That's what I've come to believe.

The Democratic Party is using Senator Kerry to attract negative attention away from other Democratic hopefuls in this upcoming mid-term election.

The latest blunder he made was comparing U.S. soliders with intellectual dummies...

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

What better way to take attention off of other Democrat Senate and gubernatorial candidates, by focusing news headlines on a guy who's already washed up?

In what is being described as a "Eureka Moment," British scientists, working in collaboration with experts from the US, have managed to grow liver tissue from stem cells.   The technique, it is hoped, can be developed to grow a full-sized, complete, functioning, human liver.   This is the largest break through to date using stem cell technology.   It should be noted that the stem cells used in this experiment were taken from blood from babies' umbilical cords, not from fetuses!

An ocean dead zone off Oregon lasted nearly three times longer than any of its predecessors, scientists said.   The causes of the condition were twice as prevalent this summer as normal — a condition consistent with global warming, said a professor from Oregon State University.   The AP tells us, researchers looking at this phenomenon "are applying for grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

Aha!   Let's translate this.   Something troubling has been observed.   We don't know anything about the phenomenon because, frankly, we only noticed it a few years ago.   We have no perspective of this thing on geological time scales but it is interesting and we'd like to observe it more.   That's expensive and we don't have the money to do it.   If we get some federal money to conduct this research, that raises our stature at the college and allows us to do want we want to do - research.   So we just have to find a way to get federal money.   Hey, I have an idea.   Let's link it to global warming!

Later in the article, one of the researchers had a pang of conscience and said the magical words, "We frankly don't know what is down the road, but we are concerned.   But we don't understand enough about how the global or local climate systems to have any confidence in making precise predictions."

That's right.   We can say this is caused by global warming in order to get federal money but we honestly have no bleepin clue as to whether this or anything else is "tied to" or "consistent with" global warming since nothing scientists have ever fashioned can predict a damn thing with regard to large climate systems.   Still we use the tried and true path to research funding, mention global warming.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Here's the latest quote from John Kerry:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well.   If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Uh, John, there is currently no draft.   And are military only takes kids with brains.   You can't get in if you are stupid enough not to know these things.

Follow-up:

Kerry shot back against criticism by saying, he had been criticizing Bush, not the "heroes serving in Iraq."   He added, "This is the classic GOP playbook.   I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.   I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium."

That's sort of a weak come back by a guy who just got finished telling our boys in the line of fire that they're on the front lines because they couldn't "study hard and do their homework, and make an effort to be smart."

Sorry, John, you can't wiggle out of this one.   Much of the voting public may not remember what you did with Vietnam but we can hear your loud and clear now.   We're not going to take condescension from a career do-nothing politician.   Go inject yourself with Botox.

Dick Cheney gave an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto which is being aired as I write this.   During the interview Cavuto asks the Vice President if he thinks the Iraqi insurgents have stepped up attacks in order to influence our elections.   Cheney, of course, said yes.   Well, no duh!

There's very little doubt the insurgents have stepped up attacks.   The news is filled with reports about how this has been the worst month in memory for US military deaths.   Does anyone suppose an increase in insurgent activity wouldn't be done to influence our election?

The bigger questions are who is behind the insurgency, obviously Islamic fundamentalists like al Qaida and the Iranian theocracy, and, more importantly, why, assuming Bush is running things poorly in Iraq and the war on terror, al Qaida and Iran want to reduce his power and ultimately eliminate Republicans from power?   If we're doing a bad job and not hitting the mark, wouldn't they want to make sure Bush and his Republican cronies stay in power?

As an aside, we once experienced something in Vietnam called the Tet Offensive.   While that did not amount to a military victory for the Communists, it did serve to break the American will to continue to fight.   It was almost a disaster for the Communists who we learned years, maybe decades later were almost completely destroyed by their effort.   If we pull up stakes and leave Iraq, the insurgents will have won.   Are they after the same thing here as their history books tell them happened in Vietnam?

Are you a part of the "black vote?"   If so, I'd love to hear from you.   You see, I'm white.   But I've never been a part of anything referred to as the "white vote."   If I were, I should think that would be enough to impeach my opinion, if not my very person, for racism.   I just don't understand the concept of a "black vote."   I just flipped to CNN and they were analyzing the "black vote."   They even had a black man on for the purpose.

So what does being a member of the "black vote" entail?   Does it obligate one to vote exclusively Democrat so the likes of Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer can gain greater power?   Is that what this Barack Obama thing was about - tell blacks they may finally get a black President if they just stay the course?   Is it not condescending, is it not the height of racial bigotry to create, or speak about or try to cater to something called the "black vote?"

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

The AP cited a survey conducted for a private lender which found near panic among homeowners whose mortgages have adjustable rates.   The AP's article is entitled "Rising rates worry homeowners."   What a crock!

80% of these homeowners "said they were 'somewhat' concerned, 'very' concerned or 'extremely' concerned about rate increases."   Rate increases?   What rate increases?   Last week, mortgage rates dropped.   Right now they stand around 6.06% for 15 year loans, a common vehicle for those refinancing ARMs.   And there is little pressure on rates as the Fed appears to have stopped raising rates.   It is entirely possible they will fall in the near-term future.   So why should anyone be in a panic?

New Zealanders are awaiting a visit from Al Gore with a furvent zeal only found in the land of kiwi.   They have a pressing question for Mr. Gore.   They'd like to establish a tourist attraction for the Pacific Islanders who have been relocated there.   Gore says these are the world's first global warming refugees.   New Zealanders just want to know where they are since they can't find them.

