Israel's "Barracuda"?

The recent terrorist events in Mumbai had a profound effect on the Israelis. Now that the details are revealed, the story of a young Rabbi and his wife that ran a local Jewish center is tragic. They volunteered to run a student center called the Chabad House in Mumbai which provided assistance to Jewish tourists and worked to help the poor in India. This young couple was in their late 20's and had a toddler son who thanks to an Indian nanny was pulled aside and rescued from being executed. His young parents were not so lucky. An autopsy revealed that the Rabbi and his wife were violently tortured before they were executed with a gun shot to the head. Four other Jews were killed the same way during that siege. The coroner that performed the autopsy said that he had never seen violence like that against a human being before, and never wants to even think about it again.

Jewish communities around the world are in shock and angry. And the Jews do not forget. The Mossad (Israel's CIA) is acknowledged to be the most competent intelligence agency in the world and anyone connected with this terrorist attack should consider updating their Last Will and Testament.

As a global political addict, and someone who has spent time in Israel, and for years conducted business with the Israelis, I have always been interested in the politics of the Middle East, especially since in many ways it is the root of Islamic extremism. Many conflicts involving radical Muslims lead back to Israel and the Palestinians. Starting with Jimmy Carter every President has cajoled, negotiated, shook hands, visited the holy land, signed agreements, and 30 years later here we are with zero progress - the Palestinians still hate the Israelis and vice verse.

Iran is now the major threat to Israel. They fund the terrorist groups Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon and have openly advocated the extinction of Israel. With Iran now close to the development of a nuclear bomb I am sure the Israelis feel their backs are against the wall. Their unofficial national slogan is, "There will NEVER be another holocaust" so I am sure they feel they must make a decision on the Iran issue soon. This week we read about Israel preparing for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities even without the USA. That is probably political bluster aimed at Iran and the incoming President Obama, but I believe this could be the next major world conflict and Obama's first real test as President. The truth be known, many Mideast countries are probably quietly in favor of an Iranian attack by Israel or the USA because they are afraid of Iran also.

Recently Ehud Olmert the Prime Minister of Israel has resigned while being investigated for corruption and his party elected Tzipi Livni as their leader and the new Prime Minister. Most Americans do not even know who Tzipi Livni is. She is not a career politician, but a former Mossad agent and she is a tough lady. Although she is called a "liberal", in Israel that has a much different meaning. Her mission is peace in a country that has been at war for 60 years. She has been the lead negotiator with Palestinians in the most recent peace negotiations and appears to be the first Israeli leader in many years willing to seriously compromise and do what is required to insure Palestine finally becomes an independent state.

But Israeli politics are different from ours, and she had to put together a majority coalition of other political parties in order to take charge, and she could not do that. Many "hard liners" are opposed to any concessions with the Palestinians, so new elections must be held in February, 2009. As a result, Obama does not even know who he will be dealing with as the Prime Minister of Israel. It appears to be a tossup as to who will be elected to the top spot in Israel next year. It could Livni and if so, we could see real progress towards peace in the Middle East for the first time in a half century. She will be fighting a "hard line" network in Israel and a "hard line" culture with Muslims who do not believe women are capable of anything.

Like Sarah Palin, Tzipi Livni could be a leader of the future. Who knows, maybe the women of this world can straighten things out - we men certainly do not have a very good track record.

Back to work

I have had writers block the past few weeks. Perhaps it's the holidays or a post election depression, but after a great Thanksgiving with my family it's time to get back to work.

Here are some random thoughts:

One of the liberal platforms in this country is gun control: "We need to keep those wacko militias in Montana from acquiring AK 47's". After the attacks in Mumbai how far do you think gun control legislation will go in our next Congressional session? I don't carry a gun, but we do have guns. You have to wonder if law abiding citizens in India were allowed to carry guns how much those ten terrorists would have accomplished. Here were ten terrorists that kept a city of 18 million frozen for almost three days. If just a few of those hundreds of innocent people had access to a gun what might have been different? It just continues to prove that guns don't kill people - criminals kill people. Do you think those terrorists would have followed gun control rules? Another comment on this thought - why is it politically "incorrect" to refer to Islam as a violent religion?

The day after Thanksgiving we all read about the poor Wall Mart "greeter" who was trampled to death because people wanted to be the first to get a plasma TV on sale. It was tragic and his family will be wealthy for life, since there is already a civil lawsuit underway. But what good is being wealthy if one of your loved ones is killed in such a violent way. This tells us more about our culture than anything else - greed and material possessions. Question: If you were charging into that store to get a great deal on a plasma TV and you stepped on a body on the ground, would you have stopped? It would probably have been impossible for you to stop, but would you have fought to do so? Those shoppers did not.

At Thanksgiving my kids asked for my advice on the economy and what to do with their 401Ks. With all of my experience as a chief executive, businessman, and small business owner I had to tell them, "I have no idea". "Bailout" was the Merriam Webster word of the year, but the process has become ridiculous; billions, even trillions to bailout individuals, companies, and state governments that were mismanaged (some criminally), and our Congress has no clue so they throw money at the problem. Throughout the past few months of this economic disaster a majority of the American public has been in favor of just letting the pain happen and if companies were mismanaged, let them go bankrupt. But our Congress knows better and has been issuing money at a rate that cannot be sustained - money the country never had in the first place. I feel sorry for our kids and grand kids and although I am not an economist, look for the possibility of hyper inflation in the future.

So far Obama has moved toward the center with many of his cabinet picks - who knows how he will govern. The economic disaster will probably limit his options with regard to all of his "socialist" intentions. I predict in a few years he will have budget deficit so large that both he and the Congress will have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending. The future will be very interesting.

As for me, now I'm going to relax with a martini and listen to Christmas Carols - Merry Christmas everyone! It's hard not to feel good during this season.

The "Crossroads"

Yogi Berra, one of our national icons and a "philosopher" in his own right once said: "When you come to a crossroads, take it"

Putting Yogi's humor aside, there is little doubt that this country is at a crossroads and I fear we are taking the wrong road. In a previous blog I predicted that if Obama won the election, voters would eventually say to themselves, "What have we done?" I still predict that will happen.

I recently watched William Ayers being interviewed on "This Morning America" and cannot believe we give people like this a national forum. He had the nerve to say that the organization he founded; the Weather Underground, were not terrorists since they did not "target people". He was personally involved in bombing the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York police headquarters where people were injured. Three of his "associates" did die while preparing a bomb that was to be used against a military base, and he tried to bomb the family home of a judge he did not agree with. He has also been taped stomping on the American flag. And this is a person as a college professor teaches our children and was voted "Citizen of the Year" in Chicago in 1997...unbelievable.

Here is what I mean about the country being at a "crossroads":

- We tolerate individuals like Bill Ayers teaching our children;
- We accept irresponsible behavior and allow the government to bailout individual mortgage holders and financial institutions who made bad decisions;
- We consider "bailing out" major businesses like the auto makers, or state and municipal governments that got themselves into trouble because of poor management, while the small businessman works his 60 hours a week to keep afloat. We do these bailouts with taxpayers money and put our children and grandchildren in debt;
- We propose increasing taxes on hard working entrepreneurs and rich people so we can "spread the wealth" to help out less fortunate people, many of whom will get a free welfare check paid for by the working people of this country;
- We refuse to expand our vast energy resources and as a result have become more and more dependent on foreign countries that hate us. In my opinion one of the reasons for the failure of the automakers is the "controlled" high price of oil by foreign countries which killed US auto sales;
- We decide that in the interests of "humanity" we should allow our borders to be open so the "American dream" is available to everyone, even when the American people pay the bill;

Yes, we are at a crossroads. In addition to the Presidency, the Democrats will have control of the House and possibly a "filibuster proof" Senate. If that happens, Independents, Republicans, and Conservatives will be powerless during the next two years, and maybe longer.

Let's hope we do not get too far down that wrong road before the people of this country realize their mistake.

Let them die

The big three US automakers have already received a $25 billion "bailout" low interest loan from the taxpayers and now they are frantically asking for another $50 billion from us taxpayers. General Motors has announced that without this additional bailout, they will run out of cash by January.

It is estimated that if the three automakers went out of business, it would result in a $200 billion hit to the US economy. In addition, we are told that 2 million American jobs would be lost from the auto companies themselves, and from peripheral businesses (parts suppliers, etc.). I believe those estimates are overstated and the companies are playing a game of "chicken" with the government to get more bailout money.

If I were President, I would tell the CEO's of the auto companies to pack their briefcases, go back to Detroit and solve these problems by themselves; or go bankrupt. If all three US auto companies went out of business it would be a dramatic event in the history of this country, but out of the ashes of their destruction would come a better, stronger auto industry that would be competitive with the rest of the world. Detroit's problems are all of their own making primarily as a result of ridiculous union agreements and lack of long term research on new technologies.

In the past auto companies agreed to employee pension and lifetime health care agreements that even a junior accountant should have known they could never pay for. With the low cost of gasoline, they continued to produce large gas guzzling cars and trucks based on old technology. Then when the price of oil went through the roof their market disappeared.

