Like I thought, I ended up laughing at the President's speech.  And yeah, the guy really doesn't understand.  Seriously, he doesn't get it.  Spending half a trillion dollars isn't going to do jack-shit about "creating jobs".  As I noted on Twitter, the guy seriously cannot even conceive of a plan to get people back to work that doesn't involve spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

So, here's The Marshall Stack Plan to Create Jobs That Requires Zero Spending.  This plan won't require that a single dime be removed from the US Treasury, and the whole stinking thing could probably fit on one or two pieces of paper.  Seriously.

Here it is:

1. Repeal Sarbannes-Oxley: This bill was passed in haste in response to the Enron scandal.  Guess how it worked out.  Not good.  It's a huge regulatory burden on smaller businesses (and larger businesses ae well, but they can absorb it better) and has had a rather drastic effect on the desire and ability of companies to go public and raise captial.  Repeal it and you remove a huge burden on business that they'd much rather spend on capital investments.
2. Repeal Obamacare: Come on -- a year later does anyone believe that this is anything more than a huge steaming pilie of horse manure?  It's already driving health care prices up, the requests for waivers from it's requirements are pouring in (and being granted) and it's going to cost small business and the US tax payers untold billions.  All that, and it won't even get everyone covered.  Repeal it for the same reasons above:  Small businesses really bear the burden here.  And when small businesses bear burdens, they don't hire.
3. Double the company size exemption on every regulation on the books:  Jerry Pournelle thought this one up, and it is brilliant.  If a regulation kicks in when a company has ten employes, double it to twenty.  If it is 50, make it a hundred.  Fifty is a magic number for a lot of laws and regulations, and as a result, there are a startingly large number of companies that have  -- surprise! -- 49 employees and will not cross that magic threshold to 50.  Double the exemptions, and they can make the move.  That's a lot of jobs.

That's the simple one.  I could probably hunt up about a thousand more laws to repeal, but those two are a good start.  And as I said, repealing two laws and doubling the numbers in all regulations would be two pages, tops. It would loosen the flood gates inside every small business in America -- and small businesses are the place where most new jobs are created.

And it wouldn't cost a cent.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Jonah sums up the speech perfectly: 

 Tell voters poll-tested things they want to hear and stay quiet on what they don’t want to hear while lecturing your opponents about their refusal to make the tough decisions.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I'm  not going to watch the speech tonight.  Despite his alleged overwhelming oratorical skills, I can't stand listening to The One speak.  And I have better things to do.

However, I'll likely read about it later.  And if it turns out that his plan is to just spend a bunch more money -- and it doesn't matter where he says he's going to get it -- to "create" make-work "jobs", I'm going to laugh out loud.  Seriously, I'm going to laugh out loud. LOL.  Really.

Because as my wonderful mother tells me -- if you don't laugh, you are going to cry.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

My Dad is constantly pointing to Paul Krugman and is crappy editorial in the New York Times.  "He won a Nobel Prize for Economics" -- as if that some how immunizes him from writing craptastically assinine columns in the alleged "paper of record".

Krugman may have won a Nobel, but it seems like he failed statistics somewhere along the line.  The always interesting IowaHawk rightfully rips him a new one about his crappy analysis of Texas schools.  It's a post from last March, but made current again by Rick Perry's entry into the Presidential race, and the commensurate misinformation that results.

The flaying continued, too. 

Nobel Prize, my ass.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I don't know about you all, but I've had about all the "stimulus" I can take.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Man, that Sarah Palin, she is soooooo stupid. She must be, because everyone says so, right?  I mean, let's look at what she's done in her life:

Palin graduates college, marries her high school sweetheart (who both appear to be very much still in love) and uses her lack of intelligence to start and run a successful business.

Some kids come along, and so she gets involved in the PTA.  Despite her stupidity, the PTA elected her president. 

Again, despite her deceased grey matter, she did such a good job as PTA President that the people of Wasilla, AK encouraged her to run for mayor. She somehow managed to conceal her stupidity and win the election.  Continuing her subterfuge, she managed to dupe the entire group of mayors in the state and get elected the president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Not letting here clear mental handicap stop her, she then pressed on and somehow managed to get then-Governor Murkowski to appoint her to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.  Apparently the people on the commission weren't able to see here dullness and elected her Chairman of the Commission.