Big media likes to poke fun at little media.   But little media still turns a profit while big media is in a financial death spiral.   Big media is in no position to teach any business anything.   Instead they ought to look at profitable small media and see if they can learn anything from them.

Reports from the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) show a continued significant decline in newspaper circ.   The print publishing business is run by the ABCs since publishers exstablish and justify their ad rates based on circ.   The New York Times suffers from declining circ as much as any paper.   They also suffer from reduced advertising revenues absent any decline in circ.   The confluence of the two is the death spiral for any print publication.   That's why, as we've pointed out many times before, the Times' stock trades narrowly near its five year low price point.

For this reason, I find it particularly humorous when the Times criticizes another media business for focusing their business and telling reporters no more global warming stories.   The piece published today in the Times takes note of the edict by the general manager of a local television station in Maine who told his news division that until Bar Harbor is underwater, they shouldn't do any global warming stories.   According to the Times, his reasons for this policy are: "a) we do local news, b) the issue evolved from hard science into hard politics and c) despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media, this science is far from conclusive."

That pretty much sizes it up, don't you think?   Yet the Times apparently thinks this is funny or dangerous, I'm not sure which.   Perhaps more importantly, we have, on one hand, a small, profitable media business showing us how to focus one's editorial content.   On the other hand, we have a large, publicly traded, failing business which cannot learn new tricks even when it is a matter of survival, and is content to achieve the short-term political gain of criticizing conservatives and getting a Democrat Congress elected for two years.

Conservatives and Republicans beware.   The Democrats have just launched their final offensive for this election season.   It begins with a poll coducted by CNN which aims to put the spotlight on federal spending.   The poll finds Americans are, by overwhelming majority, of a single mind with respect to government.   Americans believe "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."   CNN points out that federal government "discretionary spending grew from $649 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $968 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $319 billion" and "the size and cost of government have gone up in the past four years, when Republicans have had a grip on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House."   This is undeniable but does it create an accurate picture?

Discretionary spending is all spending over which our government has a say, subject to annual legislative appropriations.   There is no discretion regarding certain large entitlement amounts such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.   But overall discretionary spending has, in fact gone up under Bush.   The problem with analyzing Bush and the Republican Congress on this basis alone is overall "discretionary spending" includes military and homeland security.   if these two are removed from the budget or the definition of "discretionary spending," the amount Republicans are responsible for has dropped.   There is no denying that.

So what of this discretionary spending inflation, this big government, Bush and Republicans have caused?   Can we live without it?   Probably not, live, that is.   Much of this spending was made necessary not by some broad based conservative conspiracy to build up the military industrial complex.   It was thrust upon us by two events.

The first happening which has caused military spending to rise (at least when compared to 2001) is the Clinton Presidency.   That's right.   I'm going to bash Clinton, again.   But Clinton balanced the budget, didn't he?   Well, I'm not going to go over the smoke and mirrors thing but I will say that to the extent Clinton reduced governmental spending, much of the "fat" that was trimmed was military.   Just as Reagan was forced to address numerous problems created in the wake of Carter's Presidency, Bush was forced to make up a rob-Peter's-pension-to-pay-Paul-today approach.   Clinton didn't merely surgically remove fat from the military budget.   His knife cut out significant portions of muscle at the same time.   While you can agree or disagree with our military efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq, you have to admit that our military was left in a shambles by William Jefferson Clinton.   Our personnel was reduced.   Our equipment aged.   Our planning atrophied.

The second happening which caused so much of an increase in discretionary spending was homeland security needs in the wake of 9-11.   We were caught not merely with our pants down but rather in our birthday suits on 9-11.   So much needed to be done that it hasn't all even yet been identified.   As anyone who doesn't so much as own a suit can tell you, if you need to build a wardrobe from the ground up, it gets very expensive.   That's where we were in 2001 and there's plenty yet to do.

I'm not going to tell you that the Republicans or Bush are the men and women for the job of rebuilding our military or creating a decent homeland security apparatus.   But I will tell you this country cannot afford another Presidency like Carter's or Clinton's.   If we balance the budget on the backs of military, intelligence, and homeland security, we may just as well put a giant a ginat bullseye on our backs and tape a "kick-me" sign on our backs.   We should all use the government windfall from defunding military and security to build 50s era bomb shelters, take survivalist classes and arm ourselves to the teeth.

There are many things government cannot do for us.   They cannot provide us with a good living.   They cannot make us happy.   But defense is best left to the government and it has always been that way.   When Democrats begin arguing that Bush and Congress are spending like drunken sailors, respond back that you'd rather have a drunken sailor standing guard over you than a stoned pacifist.

Here's a pretty scary article released by a British newspaper, the Daily Mail...

Britons 'could be microchipped like dogs in a decade'

The prospect of 'chip-citizens' - with its terrifying echoes of George Orwell's 'Big Brother' police state in the book 1984 - was raised in an official report for Britain's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas into the spread of surveillance technology.

Can you imagine, a country requiring RFID chips be implanted into everyone?

Almost a couple years ago on this very blog, I said that mandatory microchipping WILL become a reality simply because it has proven successful in other areas, and because governments are seeing the benefits of it. Here is that article.

It has already proven successful in tracking lost dogs and cats. Because of its success, there are now some local governments that have mandated it for all pets. When success like this occurs, people want to expand its use in other applications.

Microchipping sex offenders. Microchipping all convicts released from prisons. Microchipping EVERYONE as part of the War on Terror.

The article says that state-mandated microchipping in humans could be a reality in the UK as early as 10 years.

