Turn Out The Lights...

Remember Benni??

He has since fled town and there is no trace of Benni any longer in my happy little neighborhood and, for this, I am pleased...especially since the space that his "flagship" restaurant occupied is now a nice little sports bar with 150 beer taps and many more bottled selections.

Does it make me a bad person to be even more pleased by the fact that he is under federal indictment for 21 counts of money laundering and wire fraud AND has a couple million in judgments against him?

Probably.

So?

Can You Smell The Desperation In the Air?

Over the past several months, the few blog updates I’ve written have been almost exclusively dedicated to bagging on “conservatives” or fundies. Despite my belief that there should be no such thing as a “Fairness Doctrine”, I’d like to turn my attention to liberals for a moment because, to quote South Park’s Matt Stone:

“I hate conservatives but I REALLY [expletive] hate liberals.”

In a previous blog post, I acknowledged that, when I stopped listening to the “conservative” talking points, I discovered that McCain was a guy I could get behind. In other posts, I expressed my concern over who his running mate might be but acknowledged that , no matter who he picked (even if it was that moron Huckabee), I’d hold my nose and pull the lever.

Fortunately, I don’t have to hold my nose. I am absolutely STOKED that he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

From a policy standpoint, she’s not perfect but there’s a lot about her to like.

-She’s an evangelical but I’m not going to hold that against her.

-She supports the idea that creationism can be debated in a school setting but does NOT believe that creationism should be added into science curriculum. Overall, she scores high marks in education.

-She doesn’t get such high marks in sex-ed, though. She supports abstinence-only…which I find ridiculous. But it is what it is.

-Her energy policy is sound; “Develop new alternative energy solutions but, in the meantime, drill here, drill now”.

-Lifetime member of the NRA.

-She’s a reformer. She went into the old guard in Alaska and kicked their asses.

-She’s pro-life…not just in word but in deed. She also realizes that it’s a loser argument and, when she running for Governor, she stated that she would not attempt to govern the procedure or propose any anti-abortion laws.

-She appears to be very fiscally conservative.

-As a man (and this is TOTALLY irrelevant), it is incumbent on me to point out that she’s something of a hottie.

The reason I’m STOKED, however, is because I firmly believe that she may be the catalyst to an Obama defeat.

I don’t necessarily believe that she’s going to successfully woo over the disgruntled Hillary supporters (even though I know one and am pretty sure there will be many others). It’s obvious, however, that she’s fired up the Republicans who had fallen into such malaise over McCain that they were planning on sitting this one out.

And the liberals are scared shitless.

So, let’s delve into why I [expletive] hate liberals.

“Pro-choicers” claim that they are all about the right to CHOOSE. Sarah Palin is so pro-life that, despite knowing that she was carrying a child with Downs Syndrome, she CHOSE to have the baby. Liberals have harped on the fact that this is proof that she’s irresponsible for CHOOSING to get pregnant at 42 (if that was a conscious choice or not, I don’t know) and CHOOSING to bring a handicapped child into the world.

She exercises her right to choose and she gets flak for it from those who think it’s more humane to kill the kid than to allow it to live.

Ms. Palin has a 17 year-old daughter who has found herself in one of those “there but for the grace of God go I” positions and got pregnant. The daughter has chosen to have the kid and marry the father. This, again, is proof-positive to liberals that she’s an irresponsible mother.

There are rumblings that young Bristol must have been forced into making this choice by her irresponsible mother. After all, why dramatically change your young life when you can just abort the baby and move forward? Here’s another case where the woman (the daughter) made a CHOICE but not the one prescribed by liberals…therefore, she gets trashed for it.

Lest this seem like an all-abortion-all-the-time post, let’s move on to other issues in which liberals are showing their asses.

“Feminists” have spent years fighting for equal rights for women yet it is this same group who is castigating Ms. Palin (up for a job as one of the most powerful woman in the world) for being an irresponsible mother to her Downs baby and knocked-up daughter when they need her the most by jumping on the campaign trail for a 24/7 job..

The feminists and the bleeding hearts have also decided that a 17 year-old girl is fair game when her mother is a Conservative. Let’s take a look at a couple comments pulled from Daily Kos and Democratic Underground:

“I have two daughters that will be teenagers at different points over the next 8 years. This woman is a direct threat to them.I don't feel sorry for Sarah, or Bristol. Or the drunken Confederate pops. Or their other kids. I don't think its off limits to criticize all of them. I don't think its off limits to take personal shots at them.”

Listen, asshole, if you’re any kind of a father, there’s no way that your daughters are threatened by a pro-life vice-president. Man up, fucker. Be a dad. Teach your daughter’s not to get knocked-up. AND IF THEY DO, be supportive of them.

“I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to destroy the Republican Party as it exists today as well as everything it stands for.

If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade.”

What the comment above ACTUALLY says is:

“On their merits, the Republican Party’s ideas are more accepted by the mainstream than ours. But we don’t care what those rubes want. WE KNOW BETTER THAN THEM. We’re liberals, therefore, we’re smarter.

If our policies won’t be accepted on their own, our only chance at success is to do everything in our power to destroy a teenage girl who has NEVER been in the national spotlight until 5 days ago.”

This is the single biggest problems with liberals. Many liberals I’ve known and have argued with make it a point to give you their resume right off the bat..

“Well, you know, I have a Masters in Anthropology from [insert college here] and I believe…”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: All your degree proves to me is that you somehow managed to complete some coursework while you were off partying on Mom and Dad’s dime for 5 or 10 years. Good for you.

One’s education ISN’T necessarily proportionate to one’s intelligence. I’ve know some exceptionally intelligent people with GEDs. I’ve known a LOT of monumentally stupid people with a Masters.

Hell, George W. Bush has a Bachelors from Yale and liberals tend to compare him to a retarded chimp..

Alas, I digress.

Liberals believe they know what is best for you and have no problem dragging you kicking and screaming to their point of view. If you disagree with a liberal, you’re a moron. If you’re from the South and you disagree with them, you’re an inbred moron.

Liberals believe that Karl Marx was onto something when he said “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Liberals believe that if someone is successful, it is at the expense of someone who is unsuccessful.

Liberals believe that the world must be fair to all.

Liberals are fucking idiots.

They have to be. How else do you explain the fact that they’re tripping over themselves to decry Palin’s lack of experience while brushing off the fact that she has infinitely more executive experience than Obama?

How else do you explain their belief that this middle-class woman is more out of touch with mainstream America than their VP nominee who has spent 36 years as a US Senator?

How else do you explain their attempts to link Palin to an Alaskan secession group and an anti-Semitic revival preacher while discounting the fact that their nominee has established ties to a domestic terrorist and considered a blatant racist as his spiritual leader for 20 years?

Fortunately, the liberals (and Democrats) have the media to do their bidding for them.