But the worst agreement the automakers were talked into by the United Auto Workers was the "Jobs Bank Program". To put it simply, this was a worker security guarantee program agreed to in the mid 1980's.This was a plan to guarantee pay and benefits to union members whose jobs fell victim to technological progress, plant closings, or restructuring. So as the rest of the world became more productive through automation and the digital revolution, the US automakers were stuck with these Jobs Bank agreements. As a result, by 2005 there were 12000 auto workers being paid "not to work". And as Jeremiah Wright would say: "Now the chickens have come home to roost".

I recently read a story about one auto worker. He shows up at 7 am every morning at a Ford Motor Company manufacturing plant and signs in. Then his "work day" starts - he works on crossword puzzles, and watches videos. He says it is monotonous, but his pay is $31/hour plus benefits, for no work. And when he reaches retirement age for this "no work" position he will retire with a very generous pension plus health benefits for life. He is one of the 12000 in the Jobs Bank as of 2005; so is it any wonder the automakers are in trouble?

Automakers are trying to renegotiate this Jobs Bank agreement but the damage is done. And if the big three go bankrupt many of those employee pension and lifetime health benefits will be gone. Or maybe the government will give these auto workers a "bailout" too.

Our "morons" in Washington

When the market started going south because of the mortgage crisis our Congress led by the Bush administration jumped in:

- A $300 billion "stimulus" bill which sent a check ( welfare payment) to almost all of us.
- An $85 billion bailout for AIG.
- A $25 billion bailout loan to US auto companies who now want another $50 billion.

And finally, a $700 billion bailout program to save "Wall Street" and "Main Street". More than 60% of Americans were against the bailout bill, but our politicians said "We need it to save the economy". I joined this 60% of Americans and sent letters, emails, made phone calls to our elected politicians urging them to let the free market work and kill the bailout bill. But our politicians knew better; all we received were canned responses and they passed the bill.

So the government made all of these moves to save us from a bad economy and the market crashed even more than anyone expected. The more bailouts, the more the market went down. If you want to put your faith in our politicians to run the economy be my guest. I'll take the free market and let the chips fall where they may.

Sadly the American people made the right call on this stupid bailout, but Washington did not listen. And now Obama and his Democratic Congress are talking about another "stimulus" package...how exciting, another "free" check for all of us...with money we do not have.

As a kid I remember we told each other "moron" jokes. I recall one in particular: "Why did the moron keep hitting himself in the head with a hammer?" Answer: "Because it felt so good when it stopped hurting". The American people just elected an inexperienced but smooth talking "socialist" as President, and they gave more power to a House and Senate that includes most of the same old cronies that have screwed things up so badly. Reminds me of that old joke.

Reflections

This blog may be rambling because my mind is still trying to clear itself after the election. I am very competitive and am a poor loser (even when I compete vicariously through someone else), so here are some random thoughts:

- I believe in this democracy and therefore feel we need to stand behind our new President and give him a chance.

- Obama's first appointment was to make Rahm Emanuel his Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a left wing "tough guy" from the Clinton administration, but also has a reputation for being fiscally conservative so he may be a "buffer" against all of the Democrats proposed spending. He is also a devout Jew whose father fought for the Israeli resistance before the founding of Israel. This appointment by Obama certainly will raise some eyebrows in the Muslim community.

- The stock market in the two days after the election had the largest post-election decline in history, and many experts say the market predicts the future. The market seems to be moving up and down on emotion and the possibility that Obama may raise taxes across the board. Let's hope some of his top economic advisers will convince him that to raise taxes now would be a death blow to the US economy.

- John McCain had his "chance" - how he ever became the Republican candidate still amazes me; I guess Republican voters in the primaries wanted to give him a "lifetime achievement award". He ran the worse campaign I have seen in my lifetime, so let's hope he will fade into the sunset and some young vibrant Conservatives will take the helm and get the ship back on course. No more chances for McCain or his RINO associates "my friends". Ironically, McCain's best speech of the campaign was his concession speech.

- Sarah Palin was attacked viciously during the campaign and now is even being attacked by members of the McCain campaign. Maybe she did stumble a few times during the campaign, and she did not have the depth of experience of a Joe Biden, but had she been running head-to-head against Biden she would have destroyed him. She was thrust into a situation that most of us could never handle. So she will go back to Alaska, continue with her responsibilities as governor and I believe she will have her chance again.

- The "green" movement took a big hit in this election. Almost every green initiative in the country was defeated. Not because people are anti- environment, they are starting to realize we just cannot keep spending money we do not have.

- During the next few months you will see thousands of people lose their jobs because of the failing economy. Watch closely - how many of these lost jobs will be government employees? Very few - and if Obama follows through with all of his "large government" promises, while the productive private sector in this country is cutting jobs the government will probably be hiring.

So in closing, those Conservatives out there do not lose hope. Our movement may be dormant for a while but only to regroup. We need to get rid of the "moderate" dinosaurs in our party and go back to our principles. Conservatism never grows old and it will never die. The Soviet Union tried to kill it, China has tried to kill it, but it remains alive. You cannot kill the basic human desire for individual freedom.

Some decisions are easy

A good friend of mine has a small business employing 30 people. He has resigned himself to the fact that Barack Obama along with a Democratic House and Senate will probably take full control after this election.

Like most businessmen he is already planning for the future and estimates that with the additional taxes and fees the Obama administration promises, he will have to raise his prices 8%. In addition, he believes that he might have to layoff as many as 6 of his employees. He is in a quandary since all of these employees are like "family". I can appreciate his position having had my own small business for many years with as many as 25 employees - they were all like my family.

He could not decide how to choose who he would have to let go, so one day he went out into the parking lot and noticed that 8 of his 30 employees had "Obama" bumper stickers on their cars. Those 8 became his "layoff list".

Sometimes business decisions can be easy.

"Blood in the Streets"

I wanted to write one more blog before the election, but it seemed like everything has been said.

Then today I heard about an interview that author Erica Jong gave in Italy this week. Erica Jong is an author of many "feminist" (erotic) novels and a well known liberal who not only hates George Bush, but believes the conspiracy theory that the 911 attack was an "inside job" orchestrated by the Bush administration. I would normally not waste time writing about Erica Jong, especially since one of her best friends is our famous "patriot" Jane Fonda.

But Jong made an interesting comment during this interview. She said, "If Obama loses, there will be a second civil war in the USA, with blood in the streets". Wow...that is even worse than those of us that will be called a "racist" if Obama loses.

At this time it looks like Obama may win, but I am an optimist and I still believe the voters on Tuesday will THINK about this country and where it would go under an Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration. Even the polls this weekend seem to be changing slightly toward McCain.

But if the Democrats win; and if they take full control of the House and Senate; Republicans will not riot, and there will be no "blood in the streets". We will regroup, try to move the Republican party back to their conservative roots, and work on getting this country back on the right track; hopefully with young conservative leaders like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jendal, Governor of Louisiana. And I believe that over time, the Democrats will prove, like Jimmy Carter did, that a socialist program will never defeat the American spirit, and Conservatism will rise again.

"Sprint to the Finish"

As a former runner and triathlete I remember how important it was to have some energy at the end of a race; to make a final "sprint to the finish"; and sometimes that was enough to win or at least move up several positions in the final standings.

This week is the final sprint in the election and both sides are sucking it up and pouring out all their final energy heading for the finish line.

The pollsters are doing the same thing. It's hard to tell during the campaign season what polls are accurate and what are phony because they go all over the place. But most experts agree that the pollsters "get focused" during the last week and the polls start becoming accurate. After all, the polling companies have to keep their reputation. Isn't it interesting that the polls are starting to close. Obama still has the lead, but that lead is getting smaller.

Now the candidates are "focusing" also. Last week Obama said "Everyone making under $250,000 will get a tax break". This week he said "If you make less than $200,000 you will not see your taxes increase" And also this week Joe Biden said, "Everyone making less that $150,000 will see no change in their taxes. Hmmm...it appears the Obama campaign are also starting to "focus" in on a final number for tax cuts - keep your hand on your wallet.

I have finally become a racist

I grew up in upstate New York and I give my parents credit for being the most tolerant human beings I ever knew. Yes, I did grow up in an all white neighborhood and went to (almost) all white schools, but I can honestly say that I never heard the "N" word until at the age of 15 we moved to a small town in Florida. Then I experienced what segregation was all about. But it was too late, by that time I thought of blacks as human beings just like me.

So here we are now in a historical campaign that could produce the first black President. To those on the left this is an opportunity for the country to finally bring the civil rights movement to its "peak". But is that going to happen?

- If we criticize Obama for his looks (big ears), his middle name "Hussein", or his comment, "Oh by the way they will say I am black", we are racist.

- If we criticize his wife's comments about the USA being a "mean country", or that "for the first time she is proud of this country", we are racist.

- If we criticize Obama's friends; Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Resko, Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Phlegar, we are racist. But are not your friends a reflection of your character?

- Last week a black Congressman said that even the word "socialist" is a code word for racism. I wrote a Blog on that a few weeks ago...hmm.