Democrats are promising to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich if they win this election.   Which specific tax cuts for the rich, they aren't saying.   The best example of Bush's tax cuts "for the rich," the biggest chunk of his tax cuts was the elimination of the "marriage penalty" in which a far greater tax burden falls upon a percentage of the public for no other reason than they are married.   I suppose aliens coming to this planet and examining the way things are done in the US would conclude that married people are the most wealthy, the elite, the privileged.   The Democrats want to tax them and gays want to join them.   The New Jersey state Supreme Court told us marriage held benefits beyond the mere joining of two people in a union.   There must be more benefits than meet the eye.   What other conclusions could one draw from this?

Yahoo published an article from MarketWatch that says that MBA graduates are biggest cheaters. That is, more MBA graduates admitted to cheating on tests than any other college graduates.

And we're supposed to be worried?

Here's a quote from the article...

He and the others recommend a series of efforts based upon notions of ethical community-building be put into practice at the graduate-school level. The essence of an ethical community is that by doing wrong -- cheating in this case -- all of the stakeholders in the community are harmed, not just the wrongdoer.

Oh please! This is more socialist rubbish.

Look, I don't endorse cheating on tests, cheating period, or any wrong-doing. However, America is a "results-oriented" country. Here, the means always justifies the ends. That's why Major League Baseball owners hire and fire managers whenever they have a bad year. That's why America pounded Japan with two atom bombs. We want results.

We reward children when they achieve accomplishments. Since when do we reward children for failing their goals, but still playing by the rules? I'm not saying this is something wrong with us, I'm just stating a fact that this is the people we are.

The reason why America has always been a results-oriented country is because of the mold we were cut from. While most people in Europe 400 years ago were content to live with oppression, our ancestors were not. They bucked the trend and sought a solution. That DNA was passed down to us.

Even the illegal aliens from Mexico are the same way, willing to risk their life savings and their lives to make it into this country, while other Mexicans are content to wait for the U.S. Embassy to process their applications.

Should we be ashamed at tossing aside principles in exchange for results?

Not at all. If you're a home owner, you're living on land that America took away from Mexican and indian families. If you're all for principles, then I suppose you ought to give your property back to the descendants of the families it was taken from.

(I'll wait here while you do this)

The fact is that ALL Americans benefitted from cheating to some small or greater extent. This doesn't make us all criminals, it just makes us normal. Let's not create additional measures to stop cheating, rather, let's enforce the laws and rules we already have. Maybe if we did that, we wouldn't need more laws.

I think this political ad about sums up how I feel.   Go ahead and enter the Twilight Zone, if you dare, with this Great Political Ad.

The state of New Jersey is contemplating taking a bold step to fix a problem plaguing the nation's youth!   They are reacting to a dozen and a half deaths over a decade from "sudden cardiac arrest" by blunt trauma caused by being struck in the chest by a ball.   The state legislature has spent a good amount of time analyzing these accidents and have come up with a ban on non-wood bats used in baseball and fastpitch softball games.   The legislation is misguided to say the least and doesn't even have a remote chance of achieving its objectives.

There have been a number of deaths from kids being struck by balls in the wrong place at precisely the wrong moment in time.   These have resulted both from batted balls and thrown ones.   Actually thrown balls have caused more deaths than batted ones.   And the batted ones are split evenly between wooden bats and metal ones.

Sudden cardiac arrest is a deep concern in kids' diamond sports.   Any child's death is a tragedy.   But the rate of accident is infinitesimal.   A dozen and a half over the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of games is not statistically significant.   More children die each year from a litany of other ostensibly avoidable causes.   And sudden cardiac arrest occurs regardless of the speed of the ball.   A 30 mph thrown ball is just as likely to cause it as a 120 mph hit ball is.   Wooden bats are used far less frequently than metal bats in youth sports.   I don't know the breakdown but I have never seen a wood bat used in any of the hundreds of baseball and softball games I have seen.   Some have suggested the rate is 90% metal and 10% wood but I believe the rate is more like 99.5 to .5.   So the logical question is, should wooden bats be banned since the rate of accident is many times greater?   And should players be made to run the ball to other players since thrown balls are just as likely to kill?   Maybe we should merely ban both sports and make the kids play whiffle ball.   Maybe that's unsafe too.   Maybe we should just have kids play computer games and watch TV since those activities seem safe.

New Jersey's legislature needs to find something else to do with their time.   They should get busy writing the gay marriage bill.

NBC has refused an ad for a Dixie Chicks movie because it is "They are Disparaging to President Bush."   David Boise reacted to this by saying, "It is disappointing and troubling that NBC and The CW would refuse to accept an otherwise appropriate ad merely because it is critical of President Bush."   Harvey Weinstein said, "It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America.   The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is sad and profoundly un-American."   Can anything be more commical?

Let's see now, NBC's "news" division is almost constantly critical of the President.   David Gregory, the network's whitehouse press corps representative has been nothing but critical of the President for 6 years.   NBC routinely shows anything even remotely conservative in a foolish light.   The news has frequently broadcast otherwise insignificant stpories which are critical of Bush and Republicans while ignoring anything, no matter how big, which might favor Bush.   And now we are supposed to believe they are afraid of Republicans?   We are supposed to believe that "corporate America" backs Bush and squashes and free speech which might disparage the man?   Come on, you can do better than that.

