What is wrong with our marriage customs

I will tell a story about my family.

My paternal grandmother married my paternal grandfather, I think, in 1938. However, he died in 1946 due to brain injuries. He was a high school football star - the quarterback - in the late 1920's, when helmets were not that good. He was so good that he was drafted by Wazzu to play for them - right after they played in the Rose Bowl - they lost, have not won it since, and given that it was the year when the Depression started screwing everything up, they need to win another Rose Bowl (which hopefully will be the National Championship) before America gets truly straightened up again. But I digress. With a brain injury, he certainly was on par intellectually with any Wazzu student. But he couldn't go. That is because this above-mentioned Depression came into play, and he had to work to support the family. Sometime between marriage and death, my dad was born, and eventually I came into play. But that was far into the future.

Thus, I never met my natural grandfather. And my dad barely knew him. And my grandmother barely speaks of him. I think I inherited his looks, his strength, but unfortunately, not his athletic ability. Fortunately, however, I did not inherit his low intelligence, either, as evidenced by his choice of college.

However, I do remember the person who my grandmother remarried in 1947 - the person I did call grandpa. And I remember him, a bit. All I pretty much remember is that he was a quiet person, but that is probably because he was old. He was a recovered drunkard, so he probably was a more gregarious person earlier in life, as all drunkards are (and amazingly, unlike most recovering drunkards, he could drink socially - my grandmother did have an ability to make sure it didn't get out of hand). He didn't go to college, and didn't even graduate from high school. Which means he was at least the intellectual equilivent of my grandmother's first husband, who was supposed to go to Wazzu. Should he had graduated, he would have done so in 1921, for which society changed a lot in those nine years (those high school graduates had jobs and fun, while those who graduated in 1930 couldn't find any jobs and had to go to boring communist marches).

My maternal grandmother did not graduate from high school, either. So he was also at least intellectually equal to my paternal natural grandfather, who was supposed to go to Wazzu. But both grandfathers, whom I knew, did have some things in common. For one, they both voted Democrat (although my paternal grandfather may have become a Reagan Democrat). Both were high school dropouts, as noted above (but for someone becoming an adult in the 1920's, it was not something that a stigma was attached to). Both were truck drivers. And both were Teamsters. And, the Teamsters played inportant roles in the life of each. My maternal grandfather became a business agent for them. My paternal grandfather left Seattle for eight years to get away from Dave Beck, the head of the Seattle Teamsters. Indeed, they may have met each other at union meetings in the 1930's or 1940's, not knowing they would someday have something in common - mainly, me.

Well, enough of that. My paternal grandfather died in 1979, and my maternal grandfather died in 1991. My maternal grandmother died in 2002. My maternal grandmother is still living.

Now, something about ages. My paternal grandfather was born in 1903. My paternal grandmother was born in 1913. My maternal grandfather was born in 1912. My maternal grandmother was born at the very end of 1919.

Both grandfathers married younger women. One by seven years, one by ten years. My maternal grandfather and my maternal grandmother died at relatively close ages - 79 years and 82 years, respectively. My paternal grandfather and paternal grandmother will have very different death dates - 76, and, well, my maternal grandmother is 93.

Now, lets put some things into perspective. When my paternal grandfather died in June 1979, here is what the world looked like. The Soviet Union was on the aggression; it looked like they were in their glory years (they weren't, but we need to put things into the perspective of the time). There had been a revolution in Iran, but not being a major country, it really did not have any significance. When people needed to write a letter, they used paper - and a stamp. But it was much cheaper to do this than make a long-distance call. And speaking of phone calls, if a person was not at home, any you needed to reach them right away, you could not do so. Indeed, if you were not home, you would have to find a public phone, have their number, and make a call. You also had to do all your shopping by going to the stores. Getting information, you had to either go to a library, or wait for the newspaper to arrive - for which the news would be old. To watch a movie, you had to either go to a theater, or you had to wait for one of the three major networks to have a "world premier" - which would be edited out. And most homes had only one color tv set - they were still quite expensive. Music only came on vinyl, which melted and scratched. And you had to go to a store to buy it. Yes, there was a cultural revolution within the previous 13 years, but if you were born in 1903, the only people it touched were the wierdos. If you wanted to publish something, your only chance was to hope a newspaper editor published your "letter to the editor." Anything you wrote down was usually by hand, in a book - no one had access to your private thoughts. Yes, it was the size of a blackberry, but it wasn't exactly wired. If you needed to do a report at work, if you had a white collar job, your letter had better be accurate the first time - as it needed to be redone if horrid (by your secretary), or have ugly blotches of white-out on it. And forget about mass-production of material at home. If you got home late for dinner, of if you were single - you ate it cold. Indeed, the amount of home appliances was much less, and life was not so easy.

