A Rendezvous With Destiny

All We Have to Smear is Smear Itself

2008-11-13T08:07:00.004-06:00

So now "Martin Eisenstadt", a "senior policy advisor" to McCain who "leaked" the story that Sarah Palin could not identify whether Africa was a continent or a country, has now come forward to claim his laurels.

The trouble is that Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist.

The AP reports that MSNBC anchor David Shuster announced Eisenstadt as the source of the Palin smear on Monday before issuing a retraction "within minutes."

Aside: if MSNBC can identify, "within minutes," presumably via a simple Google search, that Eisenstadt is a fraud, why not do the search before reporting this as news? Because really, does anyone watch MSNBC long enough to hear both story and retraction when separated by "minutes"?

My favorite line from the AP story? Apparently, members of the MSNBC newsroom "presumed the information [was] solid because it was passed along in an e-mail from a colleague."

By that token, I am pleased to offer you the following BREAKING NEWS:

The FCC has decided to ban all religious broadcasting.
Barrack Obama was sworn into office with his hand on the Koran.
And finally, forward this email to twenty people and Bill Gates will send you a personal check for $200.

MSNBC, the liberal hag mag Mother Jones and CBS News have all fallen victim to the fraudulent Eisenstadt identity at one time or another. This level of journalistic gullibility is not, in fact, "news" at all to anyone even remotely exposed to the MSM.

The real news is the MSM's willingness to act on the faintest rumor that casts Sarah Palin in a poor light, no matter the source, no matter the factuality — or lack thereof. This arch complicity demonstrates two very important facts:

Sarah Palin is still a viable and very real threat to the soul of liberalism; and, as such
She is and will continue to be targeted for destruction by the liberal smear machine.

And although I am not one who thinks we ought to be choosing our 2012 presidential candidate right now, I do believe that watching the MSM will be a likely indicator of who is to become the best conservative candidate. Who does the liberal establishment consider their greatest threat — and attacks accordingly? That's my guy! (Or gal perhaps.)

In the meantime, for the media types whose list of oxymorons never fails to include "military intelligence," I have a new oxymoron to add to their list:

"Journalistic integrity."

The World Is Watching

2008-11-10T15:19:00.007-06:00

Perhaps I'm not the only one to have observed over the last four years all the bumper stickers, signs, t-shirts emblazoned with an image like this one:
As with the "Jesus was a community organizer/Pilate was a governor" mantra, 1/20/09 indicated a level of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) that never quite made sense. What's the point in sulking and wishing your life away just because the person sitting in the Oval Office isn't the one for whom you voted?

I don't expect BDS to magically subside on 1/20/09. My sense is people who so viscerally despise President Bush will sustain their vehemence against him even after he settles back in Crawford, Texas.

Similarly, I don't expect to see a corollary of BDS morphed into "Barack Derangement Syndrome" within conservative ranks. Again, what's the point? Barack Obama will be our President. That's the way elections work in our country.

I appreciated Steven Den Beste's cogent summation "Not the End of the World" on what the next four years could look like. The column isn't right-wing sour grapes or whining ... just one guy's musings about the "Change" our country may actually experience under Democrat control.

One sobering aspect of Den Beste's prognostications is his expectation "Iran will get nuclear weapons." Serious diplomats acknowledge the heightened possibility (see here, here, and here) Israel may launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities within the next two months. Who can blame them? Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad has made no secret of his animosity towards the nation of Israel. Once Iran attains nuclear status, will anyone warrant Israel's survival?

Another Den Beste prediction shouldn't surprise us either, given Joe Biden's 10/19/08 pronouncement on the campaign trail in Seattle. Without apology, our Vice President-elect said: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."

I imagine there are several who campaigned for the presidential nomination who are now breathing easier in the knowledge the awesome responsibilities of that job are not resting at this perilous time in history on their shoulders. Being president is surely a weighty and often thankless task. The world will be watching. How soon should we expect to see the emergence of 1/20/12 bumper stickers?

An End and The Beginning

2008-11-04T22:42:00.003-06:00

As the media hammer the last nail into John McCain's coffin, the pounding heard round the world is, instead, a drumbeat of outrage aimed toward Washington.

Not at Barrack Obama, the first President of the United States to "self-identify" as black. Indeed, while most conservatives — at least those not in the backyard burying the family silver by candlelight — reserve plenty of ire for the man who promises his Cabinet will "look like the proletariat," the most incendiary language is targeted squarely at the political machine responsible for delivering to The Messiah the highest office in the land.

The GOP.

Truly, if the party insiders, the Republican intelligentsia, the Washington elites, and the pseudo-conservative media can't chart the missteps that handed the Presidency to a socialist autocrat, I will personally fund a multibillion dollar bailout plan to rescue them from their hopeless stupidity.

Of the many thoughts gestating in my mind tonight, one seems to take precedent. Four years — though, with luck, only two — of radical socialism lie in front of us. Frightening as that may be, conservatives have an opportunity to remold our destiny. Like Edmond Dantes, we can turn this period of unjust imprisonment to our benefit: to study, to learn, to reinvent ourselves. And, lest we forget, to engineer our escape.

The GOP may yet be finished. After the travesty of this latest campaign, I will be the last to sorrow if that, indeed, is the cost of reinvention. I have not left the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.

There are many things to admire about John McCain but the immutable fact remains that his standing in the Republican Party is based on a mythic and carefully-cultivated personality cult. "The Maverick John McCain." Without his reputation for across-the-aisle compromise, John McCain would be seen for what he really is: a crabby war hero with a chronic case of ideological schizophrenia.

Unluckily for the GOP — and the Maverick himself — the Democrat Party countered the McCain personality cult with a personality cult of its own: one formed around a younger, hipper, unknown who happened to have a couple of well-sanitized autobiographies and a unique demographic advantage. Not to mention an adoring and complicit media.

If there is one lesson from McCain '08 that should be tattooed on the forehead of every conservative who crosses the Beltway, it should be this:

The only reason to reach across the aisle is to stab your opponent in the heart.

Figuratively speaking.

In fact, the greatest accomplishment the GOP leadership can glean from this campaign is that they have finally, finally made certain that John McCain will never again threaten to switch his party affiliation. I'm so relieved! Aren't you?

We can, perhaps, look on the Ascension of The One as our Hurricane Katrina. Like the City of New Orleans, we had plenty of time, knowledge and resources to prevent the catastrophe — or at least to minimize the damage. Instead, we let "trusted" leaders assure us that all would be well, that neglected infrastructure could weather the storm, that an iconic monolith was all the shelter we would need. And when the storm surge overwhelmed our borders, the shanty-towns of moderate-pandering and but-it's-his-turn populism were swept off the landscape in an instant.

As we begin to survey the damage, I am comforted that the bedrock of conservative principles remains. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: is there a surer footing on which to construct the future of our great nation? The rebirth of the Shining City on a Hill will be longer in coming now, and there are many storms yet to weather. Even so, I still believe that "for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead."

So it begins.

Sarah Palin, Grandmother

2008-09-01T12:58:00.006-05:00

Given John McCain's previous support of amnesty, campaign finance "reform" and his notoriety as a member of the "Gang of 14," the candidacy of John McCain for President had earned only my most tepid support, far short of what can be termed enthusiasm. But, when I heard Sarah Palin's comments after John McCain introduced her as his VP choice, tears came to my eyes and I experienced a surprisingly energized hope for conservative principles.

The Palin announcement definitely boosted my confidence in John McCain's candidacy! I won't belabor this column with details of Palin's biography. That information is plentiful elsewhere, and while there will be myriad detractors (especially given her outspoken and strong pro-life stance), I'm excited in what she brings to the campaign, and after the November election, how she will enhance the office of Vice President.

Then news sources began churning with rumors of Bristol Palin's pregnancy. I read the reports and my mind hearkened back some seventeen years when my own daughter (16 years old at the time) revealed she was pregnant with our first grandchild. No, thankfully I wasn't a sitting governor nor a presumptive Republican nominee for Vice President, but no parent is eager to hear the words "Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant."

Having heard those words myself, I understand the impact on a family. One mom to another, one grandmother to another, I know the depth of potential turmoils and anguish Sarah Palin and her husband Todd must now attempt to make sense of as they assist daughter Bristol in navigating a redirected future. What they face is a trade-off of certain aspirations and dreams for the embrace of other hopes and possibilities.

It is so refreshing to reflect on the contrast of Sarah Palin's affirmation of Bristol in her news release confirming her daughter's pregnancy and Barack Obama's proposed approach to an unplanned pregnancy! On one hand, Palin unequivocally welcomes this new life. On the other, Obama (whose own parents were unmarried at the time of his conception) appears to believe being pregnant while unmarried is, in fact, "being punished with a baby."

So, bravo to and God's blessings on Sarah Palin! She is a true celebrator of LIFE, and I applaud her and her family as they deal with life issues in a candid and wholly normal manner. What a breath of fresh air in the stagnant world of politics!

Batman, The Dark Knight

2008-07-28T15:34:00.004-05:00

This blog entry is a departure, as I wade into unfamiliar territory with a movie review. First, a disclaimer: I'm not someone who must see a film the minute its name goes up on the movieplex marquee. (Usually, we wait for movies to come out on video, and by then, our curiosity has dulled to the point we're just as likely not to rent them!) Second: I promise, no spoilers here.

In my life, I've witnessed several iterations of Batman dating from the Adam West era — when I was a teenager, Adam West and the futuristic Batmobile appeared in my home town and I attended. (Not having been a Batman fan, I can't explain why I was there, but I well remember being close enough to touch the Batmobile ... here's a drawing of it.)

For the most part though, Batman always bored me. Whether it was Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer or George Clooney, their portrayals of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego failed to draw me in. Keaton was conflicted, yes ... but not credible; Kilmer was insipid ... and unlikeable; Clooney was glib ... and about as one-dimensional as a comic book.

When I viewed Batman Begins, I became a fan at last. With Batman Begins, Christian Bale brought to the role a triumphant pathos, complex and compelling. Since that first viewing, I've watched the film several times. Whether it was just a fine script (along with Christopher Nolan's directorial vision and skill) or Bale's portrayal or a combination of the two, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

When The Dark Knight debuted this past week, I read some reviews (here, here, here) and decided to take my 16 year old grandson to a showing. Whatever expectations I had for the film, they were far exceeded. This sequel is full of action, laden with talented actors and even the holes in the script are easily forgiven because there is so much else to like.

If you watch films just to be entertained, The Dark Knight doesn't disappoint. If, like me, you enjoy films that offer more than transitory entertainment, The Dark Knight provides food for thought and discussion. In addition to a fun ride, Nolan gives us believable characters who are trying to decide what it means to be human. I will be among those eagerly awaiting the next installment.

Fairy Tale World of Obama

2008-07-24T17:00:00.005-05:00

President Ronald Reagan was known as The Great Communicator, an apt descriptor on that historic day, June 12, 1987, when he appeared at the Berlin Wall and, speaking from the heart, challenged Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"

Hence, it was jarring to hear the words of presidential hopeful Barack Obama as he attempted today in Berlin to summon the images of JFK and Ronald Reagan. The text of Obama's speech is available online (here's one site). Additionally, there will be plenty of columns devoted to the speech from commentators across the spectrum.

But I couldn't help reflect what is, to me, the significant difference between Ronald Reagan's 1987 Berlin speech and that of the current Democrat candidate. When Ronald Reagan spoke to the citizens of Berlin, he was there for them, he spoke on their behalf, he championed their liberty. (This wasn't a PR tour for him; he was at the tail end of his presidency.) In challenging Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall, President Reagan exhibited bold courage (audacity) on behalf of every man, woman and child living in the Eastern Bloc.

The contrast of that historic occasion to today's Obama performance is as stark as night to day!

Who would dare deny Obama embarked on his widely-hyped world tour to prop up an embarrassingly thin resumé? Five sentences into the speech, he claimed to be speaking "... not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen ... a fellow citizen of the world." Who does he think he's kidding? He was championing ... himself! He waxed eloquent with the predictable platitudes and puffery, demonstrating an "audacity" some might characterize a full-blown Messiah complex.

If it's a Savior you're looking for, Barack Obama appears eager to step up. He told the assembled Berliners: "Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands."

Floods, famines, destructive weather ... aren't these generally considered acts of God?? Even Wikipedia characterizes such events as "outside of human control." But apparently not in the fairy tale world of Obama.

With such ambition at his disposal, perhaps he'd be willing to tackle the age-old challenge of "spinning straw into gold"? Just a thought.

Goodbye, Tony Snow

2008-07-12T13:57:00.005-05:00

I never met Tony Snow, but I always felt as if I knew him. Like Ronaldus Magnus before him, Tony Snow was bright and good-humored and self-effacing and committed to conservative principles and skilled at going toe-to-toe against those who challenged him. Whether it was on the radio or television, Tony communicated a joie de vivre that was refreshing and contagious. Even before he was diagnosed with cancer, he had adopted a pro-active strategy to his health, in light of his mother's early death.

When President Bush announced Tony Snow would fill the position of White House Press Secretary, I took the news as a mixed blessing. On the downside, it meant Tony could no longer host his radio show; the airwaves would be poorer for his absence from the dial. On the upside, it meant this newsman par excellence (unlike doltish Scott McClellan) would credibly articulate the policies of his boss, and energetically push back against the Bush Derangement Syndrome so prevalent among the MSM.

There will be tributes to his memory (here and here), but these are surely an imperfect measure of this man who was husband, father, friend, colleague and (for some) congenial but principled adversary.

In my mind's eye, I envision the moment St. Peter ushers Tony Snow through the Pearly Gates ... while the Great Communicator stands just inside the entrance waiting to offer Tony a welcoming hand.

Dial the Crisis Line, I'm done!

2008-06-13T09:42:00.003-05:00

Now that the presidential nominees for both major parties have ascended the mount to accept their laurel wreaths, the next hot topic is, naturally, the question of running mates.

Over the last few months — thanks mostly to the highly-amusing diversion of Operation Chaos — I've been able to rise out of the doldrums and become more philisophical about the possibility of a McCain presidency. My new attitude is quite simple. "John McCain is an idiot, but he's our idiot."

However, as the "veepstakes" heats up, I am feeling yet another emotional swing McCain-ward.

There are lots of names beind bandied about. Some that I love hearing (Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal) and others that make me cringe. But when I heard the name

M I C H A E L

B L O O M B E R G

mentioned, I nearly lost my load.

Apparently, the utter insanity of nominating a man who considered pulling a "jumping Jeffords" every third Tuesday is not enough for the GOP. Let's marry him to an Second-Amendment-bashing Independent like Bloomberg.

I'm beginning to feel like the wife of a lying, cheating, philandering cad who keeps going back for more. "But he really loves spending reductions," I tell myself. "And he's a great advocate for the military. I'm sure he won't cheat on me again..."

Is there a safehouse for Conservative refugees from the GOP?

Told Ya. Again.

2008-05-01T08:35:00.004-05:00

Here is the follow-up piece to my first ethanol post.

Can ya spare some change fer a pore farmer?
Originally posted August 15, 2007.

Once again, John Stossel has posted a winner. (He nearly always does, in my opinion.)

John Stossel: Dead Men Farming

I'm posting it here because it's very relevant to what I referenced in my last post, "The Ethanol Diet." Not to mention, it's something my mom and I talked about just this past weekend.

My dad grew up in Iowa and my parents were living there when I was born. Recently, Mother mentioned to me her surprise at the number of Iowa farmers she encountered -- rich ones -- who were receiving farm subsidies.

This was back in the 1970s, folks. We've been paying farmers to grow, and to not grow, certain crops for more than 30 years.

Now, I acknowledge, we can all see a peculiar "romance" in the idea of the Great American Family Farm: the Heartland warrior who battles the vagaries of nature to feed the nation; this quiet, earnest laborer who tills the soil with the help of his family, praying God will protect his harvest from the ravages of weather, disease and locust swarms.

Unfortunately, this mythic figure is just that: a myth. Those receiving government subsidies do not find that USDA check the only thing standing between themselves and a ruthless auction of their beloved homestead and all their possessions right down to Grannie Beulah's morning star quilt. Instead, this handout from the USDA (a.k.a. the American Taxpayer) more often bridges the gap between the farmer and, say, a new $45,000 pickup truck or a hot tub for the farmhouse.

Free-Market capitalism does work, America. You should try it sometime.

Told Ya.

2008-05-01T08:32:00.004-05:00

I'm really not one to brag. (No, really.) But in this instance, I must.

The following post appeared on my personal blog on August 7, 2007. By my count: eight months ago. It's probably a stretch to call me Nostradamus, but I suppose the relevant question is: If I — a casual observer with no economic training or unique market access — can predict or identify this kind of trend, why can't the so-called "experts"?

The Ethanol Diet

Originally posted August 7, 2007

Back in May of this year, ABC News correspondent John Stossel wrote a column entitled "The Many Myths of Ethanol" , probably one of the most succinct and effective deconstructions of the ethanol fantasy that almost every politician from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney has been pedaling lately. Word on the street is that ethanol (a "biofuel" made from corn), as a renewable source of energy produced in the U.S., is The Silver Bullet that will solve energy shortages, pollution problems, price gouging by Big Oil, and a host of other ills.

Stossel's column details a lot of common-sense reasons why ethanol is not a viable alternative source for energy at this time and, further, makes the case that ethanol should not get the truckloads of state and federal funding it currently receives. In short, Stossel says, stop propping up this technology with government pork and let market capitalism decide when ethanol is a viable option for our energy needs.

I agree wholeheartedly with Stossel's argument and find his evidence compelling, but there is one HUGE blank that isn't mentioned in his column.

How many people do you know who eat petroleum? None? Me, neither.

What about corn? It may be just a best-guess, I'm willing to bet that most of the estimated 6.5 billion people on this planet are consuming corn in at least one form or another.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

I must confess, my attention to this issue has been sparked by one of my own anal-retentive homemaking practices: my computerized grocery list. I won't go into the reasons why I have put my grocery list into a database (there are many and they save us mucho dinero) but suffice it to say that I can usually tell you with a fair amount of accuracy the price of any given item we buy on a regular basis.

About six months ago, I could buy one dozen, Grade A Large eggs (regular cooped-chicken eggs, not free-range or anything) at the Walmart Supercenter for 88 cents. Yesterday, I paid $1.57 for the exact same product. [The price has climbed to $1.97 as of this posting.]

Okay, I'm sure you're aching for a point and here it is: with a much larger volume of U.S.-produced corn being diverted into ethanol production, there is less corn available for the production of food stuffs.

Granted, eggs are not made from corn, but chicken feed is roughly 80% corn-based. Corn also plays a large part in the formulation of livestock feeds for pork and beef. So every farmer producing a cord-fed animal for the food market (whether for primary consumption such as meat or secondary consumption such as milk or eggs) is now paying more for his feed and, thereby, charging more for his end product.

And it doesn't stop there. Just read a few labels and you'll discover that corn syrup, corn meal, corn oil or another corn-based product is in almost everything we eat. As food manufacturers pay more for their ingredients, you and I will pay more for our provisions at the grocery store.

A quick perusal of my receipt proved to me that about two-thirds of the items I bought from the grocery store yesterday had an increase in price. This is, of course, just anecdotal evidence.

But I'm not the only person who's been noticing (see other links below). It seems a number of organizations, particularly those engaged in feeding the poor, have noticed the rise of food costs and even made some connection to the increased production of biofuels such as ethanol. Communist China has gone so far as to ban corn-based ethanol production because of concerns about food shortages.

I'm a little miffed that in our mad dash to create an ethanol boom -- a commodity that not everyone in the world needs or will use -- we're on the verge of creating a food crisis that does effect everyone (poor people especially), not to mention fostering a possible economic crisis that will wreak much greater havoc than $3.09/gallon gasoline.

While Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) and the other farming conglomerates are laughing all the way to the bank, cashing in on "windfall profits" and government cheese to boot, how many working American families are having to cinch the belt tighter for every trip to buy food?

If you ask me, we need to tell Big Corn to stick to making food stuffs -- at least until they can prove ethanol can make it's way in a market that isn't subsidized by the government.

Yes, I think it's time for an ethanol diet.

----------------

For further reading:

Rising Food Prices Curb Aid to Global Poor

Area Food Banks Feel Strain While Prices Rise

Food Price Rises Force a Cut in Biofuels

Corn Facts, Not Corn Flakes!

I Miss Bill.

2008-04-19T10:06:00.006-05:00

Does anyone else miss the days when the biggest problem caused by ex-Presidents was obliterating the meaning of the word "is"?

In the last week, I confess that I've engaged in a few Clinto-sanguine reminisces. Maybe its the jading of age, but even as the Co-President's campaign for the actual elected office grows ever more strident, I've adopted a softened perspective toward our most recent former president.

For that, you can thank Jimmy Carter.

Don't get me wrong. Bill Clinton wreaked havoc while in office. But I have to admit, in retirement — at least pre-Hillary '08 — the former prez has been pretty, well, entertaining.

The founding and dedication of that double-wide by the river fondly known as the William J. Clinton Presidential Center. Office space in Harlem so the First Black President can keep a foot on his home turf. The housewarming in Chappaqua. My Life, a memoir that bears a striking resemblance to the phone book for the Dallas Metroplex — both in number of pages and quantity of women's phone numbers contained therein.

These are all things a conservative can chuckle over and dismiss. "It's just what you'd expect," we might say, "of a good-ole-boy ex-president from a small Southern state who's enjoying the twilight of his modern relevance by polishing up the tattered legacy of a failed administration —"

Wait a minute. I think we have two of those.

But while Slick Willy is trying to gild his rep with the modest goal of snaking his wife the highest office in the land, the Other Democrat Ex is polishing his own legacy by cozying up to anyone and everyone on Forbes 400 Dictators & Terrorists List.

Paul Greenberg likens Carter's meeting with the leader of Hamas to those of Americans who sought approval and decorations from the Nazis in the 1930s. Meanwhile, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-NC, has called for the State Department to revoke Carter's passport. If ever there was someone who could make things like Bill Clinton's disbarment from practicing law seem like trivial college-boy hijinks, Jimmy Carter has accomplished that in spades.

While Clinton's biggest crime — at least according to his supporters — transpired as the result of an ill-considered pants-drop between two consenting adults, Carter has single-handedly managed to unzip the collective fly of Americans right in front of our enemies. The most dangerous result is not revealing his personal lack of cajones.

Like it or not, as a former President, Carter is a representative of the United States government and the American people. His actions in the face of our enemies have painted our people and our government as anxious to appease, willing to negotiate, lacking resolve to obliterate those who mean to obliterate us (not to mention our allies, the Israelis). By bolstering our enemies' already dim opinions of our ability and determination, Jimmy-boy's posturing has endangered more American lives: not only those of our servicemen and women, but the lives of civilians as well.

Frankly, pulling the Nobel-winner's passport is not enough; Carter should be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. It won't happen, of course, but the time has come for our citizens and our lawmakers alike to condemn self-appointed "peace brokering" in direct contravention of established State Department policy. There have been others, including Princess Pelosi, but as a former president, Jimmy Carter has indeed put the "dip" in diplomacy.

I miss Bill.

Longsuffering Wife?

2008-03-18T11:10:00.004-05:00

Within the abundance of words spoken and written about the disgraced (and now ex-) Governor of New York, there were a couple observations I found particularly astute. Given the ordinary drone of an [em]pathetic MSM ("it's only sex," "two consenting adults," etc. ad nauseum), it was especially heartening to read Jan LaRue on TownHall: Stand by your Womanizer. Finally! Someone who gets it.

We've seen this paint-by-number canvas in both political and religious mea culpas. Maybe it's part of the Faustian bargain these couples are willing to make to maintain their grasp of power, but is the moment of confession really a marital moment? Shouldn't this man — who has already kicked his wife in the teeth via his bad behavior — be made to stand alone and endure the shame of his own actions?! Why is she making it so cushy for him?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a strong proponent of forgiveness and restoration, but it seems to me easy forgiveness glosses over the transgression and often precurses further, more egregious transgressions.

Recall the scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett, clad appropriately in a revealing but stunning red frock Rhett has chosen for her to wear, and Rhett in white-tie-and-tails stand at Melanie's front door, late arrivers for Ashley's "surprise" birthday party. As the door opens, Rhett doffs his top hat and says, "Good night, Scarlett."

Naturally, she entreats him not to leave, but Rhett tells her: "You go into the arena alone. The lions are hungry ..." Rhett exits, intending to give Melanie "the satisfaction of publicly ordering you out of her house."

It's perfect, of course. Yet Melanie, a picture of grace and unconditional loving friendship, hardly misses a beat in assuring Scarlett is warmly received into her home. No recriminations, not even the hint of hostility.

A couple scenes later, Scarlett (now at home) descends the staircase in search of liquid comfort, and unexpectedly finds Rhett, drunk and belligerent. He pours brandy into a glass for her and roughly insists she stay seated. He says: "So she stood by you. How does it feel to have the woman you've wronged cloak your sins for you?"

There's a time for Melanie-like forgiveness, but Rhett Butler's approach, insisting Scarlett "face the music" without him there as a buffer, is highly appropriate and long overdue in these public confessions. I hope I'll live long enough to witness a self-respecting wife who refuses to play into this charade of the longsuffering wife. It's not forgiveness. It's degrading.

Coulter Nails It (Him) Again

2008-02-21T07:28:00.003-06:00

No time to write an original post this morning, so I'll have to settle for a nod to the opinion of another.

Coulter: How to Keep Reagan Out of Office

Particularly relevant to this blog's usual object d'homage (how's that for imaginary French?), but also a powerful argument for those conservatives — and you know who you are — who see the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" as "No big deal."

Drew Carey — Living Large

2008-02-20T14:53:00.012-06:00

If there's a quota for maximum number of posts per day, I'm probably pushing the limit. Nevertheless, this video was such a breath of fresh air, I had to post it. Drew Carey presents a compelling case that puts the lie to all the naysayers we usually hear on the nightly news.

Living Large and reason.tv ... the American Dream is alive and flourishing ... how blessed we are to be participants (and recipients)!

Proud of My Country

2008-02-20T11:31:00.005-06:00

Almost anyone who has taken a gander at the blogosphere or recent news stories is probably aware of Mrs. Barack Obama's February 18th comments in Madison, Wisconsin.

I can't improve on the comments here and here so I won't try.

Candidate Obama's website prominently features the slogan "Change we can believe in." So I have to ask: what changed? The candidate's wife was, by her own admission —"for the first time in my adult lifetime" suddenly "really proud of my country." One must infer a notable CHANGE has, in fact, taken place in Michelle Obama's outlook. And I'm curious. What exactly sparked this swelling of pride?

The context of her comments was Mrs. Obama's contention that "hope is making a comeback" in America. [Especially when lacking experience or wishing to evade specifics, wily political candidates have relied upon a will-o'-the-wisp banner of "hope"as their substitute. Remember Clinton's oft-repeated slogan: "I still believe in a place called Hope."]

If hope is indeed "making a comeback," it's not because circumstances have changed but because some people (Michelle Obama?) choose to view their circumstances through a different lens.

When Ronald Reagan characterized America as "the last best hope of man on earth," it wasn't an accidental turn of the phrase. It was the Great Communicator's acknowledgment of the red-white-and-blue blood that courses through the veins of most American citizens — call it pride. We love our country, and no matter what her shortcomings, America is still land of the free and home of the brave. Proud of my country? You bet!

So what if it took Michelle Obama 40+ years to find in her heart some basic pride for country. I say, welcome to the party. Better late than never.

Payday Loans, Part One

2008-02-20T09:18:00.004-06:00

Ask five random people what "usury" is and you'll likely get five blank stares. If you were to ask five people who worked in banking, you might find one or two people able to define the term.

Simple answer: usury is charging interest (on a loan) at a rate so excessive the borrower has difficulty paying off the loan. Usury is probably almost as old as economic exchange, but as an Old Testament concept, there was a moral component attached to it; you weren't supposed to charge interest on a loan to your brother (relative) but you could charge interest to a foreigner (stranger).

What's "excessive"? In the Old Testament (Nehemiah 5:10-11), 1% — or 12% per year — is acceptable. (Rates above 1% were considered usury.) Recognizing the truth of Proverbs 22:7b ("the borrower becomes the lender's slave"), once upon a time many state constitutions mandated "usury limits" as a reasonable protection for their citizens.

Given this background, consider a particular television commercial that penetrated my consciousness this morning. Toward the end of the spot I had mostly ignored, a tranquil, but authoritative voice issued this admonition: "Always use payday loans responsibly."

Responsibly? As in, whenever you require extra cash and just happen to feel like 250% interest isn't going to be a problem? As in, you don't have money to buy diapers for the baby so you get a payday loan where the service fees alone would cover the cost for two or more packages of diapers? With interest rates on payday loans ranging (according to one source) "between 390% and 780%," is it possible to use the word responsibly without wondering whether a lightning bolt might reasonably strike you dead?

Do a Google search for "payday loans" and almost 52 million (!) results come up. I didn't check every result but I suspect the majority are gateway sites to these "lenders" who are more than anxious to "serve" you.

Do a Google search for "loan shark" and you'll get a paltry half million (506,000) results, many of which are articles about loan sharks as opposed to vendors (lenders?). (I guess loan sharks are less likely to hang out their shingles, depending instead on their version of a 300-pound, brass-knuckled Vinnie for "customer relations.")

But here's an irony: in its article on loan sharks, Wikipedia mentions payday loans, characterizing them as a "type of consumer finance." Ha! — Similar to Vinnie's brass knuckles being one "type" of non-conforming collection instrument, huh?

In its 2006 report Financial Quicksand, the Center for Responsible Lending determined: "Ninety percent (90%) of payday lending revenues are based on fees stripped from trapped borrowers ... The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan."

One final question: can anyone define "predatory"?

Angry White Men: The Return

2008-02-20T00:29:00.004-06:00

As Obama and Shrillary continue their scorched-earth campaigns across the Democrat party landscape, I found the following column, by Gary Hubbell for the Aspen Times Weekly, extraordinarily enlightening.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

If, like me, you are lucky enough to have a husband, a father, and/or a brother who fit the moniker of "angry white man" as described therein, you'll also find the column highly entertaining.

Come to think of it, maybe I'm a female "angry white male"...

Where's the Outrage?

2008-02-18T12:57:00.004-06:00

Some news stories pack more of an impact than others. For me, one of those stories involves a police officer. This individual, with nine years serving his department and city as a K-9 officer and detective, is also a husband and father of two (the eldest a preteen daughter).

Last year, a federal grand jury charged him with three counts of child pornography, and just days ago — in a plea deal — the man admitted guilt to one count of distributing child porn.

Notwithstanding his betrayal of the public trust, the man’s crimes were characterized by one of his defense attorneys as “‘aberrational’ and inconsistent with his history as a dedicated police officer and conscientious citizen.”

Another defense attorney allowed as how “There’s no question that [his client] lived an exemplary life up to this point.” The attorney further claimed his client’s “conduct was not personally violent.” (I get it. Defense attorneys are supposed to present their clients as upstanding members of the community.)

Thankfully, a resolute US Assistant Attorney rejected these defense portrayals, noting the nature of sexual acts perpetrated on children is (and should be justifiably categorized as) the very definition of violence!

Why should this news story matter to me? I don’t know this fellow nor am I acquainted with his family or anyone related to the crime. But the story reminds me, once again, how deceitful are those people who insist pornography is a “victimless crime.” What bilge!

I grieve for this man and the damage his actions have foisted upon (who-knows-how-many?) others! Some questions for the defense attorneys: what possesses a supposedly “exemplary” individual … a husband … a father … a police officer … to consider this behavior acceptable? And what about the degradation inflicted upon the children whose images this “conscientious citizen” admitted to distributing?

Don’t get me wrong. I acknowledge this former officer’s culpability in digging his own hole, but in truth, that’s the story of addiction, isn’t it? People who would never smoke a joint or willingly inject a needle are finding their enslavement to pornography just as insidious ... and addictive ... and destructive.

When will society decide the human toll of pornography (and its residual debasement of the human psyche) has become too much? Not soon enough.

The Reagan Mantle

2008-02-13T09:56:00.002-06:00

Flannery O'Connor characterized the South as "Christ-haunted." In the two decades following the Reagan presidency, it seems to me the Republican Party must likewise be described as "Reagan-haunted." The numerous Republican debates were a classic example of the Reagan one-upmanship, with frequent variations of the phrase: I'm the one most like Ronald Reagan!

For viewers, the charade resembled a modern-day version of Cinderella; every time a candidate pressed his claim, the Reagan mantle never fit quite like it should ... try as they might, each one came away looking like a pretender.

In a recent conversation with Reagan era deputy press secretary Karna Small Bodman, Glenn Beck broached the subject of the Reagan Mantle. (The pertinent remarks are more than halfway down the page.) Beck queried Bodman whether she saw any politician with Reaganesque qualities.

Her response was most diplomatic: "not exactly." She went on to point out this focus on the Reagan mantle indicates how much the man is justifiably admired. She referred to Reagan's core beliefs guiding him.

I can't imagine Ronald Reagan ever considered himself being possessor of a "mantle" over which others would conceivably wrestle ... simply because he was at the task, day by day, of being Ronald Reagan. (He'd have been unable to focus on the responsibilities of the day if he'd allowed himself to be distracted by what "history" might say about him.)

In his farewell address, Reagan stated: "... when I'm gone, I hope [history] will record I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts." Classic Reagan ... in being who he was, he brought out the best of who we were. That's why the remarkable "Reagan mantle" will never quite fit anyone else who tries to claim it.

Instead of trying to claim Reagan's mantle, wouldn't it be refreshing for one of them to confidently craft his (or her) own?

From Reagan Republican to Coulter Democrat

2008-02-07T22:43:00.000-06:00

Now that Mitt has -- at least temporarily -- followed Fred into the glorious sunset of their respective campaigns and I'm consoling myself with lots of pre-Valentine's chocolate, I realize I am way overdue blogging on what has been the most important Republican primary in a very long time. Frankly, I don't have the strength to catch up. Instead, I'm going to press on to the general election.

Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee in the minds of the voters, rather than just the adoring media, I've been doing a substantial amount of head-scratching. Does anyone remember who this guy is?

Four years ago, if McCain's name came up, there were only two questions: "Will McCain become John Kerry's running mate?" or "Will he pull a 'Jim Jeffords' and go Independent?"

That's right. John F-ing Kerry. In case you've forgotten (along with the rest of the Democrat party) he was their nominee in 2004.

And his sometime bedfellow is now our presumptive nominee. McCain, the man who, if elected, will lead his party into the next glorious era of Republican political achievement, surpassed only by the Reagan Revolution. Hmmmm. Not so much.