I'm no fan of homosexuality.   But on the other hand, several of my best friends over the years have been homosexual men.   There was a very good friend of mine on my high school swim team who displayed such tendencies that it should have been obvious to me what his orientation was.   But I didn't even know what homosexuality was back then and he was an agreeable guy so it never even occurred to me.   One of the kids I grew up with was also homosexual.   The kid wouldn't hurt a fly and we always got along fine.   Later in life when I was an adult, who fully understood what homosexuality was, I had a gay friend who often asked me dating advice.   He always wanted to know how to approach this or that guy who he was sure was gay.   And I would give him my perspective on things - probably really bad dating advice but advice nonetheless.   I never thought much about this guy's sexuality.   I figured all these guys did whatever they did behind closed doors and it never bugged me particularly much.   It's a free country isn't it?   What consenting men (of the age of consent) do on their own time is really none of my business.

On an unrelated matter, my first experiences in cyberspace were in a psychic chat room.   I watched what one person posted and tried very hard to judge gender, age, and various other things I thought were predictors of the person's experience and personality.   Then I approached her and told her she was a woman of such and such age, was divorced about 5 - 8 years ago, blah, blah, blah.   I told her I was a psychic.   After some back and forth, she believed I was in fact psychic.   I then proceeded to "read" her future by telling her all sorts of positive things like how she was going to go back to school, succeed, and have a great career.   I also told her she was going to meet another guy and get married, etc.   She believed just about everything I had to say and I didn't abuse that privilege.   The experience was very entertaining to me and nobody was harmed.   I figure that's about par for the course in cyber-space.   I think the internet should be like that.   No government needs to regulate my interaction on the web especially in fantasy-based chat rooms.

I know that in chat rooms, there is a good bit of trolling by pedophiles and other sexual predators.   I think parents should make their kids aware of this stuff and teach them what they should (can) and shouldn't (can't) do on the web.   And I'm sort of glad our government officials pursue predators when they troll for victims.   But there's a limit to how far this ought to go and when consenting adults of whatever orientation engage in so-called "cyber-sex," the government has no business monitoring the communication in any way shape or form.   I believe this is a free speech issue and any action taken based on mere communication is a danger to all communication.

So now, I'm thinking about this very aggressive election cycle we find ourselves in and I'm getting confused.   I thought Democrats always stood up for gays, free speech, and a unsupervised internet.   Yet the Foley scandal demonstrates that this is not at all the case.   The Foley case involved persons of the age of consent conducting essentially cyber-sex via the internet.   Democrats were up in arms when this came to light, claiming that Foley should be immediately removed from office and anyone who knew about this should lose their position as well.   They emphasize that Foley may very well have broken the law - a law they shouldn't advocate if they stand for freedoms to be gay, communicate as one wishes, and to do so via the free medium of the web.

So where do we stand today in our examination of the Democrat party?   On one hand they are outraged by an elected official making homosexual overtones during off hours to another man, clearly of the age of consent.   The elected official is not in a position of authority over the target of his sexual advances.   No actual sex is assumed to have taken place.   On the other hand, the same Democrat party came out in support of a President who engaged in heterosexual petting during office hours with a subordinate over whom he did have sufficient authority to "make or break" her career.   Is homosexual cyber-sex worse than questionable heterosexual petting?   Are Democrats saying we should monitor the internet and prevent homosexual cyber-sex between consenting men, yet it is OK for the President to engage in action which in other settings would form the basis of a sexual harassment charge?   Should free speech be prevented when it is homosexual in nature?   What are the standard limits to personal freedom?   What sort of laws should we expect from a Democrat legislative branch?

Personal freedom is under attack from the last place one would expect it.   Democrats are against homosexuality, a free internet and the freedom of speech.   Their actions and words this election cycle shpow their real feelings on a broad array of subjects.

Michael J. Fox is on CBS News tonight to talk about the recent controversy surrounding his stumping for several Democrats during this election cycle.   Fox says he isn't interested in one party over the other.   He favors Republicans just as much as Democrats.   He used the usual "some of my best friends are Republican" line while naming Arlen Specter.   Specter is a proponent of embryonic stem cell research.

Yet Katie Couric failed to question Fox about why he supports Bob Menendez for US Senator from New Jersey.   Menendez is under federal and state criminal investigation regarding some very serious charges.   Menendez is opposing Thomas Kean, Jr., also a proponent of embryonic stem cell research.   Kean has actually voted in favor of embryonic stem cell research while a member of the New Jersey State legislature.   Menendez has done little more than pay lip service to it.   Menendez's mother suffers from Alzheimers and he has generally been a supporter of stem cell research.   Fox has not explained why he favors Menendez over Kean.

Me thinks there is the stench of a lie out there.

I promised yesterday to give you my reactions to the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling issued yesterday on gay marriage.   After having read it, I have to say it is basically a gutless decision, issued by an unconstitutionally activist judiciary, which fails to analyze or consider so much that it demonstrates intellectual laziness on the part of New Jersey's appointed wisepeople.   At the same time it oversteps the State Constitution's Article 3 separation of powers.

The Justices said partnered, devoted same-sex couples must have identical rights as married heterosexual couples.   They didn't so much care if the arrangement was called marriage but the same rights had to be available through a government mechanism regardless of what name is decided upon by the democratic process.   They claimed there is no overriding, legitimate government purpose for denying the rights conferred via the institution of civil marriage to same-gender couples.   They commanded the legislature to fashion law implementing their decision within 180 days.

The institution of marriage is obviously much older than our country.   It dates back thousands of years to Old Testament days.   Anthropologists once believed that pre-historic man was a promiscuous being.   In more recent years, they have concluded otherwise but the exact nature of early human relations remains a mystery.   As one esteemed author on the subject put it:   "It is not, of course, impossible that, among some peoples, intercourse between the sexes may have been almost promiscuous.   But there is not a shred of genuine evidence for the notion that promiscuity ever formed a general stage in the history of mankind . . . monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage.   It was so among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge."

But what exactly is "marriage" and what are its purposes?   In the words of Wikipedia, "marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority ... Marriage is usually understood as a male-female relationship designed to produce children and successfully socialize them ... Typically, marriage is the institution through which people join together their lives in emotional and economic ways through forming a household.   It often confers rights and obligations with respect to raising children ... Marriage ... establishes a joint fund of property for the benefit of children ... has traditionally been a prerequisite for starting a family, which usually serves as the building block of a community and society.   Thus, marriage not only serves the interests of the two individuals, but also the interests of their children and the society of which they are a part."

So, it is fair to conclude that marriage is about binding not only individuals but families and communities.   One of its principal purposes is to create an environment in which children can be created, raised provided for, and socialized in the best possible circumstance.   The institution serves society in this capacity.   For these reasons, government has a legitimate purpose behind regulating the institution of marriage.   In fact, ancient societies found it necessary to create bodies of law governing marriage precisely because it and its beneficiaries - primarily the children - were an important part of the societal fabric.   A society without children obviously will die.   A society that does not safeguard its children and raise them to full citizenship successfully will fall apart.   The institution of marriage certainly creates issues which are not related to children but its primary function from a societal and governmental point of view is the creation, protection, and development of children.

Traditionally liberals, and in particular feminists and homosexuals, have opined that marriage is politically retrograde and an expression of patriarchal values.   They, as a group, have had nothing but disdain for the institution for many centuries.   As time has passed, however, homosexual philosophers have begun to conclude that marriage defines "full humanity."   Gays have been engaged in a struggle for social tolerance and, ultimately, social acceptance.   They want everything heterosexuals have because they believe once they do, heterosexuals will have formally given them something more than tolerance.   They have sought marriage as a step into "full humanity" and in so doing, have not asked the factual question of why societies developed the institution, but rather what it confers on the individual entrant.   The inquiry does not ponder what is gained by society, but rather what is gained by the individual.

The New Jersey decision does not consider any of the legitimate societal or governmental reasons for creating, promoting and regulating the institution of marriage.   The only aspect of marriage under consideration is what it confers upon the individual participants.   The opinion in the case begins by saying plaintiffs seek "to enjoy the legal, financial, and social benefits that marriage affords."   In its holding, the court wrote "denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose."

The opinion refers to the "multitude of social and financial benefits and privileges conferred on opposite-sex married couples."   In the factual buildup to the legal decision, the Court takes note of certain manifestations of "second class citizenship" in the absence of marriage.   The Court began:

"The seeming ordinariness of plaintiff's lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples.   Without the benefits of marriage, some plaintiffs have had to endure the expensive and time-consuming process of cross-adopting each other's children and effectuating legal surname changes.   Other plaintiffs have had to contend with economic disadvantages, such as paying excessive health insurance premiums because employers did not have to provide coverage to domestic partners, not having a right to 'family leave' time, and suffering adverse inheritance tax consequences.

When some plaintiffs have been hospitalized, medical facilities have denied privileges to their partners customarily extended to family members.   For example, when ... contracted meningitis, the hospital's medical staff at first ignored her pleas to allow her partner ... to accompany her to the emergency room.   After ... gave birth to a son, a hospital nurse challenged the right of her partner to be present in the newborn nursery to view their child.   When ... received treatment for breast cancer, medical staff withheld information from her partner ... 'that would never be withheld from a spouse or even a more distant relative.'   Finally plaintiffs recount the indignities, embarrassment, and anguish that they as well as their children have suffered in attempting to explain their family status."

Now, most of the above can be rectified and in fact are by operation of other law.   For example, a medical patient can create a directive under which any person they like would be treated identically to a family member with respect to medical information.   As a married heterosexual man whose wife gave birth to multiple children, I can tell you that my right to be present in the newborn nursery to view my child too was initially challenged by a hospital nurse.   The issue of exactly what information would be withheld from a spouse or even a more distant relative depends chiefly upon the person doing the withholding.   I have frequently butted heads with medical staff who refused to give me information about my spouse.   Often, even with both of us present, medical personnel seek my spouse's permission before discussing issues.   My wife too has frequently been denied ordinary medical information concerning me.

The issue of health insurance premiums for coverage to domestic partners has largely been addressed by private industry.   "Family leave" time is generally controlled by federal statute and remains unaffected by state recognition of same-sex marriage.   With respect to adverse inheritance tax consequences, New Jersey's estate tax is virtually non-existent.   It applies only to estates in excess of $675,000.   And it would be a trivial matter for the state to alter the taxing schema to include domestic partners in the spousal and family classes, thereby exempting them from taxation.

But in the final sentence of the factual basis for the case, the Justices give us their primary motivation when they describe the lives of same-sex partners and their families.   The opinion reads, "Finally plaintiffs recount the indignities, embarrassment, and anguish that they as well as their children have suffered in attempting to explain their family status."   I suggest to you that no operation of law can change this specific circumstance.   Even permitting same-sex marriage will not obviate the need for a child to explain why both one's parents are women or men.   If it is acceptance which homosexuals seek, this is not the path towards it.

The court danced around the actual "marriage" issue by stating "only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental.   Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution."

Finally, the court directed the legislature to fashion a law rectifying the unconstitutional situation.   The opinion said:

"To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples.   We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the right and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples.   The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

Put another way, the court said, we have the power to command the legislature to act in a specific way.   We provide two alternate possibilities between which they must decide within a brief, fixed timeframe.   And the purpose of democracy is to name things.