- And tonight Jonathan Alter, a far left ideologue stated, "At this point if Obama loses the election, the results will be because of racism".

So here I am after a lifetime of being tolerant; a history of hiring black employees (without ever considering their color); and by the way, I have fired black employees because they have not performed; now I have become a "racist".

We are told that Obama is the candidate that will bring the country together. I predict that if he becomes President we will continually be faced with accusations of "racism" whenever we criticize his actions or decisions. I wonder if in the weekly White House press sessions, if a "President Obama" will ever get the tough and sometimes ridiculous questions that George Bush or other Republican Presidents have been submitted to.

The way Obama and his campaign have run this campaign, pointing everything toward racism, I believe the end result will be to put race relations in this country back instead of forward. I have never been a racist until the Obama campaign defined me as one.

Obama's Tax Scam

We have heard it over and over and over from the Obama campaign: "We will reduce taxes for 95% of Americans". This is the classic Democratic populist promise going back to LBJ's "Great Society". Who does not want a tax cut, who does not want to feed the poor, who does not want to take care of the elderly, who does not want their college tuition paid for? All of these are the classic Democratic promises. But there are some subtle mistruths in Obama's "tax promise":

1/ 40% of Americans do not pay income tax, so they cannot get a "tax cut". What they will get is a $500-1000 welfare check from the government. A welfare payment provided from the earnings of other Americans. The Democrats argue that these people DO pay taxes since they are charged payroll taxes on their job. What they don't say is that these payroll taxes are the employees contributions toward Social Security and Medicare when they retire...and their employer matches it. Anyone that studies our Social Security system can easily see that if this person is an average (or below average) wage earner who retires at age 65 and lives a normal life span, those payroll taxes paid in, will never even cover their Social Security and Medicare expenses.

So in summary - Under Obama's plan 55% of Americans MAY get a tax cut and 40% will get a welfare check provided by other Americans.

2/ Obama proposes to raise the Capital Gains tax to 29% from the existing 15%. More than fifty percent of Americans invest in the stock market, and if they trade stocks, many of those "95%" will get a tax increase.

In addition, a little known "proposal" of Obamas that will never be talked about during an election season is to eliminate the $500K exclusion for married couples when selling a house ($250K for singles). Instead, sellers would simply pay Capital Gains tax on all of their profit from selling a house.

Other tax proposals talked about by the Obama campaign:

- Obama may let the estate tax law expire, so it will revert back to a one million dollar exclusion, and after that inheritance taxes will increase to 55%. Good luck if your family owns a business, farm, or real estate in any metropolitan area of the country.

- Obama proposes a "windfall" profit tax on corporations. I was President of three different corporations during my career and believe me, any "windfall" tax will simply be passed on in the form of higher prices to the "95%" that he claims to represent. Corporations are responsible to provide a return for their shareholders. If they don't do it, the shareholders will go somewhere else.

There is also a cultural effect in play here. Even though we would all like a tax cut, many Americans; even those that are not so fortunate (yet); have a problem with the redistribution of people's income to other people that haven't earned it. This is so basic to American culture, I predict Obama's comment to Joe-the-Plumber about "spreading the wealth" may come back to haunt him.

So even though things look good for Obama right now, I am an optimist and believe as we get close to the elections, "smart" Americans will see through the Obama tax scam; even though he probably has the "not-so-smart" vote locked up.

"Locked and Loaded"

There has been much discussion this election season about voters "real" feelings concerning Barack Obama and whether or not these feelings are reflected in the polls. In the previous blog my son, as a guest contributor wrote about the "Bradley Effect".
I had an experience this morning that was interesting...

I swim at a club three days a week and like most people, am a creature of habit usually arriving for my workout at the same time. As a result I swim with many of the same people week after week. This morning I swam next to a young man that I have seen at the pool regularly during the past several years. He is a quiet guy and we usually exchange small talk like the weather, etc. After this morning's workout we were in the locker room discussing various subjects mainly concerning the election and economy. I recalled that he once told me he had a small construction company, so I asked if the construction business was as bad as we have read about. He said that the activity had dropped to almost zero and that he had to close down his company and lay off his three employees. He said that his wife was a nurse with a very good job and if it were not for her job they would be in serious trouble. He also mentioned that they were concerned that if socialized medicine were introduced, she might lose her good job or have her pay reduced significantly. As we talked about small business he wanted to know what I did. I described the business I started back in the 1970's and we laughed about how 10 hour/six day work weeks was one of the "benefits' of owning your own company. Then I said: "I would like to ask Obama if we spread the wealth around, who is going to pay us small business owners for all those long hours working for nothing, building the company."

That comment triggered some suppressed feelings because he got quiet and then said, "I know this is controversial, but if that son-of-a-bi*** gets elected, we are going to learn what the second amendment is all about. There will be a revolution, and I am locked and loaded baby". He then walked out of the locker room.

I did not say anything because I was somewhat stunned. In thinking about our conversation, he did not refer to Obama as that "black SOB", so I don't believe this is an example of the "Bradley Effect". But obviously he blames the loss of his business and his wife's concern about losing her well paying nurse's job on liberal policies. I would have reminded him that this is a democracy and we change things by voting, but to see such change in this quiet young man left me speechless - his feelings obviously ran deep.

"Bradley Effect and Cause"

A "guest" blog by my son who lives and works in New York City...

"Bradley Effect and Cause"

If you've tuned into the news during the past week, you've probably heard about the "Bradley Effect." This term refers to the alleged behavior by white people to say in polls that they're voting for a black candidate to avoid the appearance of racism, but then to vote for a white candidate in the privacy of the polling booth. The term takes its name from the 1982 California governor's race, when Tom Bradley appeared to have the edge over George Deukmejian in pre-election polls, only to lose the election by a narrow margin.

It angers me to see the media throwing this term around in reference to the current McCain-Obama race. It serves no useful purpose, and fans the flames of racism. Setting aside the question of whether this is even a real phenomenon, I can't imagine it has much strength left now. This country has made great progress since 1982 in terms of race issues, and most reasonable Americans can judge a political candidate based on his or her qualifications, not skin color.

Though, if anything, the pendulum may have swung to the other side, and we may see a "Reverse Bradley Effect" (Obama Effect?), where a percentage of Americans do vote preferentially based on the skin color of the candidate -- but in this case for the black candidate, not against him. The Bradley Effect holds that white voters may be ashamed to admit they're not voting for a black candidate; in this election, we're seeing many white voters proclaiming their support for Obama because he's black, because his very skin color symbolizes "change."

It's that perceived shame of not voting for a black candidate that sickens me about the Bradley Effect. Voters may have perfectly valid reasons to vote against a black candidate (such as qualifications, stances on issues, etc.), but in the climate of political correctness that has taken over our country since the 1980s, these voters might be accused of racism if they were to admit they were not voting for a black candidate. In the world of the sound bite, the reasons why white Americans are not voting for a black candidate would not be the story; the simple fact that they are not voting for the black candidate would be the story, with the implicit suggestion that it is because of race.

Finally, in a time in which the issue of race, while still important, is not what it was in the 1980s -- and in an election where, if anything, race will work for the minority candidate -- it's disingenuous and irresponsible to report on the Bradley Effect when there's no evidence that it's even in play. To people who have never heard of the obscure term, it gives the appearance that the phenomenon is alive and well, and working against Obama in this election.

More importantly, it reinforces the false stereotype in the minds of blacks that all white people are against them. While I waited for the subway today, I overheard a black man talking to his friend about the Bradley Effect and the election in general. In his opinion, the Bradley Effect was real and a big factor, and that no white person would ever vote for a black man. He didn't seem to be much of an Obama fan, though, commenting that Obama and McCain are the same: "one dicks you with a frown, one dicks you with a smile, but they all keep us [black people] down".

I certainly don't think this guy represents the average black voter (I hope not), but it makes me wonder if media reports of the Bradley Effect are feeding the fears of racism surrounding this election -- or, rather, creating fears of racism that don't really exist outside the fringe.

Michael Strickland
Guest contributor and son of Chuckie D

'so·cial·ism'

'so·cial·ism' : "Social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members".

The Democrats are running their classic "populist" presidential campaign and Obama with his smooth approach, is the perfect messenger. Their platform includes a tax cut for 95% of citizens, with a tax increase only on "rich people" making more than $250,000 per year. They fail to disclose that 40% of people do not pay taxes - those folks will get a "free check" from the government. They promise an increase in welfare, food stamps, help with college tuition, along with free child care and preschool for the needy. These are the classic promises made by Democrats every election and who can argue about helping poor people? But the Democrats never promise to create the opportunities that will give poor people the chance get out of poverty.

Barack Obama let the "cat out of the bag" today during a discussion with a small business owner. The discussion was caught on tape. The business owner had a small plumbing company and he explained to Obama that he had worked long and hard to build up his business and the proposal to increase taxes on people making more than $250,000 would hurt his business. Obama's response; "It's not that I want to punish your success, but I believe that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody".

This statement of his philosophy along with his other promises needs no further explanation when comparing it to the definition above.

