Unacceptable!

This article in the London Times discusses how two EMS workers (called ambulancemen in Britain) chose not to perform their sworn duty. Upon arriving to the house, and not aware that 999 (Britain's 911) was still listening even though the man had collapsed, they discussed the bad condition of his house, whether he was worth saving and then decided to say he was already dead when they arrived. I can only assume that meant they actually bothered to check if he was dead or not. Either way, their job is to make every effort to revive someone and to help them, but these two men alledgedly were unable to do this. Their sole job is to help people who have called for help. Obviously the man wanted help since he called for it. Their job does not include making life and death decisions. I have to wonder what kind of callousness led to this man's death. There is more going on with these two men than just deciding the man wasn't worth saving. Are these men believers in some sort of higher power? Do they believe in assisted suicides and in making life and death decisions for others (euthanasia)? Do they have some sort of prejudice against untidy persons? Are they under some government enforced order to save money if possible (thus judging the worth of a persons life)? What is it that would drive two men, who spend their days and nights saving people's lives to be so callous? That is my question and concern. I'm glad these men have been arrested and I suspect they should be charged with manslaughter, assuming the time of death can be accurately shown or that he was still alive when the men arrived can be shown. Barring that, they should be held responsible for dereliction of duty and never be allowed to work in the health industry again. Of course, they still get their day in court, as they should, but is reportedly on the tape is true, their day in court is nothing more than a formality.

And we find this surprising because...?

This Fox News article clearly lays out the findings of a recent report that stated that millions of dollars in farm subsidies went to farmers who are multi-millionaires and should not have received subsidies. Now, I am a free trade proponent, so I'll tend to come down on the side opposing subsidies of any kind, but I've read about these abuses from multiple authors over the last several years, so I'm not really sure why anyone finds this information new, surprising or even noteworthy. It wasn't noteworthy for the last several years, so why now? Oh, maybe because our new incoming President, Obama, seems to have taken notice, declaring this as an example of wasteful government spending that he is going to "fix". Okay, I'm with him on that, although I'd prefer he fix it by doing away with the subsidies entirely. Why? Well, for starters, almost all the recipients of these funds are multi-millionaire operations. While the farms specified in the report are clear violators, the actual requirements for farm subsidies are that a farmer gets 75 percent of his/her income from farming and that they make less than 2.5 million dollars. I don't know about you, but last time I checked, 2.5 million qualified as millionaire. The next part of this is that our government, in their infinite wisdom choose to pay people not to farm. Yes, that's correct, they pay out millions every year to farmers not to farm their land. This is supposedly some sort of conservation measure. However, it seems to me that if a farmer needs to let his land lay fallow for a period of time, that's okay, but this isn't what is happening in reality. These lands don't need to be fallow, yet the government pays out money for them to be anyway. I really don't understand this concept at all. Perhaps someone could explain it to me?

The parody song heard on Rush Limbaugh

Unlike most people who are writing articles on this topic, I've actually bothered to go out and find the song and listen to it. While I do find it off color, distasteful and certainly not the image Republicans want to present, I don't find it to be offensive to Barack Obama. If anyone should take offense, it would be Al Sharpton. I'm actually surprised he hasn't rang in on the subject yet, this is just up his alley. Nonetheless, if you want to hear the song, you can find it on YouTube. Since I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech, I'd argue that this kind of thing is and should be allowed. After all, people have a right to be stupid, sexist, bigoted, whatever. If we take away that right, then you achieve nothing other than a loss of our free speech rights, plain and simple. That doesn't mean we don't stand up and criticize it. In fact, we should. That is the essence of free speech, to be able to listen to what would horribly offend you and then stand up and argue that which would horribly offend the other person. If we can't do this in America, then we aren't a country worth saving. That said, I also would like to know where the outrage was when the L.A. Times OpEd that precipitated the parody was written back in March of 2007? After all, it is equally offensive in it's assumptions about whites and blacks as this parody is, yet I didn't even know about it until the parody came out. So, apparently, if the L.A. Times criticizes whites using the "magic black" myth, then it is ok, but if Rush Limbaugh airs a rather silly song in reality parodying said articles assumptions using a made up voice of Al Sharpton, it is racist, deplorable, unacceptable, etc. Don't blame Republicans here for this. The truth is that if it hadn't gotten through the L.A. Times without comment, no person, Republican or otherwise, would have thought to parody it. The truth here is, I suspect, that someone read the Times article, found it as awful as I do, then realized that nobody said anything about it. Upon that realization, they then went off to parody the stupid Times article. Does this make the parody right? Nope. Does it make the Times article right that nobody said anything about it even though it was blatantly offensive to whites and blacks alike? Nope. So, should we blame the right for being racist or the left for failing to criticize their own racism? The popular opinion here will be to blame the right. After all, they are the racists in America, are they not? *lol* Democrats and the left are just as racist or maybe even moreso than the right. Don't believe me? Well, that's a post for another day, stay tuned for it because I'll get around to it. Nonetheless, we should be blaming the left for failing to criticize themselves more than the right for then taking something the left did and parodying it. In the end, we are all better off for the whole thing, if treated properly (which it won't be) because we all get a better understanding of how far we've come. Do you know when you are healed of a traumatic event in you life? Many people think it is when they can look back on it and laugh. Sometimes they never get to that point. We as a nation have obviously not gotten to that point in regards to our past, but as long as political correctness exists as it does today and as long as one side tries to blame the other as will happen in this case, we will never reach that point. So, what needs to be done here? Realize the reality of the left trying to blame the right for something they themselves instigated but are unwilling to admit rather than accept the media's outrage as genuine would be a good start. If you find it offensive, feel free to speak out against it, but I'd submit that you criticize both the parody and the leftist article that precipitated it. Thanks.

Funny for adults, terrifying for the poor child!

At our daughters birthday party, the hired entertainers were performing a puppet show, which most of the kids were enjoying immensely. One child was getting scared when the wolf puppet started chasing the boy puppet. Most kids laughed histerically. So, the one boy decided to sit in my wife's lap. He continued to get more scared, so my wife thought she should take him to his mother. So, she stood up and started to walk in front of the puppets just as the wolf puppet said he wanted to eat a child's finger. The look on the poor boy's face said it all and my poor wife was horribly embarressed that she'd offered up a scared child to the wolf puppet. Fortunately, the mother was there watching the whole thing and thought it was funny, as did most the other adults there. The children were too interested and entertained by the puppets to notice.

Are we supposed to just take his word for it?

While I've seen no real evidence linking anyone on Obama's transition team to the Blagojevich scandal, I find it very interesting that the "report" put out yesterday about his staff's contacts with Blago are simply being accepted by the major media sources as factual. Is it because he is the messiah Obama that we're just supposed to take his word for it? Where are all the people screaming that there must be investigations because the executive office can't be trusted! I don't expect there to be any big Presidential scandal come out of this, but it seems odd to me that nobody is asking any questions? Where are the Republicans who questioned every move Clinton made and where are the Democrats who questioned every word out of Bush's mouth? That's all I want to see, some people who ask questions.

Minnesota blows it!

Okay, I know many people think FoxNews is slanted, and it is, but that isn't really the point. This is a matter of principle. I have no problem with recounts and making sure the right candidate won. However, read this entire article and look at all the examples provided, then tell me if you think this process has been fair, well organized, balanced and consistent. The last of these being the most important when it comes to recounts.

TV in Brazil!

As a parent, I really like that I can turn the television off in order to have family activities and avoid things I don't want my children to see. I continue to do this here in Brazil. Of course, it is harder here. The television industry here seems to have no idea when children should be watching tv! I admit there is some difference in culture involved, with children being allowed to stay up to all hours, especially at this time of year. However, I've noticed that, while there is good children's programming on at all hours, there is also very inappropriate material for children on at all hours. Pornography, heavy (unedited) horror films, etc. are usually reserved for the late night hours in the U.S. Here, they seem to be on whenever the station chooses to air them. There doesn't seem to be any logic to it that I've noticed. This doesn't stop me from trying to be a good parent in policing what my children watch, it just makes it harder.

Missing the point or dangerous rant?