New Jersey's State Constitution specifically creates the Supreme Court and specifies what its responsibilities are.   It provides for very explicit separation of powers.   It provides specific circumstances in which the Supreme Court can accept appeals.   These include constitutional questions, dissents in the Appellate Division, capital cases, and "such causes as may be provided by law."   It specifically focuses the Supreme Court on questions which may arise from the Constitution itself.

The issue of gay marriage is not one addressed by the Constitution.   In fact, marriage is not at all addressed there.   The only question relevant to the Supreme Court is whether the marriage laws violate the State Constitution.   And the Supreme Court holds no right to legislate nor compel legislation.

The Governor nominates and appoints, with the advice and consent of the Senate all members of the Supreme Court.   The Governor holds constitutional power to retire any justice from office upon certification of a justice's incapacity to discharge duties and an investigation launched by the Governor.   State government decides the salary of Justices.   All judicial employees are employees of the state government.   There is nothing within the Constitution which gives a superior right to the judiciary over the legislature or Governor.   In fact, all circumstantial evidence points to a Court subservient to the will of the people.

The Constitution begins, "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.   All political power is inherent in the people.   Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it ... No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience ... No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin .... This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people ... The powers of the government shall be divided among three distinct branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial.   No person or persons belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly provided in this Constitution."

New Jersey's Constitution has neither a provision recognizing marriage nor any clause which requires a non-discriminatory treatment of persons based upon sexual orientation.   As such, the only legal determination the Supreme Court can make would be a finding that the marriage laws themselves are unconstitutional.   The court could invalidate those laws but it oversteps its constitutional mandate by commanding the legislature to fashion a parallel law.   The legislature can decide for itself the nature of any remedy including the abolition of marriage altogether.   The Court can then judge it upon proper appeal but it has no right to demand any specific act by either the legislature or the Governor.

The way this decision is written, it is entirely possible that it forms a firm foundation for the practice of polygamy within the state of New Jersey.   The Justices have formulated a fundamentally bad decision here whether one is a proponent of gay rights or not.   It oversteps constitutional authority and creates an environment in which no individual can possibly understand the workings of the law.   It completely ignores the government's legitimate purposes in creating a marriage law and regulating the institution of marriage.   It is the work of an activist judiciary which seeks to compel complete acceptance of the practice of homosexuality upon the people of the state whose laws create the Court.   But it cannot hope to accomplish those ends.   Instead, all that has been accomplished is a cheapening of the ages-old institution of marriage.

I got to thinking about Michael J. Fox's commercial supporting one Missouri Senate candidate in favor of another for the stated reason the one he favored was for embryonic stem cell research while the other is against it.   My first reaction was embryonic stem cell research holds no promise for victims of Parkinsons.   My second reaction was here is yet another liberal actor without any real education injecting himself into the nation's politics.   Next I wondered if Rush Limbaugh might have something when he suggested Fox was either acting or off his medicines.   My next thought was, "Wait a minute.   Michael J. Fox is Canadian.   Why is he so interested in American politics."   Then I thought about all these things wrapped up into one and realized the whole thing really stinks.

First off all, it is erroneous to say the Democratic Senator favors stem cell research while the Republican is against it.   The real issue in this debate has to do with 1) cloning and 2) government funding of embryonic stem cell research.   Just as Bush, and by the way Clinton before him, acknowledged serious moral issues raised by our government funding the cloning of aborted fetuses, Missourians have a serious issue before them with regard to whether the state will fund cloning.   The amendment before Missouri deals with just that.   The Republican is against it and the Democrat is for it.   But the issue is not whether the state of Missouri might make embryonic stem cell research illegal as Fox says it is.   Such research is legal in Missouri as it is throughout the US.   What is contemplated however is whether researchers can pay women for unborn children they choose to abort so they can practice cloning and vivisection on essentially live human beings.   This practice is illegal throughout most of the world.   There are more complex issues and arguments but they are irrelevant for purposes of choosing the Senator from Missouri because that is not being debated here.   What is being debated is cloning.

Secondly, there is a whole universe of embryonic stem cell research underway.   There has been for many years.   Some of that is funded by states and some of it is funded by private interests.   There have been some few promising signs with embryonic stem cell research, particularly with respect to possible therapies for Parkinsons.   But this research has been bogged down with one very serious problem.   Use of embryonic stem cells has produced serious tumors in animals.   And there are other apparently more promising therapies being developed for Parkinsons, including gene therapy, which does not rely upon using stem cells from aborted fetuses.   In fact, much of the private money being used to fund research is flowing away from embryonic stem cell research and into adult stem cell research and other kinds of medical research.

My personal opinion is science funded by government, while an essential component of an overall technology plan, should be limited.   Profit motive and other impetuses are better at deciding where limited economic resources should flow than are decisions made by appointed Tsars.   There is more money flowing around private enterprise than there ever could be in government coffers.   And if one follows this money, one can see embryonic stem cell research is not a panacea for all that ails humanity.

Obviously Michael J. Fox is very much your typical liberal actor.   He is a card carrying member of the Hollywood intelligentsia club who routinely supports Democrat candidates over Republicans.   That issue isn't under question.   But maybe he is one of those very intelligent actors who attended a major university or otherwise got himself a solid science education.   Sorry.   That's not the case.   Michael J. Fox is a high school dropout.

As to whether Fox would stoop so low as to accentuate the symptoms of his disease, he has already admitted to doing so in related circumstances.   It seems to me unlikely that he didn't do similarly here.   Also, he is an actor before all other things.   So Limbaugh's assertion, while unprovable, definitely has the ring of truth.   And, as I said the other day, politics is a contact sport.   If you are going to stand before the American public and take a stand while using your problems or grief, you are setting yourself up for a punch to the face.   If that's what Limbaugh did, there's nothing unusual about it.   It should have been expected and feigning disgust about it is dishonest.