On the plus side, most people had electric can openers, which few people have today (instead, we use manual can openers).

And, I haven't even mentioned all those cultural changes.

And there are much, much more different. As you can see, there has been a tremendous change in our lifestyles over the past 30 years. The Soviet Union is gone, the international threat started in Iran. We have computers, word processing, cell phones, internet, email, blogs, cable tv, mp3's, cd's, ipods, laptops, more labor saving kitchen devices (microwaves, quisinarts, roaster ovens, rice steamers, George Foreman grilles, and whatever other newfangled devices you find today at BedBath&Beyond). The VCR did get cheap enough for everyone to buy - but it is now obsolete. The cultural revolution of the 1960's has come to nearly everyone. As a result of all this, lifestyles today are very different than those of 30 years ago. Indeed, the lifestyles of today are more different from me and an adult who lived in 1979 than an adult who lived in 1979 and an adult who lived in 1925 (the only significant difference being television).

Indeed, even those who chose to ignore all those technological changes (and denounce the cultural changes) are still affected by them. Like my grandmother. Not only has she been widowed for almost 30 years, she has entered a whole new era without a spouse.

Indeed, the last time the big changes happened was between my grandfather's birth and her birth. And those may have been significant enough changes to affect longevitity for those who live longer. What do I mean? Well, there were significant changes in health standards during the early decades of the 20th century where people became more healthy the later they were born. For one thing, people had a better understanding of nutrition. For another thing, people got some more innoculations. Those incremental differences may have strengthened certain parts of the body, making them, essentially, last longer. Thus, people last longer. And this is even if a person does not seek medical attention until age 70. Indeed, an average person born in 1913 might not have any need to see a doctor until age 70, while an average person born in 1903 may have significant health problems by age 70, and they might have a better chance of death even with every single medical option available to them.

And I forgot to mention, that, my grandmother was a nurse. And a health nut (what would have constituted one for her time, in any case). So she knew what to do to make herself healthy.

So lets do some math. American custom permits a man to marry a woman ten years his junior (but not vise-versa). So she has ten years automatically to live without him. And then there is life expectancy. Women outlive men by ten years. So that is another ten years.

Then, there are the medical advances. First, those medical/health advances that not only prolong life, but may make a person who is widowed 20 years less susceptible to life-threatening illnesses. And 20 years is a long time. That allows for lots of medical advances to be made. So they get an even longer lease on life.

Thus, there is nothing unusual when a woman outlives her spouse by a quarter century. And much of her life is spent without him. Which is tragic, given that we are supposed to spend most of our post-wedding life with our spouses. Even more tragic when she has to adapt to all those changes without him. So life becomes harder for her in this manner.

Instead, hubby gets stuck in a graveyard for a long time without wifey. And my grandmother got a plot between both her husbands! Think about that - they have to spend three decades putting up with one another. They probably are really pissed at her by now. Indeed, my dim-witted first grandfather, the one who was supposed to go to Wazzu, has spent almost as long in death with my grandmother's second husband as he spent living (27 years vs 33 years, respectively).

Now, there is a differences in marriage ages, partly due to the fact that women mature at earlier ages than men. Which may explain their longer life spans (they are less likely to do stupid, unhealthy things at 21 than their male peers). But clearly, society needs to change the custom that it is acceptible for older men to marry much younger women. It not only leaves for long widowhoods, it also may cost society more financially.

Now, I kinda do wish that my paternal grandfather did live somewhat longer - like five years, when I would have been old enough to do "manly" stuff with him. After all, we both are NRA members - my dad was never 0ne - which explains very different reasons why we joined. He joined because he like to hunt dangerous furry mammals, when the need arose (this was before the threat of gun control). I joined because I want to make sure I have the right to hunt not-so-hairy dangerous mammals, known as tyrannical government officials, should the need arise. But I disgress, yet again. Indeed, I still have his favorite chair, and choose to get it reupholstered after my cats destroyed it, because, well, it's his. But that is outside the thread of this post, and shall be noted at a later time.

