Friday, October 31, 2008

Scary Thoughts for Halloween

Remember when the Reid and Pelosi wanted be the de facto president? Remember that? They thought that if they legislated an end to the war, the real President shouldn't be able to call them on it. Remember that? (Check this old post.) Fortunately, they quickly discovered a small thing we call the Constitution which provided a little check on the legislature. The dynamic duo were muffled and the war continued unhindered.

With a vote for Obama, there will be very little need for that pesky little Constitution. There will no longer be a check on the majority. And those now in power who have been chomping at the bit to get busy spreading the wealth (other's wealth) will have nothing to stop them. Oh sure, there's that pesky little thing we call the Supreme Court, but because it is conservative, it is pretty bound by that little constitution thing to deciding only constitutional things. It can't veto stupid legislation, or legislation that merely destroys that pesky little thing we call capitalism.

If the pollsters have their way, we will soon have a socialist lawyer running the "free" world. He and his ilk have long longed to be more like Europe, to place equality above liberty. He uses words such as "middle class" and "wealthy" to avoid pesky little words such as "proletariat" and "bourgoise" to avoid letting his redness slip.

McCain concerned conservatives because of his willingness to sell out, er, reach out, across the aisle. However, his history has demonstrated that he supports the traditional American dream. That is that we can pursue whatever legitimate course of employment or venture we think will get us where we want to be. This requires an adherence to the basic concept that, except for government's inept interference, the markets will adjust themselves, the wealthy, and those growing wealthy, will employ others, in their quest to acquire more wealth. Based on McCain's history, we can feel somewhat comfortable that when he reaches across the aisle, it will be to those Democrats who also adhere to these ideals.

On the other hand, Obama's history leaves us with little hope that we can attain what he and the current elite already have. The best we can do is hope for a few crumbs of bread. As a member of the extreme upper-lower/lower-middle class, I want to hope for better. I want to hope that I can eventually see success in business, such that I am making good money. While I am not looking to become rich, I would sure like to become so should good fortune fall my way. I don't see that under Obama. His history of associations and comments seems to speak otherwise.

I know a man who told his prospective employer that he didn't want to be paid more than $xx,000. Why? Our already existing socialist programs have been very good to him and his family. Should he make more than that, he stands to lose it all, which would require that he make much more in order to make up for those benefits. See, socialism creates large gaps between just getting by and getting ahead. As the government gives, we can get by on $xx,000, but if we make more than that, we actually do worse, unless we can get to $xxx,000. Since that is a very difficult gap to overcome, why try? Even if we do, we are then rewarded with a much higher tax burden "to help those who are following". So we then have to hit $x,000,000 before we can really breathe. The more we socialize, the more difficult that gap becomes.

That's about all my scary thoughts for now.

This wig hurts.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Save Our Show


My wife and I have discovered one of the most fantastic television shows to come along in a long time. "Pushing Daisies" is about a pie maker with an extraordinary gift: he can bring the dead to life just by touching them. I know this sounds morbid, but the artistry and chemistry of this show makes it fun and enjoyable. It is very well written, and stars an unusual and bizarre cast of characters. It is a love story of childhood sweethearts who can't ever touch.

See, while Ned the Piemaker (black tie) can bring the dead back to life, he can also send them back to their eternal rest by touching them once again. In fact, if the person, or thing, remains alive for longer than one minute, something else of similar stature will die. He saved his beloved dog, Digby (the hairy one), as a child, and is resigned to petting him with a backscratcher for the rest of his life.

A private investigator (purple shirt) discovered Ned's secret and recruited him for an unfair advantage in solving murder mysteries. I mean, how many crimes wouldn't be easier to solve if you could just ask the dead guy who killed him? As fortune would have it, one of these dead guys was Ned's long-lost childhood sweetheart, Chuck (the girl in yellow). Now how could he be expected to put her back to sleep?

Chuck has two "aunts" (standing together in the back) who don't know she is alive. To make for some fun (and extremely hilarious) romantic (and otherwise) comedy, cue that really hot blonde chick. She is a real hoot who really carries the show.

