Now, you get to see what I can do

If you look at most blogs, they contain pictures of people around either their a. friends, or b. family at some function. While this may be of interest to a. anthropologists, b. sociologists, or if their blogs are up in 50 years, c. historians and d. descendants, pretty much most people are not interested in pictures of rather ordinary people doing rather ordinary things. However, as I have been ranting for a month, I figure it is time for me to show what I can do. I will show how I designed my rose bed.

Here is a back view of my house. Along the side of my fence is my rose bed. They are red-another color-red-another color etc. On each end is a "rose tree". Most of the reds are one variety; I forget which one. A couple are the "Ronald Reagan" variety (how appropriate for me!). I purchased most of the bushes at Flower World in Snohomish (alright, the Maltby area - greater Snohomish is a huge area!) The mess in the lawn that you see to the right is when my neighbor decided to design a rockery and ran over the lawn with a backhoe!

When I first moved to my house, the prior owner was incredibly lazy - he only mowed his lawn maybe a total of ten times over four years! He also didn't clean the carpets and there were marks all over the walls - for a four-year old house! But I was planning to repaint and clean the carpets, so this did not deter me - it just meant I got the house cheaper. However, he never watered the lawn, so where you see the bed, next to the fence, that grass was spotty, so I decided to put a rose bed there - I got that idea from my friends the Cason's, three brothers who bought a house with a lot of roses (like the prior owner here, they don't do any yardwork, either!)

When most landscapers design beds, they merely remove the grass, throw in dirt, and plant the plants. A recipe for disaster. They never see their result. What happens is the soil is too shallow, there is no drainage, and the grass never dies - it keeps coming back in huge clumps of weeds. There is quite a bit of work to do. That is because they often have a fear of "polluting the environment" by using roundup. If you do not use a bit now, someone else will use huge quantities of it later to kill those weeds. They do not come back to do the maintenance.





Thus, the first thing I had to do was kill the grass with roundup. That I did. The next thing I did was to remove the grass. It took about five loads using a 90-gallon barrell (so it would be light enough for the yard waste people to haul away). Then, when that was gone, I used caseron on the affected area. Grass hates caseron, because it will make sure it will not come back. And it worked!




Once the caseron had really worked it's way into the soil, I then threw gypsum down (since the "soil" is actually pure clay less than 1" deep). And some compost. And started mixing it in. Then, in May 2004, I bought the blocks and put the wall together. I used mason cement on top. However, since most beds have poor drainage, I put down 1 1/2" pvc pipe in a few places, below the bricks, to allow for water to get out. Once this was done, I dug a trench right next to the wall and filled it with drain rock. After that, I put down newspaper, and covered that with soil.



During this time, I added compost, topsoil, gymsum, lime, and kept mixing it in with a hoe (that's garden hoe, you sick perverts!). That was so I could get good soil about another 2-3" down. At the same time, I was careful not to disturb the drain that I built by hitting the dirt with the newspaper (the newspaper is so dirt hardens over the rock - it will dissolve in about one year). Thus, I did not fill it for one year, as I was trying to get the most loamy dirt available. In the meantime, I had pressure-washed - then stained - the fence you see in behind it.


I kept adding soil and compost throughout the winter, tilling it in. In the spring of 2005, I got two rolls of aluminum sheeting. This is to protect the fence from rotting when I put the dirt in. I tacked this to the fence, so that it was just above the soil line. Then, I went out, purchased steer manuer, and several truck loads of soil, plus lime. It was a rich mulch, or a rich compost. I filled it, and used the smallest rototiller I could to till the soil, and I got it as deep as possible so as not to disturb the drain. I think I got four or five yards of this stuff total.

That still did not mean I was ready to plant. I had to wait another month for the dirt to settle somewhat. When it did, I bought one or two more truck loads of soil, and this time, I used a hoe. The soil was so loamy and soft, it was easy to do. Since the aluminum is ugly, I used cheap gray bricks to cover it up. Then, in early July 2005, I purchased my plants. I used that root growth stimulator in each hole. I planted these by the moonlight, and it might help out. Around each plant, I put SuperPhosphate, to encourage root growth.

I have thrown rose food around the roses as recommended. However, since the soil is so rich, it is not that necessary - only so for good blooms. The key to good gardening is good soil, which I took the time to do. Also, water. I put soaker hoses around each plant, as this is the best way to water roses (plus a filter and pressure regulator).
I really like roses, and have them in other areas of my yard. I also figure that chicks like them, too!
In the front of this bed, I have planted tulip bulbs

Thus, that is my expose on gardening for this week. As you can see, I have been too lazy to remove the flags from the plants - but my neighbors love the plants anyway. I have more ideas for this area, and I have other gardening ideas, too - I will share them with you as they come to fruition (and bloom).
Most landscapers merely remove the grass, build the wall, and throw in dirt. They avoid all the other steps. If I had hired a professional, it would have resulted in a. a rotted fence, b. poor drainage, c. weeds, and d. lack of root growth (because it would have been shallow). And I would have had stunted plants, maybe some that rotted!
So, if you come away from a lesson today, just remember this - good gardening requires good preparation, and especially, good soil.

Pistols still the Pistols

I found this on - surprisingly - the Drudge Report.

While all bands would practically love to be inducted into the hall of fame, the Sex Pistols basically told the Hall of Fame where to go. Which shows only one thing -

The Pistols were the last, if not the only, punk band.

Thus, they agree with me, too! I said this long before they said "We were punk, the rest were punk rock."

Here is where you can read the announcement - probably the only press release in a hand-written scrawl:

http://www.thefilthandthefury.co.uk

Johnny Rotten was about the only person who really understood what punk was about. It was about nihilism. Unfortunately, his contemporaries and his admirers never did. They instead saw the following: here was a band that played loud, distorted guitar music, and they attempted to make their own loud, distorted music, only with less competence. In addition, since the Pistols were anti-establishmentarians, they must be devout Fabians, right?

Well, no.

The society they were denouncing was fabian - pre-Thatcherite Britain. And, Thatcher was not really able to get rid of much of the Fabianism. In Britain, the establishment is fabian.

So when Pearl Jam or Beastie Boys try to launch into a tirade against society, and advocate national health insurance, and think they are demonstrating the punk ethos by doing so, they really are without a clue. Pearl Jam is really a phony band; they were what happened when Eddie Vedder ruined Mother Love Bone.

And Kurt Cobain understood that Pearl Jam truly had a phony punk attitude, according to his biographer.