My thoughts on the recent OPEC action

Well, it seems that the OPEC ministers are getting greedy again!

Not content with the price of oil, they decided to half production to keep the price above $60.00/barrell. I should maybe say that again. Deciding they want Democrats to win in November, they are trying to keep the price above $60.00/barrell. In any case, they have 1 1/2 weeks to see if this translates into the price at the pump - surprisingly, in my area, gas prices keep going down.

Oil is increasingly becoming like salt. At one time, salt was an important, costly commodity. That is, until refrigeration came along and you didn't need to salt every food item to preserve it (hence, we think lutefisk is yucky). And, around the same time, geologists discovered lots and lots of places to find salt. So whereas before you had lots of demand and little supply, the equation flipped you you had lots of supply and little demand. And the price dropped. This explains why you can have experimental cars drive all over salt flats in Utah without concern. It also explains why, today, salt is nothing more than a spice. With it being, like, $.99 per container (if that), the average American, at $42,0000, spends about 1/21000 of their salary per year on it. I.e., it is now a nominal spending item.

Same with oil. Although not so extreme. First, the demand side. With such high prices, people are switching to highbrids. Although you can get similar mileage with Marvel Mystery Oil, people are going toward partial electric, partial gasoline vehicles. Which means that the longer the price of gasoline stays as high as it is, more such cars will be developed. And as more such cars are developed, the ability to produce them goes down. Which means they get cheaper. Which means that not only will rich, elite leftists be the ones driving them, but not so affluent leftists will be driving them as well. If the price keeps falling, more normal people will purchase them, too, to save money.

Now, the price of oil will continue to stay high. Why? China is industrializing. They want oil to fund their economy. And not only is China gobbling up oil, but China is also looking for more fields, and doing some drilling itself.

Currently, with the current trends of consumption, it is believed that there is enough oil to last 200 years. That does not include the oil that has been found yet. For example, how much oil is there, in say, Anarctica?

Now, while you might argue that it is very expensive to drill there, you might be right. Oil is best extracted when drilled, not mined. Like what they do in northern Canada, in the Athabaskan oil sands. And it is more expensive to mine and process it.

However, there are now technologies to extract it that cost $15.00/barrell. And what is the current price? Even if we double the total cost of production to $30.00/barrell, including such things like bureaucracy, shipping costs, taxes, developing "high end" convenient stores (so why exactly did Chevron need to develop the "Extra Mile" concept anyway? It's just a gas station), executive bonuses, executive "retreats" to Amsterdam, and the like, that still leave a net profit anywhere from $20.00/barrell - $30.00/barrell. You are still in the range of "obscene profits."

And what does "obscene profits" do? Well, it invites competition!

And I only have talked about Canadian oil mining. I haven't even mentioned that stuff stuck in the permafrost that is east of the Urals. To compare how much is there, if Saudi Arabia's reserve of oil were equilivent to an airline bottle, Russia's reserve of oil would be equilivent to a keg. While there is added costs in additional "administrative fees" and "protection money," there is some infrastructure there, and wages are lower. The dumb kids in Russia study mining, not computer science or business (I know - I went to school with some of them at the leading mining school in Russia), so the amount it costs to pay them is lower. So that factor is lower. Yet, over all, there is still room in the price to generate some, but lesser, "obscene profits." ANd yes, there are other places that have oil - and places that haven't even been explored yet (or even thought of being explored yet).

And I forgot to mention that technology improves. When there is pressure on the price, there is pressure not only to try to cut wages, but also to develop more technologically efficient methods of extraction. The latter is often easier than the former. And, the latter is permanent. In any case, oil executives, not being stupid (as one can tell by their salaries), always look for ways to cut technological costs. Because even if profits are high, they know there will be competition, so they want to make production cheaper to keep the profits up - and maybe to keep the competition out for a while, by using lower cost to cut the cost per barrell (and start-up costs are too high compared to profits to enter).