The New York Times had three front-page stories about Bristol Palin only a month after they REFUSED to acknowledge reports that John Edwards cheated on his dying wife and possibly fathered another child.

An editorial in a Philadelphia newspaper promises both race AND class warfare if Obama loses (talk about the politics of fear).

The New York Times rested it’s case that Palin wasn’t properly vetted on quotes from her political enemies.

And in an a case of blatant rumor-mongering with no factual basis, several news outlets are reporting that they heard from someone’s sister’s-boyfriend’s-cousin’s-uncle-twice-removed that some Republican operative whose name escapes them thinks McCain might drop Palin before the election.

It’s all bullshit. After falling over themselves to worship at the alter of Obama (P.B.U.H.) for the past year, the media now sees that their boy is in trouble and will lie, cheat and steal to turn the tide back towards him.

There’s a lot that can happen in the next couple months and I am, by no means, predicting a landslide victory for McCain in November. In a best case scenario, it’ll probably be a squeaker but the liberals are scared to death.

And this makes me very happy.

Can't wait for her convention speech tonight!

Yet Another Reason Why I Hate Evangelicals...

A few weeks ago, I wrote a small series of rants attacking the state of conservatism today. Many of the issues I railed against I attributed to the infiltration of Fundamentalists into the Republican Party. As it relates to abortion, I said:

"What I’m embarrassed by is not the pro-life position but the fact that so many "conservatives" allow this single issue to dictate how they will vote. Many conservative would vote against their best interests on every other matter if the candidate is pro-life enough. I dare say that if Obama were to come out as pro-life and McCain were to suddenly get all squishy on the issue, much of the Republican base would cast their vote for a Democrat.”

A few short weeks later, the Washington Times publishes the following article. As usual, my comments are in bold:

"Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.

They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year."

I would say something about how prophetic I was in that original post, but the Fundies might get sand in their vaginas and accuse me of being Mormon because I’m describing myself as a Prophet.

You know what? SCREW THE FUNDIES. It was, indeed, a prophetic post.

"McCain and Romney would be like oil and water," said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. "We aren't against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won't understand that."

This statement contains a pretty blatant lie in that Evangelicals ARE against Mormonism. It also contains a pretty eye-opening allusion to a belief I’ve mentioned in this blog on multiple occasions: Evangelicals are idiots and incapable of understanding that a person’s ideals may change if they discover “truths” which are in conflict with their previous notions.

Generally speaking, Evangelicals begin their indoctrination at birth and, amongst the beliefs instilled is an unwavering belief that anything which challenges their beliefs is the work of Satan and must be ignored….if not railed against Because they are so adverse to taking an inventory of their own beliefs, they find it impossible to comprehend how someone can change their mind on a subject.

"The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., who speaks at evangelical events across the country, told The Washington Times, "I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep.

"It will alienate the entire evangelical community - 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," Mr. McCoy added."

Principles can be a dangerous thing but this moron has no problem acting on his. Unfortunately, he carries a lot of sway over his congregation and, by making this statement, will likely influence those who follow him to do the same thing.

This is where I’m dumbfounded. Given a choice between voting for a ticket that is one half Mormon or sitting it out, he’ll sit it out, thus ensuring a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights president.

"Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, was the favorite of evangelical voters in the Republican presidential nomination contest earlier this year and won more delegates per dollar spent than any other candidate in either party.

Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee's supporters tend to be "rabid" in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination. "

Rabies symptoms include cerebral dysfunction, confusion, abnormal behavior and delirium…so I’d say that “rabid” is an appropriate description of Huckabee supporters and their views against Romney.

The rest of the article goes on in, largely, the same vein with no real conclusion. I think, however, that the conclusion is pretty clear. If McCain picks Romney as his running mate, there will be enough idiot fundamentalists who sit out the election and guarantee an Obama victory.

I understand the temptation. There was a point where I thought “If McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate, I’ll sit it out.” But about 6 seconds later, I realized the inanity of that idea and decided I’ll still pull the McCain lever no matter how much I despise his running mate. The thought of a President Barack Obama makes a certain orifice of mine pucker up every time. So does a Vice President Huckabee, for that matter, but a VP can do much less damage than a President…especially if the Democrats keep a majority in the House and Senate.

I sincerely hope, though, that McCain picks someone OTHER than Romney or the chucklehead.

Heretical Conservatism: How Do You Know Adam Wasn't a Monkey?

- Allowing for the teaching of theistic evolution in schools:

I could care less about whether God created man in his own image or if we’re descended from monkeys. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. Because of this, I have no stake in the Creationism v. Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate and know virtually nothing about any of them.

Conservatives, however, are perfectly willing to make assholes out of themselves on this.

Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and use this to support their position on creationism. There’s even a “Young Earth Creationism” movement which believes that the earth was created in six 24 hour days and is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old..

What a MONUMENTALLY stupid belief. And I mean the “inerrant word of God” part.

Just for fun, let’s say that God did come down from Heaven and found a human to take dictation. If the reporter DID manage zero errors in his transcription, that may indeed qualify as inerrant. You would then have to believe that every translation to every different language was also without a single error. THEN you would have to believe that every single variation (King James, New International, Revised Standard, etc, etc.) contains not a single error or misinterpreted word. You would also have to have an unbreakable faith to believe that someone didn’t just change words around to fuck with people.

That’s not how it happened though. For starters, as evidenced in the most excellent movie “Dogma” the voice of God is so powerful that it would cause a man’s head to explode. Accordingly, I sincerely doubt that God dictated hundreds of pages of text to an ordinary man who made zero errors.

Kidding.

In order to believe that the word of God is inerrent, you not only have to believe the above, but you have to ignore the fact that the Bible is a conglomerate of 66 texts picked from hundreds of choices by a committee of men with an ulterior motive.

Constantine, who was trying his hardest to become a Christian after years of being a pagan, was genuinely confused because everybody was preaching a different doctrine. Some were preaching the “divine son of God, born of a virgin” doctrine while others just thought he was a pretty cool philosopher. Constantine was getting a little frustrated because he kept getting told different stories by different people.

So he convened a council of bishops in Nicaea and told them to come up with a uniform message. They did, in the form of the Nicene Creed (which emphaiszed the more extreme, supernatural position) and then went on to develop their supporting document, the Bible. Although there continued to be some further development in subsequent years, the meat and potatoes remained the same.

And despite the unearthing of the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls (all of which predate the codified Bible) there has YET to be an updated version.

So you have a book, commissioned by a Roman Emporer and developed by a committee whose ultimate goal was to make Constantine happy because they were tired of being persecuted and wanted to put themselves in positions of power. Any texts which may have conflicted with their uniform message were thrown out, burned, destroyed, whatever.

(There's also some anecdotal evidence that any bishops who conflicted with their uniform message were thrown out, burned, destroyed, whatever. Certainly plausible but I can't say for sure.)

In the 1600+ years since the book was developed, it’s been translated into hundreds of languages and hundreds of different versions by thousands of different people. Do you still believe that it is without error?

If so, keep in mind that Jesus was very cryptic in his messages and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. When God was telling the story of how he created the heavens and earth and everything therein in 6 days, a “day” could have represented millions of years. God’s concept of time may not be the same as ours.

Thomas Jefferson once said that he belonged to a sect of Christianity that had but one member and, through most of my adult life, I’ve related to that sentiment. My Christian ideals are a strong mix of Protestantism and Gnosticism with a little Deism and Philosophical Taoism thrown in for good measure.

This should explain both my belief that the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God as well as my verbosity when it comes to talking about fundies.

Again, I’m not going to argue the merits of evolution vs. creationism as I’m completely apathetic on the issue.. I AM going to say, however, that if you believe that the earth is only six thousand years old because the Bible says so, you are deluded. If this is how you want your children to believe, teach them yourselves. Or find some backwards, snake-handling church and they can teach your kids for you.

Like it or not, by requiring the teaching of creationism in the schools, you start heading up that slippery slope towards government promotion of religion which the First Amendment says is a great big no-no (I’ll talk more about the First Amendment later…it deserves it’s own post). Further up on that slippery slope is the line that demarcates theocracy which, again, is completely ANTI-conservatives.

PS. Isn’t it funny how many of the people on the “creation” side of the argument are the ones who are most up in arms about Islamic law in the Middle East?

PPS. They also tend to be the ones who scream the loudest that Barry O’Bama is SURELY a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein and “We can’t have no Muslim in the White House!”

PPPS. Far be it for me to defend ole Barry. I have HUGE concerns about the guy and, (as it’s probably fairly obvious) won’t be voting for him in November. Being black and having a funny, Muslim sounding name are not two of them, though.

Greatest "Screw You" Ad EVER...

-We interrupt this series of posts to bring you an important message...

Why, oh WHY can't Southwest pick up a couple gates in ATL???? All I really need is ATL to Dallas-Love and ATL to Ft. Lauderdale.

If SWA could pull that off, I'd promise to never, ever, EVER fly the craptacular American Airlines and mega-craptacular Delta.

Heretical Conservatism: Invasion of the Brown People

- Opposed to illegal immigration

Sure I’m opposed to illegal immigration but conservatives have lost their damned minds over this.

I spent the majority of my life living in Fort Worth Texas and Miami Florida so being around brown people has never been an issue for me.

(Well, actually there was an issue one time when a girl I was hitting on failed to tell me that she had an extremely jealous Cuban boyfriend. Would have been good information to have at the time.)

Many of those that I count as my friends, whether they’re Cuban, Mexican, El Salvadorian, Jamaican or whatever, had to go through a lot and jump through hoops in order to obtain their legal residency or citizenship. If anyone should be (and, based on conversations I’ve had with friends, IS) pissed about illegal immigration, it’s them.

There are two problems with this illegal immigration problem , though:

1. Illegal immigration will never stop. The US has managed the greatest PR campaign in history…”Give us your poor..” “Live the American Dream”, etc., etc. We’ve sold ourselves so well that the poor, weary and oppressed will do anything to get here. If we catch them and send them back, they’ll sneak back over again tomorrow. Short of shooting everyone who tries to sneak in, there’s no way to stop the tide.

2. If there’s 20 million illegals here right now and we spend $100 billion catching and deporting illegals, guess how many illegals will be here next year? 20 million. Their will is stronger than our resources.

How much does illegal immigration cost the US every year? Studies I’ve seen have shown a range of $10 billion to $50 billion a year. These studies are one-sided, though, and do not take into consideration that certain costs (education, etc.) would not actually reduce if you took illegal immigrants out. In other words, lets say a school has 500 kids and annual expenditures of $2 million per year. If 10 of those students turn out to be illegals and get deported, will the expenditures be reduced? Not really. The school still has to have the same number of teachers, same number of administrators and the utility bills won’t change.

Also, most of these studies don’t take into account that many of the illegals are paying income taxes, Social Security and Medicare (with no deductions and no returns), and they ALL pay sales tax (most of it via 7-11 or QuikTrip) Property taxes are included in their rent payment.

Nor do these studies account for increased revenue (and increased taxes) that results from higher production. Ten Mexicans can build a better house in a month than twenty Americans can do in two months.

Worst of all, if there are no illegals to pick the pole beans, poor old Farmer Bob would have to run screaming to the government that he needs another $150 billion to cover the increased costs of hiring white guys to pick his beans. He MIGHT have to settle for cloth interior in his new truck instead of leather.

Conservatives like to attribute their position on illegal immigration to their FISCAL conservative sensibilities. But it’s not.

It pains me to no end to say this (because I TRULY hate people who throw out this term) but there’s an inherent racism (or, at the very least, xenophobia) in this issue. In my picket-fenced, middle/upper middle class North Georgia neighborhood, this is “the most important issue that we as American’s face”. If I were to talk to people from my old neighborhood in Ft. Worth, TX, however, illegal immigration probably woudn’t even rank in the top 10. And in Miami, the only ones who are pissed about illegal immigration are the legal immigrants who busted their ass to get here.

This is another one in which it’s inherently ANTI-conservative in that conservatives would deny these people the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, we should be concerned that our borders leak like a sieve.

Yes, we should make it that if you want to live here, you must go through the motions to live here legally.

Yes, we should boot out the ones who refuse to make the effort to get legal.

No, we should not grant amnesty to everyone who’s here illegally.

Yes, we should probably come up with some sort of guest worker program. Doing so would not only help our economy and theirs but it would also allow us to put better controls in place to stem the tide of border jumpers.

Most importantly, we should not come up with bullshit excuses and get all self-righteous because brown people are coming.

Heretical Conservatism: Old McDonald is a Welfare Queen...

- Protecting the continuation of the family farm.

91% of family farms are responsible for 27% of the US total agriculture output. Because corporate farms, which only makes up 2% of all farms) produce 14% of the output, only 9% of family farms are doing the job well enough to put out 59% of the product. From a cost/benefit perspective, 91% of the family farms aren’t really that good. Why save them?

We do our damnedest to try, though. In addition to huge tax deductions, farmers are subsidized, given grants, loans that don’t have to be paid back if the harvest is worse than expected and price-fixing...uh, I mean…price SUPPORTS..

Growing up in a community where the economy was mostly Ag-based, the wealthiest people I knew were farmers. The fact that Farmer Bob is driving a new truck every year at the expense of my 6-year-old-car-driving, tax-paying ass just doesn’t elicit much sympathy from me.

While I’m spending more than ever on groceries, the Federal Government is passing a bill which provides Farmer Bob, and those like him, $300 billion in price supports and subsidies. Bob will qualify for these subsidies as long as his income is not over $750,000.

Lest you think that is a typo, let me repeat…Bob qualifies for subsidies as long as his income is not over three-quarters of a million dollars.