The Muslim lawyer, Anjem Choudary, chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, has condemned Christmas as an evil celebration, see the story in the Telegraph from the UK. I give you a British source because the American media doesn't seem to care. Nonetheless, Mr. Choudary seems to have missed the point of Christmas in the western world. I would see it as a foregone conclusion that people would not celebrate the religious holidays of a religion not their own, so I'm not really sure why this rant was even necessary. However, he claims many Muslims are celebrating Christmas and its traditions. Well, perhaps they are, but it is Mr. Choudary who missed the point. I highly doubt there are any Muslims celebrating the birth of Christ. More likely, they are participating in a huge western celebration highlighting the spirit of peace, goodwill, charity, gift giving and cheer brought to the world by a jolly fat man in a red suit, not brought into the world by a baby in a manger. This is the Christmas that I'd submit Muslims are participating in. Regardless, eating turkey etc. on Christmas is not really part of the Christmas celebration. The Bible doesn't prescribe that we go out and have a bird to celebrate, nor does it speak of decorating Christmas trees. These are all things that grew into the holiday throughout the years as traditions, not holy precepts. Therefore, who really cares if you do these things. They don't mean anything. All of this aside, the American media seems to have allowed this man to rant this way without question. If a non-Muslim were to make this rant about Christmas, they'd be branded a scrooge and made fun of. If a non-Muslim were to make this kind of rant about a Jewish holiday, they be branded an anti-semite. I submit this question. What would happen if a Christian or Jew or anyone else for that matter (perhaps this is an area we would have common ground with atheists) were to make a similar rant about Ramadan? The accusations of bigotry would fly left and right, that's what would happen. So, before you all go out and yell tolerance, remember, tolerance only works if it goes both ways.

Where's the left when you need them?

I saw this editorial this morning at Fox News. It discussed how Caroline Kennedy has no real experience, has never been truly tested by the media and isn't ready to govern. Sound familiar? It should. These are all complaints that were squarely laid on Sarah Palin. In fact, Mrs. Palin actually has significantly more experience than Caroline Kennedy to be in Congress or to serve as Vice President. What does Caroline have? A name. That's it. The left is fawning all over her because she is a Kennedy without seeming to care that she has the exact same faults they complained about so vociferously with Palin. Oh wait, she is pro-gay marriage and pro abortion and she doesn't hunt moose. I guess that makes her eminently more qualified, eh? Actually, no, but it does make for some good political drama, I suppose. So, my question is, where is the leftist media insisting on a "tough" interview with the likes of Couric or Gibson and where are the leftist politicians who are so concerned with lack of experience? They are nowhere, that's where. As with most politicians, they don't see attacking Caroline Kennedy as advantageous, so they aren't. So, just for those of you who care, it is a classic double standard. Are the Republicans guilty of this at times too? Probably, haven't seen a recent example. In fact, most Republican politicians tend to get slapped down by even their own party when they screw up, at least recently. Nonetheless, they are politicians so I'm sure there is plenty of double standard to go around. However, this is a painfully obvious double standard that shows just how much the Democratic party cares about experience. They don't. Therefore, should you?

There's no controversy here!

First of all, I am a huge supporter of the separation of church and state, believing that the state should stay out of religion and that religion should stay out of state. That does not mean removing religion from the public square, but instead meaning that the state can't show favoritism to any religion. So, there is no controversy in regards to separation of church and state at the inaugural ceremonies. The incoming President can choose whomever he wants to do prayers, assuming he wants anyone to do prayers at all. This aspect is entirely up to him and should remain so. In addition, those invited should be able to pray their conscience rather than feeling bound by some secularist notion of political correctness, otherwise we could have a monkey give the prayer. If you invite someone to pray, they should be allowed to pray as they see fit. Period. Otherwise, don't invite them. The next part of the supposed controversy here is that Rick Warren is opposed to gay marriage. Well, first of all, the pastor doing the benediction is a gay marriage supporter, so I'd argue that Obama is following through with his promise to be inclusive of all people and all points of view in inviting two pastors with diametrically opposed viewpoints on some issues. Secondly, being against gay marriage is not hateful nor discriminatory. In fact, if the LGBT community would get over their insistence on calling it marriage, I believe they'd find a large number of political supporters in the evangelical community. However, they are unhappy with civil unions or a secular, state run equivalent to marriage. It must be called marriage or it isn't equal, they insist. They completely ignore (and this isn't just Christianity) that most world religions see marriage as being instituted by God, not by man, and therefore, religious writings take precedence over secular ones in defining it. Thus, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, etc. share the same view in regards to religious teachings. There is nothing new about this. So, what does this mean for believers? In simple terms, trying to define marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman is seen as an assault on the church, in fact, it is seen as the state imposing it's will on the church, so we are back to separation of church and state. After all, many evangelicals would look at the gay marriage debate and fear that once they win it in secular society that they would then insist on churches providing them the same rites and rituals and sacraments, etc. that are given to heterosexual couples. This may be unfounded, but that is the fear, so we do come back to a separation of church and state issue after all, don't we? The simple and logical solution is to accept civil unions and stop insisting on the term marriage, because by doing so, you serve only to alienate the church, which makes you look to be as equally hateful as you want to claim the church is being. Obama is turning out to be a very shrewd politician because he knows that the inclusion of Warren in the inaugural ceremony will be looked upon favorably by evangelicals and he claims to be inclusive. There is no controversy here, only closed minded people who are so set in the rightness of their cause that they can't use logic to compromise.

Freefall!!

Well, I've flown a lot now in my life and I guess it is just one of those things where if you do something a lot, things will eventually happen. However, I do think I could have gone a long time without riding in a plane that began falling out of the sky. Now, I have a basic understanding of aerodynamics, so I could hear the pilot adding power to the engines and feel the plane respond, but when it literally feels like the plane is falling and the people around you start screaming, not to mention your stomach ends up in your throat, it is quite disconcerting. My 4 year old son had an interesting perspective, once the ordeal was over. He asked, "Daddy, why was someone pushing down on the plane?" I gave him a technical answer, as is my habit, and told him it was all right and he accepted that. However, looking back now, I choose to think that someone was holding the plane up, not pushing it down. Thank God for even the smallest miracles.

Silly me, I just thought it was a fun song!

I went to look up the lyrics to the 12 days of Christmas for my kid because he wanted me to sing it to him and I couldn't remember each of the 12 things. I got 11 of them right, but out of order and totally blanked on the poor pipers piping. Nonetheless, I came across these lyrics which presented me with the religious symbolism of The Twelve Days of Christmas. While I already knew they represented the days from Christmas day to Epiphany, I either didn't know or had long ago forgotten that they each had greater meaning. Nevertheless, here it is:

1 Partridge in a Pear Tree refers to True Love or rather to God
2 Turtle Doves refers to the Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens refers to Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds refers to the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings refers to the first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying refers to the six days of creation
7 Swans A-swimming refers to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments
8 Maids A-milking refers to the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing refers to the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping refers to the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping refers to the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming refers to the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

I can't believe I just read that!

Read this article to the end. Now, perhaps I'm wrong, but the way I read this, Mr. Zakaria is saying that the U.S. automaker isn't competitive, has no intentions to change its ways and will never be competitive. He says we should support the bailout, not because it will save the industry, but because it will save 200K jobs in the short term which will eventually be lost anyway, but hopefully at a more opportune time for the economy! Now, assuming I read that correctly, No Fracking Way (as Starbuck would say). So, while the automakers have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes, our legislators have been too? No wonder so many people are against this bailout. While I'd hate to see 200K people lose their jobs (I don't really think they will), the reasons given in this article for supporting the bailout are just wrongheaded, in my opinion. Really?! We should bail them out so that they can go bankrupt or out of business (which is supposedly inevitable) at a later, more opportune time? If you really think they are destined for this regardless of what the government does, then there is no "opportune" time to do it. I guess what this article shows me is that Mr. Zakaria (a foreign affairs analyst) knows nothing about economics.

Do politicians ever listen to themselves talk?

This is one of those things that has really started to annoy me. After all, can't we just pass legislation rather than loading every bill up with various other things just to make something horribly unpalatable seem less awful? Now, this article states that our congressmen (should I call them persons now) have attached a pay raise for judges to the auto bailout bill. This happened only in the House of Representatives (the people's house), not the Senate, because the Senate had passed the bill in November. I am not against our federal judges getting a pay raise. In fact, everyone needs a pay raise, although most people won't get one this year because of the economy. The judges have had to go 6 of the past 13 years without pay raises because Congress said they had to. So, do they deserve a pay raise? Probably so, just like everybody else. However, the Democrats (Nancy Pelosi) actually stated that it is hard to justify voting to raise the pay of the federal judges because they make more money than most Americans. Yes, around 169,000 dollars if you're wondering. So, in order to not look bad, the House is attaching the pay raise to the auto bailout bill. Hmm... this is just great. They should simply vote on the pay raises separately. They won't because they know people wouldn't like it. However, that begs the question. The bailout is supposed to be the unpalatable part of this legislation, so why are the pay raises what we seem to want to hide? I think the judges can go another year, like the rest of us, without a pay raise and I KNOW we should not be giving government money to the auto industry. So, pretty much the entire lame duck session of Congress is dedicated to stupidity. My title above comes from the fact that the lawmakers say they can't justify voting separately on a pay raise so they'll attach it to something else. Obviously they don't listen to themselves talk because that premise is crazy. If you can't justify voting on it separately, you shouldn't be voting on it at all.