In fact, his band was only one of two bands that even came close to the Pistols vision (Nirvana for those of you who forgot). The other was Guns and Roses - when they made their album Appetite for Destruction. The rest of those bands did not have much of a clue about this ethos. It takes a certain person to understand it, and such a person doesn't necessarily march to the beat of a different drummer -if you can forgive the pun - they have their own band (forgive my pun again!). When they came to Seattle in 1996, the alternative paper (the Stranger) called it's fans posers, and correctly so. Poking holes in your nose is not "showing your individually" as many did, in reality it only shows you have a strong sense of conformity but want to hide the fact you probably have no originality. Johnny Rotten might have done it in 1977, but that was in 1977, when no one else had tried it before in the west (excepting Mayakovsky).

I remember going to that show. The first song the opened up with was "Bodies". And the crowd, full of punk kids, went wild. Only they had no clue as to what "Bodies" was about. It was the best anti-abortion anthem ever written. It largely tells that truth behind why so many people are such strong abortion advocates. Forgive my french, but here is the key line:

"Fucking like this and fucking like that
"Fucking like a fuckin', fucking brat
"She don't want a baby that look like that
"She don't want a baby at all."

Many of these kids, who probably adopted left-wing ideology, and potential NARAL recruits, thus accepting abortion as a right. They would have been horrified to find out that that were cheering the most truthful anti-abortion song ever, if they really knew...

Then there was the Sex Pistols tribute - by a bunch of "punk" bands. All of whom did not have an idea of the punk attitude.

So, what is a truly punk attitude? It's not necessarily a - forgive the french, again - a "Fuck you" attitude. It is at it's core a nihilistic vision of society. Someone who wants total freedom. But they also realize that something is wrong. In otherwords, an Iconoclast.

A gangsta rapper talking about doing sexually abusive things to ho's is no longer iconoclastic - because it is so common to do a rap song about. Left wing politics is not this vein, either, because it requires huge bureaucracies, and new establishments, to sustain the left wing fabian ideals.

In fact, horror of horrors, the American right is actually closer to the punk ethos. We are the ones who want to tear down the structures. Well, by-and-large. The pre-Pistols punk band, the Ramones, were Republicans. Many current Republican activists chose that peer group in Jr. high (most Republicans of today were never the preppy type, which is a huge error in the stereotype). The most famous is Ann Coulter - which is why she writes like she does. Her counterpart, Jabba the Hut, can't even come close. Not to say the Pistols were on my side politically - they were probably extreme, extreme leftists (remember, they wanted to be anarchy) - but in a sense, they were almost aideological.

So today, Rock-and-Roll has become yet another institution - it is so institutionalized, in fact, that kids are turning increasingly away from it. But the adults still have to promote it because they still have to be bad. As a result, adults still revere what they liked in high school. It was the rebellion against this bizzare attitude of the current "grownups" that the Pistols told the administrators where to go for their opening ceremony. The Pistols never revered anything, including awards ceremonies. As a result, by doing so, they are perfectly in their element. And by doing so, they still demonstrate that they, and probably only they, truly understand what punk is about.

Netiquitte for Dummies (or, using email properly)

Today, with the advent of email, those who use it really use it a lot - as their preferred form of communication. Very often, they use it much more than need be - and in fact, use it as a crutch and as a result do not have very effective communication. That is because those who prefer email over everything else are often the most anti-social of the bunch, too.

Well, I like email, but not that much. I see it as a way to get certain ideas across, not all ideas. There is a reason for this.

Content is only 5-10% of effective communication. The rest is non-verbal, or other actions. In addition, email lacks the immediate reciprocity that other forms of communication have - even the telegraph (is that thing still used?). Hence, email should not be used for much of human communication. However, I shall start with what it is good for:

1) Announcements. A cheap, easy way to get an announcement to lots of people, is email. And, the contents of the announcement can be spelled out quickly. For example, at Central, I was the person who knew where all the parties were. Had I attended there only a few years later, I could have emailed hundred of people, at once, and had better parties. Also, service like "Evite" work well with email, too.
2) Orders. If you are the boss, and giving simple directives, email is the best way to type something out and kick it out. If your employee resists, well, that's a bad for him. He'll get to see what an unemployment line looks like!
3) Academic ideas. Academicians should be the least emotional of all people. So you can kick ideas out and argue over them. This was the first use of email over 30 years ago. And it was the idea behind the listserves that were popular 10 years ago (I founded several by the way, although they all eventually fell out of fashion and went by the wayside).
4) Attachments. This of course beats the post office in that you can get the documents to the person immediately, and not pay anything.
5) Jokes, homilies, stories, etc. In the old days, stuff like this was passed around the office on a single sheet of paper. Later on, the copy machine copied them and they were passed out. When I started my real job, there was an employee who had a whole physical folder of this stuff (which would now more likely than not sit on the employer's server). Now, it is clearly on the server for the IT Department/HR Department to see with whom it originated. And if you worked outside an office, or didn't work, you never got to see it. Now, you have 20 different friends sending you the same thing - maybe twice, or thrice, or 50 billion times!
6) Memos. Once upon a time, in the office, directives and information were passed out on memos. Now, the head honcho merely sends out an email to the distribution list, and it goes to all employees. He spends only a few minutes typing it out, rather than several hours dictating a memo.
In fact, it is so customary now, that five years into my real job, I got my first real memo - on that "MEMO" letterhead! It was three pages, and the only thing I remember about it was that some girl stayed with "some friends" in a hotel in the seedy part of town. I totally forgot the lesson my supervisor at the time dictated. But when I got it, I had been so used to email, that I thought that this was a joke.
7) And of course, letters. Email takes the place where one would used to dictate a letter to someone. I still send those out all the time at work, but I use email more and more each year. In fact, the last time I actually wrote/mailed a real letter (excluding Christmas cards), to an American at least, was over a decade ago. I in fact think that the last letter I wrote was five years ago, to someone in Russia.

Now that we have the good reason for email. However, a lot of anti-social personalities seem to like to use the internet for all forms of communication. Hence, their communication is ineffective. One person told me "everyone uses email (rather than the phone) as the preferred communication today." But then again, interpersonal skills, a trait that Americans generally excel in, is lacking, too. Here is a "Online Customer Survey" found in "The Dilbert Principle," by Scott Adams:

Online Computing Survey (1985)

If you could connect your computer to a vast network of information, how would you use this service?

A. Gather valuable scientific information
B. Improve my education
C. Demonstrate my complete lack of personality by spending countless hours typing inanane and often obscene sentence fragments that can by viewed by people just like me in "real time."

If you answered "C" above, what should that service be called?