But Palin's crazed spree of duping Alaskans wasn't over -- she had her sights set on duping the entire state.  She succeeded by beating an incumbent  and getting elected Governor -- again despite her limited intelligence and stupidity.  Here deceit was so successful that despite her obvious mental limitations, she routinely received upwards of 80% approval ratings from her constituents

From there, of course, she ran for Vice-President, debated on national television, became a Fox News analyst, and a huge draw for speaking engagements across the nation.

So, in examining Palin's accomplishments, it is obvious:  Sarah Palin is stupid.  I mean, why would anyone think she's a smart, capable woman?  Surely the above litany of success and recognition shows that she's of low intelligence.  Who could possibly believe that the above impressive list of accomplishments would actually require intelligence?  I mean, come on.  

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

"All of which proves what, exactly? That male homosexuals should be jailed? Run out of town on rails? Surgically altered? Burned at the stake? Of course not. In a free society, the things people choose do do with each other in private, even if unhygienic and unhealthy, are nobody else's business. They become someone else's business only when the people concerned go into the public square and start advertising their tastes, and recruiting to them. If my neighbor wants to be buggered in the privacy of his home, I wish him joy of it; if he wants to get on my school board and agitate for the establishment of a "gay" students club at my son's school, I shall have something to say about it. These elementary social principles seem to have been mislaid in recent years. Look: in a civilized modern society, majorities owe a debt of tolerance to harmless minorities. But minorities also owe something to the majority: a decent respect for its tastes and opinions, and careful restraint in challenging them. The second part of this arrangement seems to have been forgotten. The issue, as one current joke has it, is not whether society is willing to tolerate homosexuals, so much as whether they are willing to tolerate the rest of us."  - John Derbyshire

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Okay, here are some thoughts on the notion of putting a mosque/muslim center/whatever it really is in a site right near ground zero

• First, this isn't a religious freedom issue or private property issue, as many liberals have tried to make it out to be.  Now, don't get me wrong, I rejoice when I see lefties supporting property rights -- I mean, they never do that --  but no one is disputing that these folks have the right to build a building on their own property.  More power to them in that regard. It's not a "rights" issue.  People who are trying to make it thus are being disingenuous and not listening.  If you are one of those people, stop it.
• It's tacky.  Even the most sensitive of Muslims should understand that this is really, really, really tacky.  It's offensive to the families that lost loved ones on 9/11 and it's clearly objectionable to the broader population of the US.  You'd think that if the folks building this facility were interested in reconciliation and all those other good things, they'd quietly build away from the site of the biggest terrorist attack in US history.  You'd think they'd want to avoid anything that smacks of, I don't know, triumphalism.
• This facility is to be a fifteen story building with a mosque, a 500 seat auditorium, and a pool.  This is not some discreet facility designed as a remembrance.  And even Muslims are admitting that it is meant to be a provocation.  Opposing this kind of slap in the face of America seems pretty reasonable to me.
• It was astoundingly, amazingly inappropriate for President Obama to speak out in favor of the project.  I was stunned that the President of the United States would take such a stand, even if he did -- as the left seems wont to do -- make it a constitutional issue, which again it is not.  
• And Lefties -- stop crowing about religious freedom.  When you are crowing about religious freedom for Christians, when you are sticking up for a Christian college group that wants to limit its membership to, you know, Christians, or when you are defending a Christian teacher who wants to keep a Bible on his desk, then talk to me about defending religious freedom.  Until then, you are a huge hypocrite.
• Anyone think it would be okay to put up a Nazi memorabilia store outside the entrance to the Auschwitz memorial?  How is this any different in principle?  Answer: it's not.

I'm astounded that anyone would support this.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So far, this has been a strange season.  The shocking elimination of Lilly and Alex before the Top 12 was really, really weird.  I liked Lacey, but would have gladly have seen her replaced with either one of them.  And don't even get me started on Tim Urban. Since the Top 12 were chosen, I think Paige deserved to be eliminated, and that Lacey didn't -- given that Tim is still in. (I'm certain Tim is benefiting from the http://www.votefortheworst.com vote.  That has to be true.  Please let it be true.)  It was supposed to be a "girls year" but there are only four women in the final ten.  Those four are pretty strong -- with Katie being the weakest.  The guys that have survived are all good, though I'm waiting for Andrew to find his footing.

