Just Another Brick in the Wall

I expect that most of you know that about a year ago our esteemed (uh hum!) Al Gore decided to put his money where his mouth is...so to speak. That's right, he gave the Heinz mansion a makeover - complete with solar panels, energy efficient light bulbs and a geothermal heating/cooling system. Bravo and Kudos to the former Vice Prez.

But the story doesn't end there. It's time for an update. How much did Mr. Global Warming save? Nothing. Less than nothing, actually. The year following his 'green-up' they consumed a modest increase of 10% over the year prior.

If that weren't bad enough, their total energy consumption was a paltry 213,000 KW. That's enough to run 232 average homes for a month! To be fair, let's look at that in the same frame of reference - that's more power that 19 average families consume in a year.

Seems to me he would have been better off putting his money where his mouth really is. I'll give you three guesses where where that is...and the first two don't count.

(Here's a hint - his mouth is attached to his head)

With each new report from Gitmo, reporters seem hell-bent on pointing out that KSM was water-boarded while in the custody of the CIA. For those that have never seen the facts surrounding this event, I think it's important to read this article: "Five Minutes Well Spent" by Jonah Goldberg. Below is a repost of another blog I did several months ago.
------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

For those that won't read it to the end, here's a quick summary…

With all this talk we've heard about how the big, bad U.S.A. tortures at Guantanamo, Cuba, the actual number of detainees that we have water-boarded is…

Three. That's it. Three. How long did we do this – a grand total of less than five minutes. The worst of the worst of Al Qaeda and none of them could withstand this for as long as it takes most of us to brush our teeth in the morning.

According to Wikipedia, at least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the World Trade center on 9/11. My physics is a bit rusty, (and to spare you the math) the total amount of time those people spent freefalling to their deaths was about 27 minutes (about 8.12 seconds per person x 200) – so we tortured the terrorists for one fifth of the time it took just those 200 to die.

Oh yeah, and did you know that it is part of U.S. Military training to water-board our troops to show them what to expect if they are captured by our enemy? Thank God we didn't decide to show them how Daniel Pearl felt when he had his head chopped off by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is in response to a news story "Lesbian Kiss Sparks Controversy at Seattle Mariners' Ballpark" as reported on Fox News.

I'm really sick of hearing pro-gay-anything people painting anti-gay-everything people as homophobic or discriminatory. What's so hard about understanding that some people believe, as taught by their religion, that it's simply wrong? These same people claim that the church is commanded by Christ to love everyone equally, but completely ignore the lessons of Sodom and Gomorrah - both of which were cities in the Old Testament that were destroyed by the wrath of God for their immorality - in particular homosexual acts.

And by the way, the lesson of Christ was to forgive people their sins, not to endorse those sins as acceptable, alternative lifestyles. Love the sinner, abhor the sin.

Trust me, I am about as far from being a religious man an one can be. To be perfectly honest, I really couldn't care less that people do in their own bedrooms. What really cranks me up in this arena is the dishonest manner in which people of faith are portrayed as hate-filled freaks. What baffles me is why you never see any anti-gay person being interviewed on television making this point. They all cave to the pressure of leaving their faith out of the conversation when that is exactly the reason that they have the opinions for which they are being interviewed.

And somebody please answer this for me: Why is it that the Left, for all their rhetoric about  tolerance, acceptance and peace, is always the group most willing to stop at nothing - including violence and murder - to force everyone to accept their way of thinking?

All right. I've had enough. This latest attempt flies in the face of every citizen that works hard and follows the rules.

To illustrate my point, let's look at Bob. Mr. Nobody. He's followed the rules but falls on hard times. In a final act of desperation he robs a bank. The money he steals, he invests in his business and becomes very successful. Does he deserve the money from the business? What if he repays the bank with interest? I can't see any of you saying he should get anything from his illegal act but a long prison sentence. However, someone that commits a felony by entering this country illegally not only feel entitled to take whatever they want, they are now demanding that they get the same rights as citizens of this country. I may not be politically correct here, but they don't deserve a damn thing - except a one-way ticket to prison (or back to their country of origin - whether that be Mexico, China, or Great Brittan). The argument that they are here to do jobs that Americans won't do is BLEEP. Stated accurately, they are here to do jobs that Americans wont do at the pay rates offered. Pay me enough money and I'll do nearly anything.

Look, I'm all for legal immigration and I think we need more of it. The fact is that right now it is easier to enter this country illegally than it is to enter legally. If we relax the rules to come in legally and harden the borders with every resource (electronic surveillance, manpower, fences, land mines, whatever it takes), we could stem the tide of illegals to a trickle. If we cripple businesses that willingly hire illegals (thereby eliminating jobs for illegals), there would be no reason to come here illegally.

As for those illegals that are here already, they can't possibly be working and 'paying taxes' without committing at least one more felony - false identification or identification theft. But you know what? I'm willing to overlook even that - if they follow these simple steps:
1. Register as a Non-Citizen resident. Give a reasonable time frame like 6-12 months to get registered. Anyone that doesn't registered will be hunted down and deported.
2. Meet reasonable requirements in learning both spoken and written English.
3. Maintain consistent, full-time employment. This is not to say that they should be deported if they lose a job and it takes a month to find a new one. But after a grace period, they must remain employed two days for every day of unemployment - maybe 3:1. My argument here is that if they can't be employed at least eight months our of every 12, they aren't contributing to our society and must return to their country of origin.
4. If they commit any felony, they will. in exchange for a suspended sentence, be deported. They will not be eligible to return to this country - even to visit. If they are caught in this country for any reason they will serve their sentence and be deported. If they return again, they will receive five years hard labor and be deported.
5. As a Non-Citizen Resident, they will have no right to vote.

These rules are harsh, I admit, but compared to what you would get if you illegally entered any other country, they're pretty fair.

My whole point is this: Come to the United States. We welcome you! Just follow our laws - beginning with how you enter the country and we'll get along just fine.

My minor in college was Systems and Decision Sciences (i.e. Statistical Analysis). We have a saying: "Numbers don't lie, but if you squeeze them hard enough, they'll say anything you want ". All this hysterical reporting is a perfect example.

Yes, I know, gas prices are outrageous and getting worse, but the way news organizations (including Fox News) are reporting these numbers is doing more harm than good.

On Your World with Neil Cavuto today, it was reported that the average vacation this Memorial day will be 640 miles and will cost the vacationer $110. Also reported is the current national average gas price of $3.87. Last year at this time, the average national price was $3.22 (for those bad in math, that's an increase of about 65 cents per gallon)

Basic math tells us that this 'average vacationer' will use 28.5 gallons of gas [ $110 / $3.87 = 28.5 gallons]. Since the increase in price is 65 cents/gallon, the total increase in the cost of the trip (just for gas) is only $18.46 from last year.

Not so much as to really have any serious effect on a families plan.

This is a follow-up to my very first blog post on this site titled Due Diligence or Misguided Malfeasance. At the time I questioned whether or not the actions by the police to raid the compound and take the children from their parents was based on a solid legal basis or if they had overstepped their bounds. Today we got that answer from the Third Appellate Court of Texas. The court ruled that there was no evidence that these children were in immediate danger of physical abuse. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News Contributor, these children will be reunited with their families within a week.

I can't say I'm surprised by this outcome. However, my next question is about the ability of the authorities to use DNA evidence collected in this case to build cases against the men of this cult with regard to sexual battery of a minor.  Although many of the pregnant girls have been determined to be of consensual age, about half of the pregnant girls are under age.

Another question this raises is, if the fathers of these children are convicted of sex crimes against a child, will the cult take any action to prevent them from having access to children in the future.

We're all aware that more than 130,000 people died in the May 2 cyclone in Myanmar and that an estimated 2.5 Million people are homeless and starving while hundreds of tons of food and supplies wait offshore for the Junta to allow the aid to be delivered.

It has been reported in the Myanmar state-controlled media that U.S. warships which are capable of delivering massive amounts of relief very quickly will not be allowed into the country because of "fears of a U.S. invasion aimed at grabbing the country's oil reserves." (source)

This has been the resounding cry of the democrats about the war in Iraq and it has now infiltrated the dominant political thinking of the Junta to the inevitable death of tens of thousands - if not millions - of survivors of the cyclone. These selfish and dishonest accusations by the liberals and Bush-haters has done more to damage the reputation of this country than 'the madman in the oval office'. I'm reminded of the 1996 Presidential Campaign where we heard over and over again that "Words have meaning". As it turns out, they also have a price. This time it's paid with innocent blood. The disaster after the disaster rests squarely on the shoulders of Democrats.

I've been scratching my head for many hours now trying to figure out exactly what Obama was saying on Fox yesterday. When asked about his promise to speak on a presidential level with Iran he said that the last eight years of the Bush Policies hadn't stopped Iran from building their nuclear program. He also said that the point of direct talks with Iran is to show the world that the U.S. is open to negotiations and if there is no progress it is not the fault of the U.S. (i.e. After all, we tried to negotiate with the Psycho, he just won't listen to reason - my words, his implication).

I walked away from this interview with the strangest feeling that something really didn't add up. Then it hit me. Obama confessed that direct talks with Iran would produce no tangible results - and he knew that! See what I'm getting at? He says that the Bush policies allowed Iran to continue building nukes, but also confesses that his plan to talk to Iminthemoodforjihaad would have absolutely no more success than what's been tried to date. The only reason to have these talks would be to give the impression that the U.S. is not the obstacle to progress.

Indirectly, Obama has confessed that his plan would do nothing more than what the McCain team has been saying all along - these talks would only lend legitimacy to our enemies.

I wish that the McCain camp could say it better than I did in that last paragraph, but the people in this country don't seem to have the attention span to hear more than once sentence. I'll explain it anyhow and maybe someone from McCains campaign will pick up on the argument.


To date, the only claim Iminthemoodforjihad can make to the Iranian people is that they have the right to develop their own nuclear weapons - regardless of the fact that they signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [when Iran signed the NPT is unclear, but the treaty has been in effect since 1968]. One also has to understand that the Iranian media is a state controlled entity. The people of the country get virtually all their news from the government. If a sitting President of the U.S. (or any other country trying to block their entry to the nuclear family) would make an appearance with Iminthemoodforjihad, the headlines in Iran would read that their push to build nuclear weapons has succeeded into forcing the U.S. and it's allies into negotiating. That they scared the U.S. so badly that we had no choice but to negotiate. What's said at the meetings would be irrelevant - they would claim victory on nothing more than the idea that we called a meeting.

For those that have never negotiated a large business transaction (I've participated in several mylti-million dollar deals), there is one simple rule to negotiating - you can't win if you don't have the upper hand. You have to have something that the other wants. For example, you have to be better than your competition, faster than the competition, or be able to meet some other specific condition that the client demands (like being green-friendly or being able to meet a specific budget number). Political negotiation isn't all that different. You can't get what you want from your enemy if you don't have something they want. You can't go into the negotiation with nothing more than the hope that they will be reasonable. Kennedy tried that with Khrushchev and the result was the Soviet Union saw Kennedy as weak. This soon led to the construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Today, polar bears were added to the Endangered Species list.. No, their number's aren't dwindling. Quite the opposite - populations are up several hundred percent in the last two decades. The reason they have been added is that "Climate Change is melting the polar ice caps". So what does that mean to you?

In the short term, nothing much. To see the long term effects, we have to look at the reason they were added to the list and the history of actions against industries that impact these species. Initial news reports are focusing on how it will affect drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (i.e. ANWAR). Since the Porcupine Caribu and the Bowhead Whale have been effectively employed to prevent drilling (as well and tricky political wrangling in congress), one has to realize that this is about more than the estimated 5.5 - 16 billion barrels of oil off the north shore. (See: Arctic Refuge Drilling Controversy and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for details).

Historically, the government has taken legal actions to prevent activities that endanger a species. For example, banning or limiting whale hunting, banning the import of Ivory (in an effort to stop wholesale slaughter of elephants for their tusks), etc. In some cases, individuals have been prosecuted and their livelihoods taken from them to protect a species. I can't find any web links to the story, but about ten years ago a California farmer was out plowing his field when ran over a mouse that was listed as an endangered species. He was arrested. Although I don't recall the details or the eventual outcome of the story, the point remains that his farm was at least temporarily taken away from him in order to protect a mouse. These are just the facts. They don't constitute an endorsement or a condemnation of the actions taken.

Now we have to question why there has been such a push to put Polar Bears on this list. Although it bolsters the case to prevent drilling in ANWAR, it also provides a major stepping stone to stop all use of fossile fuels. Follow the argument:

1. The habitat of the Polar Bear is endangered by Global Warming.
2. Global Warming is caused (in part) by Greenhouse Gas emmissions.
3. Burning fossile fuels (gasoline, natural gas, etc. in cars and power plants) creates Greenhouse Gas.


Based on this line of logic, you could be arrested for killing endangered animals for using a natural gas water heater in your home. Is it reasonable? No. But mark my words, this is just the thing some environmentalists have been looking to do.

I had to laugh when I saw this, but somehow the reporter missed the obvious.

Background: This happened 5/13/08. A car ran through the front of the Marshalls store in Stoneham, MA. The reporter joked that the sales were so good, the driver just kept on going. What she failed to notice is the sign that covers the left third of the screen. Clearly, the driver misunderstood what the sign was suggesting.

I took some time tonight to scan through some of my favorite blogs - many of which were clearly anti-war (at least against the war in Iraq). Many touted the cost of the war, complained that we still haven't received the benefits we were supposed to reap from it, and the 'quagmire' in which we find ourselves. I think it's time I finally responded. Bear with me, I have a lot of thoughts and a lot of things that many of you will find utterly distasteful. This is my perspective, I could be right. You'll never know unless you read to the end.

Let me begin by telling you a story. I was married once. It wasn't one of those three-week courting periods. We dated for nearly three and a half years before we married. The marriage itself lasted eleven and a half years. For those weak in math, that's about fifteen years. I was 31 when I divorced. I had spent nearly half my life with one woman. I'll spare you all the details of the disaster - we both had our issues and I will confess that ultimately the divorce came at my insistence..

The point is, I went into this relationship with the absolute best of intentions. This was the woman I wanted to be with my whole life. I was in love - or so I thought. I knew that we could make it and that nothing could ever tear us apart. We had good jobs, good educations, a great church, awesome friends. What could every go wrong? Well, I'll tell you...Life. To be perfectly honest, within two years of being married, I realized that the things she wanted in life were not the things I wanted. In our defense, how could we know who we would grow up to be? We never fought much. We just let our anger and bitterness steep and simmer until the only clear option was divorce.

It wasn't easy. In many ways, we were both miserable, but both of us were ultimately thrilled at the decision I had made. What nobody could predict is that her new husband would decide it was his right to start beating my kids. Not spanking - I mean hitting, choking and throwing them around a room when he got angry. That's when the marriage mistake became an unmitigated disaster. Please don't offer your sympathies on this. The issue has been resolved and my kids are now big enough to kick his a$$, should he get out of line again. Let's focus on the relevance of this to the wars in Iraq.

Without re-hashing all the reasons for the initial invasion - whether they be legitimate or not, whether they be just or not. - the fact remains that when this invasion occurred the numbers in support of the President and this action were staggeringly overwhelming. For the record, I don't think anything President Bush said while making his case for the war were lies. Some things may have turned out to be inaccurate - even wrong - but a lie is, by definition, a willing misrepresentation of the truth. I believe that the President was absolutely convinced that the information he presented was accurate. But that's a different Blog...

This brings me to my argument that we have (or more accurately - have had) two wars in Iraq. I'm not referring to Desert Storm. When we invaded In 2003 we had a mission - to take out Sadaam Hussein. We accomplished that mission with incredible efficiency. When President Bush stood on the aircraft carrier under the banner that stated "Mission Accomplished", the fact is we had accomplished the primary mission of the war. I see this as somewhat akin to my dating period with my ex...when I said 'I do', my mission was accomplished.

Many love to post quotes made by U.S. Officials about how the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. These posters also like to say that never happened. I hate to burst their bubbles, but it DID happen. I spent weeks glued to the television watching hour after endless hour of the war and the aftermath. I watched live as our soldiers worked together with the citizens of Baghdad to tear down the statue of Sadaam and step on it's face or smack it in the face with their shoes. I watched hundreds of Iraqis hug and kiss our soldiers. When the Americans moved through town, the Iraqi citizens lined the streets like some sort of parade and waved the American Flag. We were hailed at liberators and welcomed by the vast majority of citizens. Then the honeymoon ended.

Nobody can deny that mistakes were made. Borders weren't secured. The first vestiges of an insurgency were not quelled. The Baath party and the Iraqi military were disbanded. Like with my marriage - life happened. What could have - and SHOULD have been a swift resolution to the war, simply fell apart. This is what I consider to be analogous to my divorce, and the start of the second war in Iraq.

You see, the second war has nothing to do with Sadaam. It has everything to do with al-Qaeda, Iran and those Iraqis that are, in essence, the equivalent of the Taliban in Afghanistan. These three groups believe that all people - not just Iraqis - should live under Sharia Law and view democracy as the enemy of God. Based on their common goals, these groups initially saw our troops as the core enemy. Their problem was thatno matter how many casualties we took, the resolution of our President quickly became evident. We had learned our lesson from Desert Storm (i.e. we told the Iraqi people to rise up and fight Sadaam, then pulled out and left them to be slaughtered). I, for one, am glad that SOMEONE in this country still believes that if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Our mistakes in the war soon came back to haunt us. In the same way neither myself nor my ex could have anticipated the actions of her new husband, we could not have anticipated the insurgency and the way it caught hold. But the Iraqi people had become our children - a fledgling democracy. As such, we can no more abandon them in their infancy than any (sane) parent could toss their child in a dumpster and walk away. We created them and we have the responsibility to teach them, coddle them, and watch them grow until they are able to sustain themselves.

The fact is, as much as I would like to go back and correct the mistakes I made in my marriage (like saying 'I Do'), the reality is that I am stuck where I am. I am a better man for it. When I first learned what the step-dad was doing, I had to make a choice. Protecting my kids was obvious and came without saying. However, I had to choose between what I wanted to do (you can only imagine), and the right thing to do. I chose to leave my fighting to the attorneys. How much it cost was irrelevant - and believe me, it was far more than substantial.

What I'm saying is, we went into this war with the best of intentions. If it had all gone according to plan, our troops would all be back home and George Bush would be the greatest President in modern history. But life happens and we are where we are. I, as much as anybody else, would love nothing more than to pull our troops out and celebrate their bravery, honor and service. The reality is, we still have a lot of work to do - however personally distasteful as that may be.

The one outstanding issue I feel I need to address is this misconception that Bush, Cheney and McCain want to keep our troops there for a hundred years. Anyone that believes that is intellectually bankrupt. Never have any of them stated such a desire. All three have, however, stated the commitment to do so - should that be necessary. After all, if your child were born with DOWNS, how long would you, as a parent, be willing to care for that child? There is some fact behind the notion that we will have troops there for decades - after all, how long have we had troops in Germany? Lets see....2008 - 1945 = 63 years and counting...but only the first few of those were actually war years. Today we enjoy a healthy and (generally) safe presence in the country of a former enemy.

Remember, when you get all knotted up about this stuff, try looking at it from the big picture. Think of it as taking the Ferari you have the opportunity to steel today - at the cost of your family, home and job tomorrow. Then ask yourself, Obama or McCain - which plan protects your children and grandchildren. Our soldiers are willing to pay the price with blood, body parts and their lives, so who are you to quibble about the dollars and cents?

That's right folks, taking a page right from the Clinton play book he captured the pulse of America (ok, so it was a poll) and decided that the best way to win over those undecided, hard working, middle class, semi-educated, angry, gun-toting, religion-clinging white voters was to cave to the pressure and put on that dreaded symbol of freedom and pride - the U.S. Flag Lapel pin.

New video today (err...yesterday) went (mostly) without fanfare over the amazing turn of events. With will power like this, I can't wait to see the man sit down with a group of terrorists to talk about their issues. If that happens, I assure you I will make myself scarce at open air markets and night clubs.

Maybe I'm being too harsh here...maybe he really had a change of heart and it isn't about politics... If he next takes a page from Ditech and starts his speeches with "People are smart...", tighten those butt-cheeks bacause it's only smoke up the collective anal orifice of America.

Extortion:
1. An exorbitant charge*
2. Unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority)*
3. The felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence)*
4. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.**

* WordWeb A One-click English dictionary, thesaurus and reference. (it's free!)
**Dictionary.com (not a site I recommend as it is very slow and laden with advertisements)

Today we witness my number one pet peeve: Police Extortion. No, this act is legal because they do it in the name of justice and protecting the people.

Case in point: San Diego State University. I just finished watching the bulk of the news conference where they discussed the methods by which they caught 'the bad guys'. First, they arrested many people (the bulk of the total 96 arrests) for things like possession and those involved in overdose situations. The information gleaned from these students went into the planning of "Operation Sudden Fall" which resulted in more arrests today as well as at least two arrests last week.

Here's the part that pizzes me off...These people arrested for possession, I am absolutely confident, did not run into the police station saying "I have drugs and I want to turn in the person that sold them to me!" Quite the contrary - the police arrested them, slapped them with every charge they could think of, let them sweat it out a while, then offered a deal (i.e. they don't go to jail) for their 'cooperation'. Please refer to the definition of Extortion above - in particular, definition #4.

In this case, the item of value is a persons reputation and/or a prison sentence. What was extorted was not money, but information. The abuse comes when a government representative (be that a D.A., DEA Agent, FBI Agent, Police Officer, etc.) treats one person differently than they do another. To be more specific, the normal course of action when catching a person in possession of pot is to issue a citation - just like a speeding ticket. (If you don't believe me, look at the last traffic citation you or someone you know received - there is a check box for possession). However, in this case, there was more to be gained by police - the names of the dealers. So, the individual was arrested, terrorized and extorted. According to the President of San Diego State University, all of these students were immediately expelled from school. Regardless of the deals given by police, these people have little to no future because they did exactly what is expected of every good college student - they experimented with drugs. But then again, I guess they still have a chance to become president...

So what have we gained from allowing the government to terrorize its citizens? An investigation that lasted a year, involved dozens of agents, cost taxpayers millions of dollars (so far - the trials and incarcerations will probably triple that) and in the end managed to seize far fewer drugs than they could have gotten by raiding any celebrities weekend stash.

Before anyone starts accusing me of promoting Anarchy or endorsing the legalization of drugs, don't. This isn't about any such thing. It is entirely about how we allow our government to abuse the rights of ordinary citizens because we feel that it is 'for the greater good'. If you don't think it will ever happen to you, then you are naive. Not only can it, but odds are it has or will happen to you or someone you love.

I can cite examples with at least eight friends of mine that, in the last ten years, have been subject to such situations. The most dramatic of which, landed a friend in a windowless room, facing a Secret Service Agent. When he demanded an attorney, the agent told him (and I quote) "We can make you disappear. [pause for effect] Now, you're going to tell me everything I want to know...". Needless to say, he cooperated.

I'm not anti-government or anything, but we have to remember, the only power the government has is the authority we grant it - this is our guarantee by the constitution. The converse is also true - we have the right, and it is our responsibility, to take away any power we have granted the government that has been abused. In the end, if we let them violate our rights, we're responsible. Know your rights, and don't let anyone give them - or take them - away.

Finally, the federal government is going to step in and make the credit companies play fair - or are they? The Federal Reserve has proposed new regulations on credit providers to make it easier for people on tight budgets to actually pay off their credit cards. However, every expert in the field agrees that by the time the legislation is done with the assault by lobbyist, it won't likely be worth the time they put into making the laws. As a matter of fact, the pork they will attach to the bill will surely be more than the money they will save those for whom the bill was intended to protect.

There are three problems facing this legislation:

First, the whole notion of curbing 'unfair practices' by the credit companies. What is unfair for the consumer is not unfair to the credit companies. This is clearly denoted in the following quote from the Fox News article:

Ken Clayton, senior vice president of card policy for the American Bankers Association, said the industry will fight the new proposals, describing them as "aggressive regulatory intervention in the marketplace that will result in higher prices and less consumer credit."

He said the change "basically says that we can't price for risk" and that if higher risk borrowers don't bear the costs, those costs will be passed along to other consumers."

To which I say to Ken and his cronies: Lower consumer debt is EXACTLY what we need! And if you find a person is at such a high risk of not paying back the money they borrow, why would you offer to extend them credit in the first place?

Before he can baffle you with BS, I'll tell you - because the way the laws are set, they can legally rape you for the rest of your life. Enough is enough America! Wake up, cut up (your cards) and stand up for your right to be treated as an equal to the Bill Gates, Paris Hiltons and Warren Buffets of the world. If the credit companies aren't going to treat you fairly, stop giving them the means by which they keep you down.

Second, although I'm certain that the Fed intends well, politicians make the laws and their campaigns are funded by big business. As much as they may want to help the less fortunate, they can't. If they did, they couldn't get re-elected because the source of campaign funds would dry up overnight. Until we demand that campaign financing be reformed in a way that prevents special interests from buying politicians, We The People will never, honestly, be represented by our elected officials.

Lastly, this is an election year. We do face some significant economic problems, which I believe are principally caused by high oil prices and the banking industry (there are other factors, but these are primary) that are legitimate and necessary to discuss in the election process. However, what we will get is political posturing and finger pointing. "The Republicans want blah, blah, blah...The Democrats want blah, blah, blah..." In the end it's going to be more about getting their candidate elected (or themselves re-elected) than what is truly in the interest of the people electing them.

 I understand a person being passionate about their cause. Clearly I'm passionate because I'm writing this now. Rev. Wright, however, has taken two steps beyond. He skipped obsessed altogether, going straight to fanatical.

Before anyone blows off calling me a racist, I say HA! You don't know me or my family. We are that great melting pot they call America. I would challenge anyone to demonstrate a family that represents more diversity than mine. Our heritage spans virtually every corner of the world, dozens of countries and virtually every race - all within a three generation span. Yes, this includes Black, White and Indian (Cherokee), just to name a few. As far as religions, we run the gambit - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Agnostic. We may even have an Atheist or two in the bunch.

That said, lets get on to Rev. Ridiculous.

1. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with the Black Church. It has everything to do with believing in your country and the values for which it stands. Unfortunately, I admit, for some people it is about politics. Then again, Character Matters, and who you choose to call friend is a good reflection of your judgment and character. One or two mistakes is understandable. Three, four, or more mistakes denotes a pattern for which we should show legitimate concern.

2. Where are the terrorist training camps in the U.S. that send out suicide bombers to murder innocent civilians? Don't tell me it's the military bases. I know better. I served my time, and nowhere in any of my training or years of service was I ever encouraged to strap on a bomb and blow up an Arab market. If you want to accuse the U.S. of exporting terrorism, bring proof - not 'policies'. Policies aren't terrorism, blowing up my kids in school because you don't like my choice of religion is.

3. In what asylum did he get the idea that the U.S. created A.I.D.S. to kill black people? The last I checked, a virus doesn't distinguish between races. Many viruses don't even care about species. This government has been passing out condoms for decades. Try using them. Better yet, try using a little common sense. If a man or woman is willing to sleep with you after knowing you for a couple hours at your local bar, chances are you are just one in a long line of sexual indiscretions. Be smarter than him/her. The vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases are caused by one of two things: Ignorance and stupidity. For the terminally stupid, I hope you have a lot of luck on your side. For the blissfully ignorant, take a minute to educate yourself and avoid becoming a victim.

4. The government nor it's people owe anyone an apology for Slavery. President Lincoln (R-IL) ended that nearly 150 years ago. The only cause to continue pushing for an apology would be to pin the government into a potentially disastrous legal position. I recommend reading the Wikipedia entry on Slavery, particularly the segments titled Apologies and Reparations. I would also suggest reading the related article Slavery In the United States, which clearly states that both blacks and whites were subject to a form of slavery called Indentured Servitude. It also points our that some Native Americans and Free Blacks held slaves - although this was not a common practice. Personally, I have never had a slave. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in my family over the last six generation (at least) has had a slave. I have never taken any action to repress anyone - black or otherwise. So, to anyone that finds this to be a sore spot, I offer the same advice I got as a child: "Grow up. Life isn't fair. Get over it. The only one you can blame for your predicament is you. So stop your whining and do something about it."

5. The only one I see, at this point, that is 'Stuck on Stupid", is the Rev. himself. Listen, you aren't doing yourself, your candidate, your church, or your race any favors. Shut the hell up until you can say something that brings us all closer together. Everybody: Stop pointing fingers at others and start looking in the mirror. Set your worthless ego aside and take responsibility for your own ignorance, mistakes and behavior. Only then will this divisive trend end.