Next, Michael J. Fox was indeed born Canadian.   I checked things out and he currently has dual citizenship.   he is a Canadian but he became a naturalized US citizen about 6 years ago because he claims he was frustrated by his inability to vote here.   He lives in the US but I cannot figure out if he pays for his own healthcare here or uses the universal healthcare system of Canada for his treatments.   I can say that while Canada does fund some embryonic stem cell research, the amount is unclear and the country also has strict controls which do not permit cloning.   They also have extremely strict rules regarding when a fetal tissue may be used which includes controls over the source of the fetus.   Researchers cannot purchase the aborted unborn child.   There is very little difference between embryonic research conducted in Canada and that permissible and being performed in Missouri today.

After considering all these facts, there is an unavoidable conclusion.   The race in Missouri is pretty tight.   Democrats need to win this one to accomplish their goals of winning both houses of Congress.   Fox is a "good Democrat actor" and is willing to put his image and his dignity at risk in order to help secure a victory for the left.   That's why he did this commercial and is stumping around the country in favor of Democrat candidates even when the Republican happens to be a bigger proponent of embryonic stem cell research and the government funding of it than the Democrat candidate.   If Fox were to be truly independent and understand the science and politics behind embryonic stem cell research, he probably would stay out of the fight and tend to his disease rather than stumping for one candidate over another in Missouri.   He chooses to use whatever he has in his arsenal, tremors and all, because he is a partisan, albeit a basically uneducated one, and wants to help Democrats win.   There isn't a whole lot to be said in addition to this.   I just wish he'd put his mouth where his original citizenship is - there's no evidence he ever entered the political fray in Canada to change their stand on embryonic stem cell research.

Associated Press, Brian Mahoney, Oct 25, 2006...

Stern wants NBA players to leave the guns at home

'Nuff said.

The NJ Supreme Court has issued its decision in a case anticipated to be a landmark in the fight to create gay marriage out of whole cloth from State Constitutions.   Here is the decision:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

I'll undoubtedly have something to say in the future but I have to read the case before I open my mouth.   As I find interesting items, I'll post them.

Let's say the polls are right and Bob Menendez is elected Senator from New Jersey.   Who will serve out his term?   The guy is almost certainly going to be indicted.   My guess is he'll be convicted.   The wheels of justice undeniably turn slowly, especially for a high powered political boss like Menendez.   But they do always keep turning and a Senate term is six years.   So, presumably at some point Bob will be removed from office in some way, shape or form.   Who will take his place?   The Chair recognizes the gay-American Senator from New Jersey, Mr. James McGreevey?

Is Ted Kennedy a harmless (except to Mary Jo Kopechne) drunk who doesn't otherwise threaten anybody or is he really a Russian Double Agent?   The allegation appears to have some merit.   Why is the press not interested in looking into this?

Bloomberg has an interesting spin on recent Democrat comments regarding the economy.   Columnist Amity Shlaes discusses the Democrats' Halloween Econ Fright Night!

Former CIA Osama bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer has an interesting take on a possible victory for Democrats this election.   It is a brief but interesting read.

Late last night it occurred to me how odd it was that the MSM was talking about the economy as if it were bad.   I suggested that this indicated Democrats were nervous about the election.   Today, I'm more sure than I was last night.   Today there is more discussion about the economy.   Today there is a further attempt to spin things in the worst possible light.

Both AFP and AP have pieces out discussing the housing market.   Both imply that the price of homes is falling.   They note the amount of real estate inventory is up while activity is falling, although it remains lower only when compared to 2004.   And the carefully worded message of these articles tells us "the median price for sold homes has fallen."   Now, I have never sold a home for the median price.   My house always sells for whatever the market will pay for that particular house.   A glut of inventory certainly hurts but I cannot say with any precision that my home was worth X on September 1 and X + 10% on October 1.   The reference to median prices does nothing to value my home.   And any inventory glut is only relevant to me on a local level.   There could be 100 homes available for every one potential buyer but if the inventory is low in my area, my house will still command a premium.   Similarly, if there is excessively high inventory in my area, I'll get a lower value regardless of the national market.

Housing is peculiarly local as are politics.

When I consider where my house value lies, there are a couple things which are evident.   I bought my current home in 1999.   Let's pretend, for the sake of argument that I paid exactly $100,000.   I put down a high percentage but let's pretend that I, like many Americans, put down 10%, or $10,000.   Now my home, even taking into account a slower market in my local area is worth around $280,000.   So the appreciation is $180,000.   I paid 7 years worth of interest and property taxes.   I figure about a 6% rate of interest and a property tax rate of about 3% of original value.   So each year I paid out $9,000, excluding payments against the mortgage's principal.   Multiplying 7 years times $9,000 plus my down payment, I am out of pocket to the tune of $73,000.   And if I sell the house today, my take of the $280,000 is $190,000 after paying off my hypothetical $90,000 original mortgage.   So over the course of 7 years, I gradually paid out $73K and now have $190K to show for it.   It is difficult to caste that in a bad light.

If you perform the present value calculations of my gradual payments and factor in the tax benefits of the mortgage and property taxes, the return on my modest housing investment is more than 40% per year.   That's ridiculous and will definitely decline over the next 7 years.   But please don't try to tell me the housing market under Bush and his Republican cronies has been anything but wonderful.

Are Democrats beginning to show some chinks in their armor?

I was pretty well convinced that this election would be a victory (majorities in both houses) for Dem.s but now I'm not so sure.   Things are beginning to get, shall we say, a little more complicated.