Hopefully this won't require 16 million dollars

Oh my gosh! This is a wonderful technological development, brought to us by the maker of the Segway. Assuming this arm can be made to be affordable once trials are completed, this could be the greatest technological step forward since what? Anyway, they call it the "Luke" arm because it was inspired by Star Wars, but you could also just call it the bionic arm from 70s television. Regardless, I was very impressed by this video and I'd hope this could also be developed for legs as well. It could really be a liberating device to those who need it, in my opinion.

Illinois governor arrested for selling Obama's Senate seat

So, it's true what they say about Illinois/Chicago politics is it? I don't know, but I do know that Illinois governor Blagojevich was arrested today on federal corruption charges. A quote from the U.S. attorney on the charges reads: "U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism.""

His pay off for all of this? Hmm... other than getting more Chicago cronies in Washington, he alleged to have requested the following:
1. a substantial salary for himself at either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;
2. a spot for his wife on paid corporate boards, where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;
3. promises of campaign funds -- including cash up front;
4. a Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.

Who knows what else is going on there. At any rate, this is despicable and I'd hope there is outrage from both parties in Washington about this. I'm afraid somebody is going to decide it is somehow a witch hunt on the part of the lame duck Bush administration, but that would be obviously nothing more than lame attempts to shift the blame. This guy is a product of corrupt Chicago politics, as is our new President and judging by the people he has started to surround himself with, I'd have to say this is exactly the kind of thing we can expect from our next administration.

Greg Maddux retires

Greg Maddux announced his retirement from baseball yesterday, marking the end of an era for baseball fans. I consider Maddux to be the best pitcher of his era. I know, I know, there will be disagreement on this point, what about Roger Clemens you might ask. Well, he's really Maddux's only competition during this era, but here are my reasons.

For the purposes of this post, I'll assume Clemens is retired since he hasn't pitched since 2007 and is 46 years old.

Both pitchers had successful longevity in their careers. Maddux pitched for 23 seasons and Clemens for 24. However, many of the numbers Maddux put up would suggest he actually pitched longer (innings pitched, total games, games started), which means he spent less time on the disabled list. So, in terms of longevity, I'd give it to Maddux who was injured less often and put up higher numbers in the total years they spent in the league.

Maddux had 355 wins and Clemens had 354. I'd say you can't really judge two great pitchers much on win-loss record, but in regards to wins, it is clearly a wash. However, you could give props to Clemens who had fewer losses (Maddux had 227 and Clemens had 184). That's a difference of 43 games. However, Maddux played 10 seasons with the Cubs which certainly played a role in the total number of losses for him. After all, his 10 years with the Cubs resulted in 112 of his losses overall. That's nearly half the total. For the other 13 years, he totaled 115 losses. I'd say he surely has a higher loss total than Clemens due to his years playing for a perpetually bad team, at least until recently. However, Clemens still wins this one because Maddux wasn't hit badly enough by playing for the Cubs to make up for the 43 game difference entirely.

Another category which separates the two is consistency. I think Maddux clearly wins this one. After all, he pitched 17 seasons in a row with 15 or more wins. Clemens managed 7 in a row. Granted, Clemens had 6 20 win seasons to Maddux's 2, but Maddux put up 5 19 win seasons and 2 18 win seasons while Clemens put up 0 19 win seasons and 4 18 win seasons. So, Maddux get 9 18+ win seasons and Clemens gets 10 18+ win seasons. However, when not winning at least 18 games, the differences are more stark. Maddux has 9 15+ win seasons when not winning 18 or more and only 5 where he didn't win at least 15. Clemens has only 2 years winning 15 or more when he didn't win 18 with 12 seasons where he couldn't manage 15 wins. So, Clemens was great and probably better than Maddux in many seasons, but when it comes to consistency and reliability, Maddux wins.

Next I'll talk about ERA. Maddux has a slightly higher ERA than Clemens. It is almost an insignificant difference in baseball. In addition, Maddux ERA was negatively impacted by the high ERAs he put up in his final three seasons. However, you have to give this one to Clemens because he pitched almost his entire career in the American League during the designated hitter era and so having a similar (virtually identical) ERA to Maddux probably puts him ahead if they'd spent their careers in the same league (this is speculation of course, but a good bet).

Next we'll look at control. Strikeouts is no contest, Clemens wins that hands down. However, Maddux wins strikeouts to walks ratio with a .29 ratio to Clemens' .33. In addition, Maddux pitched almost 100 more innings than Clemens and yet beats him in walks hands down. Maddux had 999 walks to Clemens 1580. That's a clear victory for Maddux in walks. Also, Maddux had fewer hit batsmen with 137 to Clemens' 159. In addition, John Smoltz recently said of Maddux that he always knew what a batter was thinking and that if he didn't think he could get him out, he just wouldn't throw him a strike. That is high praise, not to mention that high praise Maddux received throughout his career from players, coaches and umpires for his ability to place the ball exactly where he wanted it. Finally, homeruns are often hit off of mistake pitches, so how many mistakes did Maddux have versus Clemens? Maddux allowed 353 homeruns in 5008 innings and Clemens allowed 363 homeruns in 4916 innings. Again, Maddux wins that one, especially considering his 10 years in the homerun happy confines of Wrigley Field. Therefore, I give control to Maddux. Sure, Clemens is a great strikeout pitcher, but Maddux never tried to be that and to Clemens credit probably couldn't have been. However, Maddux style and ability gave him better overall control than Clemens could hope to have.

The next category for me is runners on base. Total runners on base per inning for Maddux was 1.17 and for Clemens was 1.205. You'd think that would be similar enough to not matter and perhaps you're right, but Maddux is still the winner on this one.

Now we have complete games and shutouts, which are mostly an indicator of dominance on any given day as opposed to dominance or consistency overall. In addition, both pitchers probably suffered in this area because of the era being so specialized with closers and set-up men, etc. Nonetheless, Clemens wins this category. Maddux had 109 CG and 35 shutouts to Clemens 118 CG and 46 shutouts. Clemens clearly did better overall, especially considering that Maddux pitched more innings, had more starts, played in more games and so on.

One other pitching category to cover. This is somewhat intangible and probably doesn't mean much of anything, but here goes. Maddux had 582 decisions in his career, leaving him with 158 no decisions. That's 21 percent of his starts that resulted in a no decision. Clemens had 538 decisions in his career leaving him with 169 no decisions. That's 24 percent of his starts that resulted in a no-decision. You might could lump this category in with consistency, but I didn't because I think it shows something else. Maddux had about 45 more decisions and managed 11 less no decisions. What does that tell you? It tells me that Maddux was less likely to need help during a game than Clemens, even though Clemens clearly dominated in complete games and shutouts.

Now we move on to some intangible areas. How much did the pitcher help himself. Just looking at the numbers for fielding statistics without looking closer makes you think Clemens is the winner here. After all, his .973 fielding percentage for his career beats Maddux .970. But there is more to this story. Maddux only pitched 100 more innings than Clemens, so you'd expect their total chances to be similar. They are nowhere close. Maddux had 1791 total chances to Clemens 919. What this shows you is that while they were very similar in how many times they succeeded in getting an out when fielding the ball, Maddux clearly helped himself more through his ability to quickly get off the mound and field balls that most pitchers never stood a chance at getting. We are talking almost 800 more chances to field a ball than Clemens in just 100 more innings pitched. So, Maddux is the clear winner even with a slightly lower overall percentage for his career because he clearly helped himself more on the field than Clemens could. In fact, Maddux won the gold glove for pitching every single year except one from 1990-2007. The one year he didn't win was 2003 when Mike Hampton won. Roger Clemens' gold gloves? 0. Maddux is clearly the hands down winner in defense and ability to help himself on the field.

Another intangible that effected how well a pitcher helps themselves is batting. Clemens spent the majority of his career in the American League, so we can't really compare the two pitchers. They have similar career batting averages, but Maddux clearly had more opportunities to bat spending his entire career in the National League. Therefore, he wins in virtually every offensive category. All those years in the AL though didn't seem to keep Clemens from showing that he could bat once he did pitch in the NL, so perhaps he might have given Maddux a run for his money had he had more chances to bat. We'll never really know, but I can't give this category to either one.

So, who is better, Maddux or Clemens. I think I've made a good case for Maddux. They are both great pitchers, no doubt. Of the categories I chose to highlight, Maddux won 6, Clemens 3 and they tied in 2. That's a Maddux win to me. The final straw would have to be the doping allegations. While I don't think it has ever been proven against Clemens, Maddux never even had an accusation made against him. In addition, assume that the batters were juiced and Clemens was juiced, that gave him equality vs. the batters, but if Maddux wasn't, then his dominance is even greater because he was still dominating even the juiced hitters. That's all supposition, so it doesn't really have any bearing on my argument. I think Maddux wins regardless.