The "Perfect Storm"

Those that read this blog know that I am a Conservative Republican and all that goes with that philosophy - small government, less regulation of our lives, low taxes, and free enterprise.

But it appears that we are in for a big change. The party in charge always takes blame for existing conditions and this period in time has turned out politically to be the "perfect storm" for Democrats. Here are some reasons why:

1/ People are "war weary". Whether you were for or against the IRAQ war, it has turned out to be a mess and poorly managed. I was against the war - for financial reasons, and after being the parent of a son involved in the first Gulf war I did not think it necessary to risk American lives going after this maniac when we could have kept him under control with bombs. Saddam had thumbed his nose at thirteen UN resolutions, and I am sure he would have reconstructed his nuclear and chemical warfare programs given the chance. But I believed spending $300 billion on this "tin pot" dictator was ridiculous. As it turns out, the Iraq war will probably cost a trillion dollars before we are through...a "trillion" we don't have.

2/ The Republicans had full control of the government during the beginning of the Bush presidency and blew it. They spent money like they were Democrats, increasing the national debt to the largest in history and as a result lost the House and Senate. Now they do not have a leg to stand on when talking about fiscal restraint and "small government".

3/ The recent crash in the stock market is a phenomenon that even I have not seen in my lifetime. Much of the blame for this debacle goes to the Democrats and the Clinton administration. Allowing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to promote ridiculous mortgages to people who simply could not afford them; trying to push poor people into the American dream - home ownership. Bush claims that the Republicans raised concerns several years ago about Fanny and Freddie's dangerous lending policies. If that is the case he could have stopped it, even if he had to shut down the government to make his point. So the blame falls at his feet. As Harry Truman once said, "The buck stops here".

4/ And finally, the Republicans have fielded a weak candidate this year and although Sarah Palin has added some "fire" to the campaign, she has been unable to overcome John McCain's lack of fire. He would probably be a competent President, but his performance in the last debate was not good, and Barack Obama seems content with just "stalling the game" until the election. If McCain says "my friends" one more time I will choke.

If John McCain can somehow pull out this election, I will be the first to applaud him as a miracle man, and applaud the American public for being smarter that anyone thinks. An Obama presidency along with a Nancy Pelosi House and Harry Reid Senate would be the most left leaning government this country has ever seen. But as of now it looks like the Democrats have the "perfect storm" working for them.

If they win it all, I predict the American electorate will look into the mirror in a few years and say "What have we done?"

"Show me the money"

As of this date the national debt is more than $10 trillion, and increasing at a rate of $3 billion/day. I am a businessman with some financial experience, but I cannot even comprehend these numbers.

Governor Paterson of New York recently announced the state has a $2 billion deficit and is in deep financial trouble. But Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of our great state of California makes Paterson look like a financial genius as our state deficit reaches $16 billion.

Congress recently bailed out AIG to the tune of $85 billion and then followed that with a $700 billion "bailout" bill, even when 65% of Americas were against it. Congress responded to the citizen complaints by telling us "The bailout is needed and the 777 point drop in the stock market on the 29th 0f September is proof ". So Congress approved the "bailout" and the market responded with an 800 point drop the first two days of this week.

And now our governor is the first to run to the government and say, "We need help, bail us out too". I have read that California needs $7 billion just to get through the next few months. And believe me, many states will follow suit with this request for a "bailout". Incredibly the Democrats are still campaigning on the "populist" promise of more for everyone and "We will fund these programs by raising taxes on rich people". I am not rich, but during my career as a small businessman we provided jobs for several hundred hard working employees. No one ever got a job from a poor person.

We are doing all this "social engineering" and unlimited spending starting with a $10 trillion national debt.

Can anyone "Show me the money"?

"Joe: Say it isn't so"

In 1919 "Shoeless Joe Jackson", one of the greatest baseball players in history was accused of fixing the World Series that year and was later banned from baseball for life. He was never proven to be guilty, but the phrase from his fans "Joe: say it isn't so" became part of baseball legend.

Tonight in the debate, Sarah "Barracuda" used that line against Joe Biden when he spewed more of his untrue liberal rhetoric. For us die hard baseball fans that was a beautiful "middle America" moment - I wonder who gave her that line? By all accounts Biden made many outright lies in his responses, but it landed on deaf ears. Most will agree she was the star of the show.

But more important, she erased the main stream media's image that has been created by way of "gotcha" questions and clever editing. Tonight even die hard liberals had to agree that she was "Vice Presidential" material and believe me, she knows how to relate to the pulse of this country. The Barracuda was in her element tonight, speaking directly to the American people, and she made Joe Biden look like what he is - an old entrenched typical Washington politician; and after the events of this week do we really want more of the same in Washington?

Let the "Barracuda" swim

Sarah Palin has been getting it from all sides and I am impressed that she hasn't "caved in" or lashed out at her enemies. Her recent interview with Katie Couric was not good. Just like the Charles Gibson interview Couric seemed to be just trying to come up with questions that the "Barracuda" could not answer. That is not necessarily a bad thing; candidates need to be tough; but it seems to me these interviews should be directed toward trying to find out what kind of a person Governor Palin is.

I believe the McCain "handlers" are trying to box her in, and make her look like something she is not because they don't want her to make a mistake. She is the 44 year old governor of Alaska and of course she doesn't have much foreign policy experience. Why not say so? When Couric asked her about her foreign policy experience and she talked about how "Alaska was close to Russia", and "When Vladimir Putin flies to the USA he flies over Alaska", that was not a good response (or image) for someone that could be the next Vice President. The McCain handlers must have known that the foreign policy question would be asked, so I can only conclude that the "Russia proximity" and "Putin fly over" answers were prepared.

This is how Sarah Palin should have answered the question on foreign policy: "Katie it should be obvious to everyone that as a young Governor of Alaska I do not have a lot of foreign policy experience, especially compared to Senator Biden who has been in the congress for 22 years. But I am strong in many other areas such as energy and management experience. In this interview you should be trying to find out what kind of a person I am, what kind of an executive I am, and what kind of a leader I am. I have more executive management experience than both Senators Biden and Obama, and even though I may not be strong in certain areas like foreign policy that is not necessarily a problem. As Vice President I will most likely be surrounded with very talented people and I learn very quickly".

Let's remember that the McCain campaign was "brought back from the dead" by Sarah Palin so they should quit rehearsing her and trying to make her into just another politician.
Let the "Barracuda" swim.

Will taxpayers take it on the chin again?

We are among the millions of Americans that have bought homes over the years - homes that we could afford; and we rarely missed a mortgage payment. We used credit cards, but rarely got over extended. If we could not afford to get a loan to buy a new car we bought used cars. If we could not take that "dream" vacation because it was too expensive, we went camping or on a driving trip. We rarely took out an equity loan and rarely bought "risky" investments just to get a higher return.

Now we are asked to bail out the millions that did just the opposite. From the bottom up, home buyers, mortgage banks, financial institutions and corporations took the big risks believing that the real estate market would continue to rise. But that did not happen. Now we are told that we "have no choice" but for the taxpayers to pay a trillion dollars to bail out the risk takers and "save the economy".

I believe the economy can work its way through this problem even if it is a painful process. If Americans suffer financially, that might be just what it takes for people to get things in perspective in their lives. The "I want it now" generation took the risks, they should accept the consequences. Requiring the US taxpayer to bail out all of these bad loans is against the fundamental credo my depression era parents taught me: "Take personal responsibility for your actions no matter how difficult your situation becomes". Maybe the pain will develop some character in a society that thinks everything is easy and if you get in trouble the government will take care of you. Our family stands to feel the pain as much as anyone, but this country needs to get back to the fundamentals - work hard, stay within your financial means, and if you make a bad decision, take responsibility for it. This proposed bailout is nothing more than another step toward socialism.

Hurricane Sarah

"Hurricane Sarah" has swept in from Alaska and knocked the Democrats and the liberal media back on their heels. They are now trying to regroup and are in full attack mode. I'm sure as a Conservative Republican I look at the situation through somewhat biased eyes, but the personal attacks on Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin have been unbelievable. The liberals like to talk about what a tough lady Hillary is, but if she had had half of the criticism the "Barracuda" has taken so far she would have crumbled. Remember Hillary's breakdown in New Hampshire when she started crying because the campaign was "so difficult"? Well Hillary, this "hockey mom" from Alaska is showing you what tough is.


What is driving the liberals crazy is the more they attack, the happier Sarah seems to be...they cannot understand why she is not getting angry. When she faced ABC's Charles Gibson last week, he was obviously in the "attack mode". Yes, it was his job to find out more about her qualifications, but you could tell he was just trying to make her stumble. She did very well; not perfect; but experience in those kinds of interviews will make her even stronger. The more they attack, the more she smiles and seems comfortable. They have made fun of her on Saturday Night Live, those morons on the "View" television program have criticized her almost daily, Hollywood hates her, she gets negative front page articles in the New York Times and Washington Post - the liberals are frustrated...why?... FEAR. Here is a Conservative Republican who could become the first female Vice President and she speaks openly about God, she is pro life, she is pro business, pro energy, she loves large families, she loves guns, hunting, and fishing, she believes in lower taxes, free enterprise , small government...of course the liberals are afraid.