So, being quite presumptuous and feeling a bit saucy about my Idol chops, I've got advice for this years Idol Top Ten.

First, some general advice:  Every Idol contestant should remember that what the judges say is utterly, completely, and totally meaningless.  The only thing that matters is to win votes of the watching public.  The judges can give you all kinds of advice, but if you are listening to them and not listening to your inner voice and what you know is good for you, then you will suffer.  Chasing after Simon or Kara's approval (you'll almost always have Ellen's approval.  She's proven to be quite content-free) is a sure way to lose your way.  Voters appear to respond to genuineness, and the contestants who are genuine are the ones that go far.  Adam Lambert didn't come in second place last year by listening to Simon.  So, if you are finding yourself saying something like "I wanted to show a different side", then you are in trouble.  Just be you and do your thing. 

Best moment in the season yet?  Ryan says to Chrystal, "You've got Kara telling you to lose your guitar, and Simon telling you to keep it.  Who are you going to listen to?".  Chrystal responds with "Me".  That is why Chrystal is pretty likely to win this thing. 

Okay, here's some specific advice for the contestants:

Didi Benami -- You are terrific.  You are clearly a nice person and a lovely girl.  You have an unusual and interesting voice.  You are emotional and really, really feel things.  It shows in your singing.  Your rendition of Kara's Terrified in Hollywood was amazing.  You need to do more of that.  You've been falling into the trap of "trying to show another side", and you need to go back to your roots.  You need to get your guitar back, and belt out a song that suits you and no one else.  You should find a way to sing a song by Patty Griffin, Sara Bareilles, or Colbie Caillet -- something along those lines.  You probably won't win, but if you stay true to yourself, you'll be able to go far enough to get a record deal. I hope you do, because I'll buy it the day it comes out.  Prediction:  Top 6 (but you are my favorite, and I really hope you do better).

Chrystal Bowersox  -- Only one piece of advice for you:  Just keep doing what you are doing and don't change a bit.  You are the odds on favorite to win this.  You know exactly what you are doing.  You are ready to cut a record right now.  Just stay the course, and your career is set.  Not much else need be said.  Prediction: Top 3
                                                       
Lee DeWyze -- You are a cool guy.  You have a great voice. I always like that gravelly, Daughtry-type voice, and you have that.  You need, however, to bring a little more emotion and energy to your performances.  Not necessarily running around stage, etc.  Just show some emotion and some feeling.  Don't be afraid to play the guitar.  Don't be afraid to really get into the music and feel it as Kara would say.  You've got the chops to make a record, but I'd say you are on the border for being able to do that.  Prediction:  Top 6                                                        

Andrew Garcia -- Buddy, you are an enigma.  As has been repeated ad nauseum,  your rendition of Straight Up in Hollywood was amazing, and you've been chasing that ever since.  You are the guy that needs to stop listening to the judges and just do your thing.  If you don't, you are gone.  It may be too late for you. Prediction: Bottom 4

Tim Urban -- Here is my advice for you:  Go to the show's producers and tell them that you are embarrassed to be in the Amercian Idol Tour.  Tell them that you know that you suck, and that you are going to resign and that they should get either Alex Lambert or Lilly Scott to take your place.  Please, do us all a favor, and simply resign.  You are terrible.  You are really only hurting the changes of others who are vastly and overwhelmingly better than you.  Stop embarrassing yourself.  Prediction: Utter embarrassment and shame.

Katie Stevens -- You are a sweet, lovely girl; you have a great voice. However, you are very young, and you don't have the internal self-assurance that you need to really give a great performance. You are way, way too worried to about what the judges say, and though it sounds cliche, you don't know who you are and it shows.  You need to have some confidence and be who you are, not who the judges say you should be.  And by the way, you should be a pop princess.  Don't be shy about it. Prediction: Bottom 4

Casey James -- You are a really cool guy, a great performer, and a good singer.   You are doing your own thing, and you know what you are all about.  Keep it up. You are well on your way to a record deal. Stick to what you are doing and you'll be fine. Prediction: Top 3