The narration sounds much like the old Winnie the Pooh, and the writing is very whimsical. The show is a real jewel. The last show that I felt this passionate about was "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.", a fun western that lasted only one short season in the early '90's.

I bring this show to your attention because I need your support. I just discovered that the show is threatened with cancellation. Just watch one episode (Wednesday nights) and I guarantee you will be hooked. Then get someone else to watch just one episode (so they, too, will get hooked). Eventually, someone who has been recruited by Nelson ratings will watch, and love it, too. And then, voila! We won't have to worry about it going extinct.

Just one episode. Please?

Edited: The show airs on Wednesdays, not Thursdays!

Friday, October 17, 2008

What They Are Not Saying

Poll: Voters souring on McCain, Obama stays steady

This was the headline on Yahoo! this morning.

I took a look at it. The story basically correctly outlines the results of certain polling questions asked during this survey. It correctly points out that voters have changed their level of confidence in some aspects of John McCain.

Doesn't look too good, does it?

Aw Crap! I think, as I prepare myself for a four to eight year sentence of life under Hussein, followed by an undetermined number of years of clean up. Out of boredom, and curiosity, I click on the link that takes me to the actual poll results.

As with many polls, it starts out making sure the respondents are dissatisfied with the economy, government, and your president. (Sort of the set up for what is to follow?)

Eventually, it gets down to asking how the respondents were going to vote.

Question: "If the 2008 general election for President were being held today these were the candidates, would you vote for..."

Results: (they had the respondents divided up into waves, so each number represents a different wave of respondents)
Barack Obama, the Democrat 34 37 40 40 42
John McCain, the Republican 35 35 36 41 39
Bob Barr, the Libertarian - - 1 1 2
Ralph Nader, the independent 3 2 2 2 1
Someone else (specify) 5 3 3 2 1
Don’t know 22 22 17 14 15
Refused / Not Answered 0 0 0 0 0

It then asked those who said they didn't know, it then asked who they tend to lean toward, if they had to choose...

Answer:

Barack Obama, the Democrat 14 16 12 14
John McCain, the Republican 18 17 21 18
Bob Barr, the Libertarian - 1 1 1
Ralph Nader, the independent 3 3 0 1
No, don’t lean toward any of
these candidates 26 28 20 20
Don’t know 39 34 45 45
Refused / Not Answered 1 1 1 2

It then went on to ask about the things the article was written about.

Take a look at those numbers...
Barak starts out at about 39 to McCain's 37.

Of those still undecided, who admit to a leaning, they tend to favor McCain by 4.5 points.

That looks like a pretty good horse race, to me.

Wouldn't that make for a pretty good story?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Why Bill Ayers Matters

Suppose I attended a church for 20 years, a significant time during which the preacher taught that the adult-child relationship should be very intimate, that children should be taught the ways of adults at a very early age, and other such incendiary notions. But after 20 years of attendance, I said, "I don't remember hearing such things, and even if those things were taught, I only believed in the other things that were being taught, or I only attended because my family had been going there for years."

And suppose that during that time, I helped channel money into organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association.

And suppose that during that time, I associated with a man who was an unrepentant mass child molester and purveyor of kiddie porn, twenty years ago, and only seven years ago stated that he didn't think he had molested enough kids, but was now actively involved in building fun day care centers.









Would you let me baby sit your kids?

Monday, October 13, 2008

D@#%^*!



The dangers of auto-fill.

As I was walking out the door today, Mrs. The Practicalist sweetly reminded me that she really loved me... no matter what I saw today... on the internet... on my blogsite.

Now, if that didn't raise my eyebrows... and suspicions.

So, I naturally had to waste company time to peruse the internet to see what kind of trouble she got me in.

Just look below, at that last post. That is obviously not my writing. I love my wife (as my old momma used to say, God Bless Her), but anyone who knows me knows...

Wednesdays are set aside for the Sound of Music!