The "Barracuda" seems to be tough and is facing all the attacks head on - we will see how she does during the next month because the attacks are going to get vicious. If she does become the first woman Vice President, it will be a great day for women. Can you imagine the empowerment it will give other conservative women? Watch out you male "elite" politicians, if Sarah wins, there may be more "hurricanes" on the way to Washington.

Cold War II?

Our children were too young to remember the "Cold War", and it was over before our grandchildren were born. After World War II the Russians began to annex countries all through Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was born. Millions of people in Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Lithuania, and many other small eastern bloc countries who were previously dominated by the Germans, succumbed to Russian communist rule. As communism spread throughout Eastern Europe, fear started to spread here in the USA as the Russians expanded their empire. So the Cold War began - USA vs Russians; who could "out threat" the other; who could outspend the other on their military build up; the nuclear race was on and an incredible number of nuclear weapons were developed. In the USA, missiles in silos were aimed at Russia, in Russia similar missiles were aimed at the USA. Both countries developed nuclear submarines that could go anywhere in the world and wait for the order to fire their arsenal of nuclear weapons. I recall people building bomb shelters in their backyards in the event of a nuclear attack. As a teenager I became a "civil air" volunteer working one night a week tracking and reporting all aircraft sightings over our small town in Florida. Everyone thought a nuclear attack from Russia was possible.

War threats went back and forth during the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Diplomacy was the order of the day; promises and treaties, but nothing changed. Both countries were on a collision course. Then something happened - Ronald Reagan was elected President and decided that the only approach to the Russian threat was to build our military up to a strength that would discourage any enemy. So each side continued to build up their militaries; then another thing happened - the Russians went broke. Their economy was breaking down, citizens were protesting for more freedom, there was civil unrest in all the satellite countries, and the so-called "Soviet Union" broke down - symbolized in history by the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Millions of people throughout Eastern Europe became free and finally controlled their own destiny. Russia withdrew to their original borders and tried to repair their society. Ronald Reagan had won the cold war.

The Russians began rebuilding their economy and even installed a "quasi" democracy. They started developing their vast natural resources, especially oil and natural gas. Now they are totally energy self-sufficient and have Europe in their grasp, supplying a significant portion of Europe's energy. During this same period, we knuckled under to the "Eco Extremists" here in our country, limited our drilling and development of nuclear and other energy resources, and today we are dependent on 70% foreign sources for our energy, and many of these foreign sources do not like us.

Now that the price of oil has reached $100 + per barrel Russia is flush with "liquid gold" and are able to laugh at the rest of the world. They have money and are building a large military again. The recent invasion of Georgia had no real response from Europe or the USA. We and Europe issued all the classic diplomatic cliches - "This was unfortunate", "This is unacceptable", "Russia needs to recognize the sovereignty of Georgia". The truth is, the USA is bogged down in the Mid East and Europe is so dependent on energy from Russia, neither of us had any choice but to "walk softly" when criticizing the Russian invasion.

Russia seems to be on an expansion program again, refusing to withdraw from Georgia and claiming that South Ossetia (which is within Georgian borders) is now "sovereign" territory. Recently their President said "We are not afraid of another cold war" - why not, they are now rich in oil. One of their top generals even recently said "The installation of USA defensive missiles in Poland could justify a nuclear response". So the military bluster begins again, reminiscent of the old cold war.

Meanwhile we fight and argue amongst ourselves and come up with no energy plan. Better to not disturb the Caribou in Anwar than to work toward USA energy independence. So we will see what the future brings, but those of us that lived through the last cold war realize this could be serious, and the USA must develop more energy security. As for me, I want John McCain in the White House if the "Russian Bear" comes calling again.

The Anti-War Party?

Liberal Democrats pride themselves on being fiercely anti-war and violence. They tell us disagreements should be solved by debating the issues, and diplomacy. Then why are some liberal Democrat protesters so violent?

The so called "anarchists" in St. Paul for the Republican Convention protested, which is their legal right. Their protests included rioting, breaking windows, smashing cars, and generally destroying any property they encountered. They threw sand and cement bags off bridges at buses carrying Republican delegates, making a direct hit on one of the buses. They threw rocks, bags of urine, and even sprayed some delegates with water heavily laced with chlorine; a 70 year old delegate from Connecticut doused in chlorine had to be taken to the hospital. Police arrested 300 protesters, over 100 of them on felony charges. Many of the protesters wore masks, which are against the law in many states; in my opinion it should be against law everywhere in these days of terrorism. If you are proud to be a protester why not show your face for the television cameras?

This behavior is a classic example of the difference in our parties. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, answer this question - when have you ever seen Independents, Republicans or even right wing Conservatives protest violently and destroy property? I can only conclude that these liberal morons find it difficult to protest or debate intellectually and therefore view violence and destruction as their only alternative.

During VP nominee Sarah Palin's speech, an Obama "Code Pink" female protester who had been given credentials by the media, tried to run up on the stage, but was stopped by security. Too bad this "Code Pinko" protester didn't make it onto the stage, it would have been beautiful to see the "Barracuda" close the deal in front of 38 million people.

There's blood in the water

During the last few days the liberal media have trashed Sarah Palin and her family. But if you saw her speech this evening, the "Barracuda" has smelled blood in the water and attacked. She bloodied Barack Obama with words that were real and sincere and took the Vice Presidential nomination with nothing but a signal to the left - "Let's get it on 'old boys'".

Maybe I am biased, but her speech was a knockout punch that has put the liberals on their heels.

Isn't it interesting that this election has become a battle between Obama and the "Barracuda". John McCain will speak tomorrow night, but he has no worries, the ticket already has a leader.

The War Horse and The Barracuda

I have seen some interesting presidential tickets in my lifetime but John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, rookie Governor of Alaska, was a surprise to just about everyone. The left wing media immediately attacked the selection and has been vicious during the few days since the announcement; even attacking her family. But from what little I have seen so far, they may be attacking the wrong lady.

Sarah Palin has been a fighter for a long time and two years ago pulled off an election in Alaska that was unheard of in US political history - as a mayor from a small town, she beat the incumbent Republican governor in a primary election and then went on to win the election at age 42. She has since reformed the government in Alaska, which was rife with corruption and "old boy" political favoring.

During her high school years Governor Palin was an aggressive soccer player and starting point guard on her high school basketball team. Her aggressive play earned her the nickname "Sarah Barracuda". Now the "Barracuda" will be facing the most biased national media we have ever seen and she will have to be tough. They are in a panic over the prospect of the first woman Vice President in history being a Conservative Republican. Palin is the antithesis of everything the liberal media stands for - she is pro family, pro life, pro gun, pro oil drilling, pro business, and did I mention as a former beauty queen, she is "hot". She is also anti-large government, anti-pork barrel spending, and anti- Global Warming (which should be interesting since the "War Horse" is pro- GW).

So after the Republican Convention finishes this week the race to the finish line will begin. We will learn more about the "Barracuda" during the convention and her future debate with Senator Joe Biden should be interesting. Her only problem in the debate may be getting airtime since Biden is the most arrogant of the "old boys" in Washington, and a blowhard that will simply not stop talking. As someone once said "Ask Biden what time it is, and he tells you how to build a clock".

It should be an interesting few months.

The Circle of Life

OK, I'm melancholy this evening, reminiscing about a time long ago raising kids - Christmas, Halloween, Easter egg hunts, school plays, family outings, sporting events, and all that time spent together. And then those kids grew up - off to college, working, developing their own relationships. And we parents rejoiced. As the Norwegians say, "Happiness is when the kids grow up and leave, and the dog dies".

Then your children get married, start having their own children, and the circle of life brings them back to their relationship with their parents. And as time goes by a wonderful thing happens; grandchildren come along.

Being a grandparent is the best of both worlds; you relive all those good things you experienced with kids, but not much of the bad. No real responsibilities - just spoil them and send them back to their parents. In our case we have been fortunate and developed more than just a grandparents/grand kids relationship. We have had years of one-on-one with them , without parents, and we became more than grandparents, we became friends - scavenger hunts, trips together, dinners together; just spending time together, grand kids and us.

We are still close to them but cannot seem to get them together anymore. That's not a bad thing; the inevitable happens - the circle continues and grandchildren grow up - they go off to college, start working, and develop their own relationships. They used to visit every few months, now maybe every year or two. Of course we see them more often that that with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and visits to their homes, but it's not the same as having all of them together with just us for a week or two.

So here we sit, waiting for possibly more grandchildren, or even great-grandchildren, but hey kids - time is running out!

He "Walks on Water"

Some talk show hosts jokingly call Barack Obama the "messiah". He is charismatic, and when he has a teleprompter, an impressive public speaker. Unfortunately when he has to speak off the cuff, you have to wonder how this guy ever became a candidate for the most important job in the world. It is painful to watch him stutter and stammer through an unrehearsed press conference.

The American people are starving for a leader. It is pitiful that Barack Obama and John McCain are the best we could come up with. Obama is not a leader but his "handlers" are making him look like one. They are running a brilliant campaign choreographed to the last detail along with the help of the main stream media (who even threw Hillary "under the bus" in favor of this charismatic politician). His handlers carefully manage his appearances making sure he does not get into a situation where he has to answer tough questions.

His African American heritage will also get Obama more than 90% of the black vote, which in a country whose electorate is split down the middle, could make the difference in an election. What is interesting is that if you look at his ancestry he is only 25% Black, 25% Arab, and 50% Caucasian. But like all good politicians he plays the cards that will get him the most votes.

McCain has the experience and certainly has demonstrated much more leadership than Obama, but he is old; not just old chronologically, but he also represents "old Washington". He has almost abandoned his Conservative base, and with the voters 10% approval rating of Washington politicians along with their frustration with the Iraq war, he has many hurdles to climb to become the next President.

And now along comes charasmatic Obama with his "hope" and "change" campaign. Many people have embraced him for the "change" reason only, because if their dissatisfaction with Washington and the war. He has done little of any significance in his career, yet could be looking at the "perfect storm" for an unqualified politician, and be elected the leader of the free world... remarkable.

Obama may be crowned in January and the Democrats will most likely be in control of the House and Senate. If so, the next four years will be an adventure for the American public - more programs, more regulations, more taxes, and more government spending of money we do not have. But on the other hand, if you need an "entitlement" you will be in luck. As Michele Obama has said "The fortunate in this country need the realize they will have to share with the less fortunate".

Even though we seem to be heading down the "socialist" road, I am an eternal optimist and believe the American electorate will see through the smoke and media hype and somehow we will find the right path.

Why big Government?

This campaign season is one of the more depressing I have been through in my 45+ years of voting. The economy is not going well and what do our Congressional and Presidential candidates offer - more "free" programs. This is what politicians do in an election year, but sooner or later the American people are going to get smart and start asking "where is all this money coming from?" I'll tell you where - it's on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

As a businessman and senior executive for many years, my companies went through many up and down cycles. When we were faced with a slow economy and a slowdown in business, we had to make changes. These changes usually meant cutting expenses and sometimes even laying off employees. In every case we were able to keep our company solvent, and this fiscal discipline almost always resulted in a more efficient company.

Our government has always been just the opposite. When economies slow, the political response is to give out money in the form of a "stimulus", bail out failing companies, bail out individuals who bought homes they could not afford - and all this with money we do not have - just increase the national debt and kick the problem down the road for our children and grandchildren to solve.

Have you ever seen a political leader step forward and say: "This will be a tough economy for a year or two so we need to reduce government expenses, and that may also require a reduction in the government work force" The answer is NO, because we have no strong political leaders anymore.

When revenues are down the response by government is to raise taxes. There is never any discussion about reducing expenses. This in my opinion is one of the fundamental problems in this country now . Our national debt is trillions of dollars (I won't give the exact amount because it will probably increase several billion while I write this blog). And as this debt continues to skyrocket, all our politicians talk about are new expanded government programs.

Just think about how this country would be reshaped if we had a national referendum vote on important issues...a direct vote by the American people:

- Should we reduce government expenses or raise taxes?
- With an approval rating of less than 10% should we put a 'two term' limit on Representatives and Senators, like we do with the President?

We know how the people would vote, that is why you will never see a national referendum and why things will probably never change in Washington until our economy collapses as a result of our own national debt. And guess who will be responsible for that debt...not our politicians.

"Green" Madness

I am as much of an environmentalist as anyone. We live on 20 acres in a pristine area of Central California - we recycle everything, we provide water for the local wild animals and even feed them leftover vegetables and bread, we quietly pick up even the smallest pieces of trash along our local roads, and even grow our own grapes to make wine (not "green" wine - just red and white). But I don't think of myself as being "green"...really, what does that mean other than sounding cool?

Much has been published about the Democrats planning to have the "greenest" convention in history in Denver this fall. You can go to the Internet and view the complete protocol describing everything they are doing:

- expanded bike lanes for the delegates who can use the 1000 "free" bikes the city will provide for them (I can picture Barney Frank and Gerald Nadler cycling into town for dinner),
- "green" menus at the many restaurants which will serve organic and vegetarian fare on biodegradable dinnerware,
- reusable water bottles so those nasty plastic water bottles will not have to be used by the delegates, and the city will provide "refilling" stations so delegates can fill their bottle with pristine Denver municipal water.

These efforts are all based on good intentions, but in this writers opinion it reeks of political posturing. Believe it or not, the DNC has hired a "Greening" Manager to oversee all aspects of the Convention's environmental impact. They have also hired a "Carbon" consultant that will evaluate the carbon footprint of everything they do. In addition each delegate can get a personal carbon footprint evaluation if they wish. I wonder who will evaluate the carbon footprint of the delegates airplane flights to Denver, especially those like Al Gore, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and all those Democrat VIPs who will arrive on private jets? These private jets will probably spew more carbon into the atmosphere in 20 minutes than these high priced consultants will save during the entire Convention.

Here are some of their other "greening" efforts:

- each delegate will get a list of only "green certified" companies in Denver that they should do business with (who does the green certification?),

- restrictions will be placed on ordering materials from companies that might have to drive long distances to deliver products or services to the Convention, and therefore emit too many carbon emissions (good luck getting the tofu for those organic meals),

- no fried food at any DNC sponsored meals (I don't think the Southern Delegation and Black Caucus were consulted on this decision),
- all balloons used in the Conference Hall for celebrations must be biodegradable (they are even testing the proposed balloons in compost piles to ensure that the supplier is complying) - why not be a true environmentalist and forget the balloons?
- all meals served must be low fat and have food that has at least three colors - the DNC has supplied a list of colors that are acceptable (I don't understand this one),
- and finally the DNC has specified that the baseball hats and fanny packs for the delegates must be made from organic cotton, and made in the USA, by union employees. Unfortunately the supplier has informed them that there were no such manufacturers in the USA.


I'm sure I will hear from some of my environmentalist friends who read this blog, but frankly these "rules" are humorous, and in my opinion "green madness". I also believe the average American is getting fed up with all this "green" BS.

Although many of these green rules by the DNC are laughable, and fun to write about, if they do this for a convention I can't help but wonder how the Democrats might try to regulate our lives if they gain control of the Senate, House, and Presidency this fall.

Where have all the illegals gone?

Last year the citizens of this country rose up and pressured the Congress to stop a bill that would have given more than 12 million illegal immigrants a path to amnesty. Isn't it interesting that in the heat of this presidential campaign there is almost no discussion by either candidate of the illegal immigrant problem. Which leads us to the question - where have all the illegals gone?

Have they felt bad about breaking our laws and gone home?
Have they been rounded up and deported?
Have they decided to go home before we finished building the border fence so they wouldn't get stuck here?
Have they all learned English so well that we cannot tell them from Latino Americans?
Have they decided to blend into our society, pay their own way, and quit using our free social and medical services?

Of course the answer to all of these questions is NO.

The reason there is no discussion is that both of our presidential candidates are "pro" immigration. John McCain says, "Tightening border security will be my first priority"...this is just political rhetoric. Remember, he was one of the authors of the aborted "amnesty" bill last year. And Barack Obama says nothing...which after all is one of his greatest talents.

So the illegal immigrant issue has been pushed to the back burner and nothing will get done until after the election. In the meantime, the problem keeps growing. And no matter which of these candidates gets elected, I suspect it will not be solved to the satisfaction of a majority of Americans. What a shame that our politicians refuse to attack the problem head on because of "political correctness", and because of their desire to capture the Latino vote.

I recently saw a video that is a small example of the magnitude of this illegal immigrant problem: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI

Is it Liberal Time?

Now we have the presidential candidates - Barak Obama the Democrat and most liberal senator in the senate, against John McCain the (almost) Republican. Barak the brilliant orator with the "golden voice' and great personality, vs John the oratorically and personality challenged candidate. It is said that many people vote strictly on emotion, for a candidate they find "attractive". If that is the case, John McCain is in trouble because when it comes to charisma and public speaking ability this election is a no contest - Obama with his crowds of 20,000 and John with his "my friends" town hall meetings of 200 people.


It will be an interesting election because in this era of TV sound bites, busy schedules, and instant gratification, if the average person has little time to think about the election they will pick Obama in November. Especially with his "populist" message of offering something for everyone. With the "entitlement" society we now live in, he offers a very attractive message - people don't think about how these "promises" will be paid for, they just want the government to take care of them.

It will remain to be seen if people really think about the future of this country, if they do, then McCain should win. If we have another terrorist attack, or a world military problem like the Israelis attacking Iran, then maybe the young Obama "fainters" may have second thoughts when they get into the voting booth. 911 is just a memory for most US citizens, but in the event of another attack like that, I'll take John McCain in the oval 0ffice. On the other hand, with George Bush's low popularity, the unpopular Iraq war, and a slowing economy with $4.60/gallon gas, John McCain could be the Republican party's "Walter Mondale" this fall and lose in a landslide.

Santa Rita Bubbly

Those that read this Blog know that I am a home winemaker. Two years ago I decided to try and make a champagne. In France the prime champagnes are made from Pinot Noir grapes. Since I have 100 of those vines, I decided to try it.

The process is complicated so I won't get into the details, but unlike making white or red wine which you get to taste along the way, champagne is much more difficult. In 2006 we picked two rows of Pinot Noir fruit for our "champagne" experiment. Fermentation is a two step process - making the "cuvee" (the starting wine) takes about three months, and then the final fermentation takes place in the bottle which takes a minimum of 12 months. This second fermentation in the bottle generates CO2 gas, which is where the "bubbly" comes from, and it must be done in a bottle that will take high pressure. So until the final bottling (after almost two years), the winemaker is only guessing about the quality of the wine in the bottle. And in my case (a winemaker that has never done it before), the process is even more of an adventure.

We are now bottling this first champagne and surprise...it is quite good. I followed the classic "methode champenoise" used in France and after some hilarious experiences trying to remove the sediment and quickly add a "dosage" and cap the fizzing bottle, we now have three cases of Strickland Cellars "estate" champagne.

Will I do it again...not sure. As a winemaker I feel proud that after such a long period the final result is a success. In July we will enter this Champagne in the California Mid State Fair Winemakers Competition...so we'll see. Stand by for the results.


But I must admit, one thing I like about making beer...you get to drink it in 90 days. When you're my age, two years is a long time.

Why should we feel guilty?

During this campaign season everything we hear from the liberal side is negative. But the Democrats want to get elected, so why say anything good? We hear about how Americans are too affluent and wasteful, the economy is in the tank, we are using up the worlds resources and destroying the environment, we neglect the poor around the world, we're bullies....I could go on, but you begin to wonder how these people could live in a country they seem to dislike so much.

Paraphrasing Barak Obama from a recent speech, he said:
"We cannot drive our SUVs, eat all we want, and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and expect the rest of the world to say that is OK. After all we use 25% of the worlds energy yet we are only 3 % of the population".

That is a statement right out of the Marxist textbook. He seems to feel that we should be responsible for the population of the rest of the world, and because many of them are not as well off as we are, we should feel guilty about our affluent way of life and start self-sacrificing.

I lived the "American dream" and find it difficult to think about this country in a negative way. Our ancestors came here with nothing, seeking freedom from traditions, religious persecution, and wanting to live in a society where their creativity and hard work could give them the opportunity to succeed regardless of their ethnic, religious, or educational background. Our forefathers designed and built this great country on a model that even with all it's faults, has proven to be the best in the history of the world.

Much of the world population wants to come to the USA, yet there is a liberal movement to paint this country in a negative way. Rather than looking at all the great things we have done in the world, liberals take every opportunity to put the country down and try to make us feel guilty.

I decided to do some research on Obama's statement:

He is correct - the USA consumes 25% of the worlds energy. He said we are 3% of the worlds population - actually it's 4.5 %. But this so called "brilliant" Harvard educated candidate needs to get his facts straight:

Yes, we use 25% of the world's energy but Obama forgot to mention that we are the most productive country in the history of the world and have pioneered most of the technological innovations in history. The USA produces 33% of the global GNP, leading our closest rival Japan, by a factor of two. In layman's terms this means we produce 33 % of the world's products and services while only using only 25% of the energy. The per capita productivity of the USA is ten times that of China.

So while practicing classic "election year politics", Senator Obama takes this positive fact and presents it in a negative way, and as something we should feel guilty about. Sorry, can't buy it.

Fed up

Recently in Iraq a Koran was found on a US firing range, and it had been used by a sniper for target practice. The Iraqis were very offended and the US military has disciplined the soldier and removed him from Iraq. After that, the top American commander in Baghdad and some of his officers held a formal ceremony apologizing to tribal chiefs in Radwaniyah, the area where the incident happened. Yesterday, President Bush called al - Maliki the Prime Minister of Iraq and personally apologized, and also told Maliki "The sniper would be put on trial".

I am not condoning what the soldier did, no one should deface any holy book. But for our President to announce to the world that we will put this soldier on trial? Ridiculous. Our soldiers are on their second, third, or fourth tours to a miserable place, fighting a war that has been totally mismanaged, watching captured comrades be tortured and killed, coping with IEDs and homicide bombers, so in this writers opinion we should give them some slack. Would the response be the same if one of our enemies defaced a bible? Would the President of that country call and make a personal apology to our President? I don't think so.

I for one am fed up with the "over sensitivity" and political correctness we apply when dealing with anything Muslim. Many Mideast countries including our "allies" Saudi Arabia, do not even allow a bible in their countries. Theo Van Gough in Holland takes a stand against the treatment of woman by Muslims, and is viciously murdered. A Danish newspaper prints some cartoons of Mohammad and they are now under constant security protection because of death threats. A Dutch politician makes a short movie criticizing Islam and cannot even leave his home now because of a "fatwa" or Muslim holy order for his murder.

I am watching a newscast from the Mideast this evening and people there are up in arms over this incident. They want the US "occupiers" out of Iraq and the rest of the Mideast. They are calling for this soldier to be punished by cutting his hands off - a real civilized approach to discipline.

Why do we kneel down to these people? Oil, that's why. Without Mideast oil the US economy would be hurt bad and they know it. Maybe we should just say "the hell with the Mideast", pull out, and let them go back to the 15th century. This will never happen because the consequences for us (and them) would be bad. But why keep helping people that turn around and spit in our face? Pulling out of the Mideast would hurt us bad but maybe that's the wake up call the USA needs to get their act together and become energy self sufficient again.

Drill...dammit!

I filled up my 25 gallon truck today at a whopping $4/gallon , and tomorrow we will purchase our quarterly 3-400 gallons of propane here on our ranch, which I assume will also be about $4/gallon. We can afford it....yet I think about some of our kids and those millions of Americans that cannot.


We need to drill for oil! That statement will draw the wrath of my environmentalist friends. I am an environmentalist myself, but I combine my environmentalism with a healthy mixture of common sense and realism. Mention coal, oil, or nuclear power in the same sentence with sources of energy and many people cringe because of what they constantly hear from the main stream media:

- drilling for oil destroys the environment and creates more CO2, which adds to "global warming"
- new oil refineries will destroy local environments and are not the answer
- nuclear power creates radioactive waste that is dangerous and impossible to dispose of
- coal causes pollution and should be left in the ground.

None of the above is true, but let's assume it is...then what do we do in the short term?

We import 60% of our oil needs, half of that from countries that hate the USA. Most experts agree that at best, conservation could only reduce our usage by 10%, and we should all try to conserve by this amount or more, but from a practical standpoint that will only result in a small change.


During my 30 year career I worked very close with the offshore oil industry and the nuclear power industry. I also have some experience with solar energy development and worked for a few years with a company that supplied wind power stations for remote environments. As an engineer I have even been exposed to research on hydrogen powered energy sources. I am not a novice, or just another right wing "wacko" that could care less about the environment.

Of course we need new, safe, "clean" power. But from a practical standpoint it is 20 years away.


Those that have driven through Tehachapi or Palm Springs, California have seen the hundreds of windmills on the hills "humming" away. They supply power to a few local towns, but even thousands of these windmills could only supply a minuscule fraction of what would be required to power the adjacent Southern California population's energy requirement.


In the California desert there are solar power installations that cover acres of land. These solar panels are exposed to bright sunlight more than 325 days a year, yet even these "acres" of solar cells can only supply power to small towns in the immediate area. Wind and solar energy sources, although safe and "clean" are simply not practical for the power needs of this country. And "hydrogen" is decades away.


A nuclear power plant can supply megawatts of "clean" power to large metropolitan areas but none has been approved in over 25 years. Yes, there is the problem of handling and disposing of nuclear waste but solving that technical problem is probably much easier to solve than trying to come up with another 'clean" source of energy during the next few decades. And it is a fact that US nuclear power plant designs are by far the safest in the world.


So this brings us back to oil and coal. They, along with nuclear, are our only practical energy sources for the next 10-20 years, whether we like it or not. Advances in technology now allow us to drill in an environmentally safe way, both onshore and offshore. In addition, technology is close to solving the problem of burning coal in a clean way.

During the 1990's Congress approved drilling in the Anwar area of Alaska but Bill Clinton vetoed the bill. If we had started drilling at that time, we would now be producing an additional million barrels of our own oil each day, which could replace what we get from Saudia Arabia or Venezuela. This is also a national security issue, so it seems to me that we need to pursue our energy requirements on three fronts - aggressively work on conservation, aggressively pursue development of "clean" sources of energy (nuclear, clean coal, wind, solar, hydrogen), and in the meantime drill for oil.

Epilogue: Today as I write this blog, President Bush is in Saudi Arabia asking them to produce more oil for us - something we refuse to do for ourselves. What is wrong with that picture?



-

Not "Politics as Usual"

Those that read this blog know I have had knee surgery recently, so I have been somewhat confined to my home and program of rehab. My granddaughter, who is an avid reader of my blog, wrote the other day and asked "If I was OK", since I haven't written a blog recently.