Aaron Kelly --  You are a super nice kid.  You have a great voice, but you are in the same boat as Katie:  You are too young and you aren't sure what you want to do and where you want to go.  I do think you'll last longer than Katie, but your problem is that you are a 35 year old voice in a 16 year old body.  It's a disconnect, and it makes it hard to "get" you.  But I think you are talented.  Prediction: Bottom 4 (thought you are the one that could sneak into the Top 6)

Michael Lynche --  I am not sure what to think of you, dude.  I wasn't too happy of you that weren't there for the birth of your child.  I can only assume that your wife is a very understanding woman.  You are a great showman and a great performer.  I like your voice, I like you, and I think you'll do well.  My advice would actually be to tone it down a little bit and don't overdo it.  You have a tendency to let things go a bit over the top and lean towards the schlocky.  Having said that, I think you'll go far.  Prediction: Top 6

Siobhan Magnus -- Wow -- you are clearly are the "most looked forward to performance" .  When you are on, everyone is watching.  You are rapidly entering Adam Lambert territory here.  You are quirky and cool and you are far and away the best singer.  Those high notes are soooo cool and worth it.  Don't listen to Simon -- keep it up.  One of the things I check each week now is what you are wearing, what you have done with your hair (I know, I know.....) and what you'll be singing.  I'm not going to miss your performance.  You are doing your thing, and you should keep doing it.  Prediction:  Top 3

If I had to predict a winner today, I'd pick Chrystal.  If it isn't Chrystal, it will be Siobhan.  But predicting is notoriously sketchy -- who would have guessed that Kris Allen was going to win after the Top 10 was chosen last year?

To review:

Top 3:  Siobhan, Chrystal, and Casey
Top 6:  Didi, Lee, Michael
Top 9: Aaron, Katie, Andrew
So bad that he has to be in a group of his own:  Tim

Anyway, there is my advice.  It's probably worth what you paid for it.  :-)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Getting Underwater Homeowners Out The Door

I guess I don't understand why this is always a problem, or why it is made out to be such a huge problem.  I don't know for absolute certain, but I'm almost positive my home is "underwater", and I'm doing what I think most of these people should do:  I keep making my payment.  So what if the house is underwater right now?  It probably won't be in ten years, so what's the big deal?  The actual value of your house has no bearing whatsoever on one's ability to pay the mortgage, so unless you've lost your job, why is this a problem?  If your house were worth twice what you owe, wouldn't you continue to pay the mortgage as normal? Why, then is being "underwater" a problem?  Just keep paying the mortgage every month, right?  Isn't that what the vast majority of these "Underwater Owners" are doing?

I guess I'm missing something here.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Not on Obama's desk, apparently.

First, read this:

Obama: I didn't sign off on those shady health care deals.

Actually, you don't have to read it.  The headline summarizes and makes my whole point here, really.

Okay, so, I've had this running argument with a friend of mine.  He has the typical HopeyChangey view that Sarah Palin wasn't ready to be the President because of her inexperience.  Okay, fine -- that's maybe a reasonable position to hold. 

But I counter with two points:

• She wasn't running for President
• She was much better qualified to be President than Obama was.

Now, the former is maybe not that strong of a point (heartbeat away and all that....), but that latter point is a very, very strong one.  To wit:

• Ms. Palin has extensive executive experience.  She has run an oil drilling company, she has been the mayor of an (admittedly) small town, and she has been Governor of Alaska.  All that is executive experience -- choosing people to run things, being responsible for decision making, executing laws, and generally being in charge of things. 
• Mr. Obama has had no real executive experience.  Being a "community organizer" (whatever the h*ll that is), a State Senator, and then a US Senator is quite a ways away from executive experience.  In fact, I'd argue that being a Senator actually /decreases/ any executive skills you have, and if you start with zero, well.....

Pursuant but peripheral to the above:

• We've only elected three sitting Senators to the Presidency this century (and zero from the House) :  Obama, Kennedy, and Harding.  It's rare for a sitting legislator to be elected President.  (Note:  Ford was never elected to anything, and Johnson was elected Vice-President, and the elected again as the sitting President.  Truman was elected as a sitting President.)  Most of our Presidents have been Governors of large states like California and New York.  (And Georgia, but we should all try really hard to forget that guy.....)  Overall, the American people seem to recognize that true executive experience is a valuable asset in a President.
• Consider this:  According to the "Obama was ready to be President" line of thought means that Scott Brown, the new Senator-Elect from the Great State of Massachusetts is going to be ready to be President in two year.  Um, Yeah.