Good thing nobody ever reads this thing.

(ikinya2babe! Now get off my blog site!)

Sunday, October 12, 2008

What I like

I Like Tulips
and the fuzzy part of the Q-tip

I like shopping cart wheels
and the sound of paint thinner

I like to stand on books
and hop over ants

I like that T comes after S
and think B should have came first

I watch the Sound of Music on Tuesdays
and I drink out of the Milk carton on Thursdays

That is what I like
and I KIN YOU:D

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

What's In a Name

Heavens! Biden is mildly upset that a sheriff introducing Sarah Palin referred to the Democratic candidate as... get this... Barak




Hussein




Obama

Oh, Goodness. Not only can "we" not say "we" to refer to ourselves, now, "we" cannot even reference the candidate's. own. name. as to do so is epithetic... or mean politicking by racist Republicans. (I think its just pathetic... meaning stupid. Biden thinks it is epitaphic... meaning a statement on Barak's political gravestone?)

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Fluffy Bunny with Teeth

Talk about ugly. Talk about desparate.

The AP has clearly shown its bias. Take a look at this story.

And this story.

Let's break it down. Palin finally 'goes public' with Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, an issue which has only been explored by Fox and conservative talk hosts, except when briefly mentioned with scoffing dismissal by the Main Stream Media. Because Palin, the Veep candidate, actually said it, three times, in fact, the AP has no choice but to report it. So, it reports it. Here's how:

During her stop in California, Palin was asked about an Associated Press analysis that said her charge about Ayers was unsubstantiated, a point made by other news organizations, and the criticism carried a "racially tinged subtext that McCain may come to regret."

"The Associated Press is wrong," Palin said, before arguing that the issue had not been adequately discussed.

In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton prior to April's Pennsylvania primary.

Oh, it was adequately discussed? Because it came out as a question in a primary debate? How come I don't recall seeing any mention of that in the media at that time?

Unsubstantiated? The AP seems a little contradictory here...

Her reference was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions.

Just like he denounced that preacher dude?

And what was this "racially tinged" stuff?

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Republicans, when will you learn? You have got to avoid using the following racially charged words:

1. we

2. us

3. they

4. them

5. our

6. their

7. Constitution

8. God

9. bless

10. America

The AP, in the spirit of bipartisanship, did at least acknowledge that:

Obama isn't above attacking McCain's character with loaded words, releasing an ad on Sunday that calls the Arizona Republican "erratic" — a hard-to miss suggestion that McCain's age, 72, might be an issue.

"Our financial system in turmoil," an announcer says in Obama's new ad. "And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."

Only to point out that:

A harsh and plainly partisan judgment, certainly, but not on the level of suggesting that a fellow senator is un-American and even a friend of terrorists.

The AP then just went on to point out how wrong this 'unsubstantiated' 'Swift-boat' 'character' attack is.

Yes, this is actually being considered a 'character attack', rather than an attack on the man's political viewpoints. A character attack is generally dismissed by the public. Political viewpoints, however, really ought to be aired in the public laundromat.

Quote of the day:

"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Save My Stock!

A long time ago, I enrolled in my company's stock purchase plan and wound up with a few shares of American General stock at a pretty good price. After I sold a few to pay for Christmas, AG sold out to AIG. I get a check every few months for about $0.52. As you know, AIG has been making headlines lately. I am, like most Americans, very concerned about my underfunded, and now underperforming, retirement plan. That is why I support this $700- excuse me $815 BILLION bailout plan. Because, see, 52 cents every few months is just inexcusable. I remember the good old days when I saw 54 cent paychecks. If these things get any lower, I am afraid it will start costing me more in food to replenish the energy exhausted in walking across the street to deposit these in the bank than the check is even worth. So, I say to my congressmen and woman, if funding the effect of 1/2 degree climate change on the reproduction habits of dust mites is what it takes to get this thing thru the House, then let's do it. For the good of the country, er, economy, er, Wall Street, er... aw heck, just save my fledgling little nest egg!

The Numbers Are In