Interesting proverb about change

I'm always one who says that he who governs least governs best and that all this hullabaloo over change in this election was nothing more than empty promises and dangerous precedents. Well, how about this:

Proverbs 24:21 (KJV)
My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change

Hmm... gotta wonder if we should be so quick to support change. Of course, I wasn't a big fan of change to start with. Wonder why that is?

I guess the EU just doesn't get it

I hear a lot, especially from people who don't understand our history and traditions, that the electoral college is stupid and useless. That it isn't real democracy. Well, I'd agree that it isn't democracy because it was designed to be a republic, not a democracy. However, these same people praise the European Union and it's pro-democracy stances. So why is it that the EU doesn't support democracy? Read this article to see what I mean. It seems that referendums are good and wonderful, as long as they aren't about the future of Europe, because then they are just obstacles to a pre-determined future. The leaders of Europe need to wake up to the fact that losing in 4 different referendums, in four different countries aren't obstacles to the future, they are clear indications from the electorate that the "future" chosen by their leaders isn't desired, at least in those four countries. I can read the writing on the wall, why can't they? Oh right, because like so many politicians, they are convinced they are right and the electorate is stupid. Even our founding fathers believed the electorate couldn't be trusted, thus we have a republic with the electoral college thrown in for good measure as opposed to a more traditional democratic system. This attitude isn't new by any means. If the leaders in Europe really want to achieve their goals, then they need to follow the U.S. model (God forbid) and have the individual state legislative bodies decide the future rather than having referendums. This isn't rocket science. However, they seem to think they can educate their electorate to vote their way rather than realizing the people don't want this. I expect we will eventually see a European Union regardless of what the people in Europe want simply because the leaders of Europe want it. So, if you live in Europe and you don't want the EU constitution, don't keep voting it down in referendums, vote out the leaders who support it.

"Natural born" citizens

I found this interesting. I found this article because I was curious about this Supreme Court conference that took place on Friday, supposedly. We'll hopefully find out the outcome of this conference soon, today? At any rate, it has direct bearing on the case at hand. Contrary to media reports, the case before the Supreme Court right now is not challenging that Obama was not born in the U.S., he was (Hawaii), nor is it challenging that he was not a citizen at birth, he was (his mother was a citizen and he was born in the U.S. so he's a citizen). What is interesting about this case is that it challenges his eligibility to be President because his father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth but was instead a British citizen. According the Leo Donofrio, who brought the suit in the first place (Donofrio vs. Wells), this would make him ineligible because he can't be a natural born citizen under the constitution unless both his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of his birth. That is what this case is about, really. It isn't questioning his citizenship at all. Interestingly, Chester Arthur, who was President after Garfield's assassination, bears the same qualification as described in the link above. I don't think it is in the country's best interests for the Supreme Court to throw out the election, especially since the suit also names John McCain and one third party candidate as equally ineligible, for different reasons. After all, what would happen if they ruled these three candidates (one of them was not born in the U.S. and therefore obviously isn't a "natural born" citizen) ineligible. Who becomes President? Does it free up the electors to vote for whomever they wish? Does Joe Biden get Obama's electors? Do the electors go off and do their own thing, probably causing some rather interesting free for all politics (which would be fascinating to me). Perhaps we should have another election including only those candidates that are eligible. Would this leave both the Republican party and the Democratic party out of the process and perhaps birth a real third party in this country? See, I love to ask questions and think on a subject. I suspect the Supreme Court will refuse the case even though I'd love for them to clarify, once and for all, what it means to be natural born. It'd be much more interesting. For a rather interesting and insightful look at this issue, read this article.

67 years later

Just thought I'd mark this date today by pointing out that, not only is today the 67th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but it is also a Sunday, just like it was in 1941.

Is this offensive, promoting terrorism, dangerous or simply benign?

A company (BrickArms toys), making Lego-like (Lego denies any affiliation) figurines based on military history recently (about a year ago) started selling the guy pictured here. He is called "Bandit-Mr. White" and the company describes him as "a generic bad guy minifigure with a Ninja scarf head wrap". The company started as a family business because the father and son wanted to use Legos to recreate battles from military history but the necessary military style toys were not available prompting them, as good entrepreneurs, to build their own and then sell them. This figure has been on sale for a year now and is only just now being condemned as being offensive to Muslims and promoting terrorism. The companies statement about the controversy is: "[the figure] does not represent anything; it is simply a bandit — a bad guy for the good guys to battle. Attempt to assign it a 'personality' only serves to create controversy that does not exist". So, if you are a company dedicated to making toys that can be used to recreate military battles from history, does this little guy fit in with the kind of figure that might be needed? The company has also created a Nazi SS figure for use in WW2 battles. Is this somehow outrageous or offensive? I submit that if the company is simply trying to make toys that can be used to recreate historical or modern military battles, then this figure is certainly appropriate to that goal. I would not personally buy these products because I find them inappropriate for my children, but are they offensive or demeaning or do they promote terrorism? No.

Should our "bailout" money be helping with business expansion?

In the Times-Picayune on Wednesday, they reported that Iberiabank, based in Louisiana is getting 90 million dollars of the federal bailout money. This makes you think, oh, of course, this bank is in trouble. However, that isn't true. This is a solvent bank that avoided much of the mess created by the housing crisis. This bank is getting money from the government with the sole purpose of buying smaller banks that are in trouble. The idea is that they'd be able to recapitalize the industry by allowing strong larger banks to buy up smaller, unstable banks, thus preventing bank failures and also, supposedly, helping to inject money into the system. While this sounds good, it is an inappropriate use of funds designed to buy up toxic debts in order to free the banks of those liabilities. At least that's what I always thought the bailout was about. You mean it isn't? At any rate, I'm against the bailout anyway, but this example shows me that the government is trying anything and everything in the hope that something works. This isn't the role of the government. If the government wants to inject money into the banking system, all they have to do is stop borrowing money, pass laws preventing mortgage abuses by banks and consumers, outlaw sub prime mortgages (or at least regulate them tightly) and then, if a bailout is necessary in the eyes of some, stream money into the system by buying the foreclosed homes from the banks at reasonable prices, freeing the banks of the debt load and allowing them to loan money again. This isn't the route the government has chosen and that's not likely to change. While there might be some merit to what this bank is doing, I have another problem with it. The government is concerned about banks being too big, so why now are we using bailout money for overly bloated banks and giving it to smaller banks so that they can become bigger? What sense does that make? None that I can see.

Let's all cap and trade, the next New Deal!

In her article dated June 24, 2008, Deneen Borelli discusses what would happen to Maryland's economy as part of a cap and trade system for dealing with carbon dioxide. This same scenario can easily be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole if Congress were to pass cap and trade legislation. Fortunately, the Senate did not pass this legislation this year. However, with the new incoming Congress, it probably will require a Senate filibuster to prevent its passage. That's really unfortunate considering many Republicans have now fallen for the global warming hype. I'm not saying that humans don't play a role in changing the environment around us, that'd be a stupid statement. I'm saying that I've looked at the science myself (although I'm not a climate scientist) and that it is clear that while humans might contribute to climate change, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that we do and even more, the evidence is certainly not enough to establish public policy around. The idea that there is a consensus (which is completely against the tenants of good science since those require you to question everything) is a falsehood. Sure, most scientists believe mankind plays a role in climate change, but after that, the "consensus" disappears. There is no consensus on what role we play, what the cause and effect scenarios are, or even whether that role would create a catastrophic result. Beyond the "possibility" that mankind effects climate, nobody really knows. Don't believe me, read "Shattered Consensus" edited by Patrick J. Michaels. If you can understand it, you'll agree with me, I suspect, or at the very least, you won't agree with the "consensus". At any rate, I expect to see our next Congress pass cap and trade legislation in the next two years and I believe our next President will sign it. Therefore, we can expect that energy costs nationwide will skyrocket which will continue the decline of our economy, not help it. That gives me hope that someone else will get elected in four years, but I don't really see that happening. President-elect Obama himself has said that cap and trade systems will likely bankrupt the U.S. coal industry. So tell me, how is passing legislation that we know for certain will bankrupt our coal industry, cause a loss of jobs from companies fleeing the system, cause energy prices to skyrocket at least 50 percent and do little or nothing to help the environment or stave off "global warming" a good idea? It isn't. However, that's what we've elected for ourselves. We now have a government that believes bailouts are necessary, that the government should play a greater role in our health care decisions because we just can't be trusted to do it ourselves, that nationalization of businesses is a necessary step to shore up our economy, that redistributing the wealth is the answer to low income, and that having a cap and trade system that doesn't effectively lower carbon emissions but does effectively kill the economy is the best option for saving the planet. There was a recent study out of UCLA that shows that the New Deal of FDR didn't help get us out of the Great Depression but rather extended it for an extra seven years. We have now elected ourselves a government that will achieve the same result (extending economic downturns) in the name of programs that likely will not work but will just cost money and will effectively put us in a permanent depression. So, I'm declaring that cap and trade systems are the new New Deal. Everyone will support them because it'll make them feel better about themselves, but it will hurt rather than help overall. That's the kind of "change" I can believe in for sure!