Okay, back on target -- the headline above.  The headline above speaks volumes to me. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk as President:  "The Buck Stops Here".  Well, apparently for Obama, the buck stops somewhere else.  Now I was an officer in the Navy for twelve years, I've run my own business,and I've worked in the corporate world, and if it is one thing that Chief Executives need to know, it's that the buck stops on their desk.  They are the final aribiter.  In the Navy, you can get relieved of your command if your ship runs aground while you are dead asleep in your bunk.  You are the one on the hook.  Good executives understand and accept this.  Bad executives -- one's with little experience, for example -- say things like "It wasn't me who did that" or "I never signed off on that".  Well, if one of your minions did, then you are responsible.   If people are making stupid deals without your knowledge and approval, then fire them.  Don't go around puling about it. 

Obama's lack of experience and understanding about wielding executive power has revealed itself in other ways, as well. An obvious example is his recent State of the Union speech. A large part of his long speech was spent whining about how all his problems were "inherited" and caused by the previous administration.  (I'll ignore all his brazen lies (you heard me..) about how much deficit was there on his inauguration day. And we'll also skip over the part where he voted for many those budgets he's sniveling about....)  A good executive knows that he is responsible for the current situation, no matter how that situation occurred. He knows that he's at the wheel, no matter where the car has been  Whining about the fact that it was here when you took office merely makes one look like a baby banging his spoon on a high chair.

Another point:  Obama is the President of the United States, and as such, he as the responsibility to stick up for us and represent us, even if that means at least standing up for the not so great things the US has done. The President is, for all intents and purposes, the personification of the United States, and he needs to act and speak as if that were so.  (People with executive experience know this)  The current CEO of GM has to own up to everything that GM has done over the last 100 years.    If you are the President, you don't go down to Trinidad and Tobago, and say things like "I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," about the Bay of Pigs.  Dude -- you are the President.  Man up and stop passing the buck.  Bay of Pigs was a disaster (created by JFK, mind you) , but at least we were down there trying to free people from a brutal and oppressive dictator.  You need to stick up for America, not go overseas and trash us out.  You are the leader of the free world!  Act like it!

And I won't even start in on the bowing!  Good grief, man!  The USA bows to no one.

Okay, enough ranting.  Point is made -- Obama took on the toughest executive position in the world with exactly zero executive experience, and it shows.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The Supreme Court sure surprised me this week by knocking down a good chunk of the horrible, silly, and utterly ineffective McCain-Feingold bill.

Thoughts:

• Corporations are nothing more than organizations of people.  They should, therefore, have the same rights as anyone else or any other organization.  It's all people in the end.  And the court's decision has done nothing more than let those groups of people express their opinions.  And we aren't afraid of that, are we?  We want to stop groups of people from expressing their opinion?  Huh?  That's not what America is all about. All the court has done here is to allow groups of people to freely express their opinion.  This is bad?  If you don't want a group to express its opinion with your money, then don't give that group your money.  If they don't have your money, they can't express their opinion with it.  Don't buy their products and don't buy their stock.
• I hear folks argue that "Corporations control America' and I, well, laugh.  I laugh because it is, well, a silly thing to say.  Corporations can't do anything at all except offer goods and services for sale.  And last time I checked, you don't have to buy anything corporations offer unless you want to (notwithstanding the best efforts of the left in the country to force us to buy health insurance.  That hasn't happened yet, and thankfully it appears that it won't.)  Corporations cannot violate your rights or harm you in any way (not legally, anyway).  And don't try to say that they "harm" you if they decide to lay you off. A job is a privilege and you have no right whatsoever to that job.  Corporations can't do anything to you.
• Now, what a corporation can do is get the government to do something to you.  They can, like all citizens and organizations made of people, exercise their right to influence government.  And sadly, because we have slowly given government so much power, they can get the government to do things to you like put you in jail if you don't buy health insurance, or take your property because the corporation wants to put a factory on your land or whatever.  But of course, this is government doing this to you, not the corporation.  The problem here -- which I will heartily agree is a very big problem -- is that the people of the US have elected officials who allocate for themselves -- with the blatant approval of the people, mind you -- power to control you and to benefit corporations.  We can blame the corporations, but it is really the government that is doing it.
• And that's the heart of the matter -- we are a democracy.  If we don't like what the government is doing, we can change it.  We can vote for people who won't allow government to have so much power.  We can do that, but we don't.  Instead, we've consistently voted for people who increase the power of the government, rather than reduce it.  Apparenly the American populace likes a powerful, over-weaning government. Why, I have no idea, but it sure looks that way.  Apparently, we willingly vote in a government that enjoys doing the bidding of large corporations.  
• The only thing a corporation can do is speak.  They can't do anything other than that.  They can't take -- alone -- take your property or put you in jail.  All they can do is go to the government and tell the government what they want. That's it.  They can't do anymore than that.
• If you don't like the campaign contributions that a politician gets, then don't vote for him or her.