So what is the moral of the story? All the kooks and nuts over at OPEC better watch themselves. Not only should they enforce a minimum price, but they need to enfore a maximum price, too - although there is only so much oil you can pump out of the ground at one time. For if they get too greedy, they will ultimately cut their own throats. That is the wondrous lesson of capitalism, and markets. And, maybe, there will not be any more money for terrorists to blow up things.

Rock and Roll is Dead

Today, in an interview, Sting, age 55, said that there were no interesting developments in Rock music within the last 20 years. He claimed it is a bore, it is not moving forward, and he prefers the songs of an English lutenist.

I will go ahead and dissect this.

First, Rock and Roll is dead. It has been since Kurt Cobain died. At least, in terms of the dominant music force in western societies. When the White Stripes get serious airtime, that finally indicates that the final nail is in the coffin.

That is, if you only look at the charts, and ignore the two most important offshoots rock produced. Yes, both rap and metal are thriving, and developing.

Everyone knows that chart success of rap, hip-hop, or whatever you call it. I don't like it, but I am not so conceited to claim it is "not music." It's just not my taste. But rap started as an offshoot of Rock. Actually, it started as an offshoot of Jamacian music, which is rock based. In any case, it started as a rock genre (actually, if you trace it's roots, it's great grandfather is country music, but that is another story for another time). So while it has moved beyond rock, it is, essentially, a form of rock - which evolved away from it (like rock evolved from blues). I believe that the next great pop music form will come out of the hip hop community. It will not come from Europe, as cultural elites hope for, because Europe is such a stinking, dying, civilization, it is unable to even protect their culture being inundated from Islamocists.

On the opposite extreme, metal is developing it's own path, too. Go onto Wikipedia, and you will find many, many varieties of metal. And it is very, very different than the "heavy metal" of 30 years ago. In fact, I think it would now be appropriate to label 1970's "heavy metal" as "proto-metal" (with the exceptions of maybe Alice Cooper and Black Sabbath, and a few other groups). In fact, you could credibly claim that Aerosmith's "Walk this way" is closer to Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock" than to In Flames' "Take this Life". And not only in time, but in style as well. Yet Aerosmith was once referred to as "Heavy Metal," but you would have to have a good sense of humor to call it that these days.

Indeed, even the "metal" sound changed within bands. This can be evidenced by the cover of the song "Diamonds and Rust" by Judas Priest. The 1977 version sounded like rock, and had what appears to be obscure chords. At that time, Priest was a relatively obscure "Heavy Metal" band. When they did the song in concert 11 years later, it was a much different song - it sounded more in line with Priests' power guitar sound (and in my opinion, much better than the 1977 version). Even Maiden changed their sound between 1979 - when they opened for KISS - and 1983 - when "Number of the Beast" came out. Of course, for anyone who knows anything about metal - and I mean anything - putting Maiden together with KISS appears to make much sense as when Hendrix opened for the Monkees in 1977. Yet, we must make sense of things as how people at the time saw things. In 1979, heavy metal had not developed very much, and such a tour did make aesthic sense.

Yet, music critics have constantly denounced metal, even the proto-metal that was produced when I was born. That is because Heavy Metal has always been the genre of lower middle class white people. And music critics never come out of the lower middle class. Actually, they might, but if they do, they go to college, listen to college music, and develop "refinement." They also often take art appreciation courses and think that the disturbing crap produced in the 20th century is actually worth looking at. In otherwords, they undergo aesthetic brainwashing. So they are too "refined" to associate with "them", or their subculture, so anything associated with their upbringing is considered "vulgar," and not only does this include metal, but anything coming from Nashville. Actually, all those who become critics engage in such group think. Thus, a competent, though unimaginative, musical group, like REM, is taken to be on par with Mozart, in their mind. Yes, the Ramones were rated as high as Beethoven by a high school music teacher, but that was in the movie "Rock and Roll High School", a very funny film (I recommend it), and this comment was supposed to be a joke (even by the Ramones themselves).

Of course, that is now someone rendered obsolete with the invention of blogs. Today, one only need a library card to access a computer, and they can set up a blog to evaluate whatever new song is presented within their genre. This is one reason why the elite hates the internet - they no longer have the monopoly to force their propaganda down everyone elses throat.