Domestic security! No!

The Pentagon and the current administration (yes, Bush people) have come up with this wonderful idea of how to "help" in time of crisis. They are putting together a uniformed battalion (20000 persons) to act as a "domestic security" force, especially in times of crisis, such as a terrorist attack. I have several issues with this. The first is this: why have I only seen this reported on the Drudge Report? To their credit, Drudge is quoting the Washington Post, but other than that, where is everyone? Does the media really think this is a great idea and therefore hasn't really reported on it or are they just asleep at the wheel. At any rate, my other problems are numerous. First, the founding fathers were appalled at the actions of a standing British army in the colonies and therefore preached against even having a standing army. While one could argue that a standing army is necessary in today's world, the idea of using that army domestically completely undermines our freedom. It was the presence of a standing army that made our founding fathers have to meet in secret to pass the Declaration of Independence, etc. This is not something we want to meddle with. In addition, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 expressly states that the federal armed forces should not have this power. This act is a direct result of the abuses of federal power on the southern states during reconstruction. It literally prohibits federal military troops or even National Guard units acting under federal authority from participating in law enforcement within our borders. That is a pretty clear statement and while it allows for exceptions passed by Congress, I haven't seen the Pentagon's current plan in any Congressional legislation. Not that I would support it even if I did. I tend to fall in line with the ACLU (WOW!) and the Cato Institute on this one. In the article, they are quoted: "The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority. Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security. "There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.""

So, this is me, agreeing in entirety with the ACLU on an issue! Mark your calendars people. Nonetheless, a "domestic security" force made up of federal military personnel is anathema to the constitution of this country, the intents of our founding fathers, the principles of freedom and just plain common sense. Sure, you may have a great response team for disasters, but after that disaster, what are you going to do with the troops? I submit that the expansion of executive authority and the expansion of the military's role combined with the temptation to use such a force would result in something nobody wants. Military occupation of our homeland. Can you say fascism three times quickly because that's about how long it would take for this kind of thing to be used following some crisis for exactly that purpose. Finally, I'm offended by Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense's statement in the article. He said: "National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city". Any American who would "give up the fight" after a nuclear weapon is detonated in a U.S. city isn't worth the time or effort to bother lifting them, much less to discover how far I could throw them, so who does McHale think we, as Americans, are to cut and run because of a nuclear detonation. If I were a victim of such a tragedy, I'd be appalled if the country were to "give up the fight". Give me a break. There is only one reason to have such a force operating inside our nations boundaries as an active duty unit working to help with "domestic security" and that reason is state control, pure and simple. Slice it however you want, it equals fascism.

How is it Wal-Mart's fault, really?!

I know most everyone has heard about the man and woman being trampled at the Wal-Mart on Black Friday. Now, I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but people seem to want to blame Wal-Mart. There were thousands of Wal-Marts, Targets, Best Buys, Circuit Citys, etc. all around the country that took the exact same precautions and did the exact same things as this Wal-Mart did and no tramplings occurred. I suppose one could argue that there must have been something specific about this store that caused the incident. I would argue that, in fact, but it would have nothing to do with the store. This incident has EVERYTHING to do with the people in line. They are the ones who couldn't wait, couldn't stop, couldn't help themselves to the point of trampling over people just to get a tv. That's who's to blame. Sure, that particular Wal-Mart probably could have taken extra precautions, if they'd known it was going to happen, but since it hadn't happened in previous years and since it didn't happen at any other store across America (who all took the same precautions), why should they have expected it. They shouldn't. That's the answer you don't want to hear, but there you have it. The people in line were shamefully ignorant and selfish. That's why this happened, pure and simple.

Odd headline for a typically "right" biased news source but interesting story

I must admit that it is the headline that caught my attention. But it seems that the headline is written in such a way as to condemn Bush somehow, not just to catch my attention. Perhaps I'm completely off the mark. Wondering what I'm talking about? Okay, go here. The story goes on to explain how this guy accidentally killed the bald eagles to begin with. This seems to me to be a clear case of government overzealousness. The guy probably shouldn't have poisoned the coyotes (a couple of good nights up in a tree with a gun would probably have achieved the same result). However, it is the law of unintended consequences that is the problem here. He didn't figure that poisoning the coyotes would kill other animals and certainly not bald eagles. Eagles are typically birds of prey, not carrion eaters like vultures. Therefore, he couldn't have predicted the outcome and therefore should not have been convicted of a felony, in my opinion. Advertising it loudly to make people aware that eagles don't just hunt and therefore are susceptible would have been an appropriate response and perhaps fining the guy as well, but a felony conviction? No way, sorry. So, I guess I come down with Bush on this one. This guy should receive a pardon, based on the facts as explained in this article, so why did the paper seemingly take a shot at Bush with the headline? Maybe they didn't and it's just me.

Remember this!

CNN is reporting today that Hugo Chavez is once again trying to get the Venezuelan constitution changed so that he can run again for President in 2012. Mark my words! If Chavez succeeds in this effort, we (the world) will never be rid of him. He will be President for life in Venezuela and he will, eventually, threaten his neighbors. This is NOT a good thing.

A contradiction in terms!

In every news source today, there is a story on Obama's announcement to practice fiscal restraint while being a big spender. These two goals are mutually exclusive. At any rate, I could get this story from any number of places, I'm using the Fox News source simply because they got it posted to my RSS feed first. So, while I really like this statement from Obama: "To make the investments we need," he said at another point, "we'll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well, something I'll be discussing further tomorrow." I'd really like to see someone cut the federal budget significantly. However, this is what I'm afraid will really happen. Obama will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Welfare programs while at the same time creating and expanding his ill thought health program. In addition, he'll probably cut some of the military and then he'll start cutting all the smaller programs found in the budget. You can't cut the budget this way, at least not significantly, but this is what he'll do, I'd bet. He said he'd announce more details today, so we have to wait and see, but here goes what I expect to see.

First, let's examine this last budget. Where can Obama cut, really?



This graph is taken from Wikipedia and is attributed to one of its users, Skiddum. It is a graphical representation of where our money goes. So, where can Obama cut. Social Security was 21 percent of last year's budget and this number continues to grow annually, but he won't cut this. Medicare is more than 13 percent and Welfare is more than 11 percent, while Medicaid is 7.2 percent, totalling 31.7 percent. He won't cut these, in fact, he'd end up expanding these significantly if he tries to pass his health care plans. That's 52.7 percent of the budget right there. In addition, over 9 percent of the budget is the interest on our debt, which is surely to grow significantly now that we've indebted ourselves out the door with these bailouts. That put the total of "the stuff that can't be touched" at 62 percent. So, what can be touched? Technically, the discretionary spending can be touched. The above items are not discretionary, unless we vote them away, they MUST be paid. So, where can we cut? Obama has said in the past that he'd cut NASA. Well, would that save us anything, really? NASA only takes up .6 percent of the budget. During the golden age of NASA (travelling to the moon) their share of the budget was significantly higher. I suspect the only way to save money with NASA would be to privatize the whole thing and get the government out of the space business. While this may be feasible soon, I don't believe it is yet and it would cripple the local economies in the area where I live because of the huge impact that would have on Florida. But, Obama might be able to squeeze a few million out of NASA. Now, the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Labor and Transportation all make less than .5 percent of the budget each. You won't be able to cut there, probably not even a few million, so don't bother looking. The departments of Agriculture, Justice and Energy all take up less than 1 percent of the total budget, so again, maybe a couple million dollars, at most, but nothing significant. Now, we've dealth with more than half the government and how much of the budget is being spent? That's right, 4.4 percent of the total budget covers ALL of the stated discretionary items so far. 4.4 percent. Where are you going to cut Mr. Obama? Oh, some things actually get money spent on them? Okay, let's look at the items that actually get more than 1 percent of the budget spent on them:
Dept. of Homeland Security - 1.2%
Money given to states and international programs - 1.2%
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development - 1.2%
Off budget discretionary spending (stuff that shouldn't be being spent) - 1.3%
U.S. Dept. of Veteran's Affairs - 1.4%
"Other" on budget discretionary spending - 1.8%
U.S. Dept. of Education - 1.9%
Dept. of Health and Human Services - 2.4%
War on Terror - 5%
All of these items put together equal 17.4 percent of the budget. Now, you can actually save here. How? Well, you won't cut Homeland Security or aid to states and other countries and it would be bad PR to cut Veteran's Affairs. That leaves the war (easy to cut here, but not immediately), Health and Human Services (likely to get expanded with Obama's health plans, not cut), Dept. of Education (easily cut since it isn't constitutional anyway, but the student loan programs probably make up the majority of this, so you'd be able to cut, maybe a percentage point), "other" spending (this includes a LOT of tiny programs, many of which might be able to go away), off budget spending (this should just go away, period) and that's pretty much it. How much did I just save? Maybe 4 percent of the budget just got slashed. Oh wait, we still have military spending to discuss. This makes up over 16 percent of the budget. Can't cut this during wartime, so it isn't going anywhere this year, but perhaps there are ways we could cut in the future, maybe saving another 1 percent. I think that my total overall has now reached 5 percent of the budget. Guess what this means. The ONLY way to save money is to ignore discretionary spending and to cut cut cut cut cut the mandatory spending. This isn't going to happen under Obama, so don't hold your breath. In fact, even if he did cut 5-10 percent from discretionary spending, it would immediately be re-spent on his "new" programs. Don't expect fiscal restraint from this President.