Anyway, it is a nice victory for free speech, and a nice gutting of McCain-Feingold, a travesty of a bill (and a travesty of a SCOTUS decision that upheld it).  Let's push for a complete repeal of that gross violation of our freedoms.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

1. Bill Simmons is a great, great sports writer.  Probably the best one going right now.  He combines just the right amount of humor, insight, funny cultural references, "man talk", and serious emotion.  If you haven read his The Book of Basketball, then you are seriously missing out.  If you have even a modicum of interest in the NBA, then you should get it and read it.  And if you do, read every single footnote.  There are like 785 of them, but every one is worth it.
   
2. This article illustrates perfectly the above.  If you can read this and not get a true sense of LeBron -- what a great teammate he is, what an amazing player he is -- then I can only conclude that you have died.
   
3. I really hope LeBron stays in Cleveland.  I for one hate the notion that only "big market" teams can succeed. I hate the notion that he'd abandon his guys. 
   

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

You know, I read this kind of buffoonery coming out the White House and I just want to collapse weeping like a Wimbledon winner.

I mean, set aside the incompetent, paper-thin-skinnedness of it all, does anyone serious believe that the best way to create competition in the health care market place is to create some government run entity?  Seriously? 

Even Obama supporters and strong lefties like Camille Paglia know that the whole "plan" being put forth is an economic joke.  The notion that the only way to bring competition into the health care market is via a "public option" is laughable.  First of all, the health care industry is one of the most heavily regulated and strictly controlled markets in the whole economy.  The federal government severely restricts insurance companies from actually selling policies that they want to sell and that the market demand by basically dictating what gets covered.  Try to buy an insurance policy that won't cover, say, AIDS.  You can't do it.  Now I'd buy that coverage in a heart beat, mainly because it would be cheaper, but I can't. So if you want to increase competition, take the handcuffs off of insurance companies and let them offer a wide variety of policy options.

Or, if you want to increase competition, remove the restrictions on the sale of insurance across state lines. That will radically increase competition and it won't cost a penny.

And those 49 million uninsured people that they keep talking about?  It's a bullshit number.  (I know, stunner....) Turns out many of them are either illegal aliens, eligible for health insurance and haven't signed up, or even elected not to have coverage at all. 

And here's another thing that bugs me.  Apparently since I oppose the monstrosity that Congress is putting forth I "oppose health care reform".  No, I'm strongly in favor of health care reform.  I am, however, opposed to the current plan that will destroy our current great system, end up rationing care, bankrupt the country, and make us all slaves to the federal government with respect to trying to get an MRI or an appendectomy. 

So, no, I'm not opposed to health care reform.  In fact, we can do some excellent reforms that will drastically change the game for the good with respect to the uninsured by reducing government power and not spending one red cent!  Notice the heavy use of the word "elimintate".  Remove excessive and oppressive government controls and you get lower prices, broader coverage, better care, more freedom, and happier outcomes.  Gee, what a horrible thought!  Not.  But of course, this type of solution doesn't drastically increase government power so the left will never go for it.  Alas.

Well, I guess at this point, the best that we can hope for is that this whole thing fails to pass before the 2010 campaign swings into full throttle.  Once that happens, the Democrats will run from that steaming pile of manure faster than Obama to the Teleprompter repair store.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html#

Bottom line:  Polanski raped a child.  That is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever okay.  Ever. Never. No matter how long you hang out in Europe.  No matter how many "great" movies you make.  It's never okay.  Ever.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »