war groups were made up of "…an assortment of old hippies dressed in pink," and high school kids dressed in orange and black. The high school students were brought to the protest by their teachers.

 

The City of Berkeley is within its rights to criticize anyone, including the Honorable men and women of the Marine Corps. However, my tax money shouldn't go to fund their arrogance. In the words of Jim DeMint:

 

"Actions have consequences. When the Berkeley City Council decided to insult the Marines in a time of war, it was a $2 million decision. Especially in a time of war, we cannot allow cities to just play insulting games at our troops' expense while continuing to shower those cities with congressional favors."

Quick Notes – Presidential Politics and Others…

Welcome to another edition of Quick Notes. I am enjoying the "Quick Notes" part of this blog more and more. I find many of you like to comment on the items I probably wouldn't have written a full post about. Keeping that in mind, here are three more topics for your review:

Mitt Romney. Mitt has released his delegates and now endorses McCain. I hate to hear this for a few reasons. First, I am still undecided with regards to McCain. Romney is trying to do the best thing for his party, and what he believes is the best thing for his country. Second, I just started Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House, and I am pretty sure that Romney won't be our nominee even at a brokered convention this time around. However, keep an eye on him. If he takes the right job between now and 2012, he might be a very strong candidate in the next race. I will be watching him…

The Clintons. While discussing politics the other day with my wife, an odd thought occurred to me. Chelsea Clinton is 29 years old. If her mom should win this election, and become a two term president, guess who is constitutionally eligible to run in the election after that. You got it. We could have 24 years of Clintons instead of 16.

In Other News… The Washington Post has reported that a "long range Russian bomber" buzzed the U.S.S Nimitz. A second bomber circled 50 miles away. The Nimitz scrambled fighters to intercept the Russian bombers. This is one more thing to keep in mind when picking a presidential candidate this season. One more thing to remind us that the Presidential Race isn't the only thing going on in the world.

A New “Quick Notes”

Welcome to a new edition of "Quick Notes". Once again I thought I would share a few stray thoughts.

 

The Presidential Race. There have been many developments on the Presidential front this week. With Romney dropping out (but not releasing his delegates), I am in the position of not supporting any of the candidates seeking the Presidency at this time. This is going to force me to really look at all of the candidates. I don't like many of the policies from McCain, Obama, or Clinton. I also don't like the thought of not voting for President. I will be doing some real soul searching on here over the coming months. I encourage you to help me discuss these candidates. Maybe we can figure out who the best President is together.

 

Georgia vs. Tennessee. I resist talking about state politics on here because I don't believe it will have any appeal to most of my audience. However, this story may give everyone a small smile after following the Presidential Race. It seems Georgia wants to redraw its boundary with Tennessee to get access to some of the water in the "demilitarized zone". While many in the Tennessee House got a good laugh out of this, I must admit I was a little embarrassed. Didn't my home state look bad enough going to Huckabee last week?

 

Iran and Iraq. Both countries are still in the news, though many haven't noticed while Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Edwards have been going at it. Things continue to improve in both Iraq and Afghanistan (though we still have a way to go). Iran is continuing to pursue nuclear technology. These three countries will continue to be issues into the next Presidents term. I hope to explore how each of these candidates looks at these foreign nations.

 

My Book List. On a personal note, I am trying an experiment this year. I am tracking what books I read over the course of the year. At this point, I am up to five. Three of them have been from the reading list I posted a few weeks back. I finished The Great Bridge, Iron Kissed, and Showdown. I posted a link to the Amazon.com entry for each of them in the original post. I am not sure the books would make a good post for this site. However, if you are interested in any of them, I would be happy to give you my take on them.

 

That completes this issue of "Quick Notes". I hope you enjoyed it!

 

 

Super Tuesday: Lessons Learned

I apologize ahead of time is this post becomes a little disjointed. I am writing this a little after 12 AM after watching as much Super Tuesday coverage as I can take. However, I think a few important points can be taken from today:

1. Things are as confusing in both parties now as they were on Monday. On the Democratic side, Obama has picked up four or five more states than Hillary. This is huge for Obama, but in the long run, it means they are still neck and neck. On the Republican side, things aren't as clear cut as the media seems to think it is (at least it isn't at 12 AM). As of right now, McCain has had eight states called for him, Romney has had six called for him, and Huckabee has had five called for him. This will look a little different in the morning (California is still up in the air, and there is a chance Romney may pick up one or two more states). Both Huckabee and Romeny have already said they are still in it. There is very little chance that either of these two will drop out until some time after Thursday and CPAC.
2. McCain supporters should stop saying that their man has character. While it looks like the back room tricks from West Virginia were entirely legal, it has left a bad taste in many peoples mouth. It shows that McCain and Huckabee are more interested in teaming up on Romney. It also shows that McCain has no intention of changing the way things run in Washington. Buy throwing his supporters over to Huckabee after Romney won the first vote, McCain shows that he is a skilled politician, and fits the stereotype of the back room, cigar smoking politician many people in both parties associate with Washington.
3. Voters in states that haven't voted, are still going to influence the election. With all the jockeying of positions of different primaries, and will both parties penalizing states for moving their primaries, many thought the candidate would be set after tonight. In my opinion, we are still a long ways away from either party having a clear cut candidate. What doest that mean for my readers in states that haven't voted yet? Get out an vote!

My Political Information

In preparation for Super Tuesday, and the rest of the Presidential race, I thought I would share some of the places I get my political news and commentary from. I don't get my opinion from these places, but I consider them when I am examining any issue. As you follow the race, I would recommend these sources if you want to stay up to date on what is happening in the races. Some of my sources are from places that you may not know about, so I hope everyone tries at least one of these out.

The first place I go for political information is always Real Clear Politics. This site post links to the best editorials every day. During the race, they have been tracking the delegate counts for both parties, and have been tracking the latest polls. One note on the poll numbers, the RCP polling represents an average of all of the big polls. This tends to weed out some of the polls that may be just flat wrong for some reason. I also like the site because they have the best commentary from both sides of the argument.

I am a subscriber to both The Weekly Standard and Human Events. Both of these are conservative publications. Both are well researched and have very interesting articles. Some of the editorials get reprinted in other locations. Both publications carry book reviews. With the shear number of political books released every year, it is nice to have a few sources that help to weed out some of the books that I might have otherwise considered reading.

I have mentioned on this site before that I am a fan of both Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. You may disagree with each of these, but both are quoted and talked about on both sides of the aisle. Rush has a three hour show each day that is worth listening too. Ann has a weekly column that is updated on Wednesdays.

There are other sources (like the Drudge Report) that I occasionally use for political information. However, the sources that I have listed above, along with numerous books, give me the majority of my political information. That information helps shape some of the opinion you have come to know and love.