My dad is in the car business for a US automaker. With the economy down and foreign cars kicking the US ass, Dad’s job and finances are lacking some of the security he previously enjoyed. Where the hell are Willie Nelson and John Mellancamp when Dad needs them?

I have a buddy whose family has had a hardware store for 50 or 60 years. His grandfather made a good living with that store for many years and his uncle did very well with it for most of his career. My buddy grew up thinking he would take over. But since Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart and Target have opened stores in town, any dreams of being the hardware go-to guy have been vanquished. Further, the uncle is just struggling to stay afloat until he can retire and sell the place (at a tremendous loss, no doubt). So far, the federal government hasn’t passed a multi-billion dollar “Family Hardware Store Act”. So why is the farmer’s kid held in higher esteem than the hardware store kid?

There’s a romanticized view of the noble family farmer It’s not just that the farmer keeps us fed but it is one of the last vestiges of the “traditionalist” family unit. I addressed this briefly in March 2006 when I was reviewing that horrible Rod Dreher book:

“Prior to, let’s say, the 40’s… a monastic family existence (especially in rural locales) was the norm out of necessity. In the absence of 401Ks, Social Security, Kroger and a Waffle House on every corner, having a large family was a selfish act of self- preservation (not to mention the result of inadequate contraception), It was not due to some altruistic pursuit of the “Permanent Things.”

You had kids to help you plant and harvest the crops. After they were grown, you gave them a plot of land across the creek so that they could continue helping you out with the farm and, once you’re old and debilitated, give them the farm and they, in turn, would keep you fed until you shuffled off the mortal coil. They would do the same with their kids. The circle of life goes on. (Cue Elton John)”

The family farm is no longer necessary to feed the country. Corporate farming and, evidently 9% of "family farms" has developed a very efficient method of keeping the grocery store shelves stocked. If you WANT to make your living from being a farmer but you don’t want to answer to a boss, by all means, be your own farmer. I hope you make a million bucks doing so. With the price of food today, you just might. Just don’t expect the government (and, by extension, ME) to bail you out if you can’t make a go of it.

Screw the family farm…I’m tired of protecting them. This is not 1935 and America is not the rural, agrarian country that it once was. With the advent of cars, interstates, airplanes, public schools, etc., there’s a world of options for farmer’s kids to make a living if farming doesn’t work out for them. THIS is one area that is in serious need of reform.

Heretical Conservatism: The Right-Wing Has It's Own Version of PETA

- Opposition to federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research

This is another one that I can’t get too worked up over and it’s amazing to me that conservatives still get into such a tizzy over this.

Pro-lifers say that this is the destruction of a human life. Apparently they believe that after two people come together in love and created a new human life, a group of diabolical scientists forcefully remove the child from the mother so that it can be torn apart with the hope that Christopher Reeve might walk again (actually, that would be a pretty impressive trick since he's been dead for over 3 years...but I digress).

Except it’s not...the diabolical scientist part, I mean.

In reality, a scientist takes a drop of baby batter, implants it into an egg, leaves it in a test tube for a few days and takes the product of this effort and does research on it. The embryo has no feelings, no soul, no consciousness. It’s a clump of 50 to 150 cells. And as long as it’s sitting in a petri-dish and NOT a womb, it’s not even a viable clump of 50 to 150 cells.

I won’t argue the merits of whether or not embryonic stem-cell research has any value whatsoever. I barely passed 10th grade biology…I’m certainly not qualified to argue its merits. What I WILL say, though, is that for a group who is so keen on the “culture of life”, it’s odd to me that they won’t even give it a chance.

“All life is sacred to God….even little bitty clumps of cells which have the potential to become a baby.”

You know, I don’t think God thinks in absolutes like that. He’s God. He possesses wisdom and, no doubt a little common sense. And (in my humble opinion) he thinks that we’re being ridiculous for holding a 150 cell clump in higher esteem than millions of people who suffer debilitating and/or life threatening diseases because we have (misguided) moral concerns.

I’ve always found it to be charmingly ironic that the same people who are anti-abortion are most often pro-death penalty. I guess all life is sacred to God UNLESS you’ve committed a horrible crime.

(Lest anyone think I’ve gone totally overboard and turned into a liberal, I’m still pretty much in favor of the death penalty in certain instances, such as sexual predators, people who abuse or murder children and serial killers. And note that these are the crimes that I feel to be most worthy of death. God may see things differently. He didn’t assign a points system when he gave the Ten Commandments….he might find lying to the boss, stealing office supplies or lusting after that hot little auditor on the 4th floor more smite-worthy than shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die. Not likely, but who can say for sure?)

Again, I’m not arguing the merits…embryonic stem cell research may produce absolutely nothing. I’m only saying that the pro-life position on ESCR is as stupid as PETA’s position on animal research...and that’s REALLY damned stupid.

If you think about it, the similarities are striking.

PETA believes that the life of an animal is just as sacred and deserving of protection as a human life (and sometimes more so). Any animal testing, even if it has the potential to save millions of people from debilitating and/or fatal disease is wrong. Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA has said, “Even if animal experiments did result in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, I’d be against it on moral grounds."

Ingrid Newkirk is batshit crazy and I defy you to find a single conservative who doesn’t believe the same about her.

But if you substitute “embryo” for “Rover”…

Heretical Conservatism: Fruitcakes Need Love Too...

- Promotion of heterosexual marriage, and disapproval of sexual immorality

Again, as I’ve previously referenced, I’m one of those who would prefer that marriage be the union between a man and a woman but, at the same time, have no opposition to allowing same-sex couples to be joined in some sort of civil union. If two guys want to spend the rest of their lives together, so be it. Why should I care?

I should care, say the conservatives, because it is another step towards the destruction of the American family and the bastardization of marriage.

Is it?

I’d say that Americans have already bastardized the institution of marriage by allowing 24 hour, drive-through wedding chapels. If a particular institution has a 50% failure rate, is it REALLY all that sacred? Is it truly the foundation upon which society is built??

There are plenty of reasons the American family is taking a beating…divorce, unwanted children, absentee parents, negligent parents…the list goes on. What ISN’T destroying the American family is a family in which two loving, devoted, involved and committed parents happen to share the same genitalia (in more ways than one…(ba-DUM-DUM!)).

It’s infinitely possible that one of my children may have a friend or acquaintance who comes from a two mommy or two daddy household. As a parent, it will be incumbent on me to stifle the gag reflex and have a sit-down with my kid to answer any questions he/she may have (or, perhaps, for them to answer any questions I have).

Frankly, I’d MUCH rather my child have a well-behaved, well-adjusted friend who has two daddies than a pain-in-the-ass, destined-for-prison friend with a white-trash mommy and daddy who somehow managed to stick it out.