Wisdom on "unity" from our founding fathers

Read Federalist # 10, by James Madison. In addition, read Federalist # 51 by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison. These two writings, in defense of the Constitution, clearly outline that factions will form in a free society and it outlines the dangers of factions. Notably, from federalist 10 is this quote: "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." Does this sound familiar? Of course, in my opinion, both of these result in the loss of freedom because the only way to "give" every citizen the same opinions, etc. is to coerce them, better known as indoctrination. So, it is important for us to take a quote from the same source a little later: "The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." This means that we should only control the effects of faction, not try to remove it. So, freedom can be preserved by preserving freedom, not by trying to control what people believe (political correctness anyone?). At any rate, what this shows is that the founding fathers intentionally designed the government to NOT be unified. The idea of unity in our system of government would be anathema to the founders. They saw unity as a method of damaging freedom, at least based on the writings in Federalist 10. So, how about 51? The opening statement in Federalist 51 tells us all we really need to know from this one. I quote: "TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places." This clearly shows that the founders wanted there to be separated power in the government. No branch was to be too powerful. For instance, we've recently had a lot of trouble getting judges appointed because the Democrats don't like the fact that those judges don't agree with them. They want unity on the court. That'd be great, it would also endanger our freedoms. If a President appoints a judge, then the Congress has the responsibility to make sure that person can do the job, not put them through the ringer and smear them to the populace in order to prevent someone who may not "think" like you do from getting on the bench. This is also why we have a President that can wage war and a Congress that can declare it. Who do I blame for the wars? The Congress. They voted to give the President power to wage war without giving him a declaration of war. No President should be allowed to wage a war overseas (meaning if we aren't being directly invaded) without a declaration of war from the Congress, in my opinion. Federalist 51 goes on to support my argument, in my opinion, above with this quote: "In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them." Finally, Federalist 51 goes on a similar track as Federalist 10 with this argument: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Again, the writer is clearly demonstrating their belief that it is dangerous to have all authority in the hands of one group because that endangers the freedoms (rights) of the minority. Another reason not to allow partisan politics to determine the outcome of judicial nominations. So, for all of you out there who are so excited that the Democrats have won control of "almost" everything. Your reality check is our own founding fathers. The Republicans had a great opportunity when they controlled the House, Senate and the White House and instead they decided to act like spend, spend, spend Democrats and squandered that opportunity. Since I see the Democrats spending even more, not less and since their ideas are far more dangerous to freedom than Republicans ideas are (I can prove this if anyone really wants to challenge me on it), the danger is even greater now that they have full control. Our government is supposed to answer to the people and the people have elected this bunch of fools into office (I'm referring to all of them, both Republicans and Democrats so don't be offended unless you are one of the fools of course), so we get what we desire, so to speak, except that 60 percent of the electorate has controlled the outcome of elections in this country for far too long. Where are the other 40 percent. This country will only work and survive if these people get off their butts and make their voices heard! Unity is not the answer, it is an illusion that is actually dangerous. Division actually prevents the government from interfering with our liberty, so a government that does nothing is actually a good one, while a government that does "anything" just to do something is actually a very bad one. I am no fan of unity in the political arena.

A free press? Really!

So much for freedom of the press. This article reveals that People magazine paid 14 million dollars to Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in exchange for photos of their children and allegedly for "positive" coverage, meaning the magazine would not publish negative content about them, as well as editorial rights. The New York Times goes on to allege that this positive coverage is for future coverage as well, not just for the current story. Hmm... maybe the media needs to consider this as a new business model, especially in regards to politicians. Oh wait! That would require showing clear bias for one candidate over another and wouldn't be fair to the American electorate. Oh, they're doing that for free. Guess they aren't really good businessmen after all.

Who elected Obama?

Here is a quote from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:

"At JBHE we have been doing some calculations on the importance of the black vote in the 2008 presidential election. If Obama kept all the Hispanic vote that he won but lost all of the black vote that he won, Obama would have lost Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

This would have shifted 107 electoral votes to John McCain. This would have resulted in a 280-258 victory for McCain in the Electoral College.

Clearly, African-American voters were responsible for electing the nation’s first black president."

I'll ignore for now that they stated Florida twice. Oh, I guess I didn't *sheepish*. At any rate, while winning 95 percent of the African American vote was certainly important in electing Obama President, this isn't really significantly different than winning 90 percent of the vote from blacks, which just about every Democrat has done for decades. In addition, if you take away the Hispanic voters (67 percent voted for Obama) and keep the Black voters, then in Florida for sure and probably Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia as well, you'd end up with similar outcomes. How does that change the election. My point is this. The logic they used above is faulty from the start because it assumes that simply by removing the black vote from the equation, he would not have won, which overstates the role of the black vote. After all, 66 million people voted for Obama. 95 percent of the black vote, 62 percent of the asian vote, 67 percent of the hispanic vote and 43 percent of the white vote. So, using the logic stated in the above quote, their statement would most likely be true if you removed Hispanic voters as I stated above or definitely if you removed white voters. So, I could plug in Hispanic and White into the statement above and "clearly" conclude that whites are responsible for electing the first African American President, could I not? If there is a mathematician out there who would like to correct me, please do so, I'll admit if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. After all, whites make up approximately 74 percent of the population while blacks make up 13.5 percent, approximately, so surely the 43 percent of whites who voted for Obama was a much greater number than the 95 percent of blacks and therefore had a greater impact on the outcome of the election. Still don't believe me? Okay, let's do an exercise in math. If the 60 percent of voters remained true across racial lines, then of 300 million people (for the purpose of this exercise, we'll assume they can all vote), 222 million white people are eligible to vote for Obama (yes I know this is simplistic because I don't have any numbers for voting eligible persons). At any rate, that would mean that 4 million, 500 thousand black people are eligible to vote for Obama. So, which number is greater, 43 percent of 222 million or 95 percent of 4.5 million. That would be 95.5 million whites and 4.6 million blacks voting for Obama. So, who had the greater impact on the outcome of the election? I'm just saying. After all, their reasoning made me laugh, so surely they know it to? For a visual representation of what I'm trying to point out here, go here at the New York Times and click on the option to size bars according to share of the electorate and see what happens. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should vote, so I was actually disappointed by a 60 percent turnout, as I always am with every Presidential election, but this statement was just so funny that I had to point out its flaw.

Who did this person vote for?

So, can you tell who this person voted for? I know I can. So why is it that Al Franken's campaign to win the Senate seat in Minnesota over Norm Coleman is challenging this ballot because the "intent" of the voter is unclear. Really? Seriously? Okay, so, are the Democrats going to challenge ever single close election in this way now? Is this the legacy of Al Gore's 2000 challenge in Florida? You didn't see Ted Stevens (the crook) trying to win with last ditch efforts and challenged ballots. He gracefully (to his credit) bowed out. That is what Mr. Franken should do. Finish the recount, sure, but this vote is so obviously for Coleman that I can't imagine it being challenged. So, stop this craziness already Mr. Franken, you lost, albeit be only a couple hundred votes, but you lost. Get over it.

And we should all be proud of the "informed" American electorate!

If you go to this site, you'll find a very interesting video of Obama voters, taken after they voted on election day. It isn't a scientific poll by any means, but the results are sadly interesting. Since it is not a scientific poll and because of the one sided and completely inaccurate nature of the responses, the conservative, former radio talk show host, John Ziegler, commissioned Zogby International (a well respected polling firm) to test the electorate on their knowledge of these questions. This was a scientific poll, which has been criticized as a "push poll". One can disagree with the questions, but it isn't a push poll, it doesn't even fit the definition, as Zogby was forced to point out. What it showed was a depressing lack of knowledge of the Obama voters who were polled. So, either these people have been lied to, are willfully misinformed, only get their news from one source (an obviously biased one at that) or they simply were voting on one issue or with their party and didn't care to be informed. I must admit, I'd respect them more if it was one of the earlier ones than if it is the last one because that is just plain stupidity. I think everyone should vote (which they don't) but I also believe that those of us who do choose to vote should make sure we are as informed as possible in order to make the best choice. This poll shows that many (and perhaps you'd have similar stupidity among McCain voters so if anyone wants to do this poll, I'd love to know the results) people who voted for Obama are simply uninformed, at best. This is no way to run a republic. The ancient Greeks stood around in the town square and debated the issues before they voted. This was smart and resulted in everyone having their say. This poll shows that the only say that gets heard is the one the media chooses to highlight. Even the Washington Post stated, after the election so too late in my opinion, that their coverage was biased in favor of Obama. While one could argue that the obviously Obama favored media coverage did little to change the outcome and it was the poor economy that was really the highest contributing factor (and they'd have a point), this shows that the media failed us and didn't do the job they should and therefore may very well have changed the outcome of the election. After all, 57 percent of respondents couldn't accurately say that the Democrats currently controlled Congress. That means that that 57 percent were probably inaccurately blaming the "Republicans" in Congress for the economy as much as they were Bush. Isn't that a logical assumption on my part? Maybe not, but this election definitely suffered from the media's decision to fawn themselves over the Obama campaign.

Lobbyists lobbyists everywhere, not a one for hire!

I lived in the Washington D.C. area for half of my lifetime, so far. One of the things I learned while there was that almost everyone who works in Washington is a lobbyist or has close ties to a lobbyist. After all, I did some contract librarian work for a lobbying firm in D.C. for a little while and ending up making some friends there. In addition, I attended a church in Washington, ironically the same one Bill Clinton attended, and ended up making friends there as well (you make really good friends at church, fyi, contrary to what Obama would have you believe). I grew up with people who ended up becoming lobbyists. I'd say I have very close ties with lobbyists and lobbying groups while I lived in the D.C. area. This is no longer true. I have remained friends with these people, don't get me wrong, but I can't say that I have close ties to lobbyists anymore since I no longer see any of these people on a regular basis. At any rate, this is why it was so funny that Obama would point out that seven of McCain's staff in his campaign were lobbyists. Well, McCain said he didn't want lobbyists to control Washington either, but this was portrayed by Obama as a lie, when in fact it isn't considering McCain has been true to that throughout his career, limiting lobbying through legislation and even limiting earmarks (used to be called pork) to his own state to avoid unnecessary entanglements with lobbyists. Obama grew up in the Chicago political machine, so he's always been in bed with lobbyists and he consistently worked to get earmarks for his state. Hmm... who is more in bed with lobbyists. Having a few working for you on your campaign is the reality of Washington, everyone there is, has been, or knows a lobbyist. Therefore, Obama also had lobbyists on his campaign staff. The fact the McCain failed to point this out is a failure of his campaign, but it remains true nonetheless. Well, it seems that some in the media may be waking up to the reality that is Obama (one can only "hope"). Campbell Brown's "no bias, no bull" article today (which is of course funny considering she's a journalist so there is always bias, but I digress) pointed out the difficulty that Obama is having keeping his pledge from a year ago that "[lobbyists] won't work in my White House". Yeah right, what planet does he live on? Anyway, he claims they have the most stringent rules of any President ever in hiring lobbyists. Maybe this is true, but hiring anyone in Washington amounts to hiring a lobbyist or someone with close ties to lobbyists, so his pledge of a year ago was impossible at the time and simply nothing more than an empty promise. Much like virtually everything else he's said. Of course, I'm worried he will actually try to enact some of those empty promises, but that's another story.

Let's not hate!

I've always liked Glenn Beck, ever since I first saw him. He makes me laugh, he is real and he says it like it is, no apologies, no bull. You may disagree with him, but you'll always know where he stands. I like that. It is refreshing. Apparently, he was accosted in a Wendy's line trying to buy a frosty. This is just wrong. Of course, the man in the line has a right to his opinion and to even express his displeasure to Glenn, it is still a free country, isn't it? But geez, Glenn is just trying to buy a frosty for goodness sake, leave him alone. Regardless, assuming he is earnest in his description of the event, this shows some true hatred from the left toward the right. Why is that really? Okay, disagree on policies and principles, but hatred? I'm sure Glenn is right that there is enough hatred to go around on both sides, but only someone who doesn't actually listen to Glenn Beck would actually call him a racist, oh, or someone who is trying to convince us they are right by intentionally misleading us on what he actually said (Keith Olberman on Glenn Beck anyone?). At any rate, I think we can be thoughtful in dealing with people without having to compromise our beliefs. We used to pay lip service to being kind to one another, living the golden rule and trying to get along. We know longer seem to care to do this. What's changed? Caring about people requires something this country is fast forgetting. Truly caring for others, rather than doing so because it is somehow in our own best interests is not something the majority of the population is capable of. Left to our own devices, we WILL be selfish. You need God, or a least some sort of moral standard, in order to live a "good" life, because without it, how does one define good. This is what is missing in our society and this is what is changed. You'll constantly hear those of us who believe in freedom be accused of all sorts of things like racism, bigotry, intolerance, hatred. None of these things are true, at least not for me, but I've been accused of them anyway, by people who believe in equality. Having equality under the law is a great goal (we don't have it in this country, minorities have greater protections) and I'd argue in favor of it, but I do not argue in favor of equality, so I'm branded something I'm not. These accusations do show us one thing, if we are bothering to pay attention. They show that those who claim to be tolerant only practice that tolerance with people they agree with or people they perceive as having been mistreated somehow. Ask them to care about freedom though and they'll pay lip service to it because they don't even know what it means. Finally, I love to talk politics or religion, or anything that causes disagreement and controversy. Why? Because that's where the interesting stuff is. I've even been known to espouse an opposing position with someone I actually agree with just to have a more interesting conversation. I can talk about the weather all day, but nobody would be interested and I'd even bore myself. However, these two topics are now entirely off limits. Why would we, as a people, choose to make the two most important topics in our life off limits to general conversation? Surely this isn't an attempt to stifle freedom of speech, is it? I'm not sure, ask the thought police or the politically correct party in this country to answer that for you. It doesn't matter one way or the other. No topic of conversation should be off limits, because whether it is intended to stifle freedom of speech, that is exactly what you achieve. I will not stand by and say nothing while my country walks down a path that leads it to destruction. I will speak out. I will not be one of those people who quietly sat around in Germany while atrocities were being carried out. However, we can disagree with others, but we MUST always remember to show God's charity and love. They will call us names and they will hate us, but we must stay firm and we must be able to express ourselves without using the same hateful tactics of name calling since those tactics are designed to shut people up, not engage them. In addition, when confronted with unreasonableness, as Glenn was here, we can simply act as he did and say absolutely nothing. Let the person rant and rave. Maybe they'll feel better in the end. It achieves nothing to engage with a person like this because they'll probably just end up hitting you. So, again, why is all this happening? You could argue it is our insisting on political associations which Washington warned us about or that people prefer to be led around like lemmings rather than have thoughts of their own or that this is just human nature in some way. The real answer to all of this is actually very simple. We are fast leaving behind the cherished concepts of our founding fathers that established us as a free country and sliding down the hill right toward becoming a society of "equals" instead. I say, thanks but no thanks, the Soviet Union tried this approach already, did we learn nothing?

Hypocrisy

I read somewhere once, oh yeah a book, that when Republicans are hypocrites, it hurts only themselves (some sort of personal failing like cheating on their wife) hmm... anyway, but when Democrats are hyprocrites, they hurt the entire country. Sounds about right. Oh, you want evidence? Well, you could read "Liberal Hypocrisy" but then you'd have to admit there is any of that to begin with. At any rate, I won't try to prove the point here, I'm just saying that everyone is hypocritical at some point, but in my opinion, the Democrats are worse in their hypocrisy. After all, this past election was truly an historic moment, electing an African-American as President. However, everybody continues to gush over this like it is the second-coming of Christ (it isn't) and it is very annoying. In fact, we elected a man who is a product of the notorious Chicago political machine, whose new chief of staff is a Chicago machine politician, who seems to be perfectly fine with Hamas, who has close ties to all kinds of questionable people, including terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (which he lied about) and the gangster Tony Rezko, who sends his kids to elite private schools, but doesn't believe in school choice and therefore thinks poor black kids should stay in bad schools that are controlled by the public school teachers unions, who helped to prevent reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while collecting more donations from them than any other member of Congress except Chris Dodd, who became a Christian? because of, became a member of, attended for 20 years, married his wife in, and sent his children to, a church that is racist and clearly hates Americans, was very wrong about the surge in Iraq, but lied about his wrongness afterword, and who ran an thuggish campaign with attempts to intimidate critics and stifle dissent. So, great that we've elected such a great man as this to be our next President. I'm also certain that Martin Luther King Jr. would be happy that we judged him on the content of his character.

When will the media realize we have Dan Quayle 2.0 as our next Vice President?

I lived in Maryland and Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. area, for nearly half of my lifetime, so being in such proximity to Delaware, I got an earful of misstatements on the part of Joe Biden, our next Vice President. Therefore, I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when Obama picked him to be his running mate. Although, interestingly, my parents seemed much more forgiving of Biden's inability to speak and actually thought it was a good pick. How can this be? Is this the same man we had fun listening to for 15 years? At any rate, the media seems to love him, not as much as Obama, but I digress. Why is this? Nonetheless, I am wondering how long it is going to take for the media to wake up to the fact that they've got Dan Quayle 2.0 as the new Vice President. I already highlighted some of Joe's crazy comments in another post, so I won't cover those, but I recently read a Fox News story, dated in October, that pointed out just how much of a pass the media was giving to Joe. Why am I having to quote a Fox News story on this one? Well, the story itself points at that nobody is bothering to do the research. In fact, I watched this debate and I immediately caught the discrepancy that is so prevalent in this story, and then I looked it up to be sure. Therefore, since this news article is correct about the Constitution, I'll give this writer some leeway on his veracity. So, what did Joe say during the Vice Presidential debate that is so outlandish? Here goes:

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."

Okay, so how is it that a man who has served in the U.S. Senate as long as Joe Biden has, has absolutely no idea what the role of the Vice President is. First of all, the office of the Vice President is defined in Article 1 of the Constitution (the legislative branch), not article 2 (the executive branch). Hmm... Interesting, that he'd say it is in the executive branch and described article 1 as being the executive branch. Apparently he hasn't read the Constitutuion. (Oh wait, he probably hasn't). Second, the Constitution clearly does define the role of the Vice President (in the legislative branch portion) as: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." What does it mean to be President of the Senate. Well, I guess for Biden that'll mean that he'll only show up if there is a danger of a tie vote, but for most Vice President's throughout our history, that meant that they were President of the Senate and that they presided over it, interpreted the rules of the body and enforced them and could only be overridden by a 60 vote count of the whole. That seems like a pretty involved (legislative) activity. Of course, he'll only get to vote in the event of a tie, but I don't think Joe will have to worry about that during his 4 years with the majority the Democrats enjoy in the Senate, so I ask, what will he do as Vice President. Nothing apparently considering his understanding of the job. In fact, who was right about the office of Vice President during the debate? That's right, Mrs. Palin. She said, "Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are" which is a bit awkward, but basically says the Vice President presides over that Senate and works with its members on behalf of the President. Sounds so very constitutional, I guess maybe she's actually read it. Nonetheless, this was the most egregious, but nowhere near the only faux pas by Mr. Biden during the debate that went virtually overlooked by the media. Here's a list of a few others:
1. Will McCain's health care proposals raise taxes? Biden says that McCain’s proposal will cost people money. However, the Tax Foundation found that could easily be "roughly deficit-neutral over ten years." which is ironically exactly what Palin said during the debate.

2. Under an Obama Administration the middle class will "pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan"? However, this statement assumes you decrease taxes from their existing levels, but Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, so the tax rates will be similar to the higher rates under Clinton.

3. "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country"? Oh my gosh. This statement is so outlandish that I heard it in the debate and thought, surely not, he must be mistaken. Well, one year’s worth of spending in Iraq equaled five in Afghanistan. So, either he was mistaken or he was lying or he just doesn't know. I know which one I think it is.

3. France and the U.S. "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"? Okay, well now, this is a stupid statement on its face and really doesn't deserve comment, but for someone with "foreign policy experience" you'd think he'd know Hezbollah was of Syrian, not Lebanese origin, but nonetheless, the statement still doesn't make any sense.

4. Is it really “simply not true” that Obama said that he would meet with the leader of countries such as Iran without preconditions? No, in fact Obama said he would. He has tried to pussy foot around the issue talking about "preparation", but that is a nice way of saying he would meet with them around a square table but not a circular one and has nothing to do with preconditions of giving up nuclear aspirations or whatever the great issues are and so is an empty statement.

5. Obama warned against letting Hamas participate in Palestinian legislative elections in 2005? Uh, no, he didn't. Of course, if anyone can find a 2005 quote from before the election where he actually did, let me know and I'll change my stance on this one. Good luck in your futility, however.

6. “Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus”? You keep hearing this over and over. First of all, assuming oil prices had remained high, then they'd have had, maybe, a 50 billion dollar surplus by the end of this year. I don't know why nobody is calling this one out as the complete falsehood that it is. Oh wait, yes I do, because "oil companies" bad, "Democrats" good.

7. This one is amusing and was actually covered, a little. Biden tried to make himself out to be just one of the people and invited anyone to have a beer with him at "Katie's Restaurant" in Wilmington, Del. Unfortunately for him, that's gonna be difficult considering the restaurant hasn't been called that for about 15 years.

Now, of course then you can throw in the whole FDR getting on tv and talking to the people in 1929 thing when he wasn't even President and there wasn't any tv, but apparently that was marked up as an unintentional flub. Well, based on the above and on an earlier post of mine, it is a symptom of a man claiming intelligence who obviously is lacking in ability to use it. So, when will the media realize we have Dan Quayle 2.0? They probably already do, but they can't have him making their chosen son Obama look bad, so they'll probably rarely, if ever, point it out.

No wonder the auto industry is in trouble!

This article is supposed to be critical of Republicans and supportive of Democrats, at least the way I read it. Assuming that is true, then I really pray for the next four years, because what this article succeeds at showing is just how out of touch the Democrats and the auto industry really are on this issue. How can I say this? Well, I'll quote the article. According to CNNMoney.com, the Democratic leadership responded to the bailout plan with the following: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said over the weekend the House would aid the ailing industry, though she did not put a price on her plan. "The House is ready to do it," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "There's no downside to trying."" We're gonna get it done (meaning billions more dollars to irresponsible companies) and there's no downside to trying, except maybe the socialist outcome or the plethora of companies waiting to see if the government will bail out the auto industry so they can beg for their piece of the taxpayer's pie. Now, that's the Democratic Congressional leaders. Here's what our next President said in regards to this issue: ""For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment," Obama said in a "60 Minutes" interview airing Sunday night on CBS. "So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all of the stakeholders coming together with a plan - what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?"" Sustainable auto industry? How about a monopoly. Merge the three, get rid of some of the waste in management, actually build cars that people want to buy (SUVs that get 50 miles per gallon) and take advantage of the skilled labor you have. In addition, find someone who knows how to run a company and knows something about business (we'll come back to this). A sustainable auto industry in the U.S. does not include a bailout or "assistance" to people who have behaved greedily (the unions) and people who can't run a business (the CEOs).

At least the Democrats have politics to justify their positions. The company and the union are even worse. The union representative is quoted like this: "United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger would not flat-out reject further concessions by members on top of the two-tiered wage system and other concessions the union gave the automakers last year, but he bristled at calls for further sacrifices by his members.
"Let's go to AIG, Bear Stearns, active and retired workers: Did anybody go in and ask them to give back wages and benefit levels?" Gettelfinger said on WDIV-TV in Detroit. "What about the bond traders? Did anybody ask them? What about the cleaners in the building? Why would the UAW be any different?"
"We made an agreement, and we made major concessions," he said. "So how can you blame the autoworkers?""
How can I blame the autoworkers? Easy, years and years of unreasonable demands that have resulted in some of the best benefits in the corporate world as well as the highest salaries. The auto workers are highly skilled laborers, so I'm told, and they deserve to be paid well, but they make more in Detroit than I do in Jacksonville, FL and that is laughable. I blame the union because they just don't get that if they don't stop being greedy, and that's all it is, then they'll drive the companies they work for out of business, period. As for the people who supposedly know something about business, here's what they had to say: But GM CEO Rick Wagoner, also appearing on Detroit's WDIV, said: ""This idea that you just go into Chapter 11 and hang around for three months ... this is a fantasy. This is not going to work. Most important to what is going to happen is most people will stop buying the cars of a bankrupt company."" So, this shows that the CEO of GM has absolutely no concept of what happens to a bankrupt company. Chrysler managed to pull out of it back in the 80s and people continued to buy Chrysler cars. Many other companies have done quite well using Chapter 11, airlines etc. This guy is clueless that people who want to "buy American" will do so regardless of whether the company is in bankruptcy. A lot of people want to buy American cars. It is just that the American car maker hasn't made anything worth buying for a long time. If Congress bails them out, then this same stupidity will continue. If we let them fail, as they should, then they can go into bankruptcy, get rid of the management waste and scale back significantly the unreasonable demands of the union and then maybe they can start building products people actually want to buy. That's how you fix the American auto industry. The bailout fixes nothing and simply puts more companies sitting under the dinner table looking for scraps.