Now, never mind the fact that some of this Metal is quite complicated to reproduce. Some berate it as "noise", but actually, there is a melodiac componnent to it, thus making it music. It follows the rules of musical theory, so it's music. Yes, you really can't dance to it, but neither can you dance to several other forms of music. Unlike what passes for "art", one can recognize it as "music." Those who denounce it as not being "music" are often obsessive-compulsive narcissists so tied up in their own music that they cannot open their minds to other musical forms (like my socialist, maternal grandmother was when comparing Swing Jazz to any Rock music). Normally, it is not such a big deal, but since religious belief largely disappated in the 20th century occident, something needed to take it's place, and it was the priests who could produce the most identifiable, most portable product - musicians making their product within their genres. WHich is why many a highly trained musician, or musical critic, was unable to rate Metal as anything other than "noise." Or, bad.

Now, musical critics might "appreciate" hip hop. But I question their sincerity. I think they are trying to identify with the oppressed victims in da hood. Whereas da gangsta is only interested in banging the music critic's ho. Or, if the music critic is female, they would probably want to bang that ho herself. Of course, they are too naive to see this, but bohemians have often been the most naive. However, for the most part, the consensus among many in the rock establishment it that rap isn't music.

Especially, for a guy like Sting.

Now, I noted his age at the beginning of this piece. That is important. Musicians often denounce newer forms of music as they themselves get older. That is because they become obsolete. This also explains why musicians hate capitalism - tastes drive what is successful in capitalism, and the history of pop music indicates that musical tastes undergo radical changes about once a decade. Only a few groups (who compete in the pop arena, not your more specialized artists) get to keep reaping huge financial rewards throughout their lifetimes. But that is because the are essentially doing nostalgia tours - middle age adults are not interested in the new stuff. And, they have to reach the pinnacle of the musical hierarchy to do this. That is because they have to develop a brand name that maintains attention in an adult's cluttered life when that adult reaches 40. Thus, only groups like the Beach Boys, the Stones, The Why, The Dead, Kiss, Madonna, Bon Jovi, and Pearl Jam keep packing arenas, while groups like Country Joe, Roxy Music, Cindy Lauper, Warrant, Great White, and some of those forgetable Grunge artists, are now playing bars again. And Sting, too.

Sting, who started with "the Police", (which is an appropriate name for the group, given that that's who should have come into the club where they were playing, bashed their nightsticks against their heads, and hauled them away for 30-40 years - but such concepts like human rights prohibit such wonderful actions from being taken) never reached the pinnacle of punk success. Actually, such a term is contradictory, but he was a highly trained musician who compromised his abilities to get an audience. Which clearly indicates he was never a punk. And it explains his bitterness - as he cannot get any big audiences anymore, why groupies are not banging his door down anymore, and why he cannot sell many records any more. In fact, he is probably secretly bitter that there is not a lot of "sharing" of his material going on, either!

This bitterness thus leads him to denounce contemporary music. Because it is not going his way. Even though he gets on board several environmental causes to get kids to buy his records, this doesn't get them interested. Because - surprise - kids are not interested in the environment anymore, but instead interested in engaging in various immoral acts with the opposite (or the same) sex, or posting whatever on MySpace, or playing with their x-boxes, or whatever newfangled gaming device is out there. So he listens to another dead musical genre - one going back 500 years.

Which is not surprising, given he was classically trained as a musician. So while 500 year old music is something not a lot of people listen to, it is competent music that you would only develop an interest in if you were a classically trained musician. Or if you are some snob who takes up this obscure genre to indicate you are "cultured" when what you are really trying to do is hiding the fact that you have no character, no personality, and no natural ability to discern aesthic qualities. After all, a lute is nothing more than a primitive guitar.

So, due to the fact that he already has tunnel vision when it comes to evaluating contemporary musical trends, it is not surprising for him to claim that music has not moved forward in the last 20 years. Even though someone performs music, that does not give a person competency to evaluate contemporary music. Remember, Tony Bennett still thinks Rock and Roll isn't music - he recently denounced it all (yet again). But then again, he sucks, and still can't get over the fact that Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Gene Vincent, Buddy Holly, and company, basically swept away his chance at success over 1/2 century ago.

Yes, Rock is dead. That is obvious. However, we should not rely on the judgements of some aging, irrelevant celebrity when he says it is a bore. Instead, we should rely on the opinions of someone who has an open mind, and actually has the ability to evaluate the qualities of each band within each genre to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Thoughts on the Election

Well, I'm back - after a haitus.

It looks like, according to conventional wisdom, the good guys will lose the House. And might lose the Senate, too. The Speaker will be someone who represents a bunch of degenerates, and will lead as a degenerate leads.

As yet, however, W and Rove think the Republicans will retain the House. Either they are both very good seers, or very delusional.

In any case, we win. As Harold Ford is running for Senate in Tennessee, there is no chance that Republicans can line up with some moderate Democrats and elect a normal person as Speaker. So a kook will be running things. And as my best unbiased ability, Pelosi is no Gingrich.

For one thing, Gingrich had a vision of what he wanted to do. His famous contract. And he got it passed - in 100 days! This contract actually had some fresh ideas.

So what does Pelosi promote? Old, worn, Democrat ideas. Like tax the rich. Like that is going to end the Iraqi occupation. In any case, W will be using his veto pen a lot, finally. That is, if this stuff gets thru the Senate.

It would not bother me to have the Democrats run the House, in a divided government, but for two things. First, a minor thing. Richard Pombo has a House committee that is holding up the "Big Sky Wilderness" near where I live. I do not like such a thing - it places far, far too many unreasonable restrictions on forest land usage. In fact, it is these very restrictions on wilderness areas that is turning Minnesota away from the Democrats. He himself is working hard to prevent this. However, not only will he lose his committee chair if the Democrats gain the House, there is a good chance he could lose reelection, too.

Then, there is impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee will be run by John Conyers. Who will be running all kinds of investigations into the Iraq war. So he can impeach W. Well, at least make W look so bad as to make America sweep in Democrats in 2008. So that is what I suppose.

Actually, Iraq was liberated because of stuff found in Afghanistan indicating that Saddam was giving WMD's to terrorists. He did, and he used them. We all know that. The big question is where they went. As this is a war on terror, liberating Iraq made perfect sense, as Saddam could have sent these WMDs into America.

That is the only key item of impeachment that will stick with Americans. All that other stuff - the Patriot Act, Gitmo, Halliburton - America, frankly, does not give a rat's ass about. The left thinks so, but then again, ideologues are so blinded they lead their own destruction.

Which is why Slick Willy got impeached over a blow job. The Clinton's managed to pull all kind of manuevers over a four year time period to corner the Republicans into getting Slick Willy impeached over stuff that is quite disgusting, if you can visualize it. Ken Starr could not find any real evidence over Whitewater, or Vince Foster's murder, or, what I was hoping for, all that stuff that allegedly went on in Mena airfield in the 1980's.

But at that time, I was somewhat ideologically blinded. Then again, that can be forgiven for a 20 something. I only half-heartedly supported impeachment. But in the long run, impeachment prevented Clinton from enacting his agenda - and it meant that Algore would not win in 2000 (that does not mean he won't win in 2008). And it meant that my right to own a gun was safe, too. Well, partially, I am in eternal gratitude to a Michigan Democrat, John Dingell, from putting in the item that killed the gun show bill. So he will remain a good guy in my book, despite his refusal to denounce Islamofascists.

This ideological blindness, which is obvious when I oeverhear extreme Democrat partisans, will of course force Democrats to focus entirely on impeachment. And to investigate, investigate, investigate. Well, they have about a year to do so, not four. And, W could learn a lesson or two from Clinton in terms of delay. That will make the Democrats look bad.

By focusing so much attention on impeachment, and not having a real agenda when getting into office, W and Rove can also look to another past Democrat, too. Harry Truman. And there are similarites between the two. The Democrat's slogan this season is "Had Enough?" That was the exact same slogan that the Republicans used in 1946! And the Democrats had such a bum rap that year, that the Republicans got swept into power. But Truman was so good at politics, he won re-election in 1948, and essentially got Democrat control of the House, with two breaks (1946 one of them), until 1994.

Truman's focus in 1948 was the "do-nothing" Congress. Rove should start preparing this label now. Yet, the 1946 Congress probably did more than a Democrat majority will do. Indeed, so much energy will be focused on impeaching a lame duck, that not much more will be accomplished. And impeachment may not even be accomplished. Remember what happened in the year 1998? And one can really pin the label on Congress, and blame it for wasting the American people's time by focusing on impeachment (which will not dredge up too much if delay tactics are used). Which is easy to do, considering Congress always has a lower approval rating than the President.

Remember, too, that even though the Republicans had an agenda in 1994, they still lost the 1996 election. And I remember at the beginning of the year, my professor of American history, a leftist by the name of Richard White (a prominent name in academia), was even talking like Clinton was a one termer. That is how low Clinton's image was. And W can bounce back.

Putting this all together, the Republicans will have a good shot at winning the White House in 2008. Guiliani is now taking actual Republican positions on issues - today, he just announced he longer supports an "assualt weapon" ban. Which, although I wonder how much he means it, is good enough for me. As a Republican in the White House, he will be in no position to impose any gun controls, since that is the litmus test issue for the Republican party. And he is America's mayor, and could take New York State - a Democrat state with enough votes to swing the election. He also has plenty of positive gravitas as "America's Mayor", that if he takes Republican positions on key issues, I will support him for the nomination (that is, if he is a serious contender).

In the meantime, despite all the bad stuff about W, the Democrats only have two candidates who can really win the White House - Hillary, and Algore. Hillary can easily get the Democrat nomination by splitting the anti-war vote in the party. However, there too many centrists in the Democrat party who have too huge egos to step aside and let her have the nomination, despite the fact she is a good Democrat. So she could easily lose it.

And there is Algore. All those games he played in Florida in 2000, in front of America, are forgotten. Due to the fact that some young immigrants flew a few planes into a few buildings. Algore is not only the leading anti-war candidate, but he has a good environmental record, too (I writing as a Democrat would think - this is not how I think). And he almost won in 2000 - had it not been for the fact that a. Clinton's impeachment lost gravitas for the Democrats, b. The Democrats focus on grabbing our guns lost Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia (and hence the election), and c. Some young illegal immigrant in Florida cost him more than enough votes to prevent him from winning that state (Elian, you young commie [reports indicate he is a good communist], it was you who lead to Iraq's liberation!!! How proud you must be!!!).

In any case, W should have been blown out of the water in both elections. But the Democrats screwed up in 2000 by those above-mentioned issues. And they screwed up in 2004 by nominating a traitor. Howard Dean easily could have defeated W. And if Kerry gets the nomination again, Thomas Dewey will loose the election again. Oops, I mean John Kerry, who not only is an asshole like Dewey was, but is as shifty and opportunistic as Dewey was (which ultimately loses elections).

All this ties together. As Rush indicated, if the Democrats control Congress, the lunatics will run the asylum. Which is what Hillary fears, since the extremist brush can be used to paint Democrats much more successfully than it was for leftists to paint Republicans. Which makes it that much harder to win the election, which I think she can win.

However, I still hope the Republicans can control Congress. I am thinking of giving some money to Dave Reichard, who is running in Bellevue (I can't vote for him). His opponent is Darcee Burner, a Pelosi clone who does not represent the values of Bellevue. And by clone, I mean clone - she is as ugly as Pelosi, only younger. The only thing that prevents me from giving is I seem to have the reverse Midas touch - almost every campaign I have been associated with, loses. Everything I touch politically turns to shit. So I am hesistate to give - I will have to think quickly.

A few more points, before I go.

The Republicans are hoping to nab an open Senate seat in - Maryland! A very Democrat state. They are pouring in tons of resources there. Why they think they can win there is way, way beyond me. Not that Michael Steele is a bad guy - I would love to have him in the Senate. But putting so much effort in a Democrat state, in a Democrat year, boggles the mind.

Also, for some reason, Mike McGavick is gaining momentum against Maria. He is in my state. I find this puzzling, too, as this is a Democrat state, and this is a Democrat year, but he has the majority of the votes outside of Seattle (which is extremely whacky). Which indicates the public might not have such a jaundiced view of "Republicans"as it appears.

OPEC has now decided to cut production. So as to raise prices. I suspect that this might be a ploy to influence to the election - after all, everyone in OPEC hates Republicans. The main question now is whether three weeks will give enough time to richet through the energy sector so as to influence votes on election day.