There are a lot of words suitable to describe John McCain: establishment, entitled, opportunistic, flip-flopping, disengaged, old and crabby. Conservative is not one of them. I don't think Republican even qualifies.

The irony is that in order to secure the nom, McCain has done nothing if not swing to the right. For all that he critiques Samuel Alito for "wearing his conservatism on his sleeve," McCain has done everything in his power to get the name of Alito's tailor. He's successfully out-righted Guiliani, Thompson and Romney. The only reason he has yet to be pegged as more conservative than Mike Huckabee is because of that whole "Jesus and Satan are brothers" thing.

Another week of campaigning and I'm certain we'll see Huckabee absolve himself of that Jesus & Satan kerfuffle when he finalizes his own deal with the devil -- in other words, sliding into that VP spot McCain has been keeping warm for him.

If anyone wants to take bets on how long before McCain's Conservative excursion train derails, I'm running a pool. The minute the GOP field has cleared, we're going to see McCain return to his moderate/independent (i.e. liberal) roots and forget he ever mentioned Reagan, strict contructionism, or securing the borders first. I know amnesiac two-year-olds with longer institutional memory than this guy.

Which brings me to Ann Coulter. AKA: Hillary's newest celebrity endorsement.

(SIDEBAR: Do you think Bill has asked Hill's campaign staff to make room on his schedule for some face time with Ann yet?)

The very notion of voting for Hillary has me in cold sweats. Still, the pig's ear that would be the McCain presidency leaves me asking myself: "Who do I want to be held accountable for four years of disastrous liberal occupation of the Oval Office? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican?"

Ann Coulter has obviously taken her position on this. El Rushbo himself, though he has yet to outline his strategy publically, has at least decried the lack of leverage a Republican Senate and House would have against a president of their own party.

These are compelling arguments, people. After all, it takes the Congress and the President to complete the legislative process. Making sure we have legislators in Washington in position to put up a fight for Conservatism has me tempted to begin looking for a pharmacy with some OxyClinton left in stock.

Charles Krauthammer laid it out straight, calling the Hillary campaign for the presidency "one giant alimony payment." But even though I agree that a second Clinton presidency would be disastrous, I'm not blind to the seductive pull of liberals giving the nation a violent shove to the right by virtue of nothing more than their rank incompetence to actually solve any problem. (Oh, except that little "problem" of Americans deciding what to do with their own money. They've had that one in the bag for decades.)

If I don't do a Mitt write-in or just stay at home waiting for my healthcare to arrive, I might have no other choice but to become a Coulter Democrat.

Since it only takes nine months for a human embryo -- sorry, "two-celled blob of useless tissue better known as 'a choice'" -- to develop into a full-term baby -- sorry, "a planned and wanted child" -- maybe it will be sufficient time for me to acclimatise myself to this heinous exercise of either-or.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the Ann Coulter and William Jefferson Clinton Campaign Tour: "Little Black Dress Express."

No Cigar

2008-02-01T21:58:00.001-06:00

This is as close as John McCain will ever get to true Conservatism.

Nice Try

2008-02-01T21:51:00.000-06:00

This is as close as Ron Paul will ever get to the Presidency. (Sorry, sis.)

The Reagan Legacy

2008-02-01T08:11:00.000-06:00

It's the political season. (It has been for what ... the last 3,000 days? But I digress.) Despite disapprobation from uber-partisans, even Democrat candidate Barack Obama has sought to tap into the mystical mantle of Ronald Reagan! Obama observed how Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." (View video here.)

Uh-oh. Obama could've gotten away with the first half of his sentence. But he crossed the line into Democrat heresy by daring to slam Bill Clinton!

[ASIDE: Therein lies one explanation for people's disdain toward politics in general and the incessant complaint of "too much partisanship." Perverting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), those who criticized Obama's comments live by another maxim: "speak no good of anyone who has an (R) after his name."]

I respect Barack Obama for conceding Ronald Reagan, as a person and in his capacity as President, is worthy of admiration for his noteworthy accomplishments.

(Reagan himself successfully transcended a good bit of the usual political party orthodoxy. In my view, his success in doing so was the direct result of Reagan's refusal to sacrifice core values. Instead, he allowed inner conviction to trump political orthodoxy and expedience.)

The rest of Obama's comments on Reagan are equally interesting ... and curious. "[Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Remember the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years? Yes, Reagan did take a "fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Ready? I'll say!

CHANGE seems to be the dominant theme of Obama's campaign, so this statement from him sounds curiously ... well, conservative ... when he speaks about how "government had grown and grown" and people were yearning for clarity, optimism and "a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Wow! A Democrat who views big government as troublesome, perhaps even problematic? Who'd a-thunk it?

Indeed, Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and in doing so, left his mark on many of us — regardless of party affiliations. Reagan's unique clarity of vision enabled us to grasp the Rendezvous with Destiny he articulated. His irrepressible optimism mirrored the heart and soul of the American spirit.

History will confirm the breadth of Reagan's legacy; a lone Democrat has — at long last — acknowledged it.