Let's be honest, though. Conservatives aren't out to promote heterosexual marriage. They're completely intolerant of homosexual relationships. In fact, James Dobson, and many assholes like him, have argued that tolerance of same-sex unions would lead to an increase in same-sex couples.

Good. I hope so.

There is not a true heterosexual in the world who would suddenly decide to be gay when the state says that it’s OK. It would, however, allow gays who have spent their lives lying, either blatantly or by omission, to be free to live their lives the way they see fit.

I used to think, much like Dobson, that homosexuality was a choice. Then I got to know some gay people.

Not a choice. Certainly not a conscious one.

Look at how many gay people have tried to lead a hetero lifestyle. They wanted to fit into a social norm and, in so doing, left a wake of broken hearts and damaged families behind them when they realized they couldn’t continue living a way that is counterintuitive to them. Look at Jim McGreevey, the governor who came out of the closet and has lost the kingdom. His wife is pissed, his kids are now in a broken home and he was run out of office. Worked out well for him.

And for God’s sake, won’t anyone think about Lou Diamond Phillips. He got dumped by his wife for Melissa Ethridge and his career went to crap.

Again, I go back to my kids. My dream is that they lead traditional heterosexual lives, get married, have kids, keep the circle of life going and live happily ever after. IF, however, they come to the realization that they aren’t wired that way, the LAST thing I would want for them to face is the idiotic rantings of the James Dobson’s of the world.

Besides, there’s a fringe benefit to tolerance. Fewer things irritate me more than flamboyant gays who wear their sexuality on their sleeve. They’re annoying. If their lifestyle is no longer looked down on, maybe they’ll lose interest and start acting like ordinary, multi-faceted people who have more to offer than “I’m here, I’m queer, get used to it.”

As far as sexual immorality, sexual immorality is ultimately defined as something that you find ookie. What you find ookie may be pretty outstanding to me. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, “Nothing in the world interests me as much as my orgasm. Nothing in the world interests me less than yours.” (My wife excluded, of course)

Whose sexual morality should we follow? How about the Hasidim who don’t allow a man and woman to so much as touch each other for 12 out of every 28 days because she’s unclean? Certain Evangelicals who never stray from missionary? No thank you.

Government has no place in the bedroom and what two (or more) consenting adults opt to do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it doesn’t result in physical or psychological harm, should be fair game. What people do behind closed doors is not something that Conservatives should lose sleep over.

But they do.

And if they can’t find anything legitimate, they make stuff up. It was fundamentalist Christians who found the dick on the Little Mermaid box, discovered that, if you play a Britney Spears song backward, it says “Sleep with me, I’m not too young.” and started a campaign against Teletubbies because it “promotes a homosexual agenda” to 2 year-olds.

Personally, I think if you’re searching for perversion where none exists, it’s more a reflection of your own depravity than anyone else’s. I’m just sayin’

Conservatism is supposed to be all about freedom and liberty. The fundamentalist, mainstream conservative view of homosexuality, then, is ANTI-conservative by definition.

Heretical Conservatism: Pro-Life is a Loser...

- Pro-Life views on abortion...

Many people define themselves as conservative or liberal based solely on whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. This is the first place in which I break with “mainstream conservatism.”

Personally, I believe (and have stated such elsewhere in this little corner) that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the states allowed to make laws regarding the regulation of abortion.

Were this to happen, the states could make laws, consistent with its standards and values to regulate the procedure. Although some states may have more onerous regulations than others, there’s likely not a state out there that would pass a law that completely wipes out the procedure.

Of course, I may be putting a little too much faith into the states. I live in a state whose boneheaded Governor, despite overwhelming public support and passage by the Senate, vetoed a bill which would allow Sunday beer sales. However, that’s not the point.

I am pro-life but only to a certain point. As a husband and father, my position is influenced by what choices I hope my wife or daughter would make. In case of rape or threat to the mother’s life, I am pro-abortion. If my daughter were to make a dumb teenage mistake or my wife’s birth control were to fail, my position is pretty staunchly pro-life.

Granted, I’d probably cry a lot and drink a lot more, but I would not want to see one of the women I love make any other choice.

I’m fully aware of the fact that a lot of women don’t have husbands or fathers who would be nearly as supportive and, in my opinion, the only thing worse than a dead baby is an unwanted, neglected and unloved child. This makes me pretty squishy on the issue overall.

What I’m embarrassed by is not the pro-life position but the fact that so many "conservatives" allow this single issue to dictate how they will vote. Many conservative would vote against their best interests on every other matter if the candidate is pro-life enough. I dare say that if Obama were to come out as pro-life and McCain were to suddenly get all squishy on the issue, much of the Republican base would cast their vote for a Democrat.

“It doesn’t really matter what Obama thinks about everything else…he’s one of us!” they would exclaim.

What the “lifers” seem to be hanging their hats on is that a pro-life president would be the beginning of the end of legal abortion but nothing could be further from the truth. Hell, W is about as pro-life as they come AND he appointed two “conservative” Supremes two years ago. So far, nothing which threatens Roe is even on the horizon.

Even IF Roe got overturned tomorrow, the legality of abortion would not suddenly disappear, it could simply be called into question at the state level and the state would then have the option of passing a law barring the practice. EVEN if some sort of law were passed, it would likely be challenged and, the law could not be enforced until the challenge was heard.

Some states even have “trigger laws” in place that, in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, state law would keep abortion legal.

I understand that many people feel very passionate on this subject but it’s a loser and shouldn’t be used as a litmus test by conservatives OR liberals.

Heretical Conservatism: Eeewww...Squishy

Now we come to the squishy part.

These are the issues in which I can, at the very least, agree with the premise (somewhat), but I just can’t completely get on board.

Where do I “squishily” agree with conservatives?

Greater financing for education:

I’m biased on this. As previously stated, my wife is a teacher so I get to see, on a daily basis, some of the problems in our schools. While I’m extremely distressed by the state of our education system today. I’m not 100% sure that throwing more money at the problem is going to fix it.

The BIGGEST problem with education goes back to the “family values” issue: Poor parenting. Mind you, poor parenting is not limited to the parents who don’t care. In many cases, poor parenting can manifest itself in people who shelter their children, do not allow them to make their own mistakes and believe that their children are incapable of doing wrong. I like to call these wastes of space “Helicopter parents”. More on them another day.

Whether you are a parent who is apathetic or you are a parent who can not take a step back and allow your child to take his licks and learn on his own, you are a negligent parent and, hence, the biggest problem facing our education system.

The SECOND biggest problem with education is that, due to the passage of “No Child Left Behind”, teachers are limited to teaching the test. This is a pretty narrow focus and, as a result, our kids are NOT getting the quality education they should be. Kids are being taught that the answer to “X” is “Y” but are given no explanation as to why; no background.

Teacher: “The American Civil War began in 1861 and ended in 1865.”

Student: “What was the cause of the Civil War.”

Teacher: “Doesn’t matter. It's not on the test. Just remember that it went from 1861 to 1865.”

The second problem leads to the third: many of the GOOD teachers are so frustrated by their inability to do their job in the manner in which they were trained that they decide to get out. What’s the point of being a glorified babysitter who sits in front of the class with flash cards? If they’re going to do a job which doesn’t utilize their skill sets, they may as well get one that pays better.

It’s easy to use a perceived lack of funding as an excuse for having such a crappy education system but, in reality, billions more in education funding does nothing to address the problem.

Although it would be very nice if they were to throw some of that extra education cash our way. My wife needs a raise.

Protection of key American industries like defense, certain raw materials, and agriculture from foreign competition:

I’m squishy on this because I’m not terribly educated on this. I always thought that competition was a good thing, free trade kinda guy I am. Unfortunately, many foreign countries have proven that they can do the same job better, faster and cheaper in other industries so would competition destroy these other industries? Don’t know. This doesn't really seem like a "conservative value" as much as an "isolationist value".

It seems to make sense, though, that our defense systems SHOULD be designed and built by Americans. By outsourcing this function to other countries, aren’t we making espionage just a little easier?

Should we protect certain raw materials? Sure. Oil comes to mind. Seems pretty well protected already, though, since we sit on huge pockets of it and refuse to do anything with it for fear that we might disrupt the mating habits of caribou.

Agriculture, on the other hand, SHOULD be subject to competition. The federal government has made it completely ANTI-competitive. How many jobs do you know of where you can get paid by the government NOT to produce? How many billions in subsidies and tax breaks have we paid farmers in order to keep prices in check? Looked at your grocery bill lately? We constantly see stories about starvation around the world…about how expensive food is becoming, yet we pay farmers to NOT produce?

Let’em compete. I’m tired of Kroger being the second largest recipient of my take-home pay (after my mortgage company).

Prison reform that focuses on rehabilitation through education and labor:

This one is squishy because history has proven that there are just some HORRIBLE people in the world. History has also proven that some people are in jail for reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of education but bad timing or dumb mistakes.

In a perfect world, we would look at the crime and determine the best course of action. If you got caught shoplifting to feed your family because you had no job, perhaps you can be rehabbed through education. If you’re a serial rapist or child abuser, you should be marched right through the prison library, taken to the recreation yard and shot.

As far as those who fall in the middle (between “horrible waste of skin” and “unfortunate victim of circumstance”), a common sense approach to the problem would be in order. If there’s a good chance the person can be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society, I’m all for giving it a shot. If, however, the person is beyond redemption, don’t waste the time or money.

So, there's my squishy three.

The six in which I think the right wing is full of shit will each get their own post. Some of them will be short but some will likely be pretty long.

Heretical Conservatism - Where Do I Agree With Mainstream Conservatives?

As Jonah Goldberg once noted, “…I think interest in conservatism has waned in recent years thanks to the more pressing issues of Islam and terrorism and the fact that — for good and for ill — conservatism has largely been defined for much of the last five years as "whatever George W. Bush does." To say this state of affairs has been vexing to some of us is an understatement on par with "haggis is an acquired taste.""

Just for fun, I pulled up “Present Social Conservative Values in the United States” from Wikipedia just so that I could see what percentage of these values I agree with. I limited myself to the social aspects of conservatism. Republicans have already abandoned fiscal conservatism so there's no real point in bringing it up.

Of the 13 values listed, I am strongly “conservative” on 4 and squishy on 3 others. This means I agree with conservatives less than 31% of the time (or 53.8% if my squishy views count). This, in schoolspeak would be an F and I can, in good conscience, turn in my Conservative Card.

Where do I agree with today’s conservatives?

Focus on stronger families and not big government for teaching values:

I am a firm believer in this, if nothing more than because I’m a parent who believes that I know better than the government what is best for my children. Besides, what values does the government have which would serve them later in life? Fiscal responsibility is out. So is Personal Responsibility. And when government is run by two parties whose values are often in opposition, does big government’s value curriculum change whenever the parties switch places?

Unfortunately, it seems that big government is already responsible for teaching values. I’m married to a school teacher. I know these things.

For example, I know that a large number of parents are as useless as tits on a bull. I know that it becomes incumbent on my wife to teach some of her students the difference between right and wrong because their useless parents have failed to do so. I also know that when she TRIES to instill some values (or, at the very least, SOCIAL SKILLS) with these children, her efforts are either met with apathy from the parents OR she’s accused of having it out for their kid. Rarely does she hear the words “Thank you for taking such an interest in my child’s well-being.”

My wife is a saint and I SO admire her for her ability to handle crappy kids and crappy parents with such grace. I am completely incapable of that…which explains why I’m in corporate America. I can (and do, on a daily basis) tell someone, in no uncertain terms, how badly they’re screwing up without fear of any REAL reprisal. It’s very liberating.

Got off on a tangent there.

Yes, a focus on stronger families is, indeed, a conservative value and I whole-heartedly agree with it. And before a liberal takes offense over this statement, I’m not saying that liberals don’t care about their families and I’m certainly not saying this is true of any liberal friends. I’m just saying that it wasn’t a conservative who wrote a book called “It Takes A Village.”

Protection of 2nd Amendment rights:

I like guns. I have a gun. I’d like to have more guns. If you can be responsible with a gun, you should be able to have one. If you’ve proven that you CAN’T be responsible with a gun, you should have it taken away when you’re put away in a jail cell. When you get out, you don’t get it back. So sorry.

I’m a firm believer in the Castle Doctrine. I am also a firm believer in gun safety and, as such, have made certain that my wife knows how to load, unload and shoot. As my kids get older, they will be taught to respect guns. My daughter has already been out with me when I went shooting and I was very blunt with her about what happens if you don’t handle guns with care. It was my duty to start her early…my father-in-law (the bird hunter) has made it clear that he intends to buy her her first shotgun. When he does, I don’t want to be giving her crash courses.

With that said, I am not completely opposed to CERTAIN limitations. For example, I’ve shot a Tec-9 and can say, with no qualms, that there is not a single GOOD reason for anyone to have one. If you’re into drive-bys, it’s a choice weapon. For legitimate use, however, there’s nothing redeeming about it whatsoever.

Reducing and/or reforming welfare for the poor and needy:

My dad always told me “If you find yourself in trouble, I will NOT bail you out. I will, however, do anything I can to help you bail YOURSELF out.”

To preserve the welfare of society as a whole, it is incumbent on us to help the poor and needy help themselves. This is why I donate to charities, give offerings to my church and have even been known to participate in a community service project. I even believe that the government has a LIMITED responsibility to help people pull themselves up by their bootstraps on those rare occasions where everything has fallen apart..

It is not, however, the government’s responsibility to support people, families (or, for that matter, third world countries) ad infinitum. If you’re unhappy with your station in life, fix it. If you’re not willing to fix it, fine…just don’t look to us to take care of you. I have no intentions of financially supporting my OWN children their entire lives, I’m certainly not going to support YOUR lazy ass for the rest of yours.

Lower taxes with spending focused on education, defense, and infrastructure:

This is a no-brainer and I really don’t have anything to add. My money should be mine. I have no problems paying my fair share for my security or for those things I use on a daily basis.

So there you go. Four “conservative values” that I can stand behind. Regrettably, it goes downhill from here.

A Look at the Field...

Because of my Politics Fatigue, my knowledge of the candidates that the Republicans were running with was, at best, cursory. What a bunch of depressing field that turned out to be. Facing almost insurmountable odds in the next election cycle after being a total disappointment to the people who voted them in office (like me), the Republicans come up with, perhaps, one of the shittiest groups of candidates in the history of the Republican party….or so I thought.

Let’s look at the field:

Mitt Romney was the Republican Governor of the most liberal state in the country. PJ O’Rourke put it best when he said, “Mitt Romney is supposed to be my own type of candidate, a true conservative. But Mitt was governor of Massachusetts. This is like applying to be pope and listing your prior job experience as "Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem.". By Massachusetts standards he has always been pretty conservative. When he realized, however, that Massachusetts defined conservatism a little differently than the rest of the country, he flip-flopped on abortion, gun control, taxation, etc.

Hmmm…a northern Republican whose conservative beliefs were born when the opportunity for higher office arose. I’ll pass.

Ron Paul may have some brilliant Constitutionalist/Federalist positions but I really don’t know for sure. The reason I don’t know for sure is that I opted not to study his positions. The reason I opted not to study his positions is that his supporters are batshit crazy. The reason his supporters are batshit crazy is that he HIMSELF is batshit crazy.

Crazy + Older than McCain + Psychotic Supporters = UNELECTABLE. I’m not wasting my time.

Mike Huckabee just scares the shit out of me. He’s a Bible-thumping John Edwards who had no desire to be “Commander in Chief” but “Pastor-In_Chief”. What MOST scares me about him can be summed up in a single quote from the man himself:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution... But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

This leaves us with John McCain, the presumptive nominee:

Unfortunately, he was really, REALLY wrong on campaign finance reform,. He’s taken pride in selling out his fellow Republicans (thereby breaking the Reagan rule) His cap-and-trade environmental policy is evidence that he’s been drinking the Al Gore kool-aid a little too long.

He’s right on more things than he’s wrong on. He’s right on spending, he’s mostly right on foreign policy, he’s right on the Federal Marriage Amendment, he’s right on Free Trade, he’s right on Social Security, Medicare and Health Care. And maybe I’m not seeing the forest through the trees on the cap and trade thing. Maybe McCain is simply using this as a ploy to get the moderate, enrviroment-loving Democrats to pull the lever for him. One can only hope.

DAMN! McCain really isn’t that bad

Over the past few months, I’ve said that I’m going to hold my nose and cast my ballot for the lesser of the evils. But if I agree with the candidate more often than not, why do I feel like I’m selling out?

I think I’ve finally figured it out. Much like Joe and Jane America, I’M stupid.

When I threw my hands up in the air and gave up, I started letting the pundits, the journalists and talking heads.influence my opinions. If these dyed-in-the-wool conservatives are having such a problem with McCain, there’s got to be a problem, right?

There is. It’s with the conservatives.

Since I started this blog almost 3 years ago, I’ve tried to distance myself from the label “conservative”, generally calling myself a right-leaning Federalist. Over the past couple years, I’m finding an even greater need to remove myself from the conservative fold. I have no desire to be perceived as one of those silly bastards.

So begins a series. I’m taking McCain’s lead in breaking the Reagan Rule (Thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans) and intend to use this little forum as my platform to talk about how badly Republicans suck and the level of contempt I have for those who call themselves “conservative”. I’ve had it.

So begins “Heretical Conservatism”…

Back on the Psychiatrist's Couch...

Happy New Year!!!!

I figure that must be an appropriate statement as this is my first post to THIS blog since July of last year. Almost half of 2008 is gone.

The lengthy blog silence has been brought on by two significant changes in my life.

The most important, significant and WONDERFUL change manifested itself in the form of a beautiful little boy. My son came to join us in September and I’ve set up a little blog for him…something of an online baby book. His birth has added an all-new dynamic in our house (that of the multi-child household) and he’s kept his Mom, Dad and Sis on their toes.

From a personal standpoint, I couldn’t be happier. A beautiful wife who has born me two beautiful, wonderful kids, all of whom are very tolerable of me and haven't yet thrown me out of the house.

This is extremely fortunate as it’s been a very pleasant diversion from the other important and significant, yet HIGHLY DISAPPOINTING change I’ve experienced over the past year…

An identity crisis.

I continue to be the tolerable husband, loving father and under-appreciated corporate whiz kid…these fundamental elements of my life are unchanged. Regrettably, what I thought was another of the fundamental elements of my life (politics and the state of society in general) has taken such a beating over the past couple years and my opinions on these matters have become so caustic that I had to take a hiatus.

Actually, it wasn’t a hiatus. Hiatuses are planned. This was a withdrawal prompted by a complete lack of motivation. I threw my hands up in the air and gave up.

You see, less than eight VERY LONG years ago, the party who I felt best represented by beliefs took both houses of Congress and the White House. Silly me was under the impression that this would result in lower taxes, a common sense approach to spending (i.e., less of it) and smaller government...you know, things that Conservatives (and, by reference, Republicans) traditionally stood for.

Boy was I wrong about all of those but the first one.

Dubya spends money like a drunken sailor and has overseen the greatest expansion of Federal Government since the LAST Texan was in office. Apparently, he misplaced his veto pen as he didn’t manage to veto a single bill for the first 78 months that he was in office. His first veto was a fucking Stem Cell Research bill. Six and a half years without a single veto and he can only find it in his heart to veto a bill with which he has a moral dilemna.

Don’t get me wrong…I’m fine with him acting on principle. Hell, that’s part of the reason I voted for him. I’m more concerned over the fact that he has not been conflicted over spending money on shit he can’t afford.

I liken it to a conversation I could have with my wife:

“Honey, you are NOT spending ten dollars on that Bratz doll for the kid as it is a reflection of EVERYTHING that is wrong with kids today! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I'm against it and I'm taking a stand!

Oh, by the way, I picked up that SL65 AMG I’ve been wanting for a while. Yeah, I know that we don’t have $175,000 to spend on a two-seater,.but, hey, if we fall short, the kids have plenty of money in their savings accounts to cover our shortfall every month.”

For me to say, 7 years later, that Bush has been a miserable failure at everything he has done during his presidency would be dishonest. He has had a few successes. Some of them, such as the Alito thing, was a success in spite of his best efforts to screw it up. But, overall, I don’t think that history is going to be kind. I was a big fan of the guy for quite a while and if I find him indefensible he’s a pretty easy target for everyone else.

And despite Bush’s indefensibility, I can’t come up with a word strong enough to describe how deplorable the rest of the Republican party is to me.

Unfortunately, in 2008, all the Democrats have to do is take a play out of the Reagan handbook:

“Are you better off today than you were [8] years ago?”

If you asked me this question 2 years ago, it would have been a resounding “yes!” My salary had nearly doubled, my 401k had MORE than doubled, my wife and I purchased our own house and we actually had some disposable income after the bills were paid.

Today, however, my monthly gasoline bill has more than quadrupled ($.89 a gallon in 2000 vs. $3.71 this morning), my 401k has had minor losses over the past 2 quarters and, although my house has gained in value since I bought it, I can’t sell it right now because the housing market has gone to shit.

Are these things all Bush’s fault? Maybe a little but not really. It could be argued that the gas prices can be linked to him which, in turn, contributed to the sub-prime crisis, which led to stagnation, etc., but, more than anything, most of this just happened on his watch.

Problem is, we're going into an election year and we don't require voters to pass a basic knowledge assessment before they cast a ballot. For the most part, Joe and Jane America are idiots who will believe anything they’re told if the person telling them is attractive enough, famous enough or at least confident enough to tell a blatant lie without stuttering.

"Sean Penn says John McCain sucks and I REALLY liked him as Spicolli so he MUST know what he's talking about, right?"

Joe and Jane are being told that every struggle they’re facing today is the direct result of failed Republican policies. Arguments are being made that the only way they’re going to improve their station in life is to put a Democrat in the White House.

The problem is, it’s all bullshit. Well, mostly. If Joe and Jane are making less than $50 grand a year and have 4 kids, their station may well be improved.

For those of us in the middle class, though, any dream we have of improving OUR station will have to be put on hold. We’ll be too busy paying higher taxes on incomes that we lost when we got laid off because our companies couldn’t afford to pay higher taxes AND my salary…especially since the company’s stock price went into the toilet because the people with money decided that stuffing their cash in a mattress was a better investment strategy than investing on Wall Street.

It’s depressing just typing this. Pass the Prozac and the bottle of Bulliet.

Since I’m not really keen on anti-depressants and because my liver can only take so much bourbon, I’ve re-fired the blog as a form of therapy.

Lots to talk about. There’s an election to get ready for! Piss and vinegar to unload!! People to ridicule!!!

YEEARRRGH!

TOMMY THE CAT IS MY NAME...

- and I say unto thee...

Back in 2003, while my daughter was still in-utero, she first developed a taste for more aggressive tunes. We'd be driving down the street, throw in "This Is The New S#!t" by Marilyn Manson and watch as this little alien started bouncing around in her womb.

My son, who my wife is currently gestating, has been a little less interested in what's playing on the radio...until yesterday.

While driving home from dinner last night, I threw the iPod onto "Shuffle" when it FINALLY happened. Turns out my son is a Primus fan. When "Tommy the Cat" came on, he immediately started dancing around, playing air guitar on a 6 string bass.

That's my boy.

I've been looking for an excuse to buy a bass and teach myself to play. Think I've found the excuse I was looking for. If I pick one up and just can't get into it, I can hand it down to the kid in a few years.

The wife wants him to play sports, but Daddy will be encouraging the next Les Claypool/Geddy Lee/John Myung/Flea.

A little "Tommy The Cat" for your edification...

My Dear (Albeit, Neglected) Smedley:

It’s been such a long time…

As mentioned around a year ago, this little corner of the web was intended to both be a soapbox for my political and other rants and a journal of what’s happening in my life. My original plan was to update this at least once a month. As evidenced by the fact that my last post was nine months ago to the day, it’s evident that my little plan didn’t work.

There is no rule, however, which would prohibit me from rectifying this situation by going back and posting a little something for each month that I missed. Because I’m sitting on a conference call (where some of my best work is done), I am unable to go into hypnotic regression but will do my absolute best to remember something for each past due month.

Here it goes:

November 2006: While sitting in a hotel room at the Emory Hotel and Conference Center, I become chagrinned by find that Democrats have officially taken control of both houses of Congress. My interest in politics officially goes into hibernation mode (as of July 2007, has yet to return). Thanksgiving once again takes place at my house with my wife’s parents as sole attendees. As is typical, a great time is had by all…until I develop a triple ear infection. First Dr’s visit in 14 years.

December 2006: Typical December. First 3 weeks or so are exceptionally busy at home and final weeks are exceptionally busy in Texas. The family makes out like bandits at Christmas. Discovered that TiVo is the greatest invention ever made. New Years spent with the whole family at my uncle’s place in Brenham. Wife and I, after FINALLY reaching an agreement that one kid is probably enough, make another one.

January 2007: After much research, I have determined that absolutely nothing noteworthy happened in my life (outside finding out about the aforementioned pregnancy) in the month of January 2007.

February 2007: Wife and kid(s) spend a week in Texas without me, thereby giving me a week of bachelorhood. Bought a new pair of running shoes, 3 new pairs of pants and 4 shirts. Anna Nicole Smith dies. This, in and of itself, means nothing to me. Unfortunately, however, constant news coverage of the death and subsequent events results in my 3 year old daughter becoming all-too-familiar with this soap opera. After being approached by my beautiful little girl and told how sad it was that “Dannielynn’s mommy died”, the wife and I issued a fatwa against trash television. TiVo and DVD player utilization increases ten-fold.

March 2007: Spend three days in Miami and win every go-kart race in which I was entered at my business unit’s quarterly meeting. Weep over becoming a Financial Analyst instead of a race car driver.

April 2007: Achieve 35 years of age. Am reminded by a friend that I am officially closer to 50 than to 20. Get tired of being a fat-ass and start new diet/workout regimen which entails getting up at 4:30 am to exercise 4 days a week and cut down on carbohydrates. By reference, beer consumption drastically reduced. Anheuser-Busch stock plummets.

May 2007: Advised that the hormonal imbalance in my house over the past 3 years will be remedied by the birth of a son in September. Give in to wife’s wishes to give my son a name which is the same as my childhood best friend. Because son of childhood best friend has the same name as me, come to terms with all of the “Brokeback” cracks I will hear in the future.

June 2007: Celebrate 6th wedding anniversary by taking the wife to Texas and leaving her there. Spend 18 days as a bachelor, come to appreciate married life. Run/Walk 40+ miles a week. Become shocked at the fact that my knees give out before my smoked-out lungs. In lieu of gym membership, buy cheap barbells. Start getting buff.

July 2007: Spend a week in a very soggy Dallas, constant rain results in no golf. Spend a weekend in South Georgia with aforementioned childhood best friend. Consume 30 Bud Selects and never catch a buzz. Begin to wonder if there's any point in drinking beer. Quit worrying about it and pop open another.

This brings us to today.

Conference call is over and there’s work to be done. More later.