A. Computer Chat
B. I'm a Moron and I'll prove it!
C. Good-Bye Saving Account.

As you can see, some people use email because they totally lack interpersonal skills. For many others, it just seems that way. Here are some reasons when not to use email:
1) Important requests. To do these, one needs face-to-face communication, and reciprocity, to determine understanding. Otherwise, the person will not get the message.
2) When someone ignores you to begin with. Sending them email will not do them any good. Remember, such people are often anti-social, so what makes you think that sending something that is easier to ignore will get the idea across?
3) Emotional communication. This requires face-to-face communication. For example, imagine getting this email:

"Joseph:

"I just discovered that I no longer love you. I have just developed feelings for Igor. I want to sleep with him so bad! He's much more handsome than you, and does not have the body odor you have. And, he has better career prospects than you do. As well as being 500 times better in bed that you are.

"So, we are going to have to stop seeing each other. Yes, we have been together for four years, but, that's the way the ball bounces!

"Have a nice life!

"Heidi"

4) Sensitive Issues. When sensitive issues are involved, you need to use face to face communication. That is why grief counsellors are hired. For example, imagine getting this email:

"Matt:

"The medical tests have come in. They show that you are HIV positive. You will need to come to our office to get pills needed to make your cocktail.

"This is what happens when you have multiple sex partners each night.

"Dr. Smith

"BTW: Everytime you get the clap, it doesn't "win a blow for the sexual revolution" as you believe. "

Or, imagine this one:

"Eleanor:

"We have just received notice that your only child, Rob, was involved in a drunk driving collision. He had a BAL of .30 and rolled his car into a school bus full of children. Several children were injured, too. Since Rob is a still minor, you will be liable for their injuries. We're curious on knowing how you raised such an alcoholic son.

"And, we have just received notice that he died of massive internal injuries from this collision. We will be hauling his body off to the morgue on 353 Main Street - you can view his remains there.

"Trooper Jones, Badge #345,
Washington State Patrol"

Anything doing with very contentious political issues (unless it's specifically a politcal group)belongs in this category. I present you with this example:

"Hi Gang! Today I wish to discuss the issue of abortion.

"So, are you in favor of killing innocent babies, or are you one of those who prefers to have 100% control over every woman's body. I would love to hear your opinion on this issue.

"Dick"

5) Very important annoucements. Imagine getting this in an email for the first time:

"Sharon:

"I have just filed divorce papers at the county courthouse. I checked off the "incipient insanity"box. I await your lawyer's reply to my contentions.

"John"

6) Projects. Email is an important way to send documents. But, when working on such things like founding documents, you do need a meeting. Emailing them back and forth do not work, as immediate reciprocity will get a more cohesive document. You will need to meet face-to-face at least once.
7) Messages to anti-social people. While you can send them announcements, you will have to send "just the facts, maam" Anything else can and will be misinterpreted.
8) A concept requiring some explanation. While email can give good detail, often, what is presented requires verbal explanation. This is so the other person demonstrates they understand what is presented. Effective communicators often prefer the phone over email.

At my job, I admit, I use the phone a lot. Probably more than needed. For example, people call up and ask a simple yes/no question - one that requires a yes/no response. An email would suffice (and they probably ask it so often, they can save it as a script). And I could kick off an email right away, too.
Or, sometimes I get a minute-long voice mail asking to fax something. Something that is saved as a template, even! An email asking for it can be sent to me, and I can send it as an attachment. Time saved.

However, people will need to learn when to use email, and if the situation involved best calls for an email, or another type of communication.

Eric

Why I don't eat at Lincoln's table

As many of you who have read this know - if there are many - I am a Republican, and engage in Republican activism.

So, it would be expected that I would go to the annual Lincoln day dinner in my county. This, like the Democrat Jefferson-Jackson day dinner, is used to raise money for the party. However, there are three reasons I do not go to these, despite my loyalty to the party:

1) I'm poor
2) I don't have time
3) Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist - nay, white separatist - whose ultimate dream was big government, and he was willing to use a war to promote his statist agenda.

Points 1) and 2) are pretty self-explanatory. Point 3), however, will need some clarification.

If you have read my myraid of posts, you see that I live in the Pacific Northwest. So I must have relatives who supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, right? Actually, no. And one of the ancestors of my step-grandfather actually left the south to fight for the north during the war. The reasons were never given, as my step-grandfather died when I was eight, my father (and grandmother) did not have the inclination to determine the motives to fight for the north (he was probably a unionist rather than an abolitionist), and at that time, despite my high level of intelligence, I probably didn't even know what a "civil war" was, and only knew that Lincoln was some great character because he freed the slaves (probably literally, as he went throughout the south taking their shackles off - at least how I might of perceived it then).

Of my actual blood lineages, I know that on my paternal grandmother's side, all those people were peasants in Norway. And on my maternal grandfather's side, his father's family was in Wales (probably mining), and his mother's family was in Germany, doing whatever Germans did at that time. That leaves for my the side of my paternal father's ancestors, who lived in the Indiana area, so they may have fought in the war. I have the early history of that family - the Tearman family - before the civil war, with all the lineages up to my birthday. However, he died when my father was three, so any familial tradition was not passed down - he was raised by my step-grandfather - whose interests in politics was mildly Democratic, except for his strong support of the NRA (I came to that organization thru another avenue; he would certainly be proud that I am a voting member! - although since he was born in 1903, it was not all that unusual for a Democrat of that era to be a strong NRA member). My maternal mother's side was from New England, purportedly; this is the weakest link in my geneological tree (which purportedly goes back to the Caeser family, Charlemaigne, the Merogivianians, and Odin and Freyya is Asgaard - seriously! Some chick in Marysville traced this back this far, and I found a relative in the Leikanger chronicle - a Norweigan geneology which goes back the 16th century -who was at the end of this line). If they were from New England, they would have probably had strong unionist, and possibly abolitionist, intentions. All I know is that they migrated out here before the railroad, so my Northwest roots go deep.

Anyways, enough of tangents. I have never lived in Dixie - the closest I have come to that region is Colorado - and I have no Confederate heritage. And I can guarantee that I do not own a white sheet with holes cut out, nor a Nazi uniform, nor am I a member of any church in Idaho. And, in college, I tutored minorities! So, why do I have such an opinion of Lincoln?

Well, I have studied history. Before the Civil War, the United States was more of a voluntary union. After the war, the Federal Government was much more coercive over the states. Leading to the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society - and the United States being much like the rest of the states around the world today.

While it was undoubtedly good to eliminate slavery, the cost to do so was tremendous. Basically, the end of slavery was a bi-product of Lincoln's drive to create a mercantilist state. Slavery could have been ended thru peaceable emancipation.

Now, while it was calculated that manumission was quite expensive, the civil war was even more expensive than having the federal government purchasing the slaves' freedom. Yes, that is hindsite, and that of course is 20-20.