Yes I am OK, in fact I have had the time to read a lot, watch TV a lot, and listen to talk radio a lot. So if anything I should be in "overload" with ideas of subjects to blog about. But the political situation is so crazy now, and the information flow from the media so intense, I suspect we are all getting saturated. So to write something new or clever about the political situation would be difficult. But... for my granddaughter here are some random thoughts:


Barack Obama - The "man with the golden voice" has proven that even gold can tarnish. Even though it looks like he cannot lose the Democratic nomination, the revelations about his relationships with his "America hating" Pastor Wright and Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers has certainly opened a lot of eyes that had been blinded by his smooth rhetoric and charisma. If Obama is sympathetic to even some of the beliefs of these radicals, I find it hard to believe he could be elected, even in a year when the Democrats should make a clean sweep. We'll see.


Hillary Clinton - By the numbers it looks like she cannot overtake Obama in elected delegates or popular vote, but don't underestimate the Clintons. The "Clintonistas" are the most potent and ruthless political machine in the history of politics. If I were into conspiracies, I would think that they are behind the Pastor Wright and Bill Ayers fiascoes, covertly feeding the flames and then moving back to watch the Obama fire burn itself out.


Whatever happens, this will be one of the most interesting political summers we have seen in our lifetimes. It appears that everything is in the hands of the Super Delegates who must be wondering deep down if Obma can win with all these allegations about past relationships, and about his own personal philosophy. Yet if he wins the elected delegates and popular vote, and then the "Supers" give Hillary the election, there will be an explosion in the Democratic party and most likely riots in Denver at the convention.


I feel so bad for the Democratic party. They have been "champions" of the African American community since the days of the Civil Rights movement, and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society'. For decades they have allocated trillions of dollars into welfare programs, subsidised housing, food stamps, affirmative action to "lift up" blacks, while still keeping them in their place as a solid Democratic voting block. And now African Americans have the nerve to produce a credible presidential candidate (who probably can't win), yet they have to give him a shot. What a dilemma for the Democrats.


And finally we have John McCain - "Mr. Lucky". Not many politicians have gone so far with so little. In a normal year he would be 30 points behind the Democratic candidate, but fortunately for him the Demos are eating each other's flesh. So John spends his time scolding his own North Carolina Republican party for running aggressive ads, and reminds us that he wants to run a "respectful" campaign. Bless his heart, if he winds up running against the Clinton machine they will chew him up and spit him out.


And ironically, McCain thinks he is doing well. I have yet to meet any of my Republican/Conservative friends that can even mention his name without holding their nose. And he continues to go after our support with statements like he made today - "Drilling for oil in the pristine Anwar area of Alaska would be like drilling in the Grand Canyon". Great analogy John, it makes me want to send a donation to the Sierra Club - except when I fill up my truck with $4/gallon gas I have nothing left!

I could go on with these random thoughts, but right now our local politics here in the Central Coast are more important...we have bigger issues. Like the $13 million our local Democratic Representative Lois Capps (an Obama supporter), wants appropriated for local tattoo removal parlors. Now that's what I call a politician doing something for the folks.

The Masochist

Last Friday I had surgery for a "partial" knee replacement in my right knee. Technically this is called a Unicompartmental Knee Replacement, which in layman's terms means installing a small "cartilage replacement" prosthesis in the section of the knee where the original cartilage has worn down to bone on bone. Since I have already had a successful total knee replacement on the left side five years ago, I knew what to expect - but some things have changed.

The surgery was at 7:30 am and took about two hours. After a short time in recovery I was moved to the room I would occupy for the next two days. At noon that same day, a Physical Therapist shows up and says , "Would you like to take a walk?" I thought she was kidding, but she was not. So five hours after surgery I was walking down the hall (using a walker) on my new knee! The general consensus among surgeons nowadays is the sooner you can start therapy the quicker recovery will start - someone should have asked the patients for their opinion. After a walk this first day, I started on full sets of exercises the second day, including climbing stairs using crutches.

One of the dictionary definitions of a Masochist is "One who has a taste for suffering". I think Physical Therapists fit that description perfectly ("other peoples" suffering that is). On the second day she tried to see how far I could bend my knee and moved it until it stopped.
"Does that hurt?"
"Not too bad", I said.
"Then let's see if we can bend it further" - ouch!

Those friends of mine that are Physical Therapists know I am poking fun at them - it has been proven that this therapy after the surgery is the most important factor in the recovery process.

I am now home and going through sessions three times a day on my own (with the therapist calling in every other day to check progress). These are not fun sessions, but an hour before, I take two Oxycodone "happy" pills and then, even the therapist looks good - I guess this is what they call "better living through chemistry".

The "Big Apple"

I love old Rock and Roll, I love Contemporary Jazz, I love the Blues, I love (some) Country music...but mostly I love Opera. Is that a paradox or what? As my hair started turning grey, opera started sounding enjoyable and the more I listened, the more I became a fan. Maybe it's because when you really listen to a great opera singer you realize that a voice like that is god given. To you sports fans out there, the best way I could describe it, is that Pavarotti was the "Tiger Woods" or "Michael Jordan" of opera.

Last week we watched a performance of La Boheme at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City. It was a Christmas gift from our oldest daughter who in her younger years danced for the San Diego Ballet and Opera. So we spent last week in the "Big Apple' with the highlight of the trip being the night at the opera which included an elegant dinner at the Grand Tier restaurant in the Met Opera house itself. So us country folks were able to rub elbows with some of the New York elite. But they must have been envious of us. My wife planned on this evening for months and even had special earrings made to match a necklace that she inherited from her mother - she was the "elite" one in the Grand Tier that night. It was an evening that we will remember for a long time, and if you have not spent much time in the "big apple" don't miss it - just take a lot of money.

We also took in a few other sights - the Museum of Modern Art, the Paley Center for Radio and TV (our son is a "big wheel" there), Lombardi's (the first pizza restaurant in the USA), Grand Central Station, the United Nations, the Metropolitan Museum of Arts (don't miss it) . We also had dinner and drinks at a restaurant called Bill's Gay 90's, a "speakeasy" going back to the turn of the 20th century and still going strong. This was unique since my grandfather played piano there for a long time in the late 30's and early 40's. It was one of the highlights of a special trip to the most energetic city in the world.

Now we are back on the Central Coast at our 20 acre ranch - a slight change from the "high density" of NYC. And as I dug holes today, and set traps to catch the gophers that invaded my vineyard while I was gone, I thought "Wow, just a few days ago I was rubbing elbows with the elite at the Met Opera, and now I am up to my elbows in dirt chasing varmints that are trying to kill my vines".

Isn't life interesting?

You be the Judge

We recently had a case here in California that reminded me of the importance of this election...

In a small town library in Central California, a librarian saw a 39 year old man watching child pornography on the library's public computer. When he left, she asked her supervisor if she should call the police. Her supervisor said "No let's keep it a private matter and speak to him if he does it again." This response was not acceptable to the librarian so she contacted the police and told them the story. They asked her to call them if he ever showed up and did it again, since it was illegal. He did come in again, and logged on to a child porn website. She called the police, they came and caught the man viewing nude pictures of young boys and he was arrested and charged with viewing child pornography.

When the supervisor found out that the police had come and arrested the man, she was livid and fired the librarian. This was a County library and the County Supervisors supported the firing. Their reason - the librarian had violated the man's "privacy rights". There will be a lot of litigation from both sides on this case, but in a talk show debate, a liberal ACLU lawyer, although agreeing that viewing child porn was against the law, argued that: "The mans privacy rights under the constitution were more important than the child porn issue". Unbelievable.

This "privacy" issue is also the sticking point in the U.S. Congress with their reluctance to renew the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA). By not renewing this bill our intelligence agencies will find it very difficult to monitor phone calls from suspected terrorists overseas. In the meantime, the safety of millions of US citizens could be put in jeopardy if we cannot track terrorist activities. I am in complete agreement with the right to privacy for every citizen - but within reason. We have to protect ourselves - do we want another 911? This is probably another issue that will go all the way to the Supreme Court for a decision.

Here is the point of this blog:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice J.P. Stevens is 88 years old. In addition, by next year, five other of the (liberal) justices will be in their 70's. So the next President could have the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 new "Supremes" during his (or her) first term, and possibly another 2 or 3 if they serve a second term. What kind of judges do you think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will appoint? No question it will be those with the philosophy of this ACLU "privacy" advocate discussed above. John McCain says he will appoint strict Constitutionalists - not judges that legislate from the bench. Presidents come and go, but Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. These new Supreme Court Justices could shape America for the next generation or two, and if they have the philosophy of a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (and liberals in general), think about what this country could become...

Could viewing child porn, or conducting any other illegal activities on the Internet become OK? Could criminals, instead of being punished, become "victims of society"? Will you be able to keep ownership of your property if the government wants it? Could environmentalism and regulatory agencies rule our lives? Could illegal immigrants be allowed to enter our country en mass and receive all the rights of a US citizen?

You be the judge.