Unfortunately, the abolitionists were a bunch of extremists who did not always think clearly. But then again, extremists rarely do. They got more voiciferous, and their extremism led to southerners a "circle the wagons" position (a common anthropological model). This position led to a group of people called the "fire eaters". These were southern ideologues who thought not that slavery was a necessary evil - or a "peculiar institution" - but rather thought that African-American slavery was some kind of social good. And by the end of the 1850's, they would start to advocate slave auctions take place on the Boston Common. They led to some of the fuel of the Civil War, and it was Lincoln who exploited this to launch his drive for big government.

If the abolitionists were a little more conservative, they could have had a clear strategy that would have lead to gradual emancipation. What they could have done is, while supporting the Missouri Compromise, raising the funds to manumit the slaves in the state with the least slaves - like, well, Missouri. Then lead to the outlawing of that institution in those states. That would have led to more free states in the Senate, eventually the concentration of that institution in a few states - then to eventual outlawing of that institution. In fact, abolitionist movements were still viable in the south until the 1830's, and Virginia came very close to outlawing slavery in that decade.

Anyways, Abraham Lincoln would be horrified with the positions that the Republican party takes today. It is essentially economically libertarian in spirit, and he would find it's commitment to racial equality horrifying. And it supports free trade, something that he hated (he loved tariffs). He would have has chills down his spine at the anti-government rhetoric that many of it's politicians state. In fact, the only belief that Lincoln had that I agree with - and this was stated early in his career - was that voting rights should be issued to those who are armed.

While I won't go into a book review, one book that must be read by anyone interested in this period is "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. I reviewed one of his other books earlier. It is, well, propaganda, but presents a view that is not addressed. While most anti-Lincoln books are written by racists, he starts out his book with the fact that Lincoln was a racist pig who wanted to deport all blacks to Africa to create a white person's paradise. There is plenty of evidence that Lincoln supported this position (in fact, those who state that Lincoln was a believer in racial equality at the end of his life are Lincoln apologists who are embarrased by his earlier rhethoric). So this position makes Lincoln very qualified to have become a leader of the Aryan Nations. Then, Lincoln wanted to create a mercantilist state, and was willing to trample all over the Constitution to support his position. And his policies not only created big government, but may have poisoned white-black relations in the south for about a century - and lead to the current white bigotry in large sections of the African-American community today (actually, that last part is my analysis).

While writing propaganda, Thomas DiLorenzo is not a total kook. His forward is written by Walter Williams, who has been Rush Limbaugh's Friday fill-in host for over ten years, in fact, he is the person who has had the longest term as fill-in host. Of course if you are a leftist you consider Rush himself to be an extremist, but that is only if you are so blinded by your ideology you cannot make reasonable ideological judgements about people. While the leader of the conservatives, Rush Limbaugh is well within the mainstream of American political thought (and he, by the way, likes Lincoln).

So, as a result, I will not be attending the Snohomish County Lincoln day dinner this Saturday 0r anytime soon. Or ever. However, I may introduce a resolution to change the name to the Lincoln-Reagan day dinner, for Reagan is very much liked by many Americans, and he is largely responsible for the current ideas of the Republican party.

Liberal Naiviate

One of the projects on which I am currently working is to involves working with a lot of leftists.

I have been empowered to write the by-laws of this organization, along with one other person. This person is extremely liberal, very pro-environment. But, we have the same goals, which is to preserve the farmland in avalley. How can a consevative do this, you ask? If privately done, which is what this is, then open spaces can be preserved. It is thru an organization of which I have been involved.

So what will happen?

I predict that, unless I can convince the majority to go along with my plan, it will be doomed. That is because liberals oftentimes are too naive to engage in the necessary political infighting to make their plans work.

In fact, they are too naive on too many issues. They fail to understand a basic componnent of human nature, that people are going to exploit a situation to protect their interests. Many times, they do not understand that the underlying structures of organizations are the most important componnents of an organization, not the fun activities. I, on the other hand, am motivated by the machinery and underlying structures of organizations, not the fun stuff, or the bread-and-butter issues. Since becoming conservative, that has been my chief political motivation, after killing bad liberal programs. That is, for example, one of my top issues is the right to keep and bear arms.

There are a few who understand this on the left. The hard leftists. That is why you get hard edged representatives in all governmental bodies, pushing the issues. The majority of liberals get left behind.

Morton Blackwell stated that you do not miss a meeting where you wish you could be there. Essentially, those who consider the fun stuff the bs are those who get to run an organization - and they tend to be more hard headed. Everone else either does not run it, or wonders why they do not run it.

This reflects their position on issues. Take these issues:

• Health Care. Despite the fact that government funded health care is a disaster the world over, they still are advocates of this idea. They do not seem to grasp the key concept that a. It costs a lot of money to train doctors, b. So only those who are interested in money will largely become doctors, and c. People will take advantage of a free circumstance as much as possible. Thus, leading in the long run to a lower supply and a higher demand - the disaster for a true health care crises. Yes, there are some people who cannot afford health care, but health care is a matter of degrees - based upon what one can afford. And not everyone can own a Cadillac.
• Islamofascism. There seems to be a belief that if you talk to all fanatics, you will convince them that their ideas are wrong. Well, wrong. While winning hearts and minds is a good long run strategy (especially if Imams are effectively used to show how Islamofascism is contrary to some of the tenents of the Quran, for example), in the short run, you need to either lock them up, and if that is not an option, to eliminate them. Which it is why this is a bad idea to put enemy combattants on trial. They are the type who admit that "War is Terrorism," which pretty much opens a society up to a quick destruction if this is the attitude it has toward this necessary evil.
• Sex Ed. Some liberals believe that if you teach a bunch of kids sex ed, this will somehow encourage them to use safe sex. And teaching them that abstinence will send a "mixed message." My teenage years were not that long ago, but I can clearly remember that I can easily process the fact that "Not doing it is the best way to prevent STD's, but if you will do it, using a condom is the next best option". Sexual intercourse can be taught in one lesson, which, if need be, is needed to propagate the species. However, there is so much material out there today, that kids pretty much know their lessons in this aspect of life long before their teachers give it to them. In fact, basically reiterating the Kama Sutra not only is not a deterrant, it whets the appetite (especially for a bunch of 15 year old males).
• Gun Control. Liberals believe that if you take guns out of the hands of society, crime goes down. And governments will never oppress. Another variation of this is that if guns are registered, there will not be any confiscations (actually, I believe that, in any campaign for gun registration, the proponnents are pretty much lying). All three of these have been disproven by history. Crime has gone way up when a certain class of guns is taken away. And governments have engaged in genocidal tendencies against armless people. That is because bad, evil people (i.e., criminals) by definition do not follow the law if it is against their interests, either a common criminal, or a bureaucratic criminal.

That is all I can think of right now. I find that left wing naiviate may be one reason why their ideas are not getting promoted (thank God), and why conservatives, who really are not as naive, are winning some battles.

I'm not necessarily a monkey's uncle any more

That's because I'm a real uncle now.

About four hours ago my middle brother just gave birth to a girl. Actually, it wasn't him, it was his wife.

This is kinda early, given that I believe the kid was supposed to wait until March. I had already purchased a gift to send over to the shower, but since this is early, I hadn't mailed it yet (he lives in Colorado).

I felt real stupid in December when I asked my sister-in-law, who is normally quite a fit person, why she suddenly gained so much weight in such a short period of time. Then I was given the answer.

Too bad she wasn't born 12 hours earlier. Because his birthday was yesterday. That would really be something special, to have daugher-father have the same day of the year as a birthday.

I have no pictures yet, however. Nor will I post them on this blog - because I am neither the father, nor the mother, nor a chick, nor do I live anywhere close to them.

I can hardly wait, however, until she is cognizant and say things of substance, in about five years. Then I will find out whether I am really a nice person or not.

Accidents will happen - but not according to the media

One week ago, VP Dick Cheney had a mishap with a gun, and accidently shot a friend with birdshot. Yes, this is deeply unfortunate. And, he has apologized, on television. However, according the the former mainstream media, and the Democrats, pratically the same entities, this is the biggest scandal since Abu Gharib.

We all in our lives do create unfortunate incidents to people. For example, when I was 19, I went 60 mph on the ice and hit someone. A couple of days later, she blamed her carpal tunel syndrome on the accident. Having handled these claims for almost a decade, I now believe that she was probably lying about a prior condition (her husband was a body shop owner). My insurance company at the time probably did not do much of an investigation and coughed up policy limits, as I know that insurance company often does not do good investigations, are adversarial, and if I didn't get sued, which is what happened, then I have basis to believe this is what happened (my brother also had a claim for which he probably wasn't entitled to a BI settlement, but because they did such a bad investigation he got something). This is not the forum today for this, but I will probably write about bad insurance companies some day (I do admit, though, that they insurance company for whom I work is a good one and deals with claimants and insureds fairly).

Yes, he had consumed one beer prior to pulling the trigger - during lunch. While it is considered irresponsible today to consume alcohol prior to using firearms, he may have done this many times before without mishaps. One beer, to an experienced drinker (who is nowhere near a drunkard) will have little to no affect on their cognitive abilities or motor skills - especially consumed over a meal, which often takes a while to consume. And, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Americans had consumed so much alcohol, every day, before going out for their days' duties, that their BAL's probably were around the range that would get you a DUI today, had they been operating automobiles (based upon the average yearly alcohol consumption with the statistics that have been compiled by historians). And in the 18th century, they were using .70 caliber weapons, with no orange jackets - and with no mishaps. Go figure.

Not only has Cheney apologized, but the affected hunter has forgiven him for this incident. According to Harry Whittington, the victim, "My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with." Not only that, but "We all assume certain risks in what we do, in what activities we pursue...Accidents do and will happen."

So what would the average American think? My guess is, "Well, this if unfortunate, and it's too bad that he had not rushed to come out. However, I have more important things to think about. So how aboutr more education funding (or more free Medicare prescriptions)?"

So this should be over, right?

Noooooooo!!!!

The Democrats, and the old media, want to continue on with this. They think that they have finally found the silver bullet, if you can forgive the pun, that will bring down the Bush administration. And they can finally impeach him. Someday I will write a piece about impeachment, and I will say, "Bring it on!"

They fail to see that this is really no big deal, despite the fact that accidents happen, that this is an activity that many Americans (and in the critical states of the midwest) engage in, that there is an apology and forgiveness,because they are so driven by ideological hatred that they fail to perceive this fact. Here are the reasons:

1) It is the Bush administration. George Bush is the most evilest person in the whole wide universe. If they did not have to dress up their language, they would probably put it this way. They may want to believe that it is he who pulled the trigger, even though this is impossible, given he was nowhere near the scene.

2) Dick Cheney is the dark mastermind behind the whole Bush administration. Mr. Cheney, Halliburton, and the Neo-Cons are plotting to take over the world. Soif he has an accident, it was not a mistake, but some kind of devious plot.

3) It was in Texas. Texas is the state that is the biggest threat to the entire world. And it is full of cowboys! No cowboys are ever to be let anywhere near the levers of power. Because they are a wild bunch, unlike the socially responsible individuals who live in Cambridge, or on Manhatten. I think that even Lynden Johnson, despite his paronoia, may be somewhat right in this regard.

4) It involved a gun. Guns are bad. People who ever even dream of touching one should be incarcerated. Anything involving a gun is automatically wrong - which is why cops and soldiers are bad people, too.
Of this, it was their pathological blindness that guns are bad that attempting to make gun control an issue in 2000 is the reason why W is even sitting in the White House today (along with Elian). Had gun control not been an issue, Al Gore probably would have won West Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, and maybe Arkansas. I know many Democrat men who voted for W over this one issue - despite the fact that he campaigned little on this platform, if any. By not focusing on gun control, those four states would have put him way over the top, if not for other states, for those who support gun rights do so much more intensly than those who support gun control. So this gives an idea of the mentality of the left when it comes to guns.

I have an idea about how obsessed the left is about this incident. I work with many of these individuals, and many rational adults suddenly act like little children over an incident that, to quote Shakespear, is really "much ado about nothing." So now Time and Newsweek will cover this as a front page story. Of course, both newsmagazines are purchased today largely by leftists, because the middle of American politics has since given up on them (and of course we conservatives don't buy them, but I do read the copies that are in the lobby at work). In the meantime, they will ignore addressing the real issues that the swing voters are concerned about, which determine elections.

Happy President's Day! My list of Bad Presidents!

For some reason, I have always had a fascination with Presidential history. I like what happened, the quirks, the personalities, and other stuff. For example, did you know that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were distant cousins? And, did you know that the Adams family has not two presidents, but three? (Calvin Coolidge was descended from Henry Adams, the Adams whom the rest of the family is based off of). As such, I will try to write about it when I can.

Originally Monday was "George Washington's Birthday." However, as Pat Buchannan said (ok, not a legitimate source for many of you, but a perceptive comment, in any case), we now get to devote the day to great Presidents like Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt, but also to the incompetents and also-rans like Buchanan, Truman, Arthur, Taft, and Ford.

As such, rather than celebrate great presidents, I will take today to list the failures.

To do so, one needs to have a historical perspective, and remove all partisan thoughts from your head. As such, although I am a Republican, I do not consider Bill Clinton to be a bad president. He was an administrator. He really did not do any long-term harm - but thanks to a Republican Congress who could prevent Democrat initiatives from going forward. Yes, I did oppose his health care initiative, his attempts at gun control, his tax increases, and other Democrat initiatives. But, really, did he really do anything during his term? Not really. There was really nothing significant to get done. And sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action. As a result, we had a prosperous decade.

Yes, he did start to get world opinion angry at us when he bombed Serbia. And, he didn't do anything to stop terrorism. But really, it did not appear as a problem ten years ago. Plus, the person most responsible for 9-11 isn't Clinton, nor is it W, but it is a Senator from Idaho who was voted out of office in 1980 - Senator Church, who created the initiatives to create the legal climate that would prevent intelligence gathering efforts to occur in the United States that would have prevented 9-11 long before it happened.

So, what are the criteria I use to rate a bad president? There are two. The person must either be incompetent, or must be tarnished by scandal that affects the public interest. Getting blow jobs in the Oval Office by interns does not count as such.

I have a list of 11 presidents. From beginning to end, here they are:

1) Fillmore. Here is a man, under whom, the Compromise of 1850 passed. As a result, both sides of the irrepressible conflict were pissed. The south had an extra free state to contend with, and a reduced Texas, while the North had to go catch fugitive slaves.
At that time, fire eaters and militant abolishments were demanding that their views be implemented. The fire eaters were about to turn the US into an imperialistic slave power, while the abolishments were intent on going to war to free the slaves. And, both sides had their representatives in the Senate. Today's Senate has no such extremists - it's as if Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson, and Michael Savage had dominant roles on the Senate floor.
The president should have vetoed this legislation, used all his ability to find common ground, and go from there. Instead he signed it. As a result, the seeds of the Civil War took root.

2) Pierce. Here was a man who was such a bad administrator, his party did not renominate him. This is the only time this has really happened. Rather than calm down the extremists, he only added fuel to the fire by caving in to southern demands. And when one member of his party from Illinois attempted to create Kansas-Nebraska, for mercantilist purposes, that made things worse, and led to a new party, controlled largely by abolitionsists. So more fuel was added to the fire.

3) Buchanan. Rather than use his diplomatic skills to calm the situation down, he did just about the worst thing one can do when extremists take over the political debate - nothing. And, he was spineless, too. Such as when South Carolina seceeded, he did not send troops down there immediately, like he should have done, but sat back and let other states seceed, too. Andrew Jackson was able to accomplish much more with a little bit of rhetoric. Now, I sympathize with some of the Confederate viewpoints (and no, I don't sympathize with the slavery/racist componnents of this society), but if someone is threatening to break apart a society, you use force - plain and simple. Instead, he left a mess for his successor, resulting in 600,000 troops dead - and who knows how many civilians.

4) Andrew Johnson - Just as the country needed to heal, it needed a leader with strong political skills to guide it. Andrew Johnson was the wrong man, and being so, very nearly got removed from office.
Andrew Johnson was from the seceeded region, hence probably the worst person to pick as a running mate. And, he was full of class envy. From reading Schlessinger's book, he appears to be very nearly a quasi-Marxist - the only such President in American history. So anything would piss him off.
Especially two jackasses in Congress by the names of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, who wanted to shove their version of Reconstruction down America's throat.
So the Marxist was the more moderate of the two parties. Now, Lincoln had a more moderate view of Reconstruction, and could have dealt with the extremists in Congress with much more skill. But he was shot, and you had this person with an anger-management problem running things. He would veto, and Congress would pass over his veto. In the end, Congress won - except that the President survived impeachment by one vote.
So what was the result? After the troops left the south, we had almost one century of Jim Crow laws to get back at African Americans (although it was the wrong focus - they had nothing to do with Reconstruction policies). And, because the economy of the south was not allowed to revive after such a nasty war, you had an impoverished region, resulting in populist politicians who in the next generation would start to launch the effort to things like wealth redistributionist schemes, and even bigger government. And finally, once Jim Crow was dumped, you had a large African-American element in this country, with a lot of clout, who was pissed off and would practically prevent members of their own race from fully joining the mainstream of American society - unlike Asian Americans, or even immigrants from Africa!
Quite an accomplishment for a tailor like him, huh?

5) Grant. He added fuel to Johnson's fire. But, he really did not do anything.
Instead, he let corrupt cronies take over the country. Instead, he preferred to sit around and drink all the time.
As a result, he was unable to provide the leadership to deal with two of the big issues of the time - that of Reconstruction, and that of corporate welfare. While he did try to prevent racist terrorists in the south (known as the Ku Klux Klan) from taking over the place, he was unable to quell the discontent down there. And, by being tricked by a couple of financiers, he led to one of the biggest financial panics in American history. Maybe he was spending too much time trying to cover up for cronies? Who knows!

6) Harding. Fortunately, American got a break of over 40 years without a bad president. Unfortunately, scandals would come again into play.
Three of Hardings appointees were in some way using their influence for financial gain. As a result, at the end of his term, his administration would be in disrepute. Such that it would take his successor time to deal with them - and then, his successor could not have his own real term (despite having some great ideas).
While I don't feel like hashing things over here, I will explain how this lead to a bad situation. In the 1920's, a bunch of left-wing senators, known as the "Farm Bloc," attempted to get government involved in a myriad of enterprises, specifically, electric power generation, and crop subsidies. Had the Republicans had the political goodwill that would not have existed from those scandals, they could have nipped these bozos in the bud and buried all this away before the Great Depression made them institutions. But they didn't. And now, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

7) Hoover. Some historians have some sympathies toward Hoover, stating that he did not cause the Great Depression. While he himself did not cause the economic downturn, he certainly made it much, much worse, and turned a depression (as they called a recession then) into a truly Great Depression.
Since it delves into everyones ideological beliefs about economics, there is a myriad of disputes on what caused the Depression. Even Bernard Bernanke makes the Great Depression a hobby - he is trying to figure out what truly happened. I think that there was an underlying change in our national economy during the 1910's and 1920's, and the wrong actions were applied that exacerbated it.
But, people generally knew what was happening. Like the most prominent economists in America. They urged Herbert Hoover to veto the tariff bill - which he signed anyway. Resulting in higher prices at home, and retalitory policies abroad. And a worse depression.
Herbert certainly was not a cheerleader, and his insistence on talking about the depression certainly led to a loss of economic confidence - which is what economies require to run. As well as not vetoing a tax increase bill - even true Keynesian economists argue against tax increases in economic downturns.
As such, Herbert Hoover is responsible for one of the biggest catastrophies in American history.

8) Lynden Johnson. This does not appear on most historians lists. Yet. But he rates as one of the worst, for two reasons.
First, the Great Society. While government was largely in check (despite the New Deal) before his term, after his term, government got so big, and beyond it's traditional functions, that it was unable to check it's operations. I mean, can you name all federal agencies? I can't. And I'm a very near political junkie.
Because he insisted on pushing forward with all his programs, without any tax increases (when we could have afforded them the most, during the late 1960's), this started the awful 1970's economic situation known as stagflation. According to one author, this had to do more with his manic depressive mental illness more than anything.
On top of this, was the Vietnam war. He insisted on conducting it himself, with draftees, without a clear explanation as to why we were there. The issue was quite obvious - communism - but we didn't fight it like a war, made the North Vietnamese mad, as well as the rest of the world, and a bunch of brats on college campuses who had a deathly fear of being drafted. So they created chaos, and ultimately took over much of the cultural infrastructure within the next two decades. And war spending led to more inflation, too.
Lynden Johnson had the fodder to have lots of scandal - he was a heavy drinking, corrupt womanizer - but the press did not delve into those things in those days. So we find out about the activities of such characters as Wilbur Mills and Warren Magnussen - and Lynden Johnson - a generation later.
Lynden Johnson's problem wasn't incompetence, it was the fact he was far too competent, in terms of political skills, to make all that policy.

9) Nixon. Richard Nixon was essentially Johnson-lite. And he may have ended up in the same course as the other Johnson.
There are stories of Nixon being too drunk to conduct his office - like Lynden Johnson. And while he did not sleep with oodles of women, like Lynden Johnson, he did engage in some extracurricular activites - if we are to believe Zsa Zsa Gabor. He was financially corrupt, like Lynden Johnson. And he was willing to use dirty tricks - like Lynden Johnson. Unlike Lynden Johnson, these would cost him his office.
It was during his term that several new government programs were enacted - which could have been vetoed. And he did end the Vietnam war, and reopen China (ultimately to capitalism, no less!). But due to his scandals, he led to a loss of national confidence.
And international confidence, too. After he was forced from office, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and took it over. No help was forthcoming. Nor did this help in Cambodia, where over 10% of the population was wiped out because of this vacuum. And, this led to a loss of confidence in some of our allies, too.

10) Ford. This is a man who took over from the Nixon mess. And this man was as big a bumbler as they made him on Saturday Night Live.
For one, he could not stop any of the loss of confidence in the United States. Secondly, he failed to deal with the stagflation issue of the 1970's, which lead to further loss of confidence. And during his term, the Soviets got away with almost anything they wanted. We were on our way to becoming a second-rate power.
One historian noted that while he was competent (as if!!!) he was a Ford, not a Lincoln. That explains things a bit better.
As long as we are bashing him, there is a skeleton in his past that no one talks about. Remember America First? Well, he was one of those who was behind the movement, if the book "Lindbergh" is to be believed. So doesn't he owe millions of Jews an apology?
In any case, he almost lost the nomination, except for some chichanery on the part of his team. But this bumbler almost won the election, too!

11) Carter. For someone so fresh and clean at the time, he barely beat out an incompetent. And he himself was even more incompetent!
Carter won largely on the Dixie vote. This was the last time the solid south would deliver the Presidency to a Democrat. This was largely a myth anyway, as it only made a difference in three contests (Cleveland in 1884, Wilson in 1916, and Carter in 1976). And since then, it delivered made the difference for a Republican, twice. By this time, the south had shown it would defect to a Republican, as it had done so in 1964.
Southerners were excited about having a deep Southerner in the White House for the first time - ever! So they were enthuaised about his candidacy. However, they would find out what a bad bargain they got, and turn against him in the next election. After Bill Clinton's term, it is probable that the South will not vote in any quantity for a Democrat Presidential candidate for the rest of my life.
Jimmy Carter was a disaster in that he not only failed to control the economy, but he also failed to control the Soviets. And his insistence on lecturing our allies - no matter how odious - about human rights abuses led to their downfall - like Iran, resulting in those hostages. And some of our "allies" would not sell us oil at reasonable prices, resulting in more gas lines. Of course this happened under Nixon, too, but I have already rated him as a bad president. How about the current mess in the Middle East? It was Carter who led to the downfall of the Shah - and the raising of the consciousness of Islamofascism. And all that regulation which needed revamping, to revive our economy, was not (except for airlines).
Basically, life sucked in the 1970's because of these three.
Of course, Carter lost in an electoral landslide in 1980, and Reagan undid some of the policies of the four previous administrations. However, there is only so much a president can do, so the Great Society unfortunately remains intact, and Islamofascism is stronger than ever.

So, here is an assessment of not the good, but the bad and the ugly. Happy President's Day!

Chinese Democracy

No, this is not a post about the politics (for once), it is about a so-called album put out by a so-called band.

Appropriately named, too, since it probably never will occur.

Now, many of you, like I, were fans of Guns-N-Roses. Their first album, "Appetite for Destruction" featured a bluesy-type form of anti-authoritarian music that appealed to any 17 year old teenage male. Like me. Furthermore, it may have been the album that launched the change in taste from hair bands to "punk" (or, actually, grunge). You think that the kids of the 1980's were going to switch to Nirvana from REM (yecch!!!) Guns and Roses, despite having only one great, and two ok, albums, was truly a titan for that era.

That is one of those nearly sacrosanct albums where only a certain group of people can recall the truly great songs of it. Sure it is remembered for "Jungle," "Paradise City" and "Sweet Child," but those who were of the age group to whom it was devoted had as their favorite songs "Night Train" and Rocket Queen," especially the second part.

And they put out two more albums, "Lies" and "Use Your Illusion" (I & II). Then all the members left the group, except for Axl, and he decided to create his own album, with a whole new group of musicians.

There are some problems, however. First, much as he would like to make it appear, Axl is not akin to Jim Morrison. Like David Lee Roth, he could have easily been replaced and the band would have remained successful (if it remained true to the sound of "Appetite").

Here is another problem. Only one rock band has successfully put out an album approximately once a decade and gotten away with it - for a while. That band, Boston, succeeded largely because it made it's music while rock n roll was still the dominant music of the high schools. Today, of course, that is not the case, and they are at least 50, so it really cannot succeed. See my earlier post on the Stones.

While Axl has been busy shooting up smack - or consuming meth, if we are to believe the white-trash persona that this band presented - there has been a big change in the taste of music. Today, for high school kids (those who do most of the consuming of pop music) it's either Konaye West, Kelly Clarkson, or for those who do not like contemporary music, it's the country bands, that they listen to. It is my impression that if kids like rock, they tend toward contemporary metal, which consists not only of loud guitars, but apparently, the same singer on every song, regardless of band, who sounds like he is consistently attempting to throw up, in a bad attempt to mimic Pantera's 1988 "Cemetary Gates."

In the meantime, he takes a long time to write, maybe, ten songs. And I have heard some of them. One I heard tonight, "IRS," sounds awful. I have no idea what the lyrics say - those who are into rock rarely listen to lyrics. The callers all mentioned that they hated it - just like the other stuff that has come out. Only that it sounds nothing like "Appetite."

At the same time, his original audience has left high school, started careers, families, and lives. They do not follow bands - unless they are single and spend time writing sarcastic comments in blogs. Sure, we still like rock, but we want to buy good stuff.

And, downloads have changed the picture, too. Even if you are honest, albums are obsolete - you can download the songs individually and pay whatever fee is charged. Unless the album is chock full of good music, has no filler, and will be cheaper and a better value than downloading all those songs.

The lesson? The audience for this band - whose prominence only really lasted 3-4 years - will not buy this crap. Because they have better things to do with their money.

I do have a suggestion, however, if Axl really wants to sell records. He can think (if he is not so drug addled) and try to figure out the spirit, and sound, behind "Appetite" Then write many, many, songs. These are not really that hard to put together.

Then, do test marketing. Here's a clue. Stay away from Los Angeles, New York, Seattle. The audience is not located here.

Instead, this was really a heartland band - despite coming from Los Angeles. If the heartland is not listening to stuff from Nashville, it is listening to rock.

Thus, you need to go to the heartland. I suggest test marketing the album in places like Fresno, Cleveland, Indianopolis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Mobile, Minneapolis. Even Nashville! Then you will find what your audience, people of my age, will buy.

I can then guarantee a level of success, as many relatively young adult men will wish to re-live their youth.

Jimmae!!!

"Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself, "Lillian, you should have remained a virgin."

Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter)

After leaving office, Jimmy Carter, one of America's worst presidents (speaking as an amatuer presidential historian, not a partisan hack) was highly regarded as one of America's greatest ex-presidents. And up until about a decade ago, he worked hard to earn that designation. Here is someone who spent a great portion of his time working with Habitat for Humanity to be sure that low income individuals received decent, affordable housing. He went abroad to supervise elections (too bad he never came to Washington State!) He writes historical novels about the Revolutionary War period so people can have a greater understanding of that time.

However, under the auspices of "concern," he has become, once again a partisan hack. So while Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have largely, imperfectly, kept up the respect of the Presidency, Carter is now going over the edge. So once again it is open season!

Recently, at the funeral of Coretta Scott King, according to Drudge (which you might not think of as a credible source, although if you believe he is wrong, you can try to dispute the facts as well as the context) said, "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

Yes, it was wrong to wiretap somewho who advocated peaceful change. However, the pendulum has gone too far the other way so that law enforcement cannot do it's job. For example, take 9-11. Carter seems to lack judgement when it comes to these matters. In fact, Carter seems to lack a lot of judgement altogether, which is why America was such a mess after one term of office, leading to his defeat in the landslide in 1980.

This is a man who had "adultery in my heart" as he admitted in 1976 to Playboy. Listen, if you're gonna sin, instead of being a dork, why not go all the way? Go tell your spouse that you have feelings for some other chick and see what happens (by admitting it to a dirty magazine, it becomes public knowledge) - almost as bad as being found in flagrente delicto. Not that I advocate adultery, but don't say such things (of course this was during a presidential campaign, but still).

Here is a man, who, sticks tried and true with the Southern Baptist church during the period when it was essentially one of the chief defenders of segregation, despite no real Biblical basis for it's position. However, when it changes it's political focus, and takes it's position on issues for which there is a clear Biblical basis, then he calls it "intolerant." Yes, one can pick anything out of the Bible to support almost any position, but you sometimes have to stretch things. However, when the Bible again and again condemns a certain behaviour as sinful, and does so quite directly, then it's kinda hard to take a theological position arguing against it. Not that I am really hot-to-trot on this issue, but I find it silly that people try to defend certain behaviours by ignoring, or even lying about, Biblical positions.

And, he even used race baiting in his 1970 election to the governorship of Georgia. At that time, Georgia still voted Democrat, so whoever won that nomination, won the election. So what did Jimmae do to win the nomination? He distributed pictures of his opponent being around African Americans - thus winning the election. A man of real integrity would never sink to this depth.

And, then there is his term of office. For which there is a lot of history, which we need not painfully go over.

Jimmy Carter has abused his position as ex-President to push a partisan agenda. While all ex-Presidents have a duty to support their party, there is a fine line between promoting your party, and promoting national unity. Since he has little judgement, he cannot find this line, and has gone way beyond it.

This man had a chance, like Nixon, to restore himself to the good graces of the American people after his failed term of office. Instead, this oaf has once again become a national embarassment.

An independent investigation most Americans can support

As a Seattleite, somewhat, I tend to like my team to win. I, however, can take defeat - if it is clear that my team lost.

However, on Sunday, that was clearly not the case. Because of some very, highly, questionable calls, that not only cost some points, and gained some points, but may have broken the Hawks' momentum. So, the cheaters were not the other team, but rather, the twelth man on the other team, who wore jail outfits.

And, a majority of Americans see that the Hawks were clearly cheated out of a fair game, if not victory.

Yes, they didn't play their best, but do you think Pittsburgh really played that well, too? Either team could have won, but now, we will never know.

What I do see, however, is a potential for a federal investigation.

Now, one may ask, why should there be a federal investigation of a frivolous game? Well, because, I believe that we need to see whether racketering is involved or not. I actually went to the NFL website, to write the Commissioner, and there is no contact info!

To make such asinine calls, repeatedly, it clearly looks like a conspiracy, which is what the east coast sports establishment believes is not the case (but they hate anything on the west coast, except if it's in southern California). And for what reason would there be such a conspiracy? How about because someone has some money to make on the side, illegally, either in Vegas, or increased merchandising sales?

Now, this may not be the case. Maybe all the refs took some really good stuff before the game - if they did, I want to know what it was, and, where I can get some. That is the only other reason I can think of such absurd judgements.

In any case, there is a legitimate case for a federal investigation, even for someone who is a constitutionalist like me. While I am of course not an attorney, and my theory may be full of holes, I have a basis for it. Because the NFL is a nationwide organization, it clearly falls under federal jurisdiction. And stacking the deck when you control the cards and have a financial incentive to do so, if not racketering, is probably something else criminal.

There are petitions to sign out there demanding that something be done about this. I am too chicken to do so, but how about one to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for a criminal investigation into this? There is something funny here, and I think this is one most Democrats, Republicans, and independents can get behind.