On one hand, if the Democrats do manage to pull off majorities in both houses, the party is stuck with Howard Dean.   While the guy is supposed to be fundraiser-in-chief, he has come off as more of an idealogue than a contributions magnet.   That's why he had to go out to beg and borrow, and stealing is next.   Dean has had his position long enough to understand that his opinion on every political issue is not what the party needs.   They need funds and he has largely failed to attract enough.   But if the party wins, Howeird gets to keep his job.   If they don't, it will be relatively easy to throw off the shackles of his weirdness.

On one hand, the Move-on-dot-orgies were orgasmic over Ned Lamont's primary victory over moderate Joe in Connecticut.   But did anyone suppose Connecticut was a radical state?   The home of substantial bedroom communities and large business interests is hardly Silicon Valley when it comes to liberal policies.   And Joe has been their man for a rather long time.   Did anyone suppose Lamont would have a chance to actually win this election?   I didn't.   If they had, it would have solidified Move-O's position of dominating the party.   But thus far Move is losing a bit of its cache.

Now, I, as I said, expect the Dem.s to win this election but there are some troubling developments for the lefties.   Polls are strangely not reflective of the margins shown just a few weeks ago.   And the old standby, plan B arguments are being raised in campaigns.   Stammering Michael J. Fox has been brought out of the hospital without his med.s to lie about embryonic stem cell research in two close races.   Problem is the positions claimed for the Republican opponents are not true.   That is part of the record and only an ignorant electorate would fall for the trick.   Early results show it may actually backfire on Dem.s.   And that's probably got more to do with some other inconvenient facts like embryonic stem cell research, despite large amounts of it, is now showing limited, if any promise, especially when compared to less morally conflicting therapies.   You can't pump an issue that doesn't have legs but that is what the Democrats are trying to do.   Why?   Are they afraid they are losing ground?

It is entirely possible that we may end up with a stalemate this election.   If you want to see what I mean, go check out the way races are shaping up at Real Clear Politics.   It is not looking as much like a Democrat victory as it was a few weeks ago.   In fact, victory in both houses is beginning to look somewhat unlikely.   One more dirty piece of underwear pops out of Bob Menendez's closet and you can kiss the Senate goodbye.

So what about the House?   That seems like a more likely outcome but what's that I see in the crystal ball?   Is that an October surprise?   Does it have Jack Murtha's name on it?   Was he a liar?   Did Murtha actually ask for a $50 K bribe from a fake Arab for help getting into the country?

For those born yesterday, or in the past 25 years, there was something referred to as Abscam in which the FBI tried to bribe government officials.   Well, maybe not just try.   They kind of succeeded in a big way.   And Mr. Murtha got himself out of it through questionable means.   Now the video is out and it holds more than an "inconvenient truth" or two.   Murtha tried to negotiate a huge bribe from an Arab Sheik to make sure he could come into the country.   Kind of makes cyber-sex with men over the age of consent pale by comparison.   And whereas, the cyber-sex thing happened in cyber space, Murtha smiled for the camera, live and in person.

But I must have other reasons to conclude the Democrats think they're in trouble.   I do.   I do.   The thing that really set me in motion was a polling story in USA Today.   The story claims Iraq and the economy are swaying the race.   Now I understand Iraq - at least through the eyes of the newsies who have repeatedloy convinced me that this war is highly unpopular across the land.   I don't have the tools to refute this.   But the second part of the poll just doesn't have legs.   If it does, they are not solid enough to stand on.

The USA Poll says, Americans have "downbeat attitudes about the economy."   The story goes on to say, "Low unemployment, falling gas prices and a record-setting stock market typically would translate into warm feelings about the economy.   But 55% of Americans rate the economy as only fair or poor, and 54% say it is getting worse."   Fair to poor?   Getting worse?   That should scare many Repoublicans but for one thing.   There is no way in this extremely robust economy that an actual majority of people think the economy is bad.   The only way to generate that sort of result is to game the poll or take a bad sample.   The facts are the facts and every American is living with the condition of a truly great economy.   The publication of this fictitious finding indicates that something is worrying Democrats.   Otherwise they would just shut up about the economy.

So now, I'm going out on a limb here.   I don't think anybody is predicting the Dem.s will go down in a crumpled heap.   But I no longer fear a Dem. victory in either house.   I expect Republicans to lose seats and well they should.   But I think the wheels are about to come off the Democrat victory cart.   When I see comments like "if the election were held today ...," I know that it isn't for a full two weeks and I wonder why they wish the thing were over with today!   Is this just pregame nerves?   I don't think so.   I think the Democrats are about to fall apart.   And that would not be an October surprise.

Robert William Anderson wrote a scathing report of the war in Iraq.   You didn't see that one nor hear anything about it?   That's because Robert William Anderson is a nobody.   He stands in line with the illegal Mexican immigrants at the local work pickup corner and vies for employment in the suburban agriculture maintenance field.   In other words he cuts lawns.   The media did not cover his scathing report of Iraq because he is not relevant to the discussion.   He has no particular expertise in the Middle East nor in warfare.   He did serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.   But he's a nobody.   Yet, one wonders if that is actually the reason the media ignored him.   The logic is called into question when the AP does report on Kevin Tillman's similarly scathing report.   Why did the AP pickup on this one?   Because Kevin Tillman is the brother of once NFL player, Pat Tillman, who is a casualty in this war against terrorism.   But Iraq is not the war on terror, you might reason.   Exactly!   Pat Tillman wasn't killed in Iraq.   He was killed in Afghanistan where our military went after 9-11 because that is precisely the place from which the attacks were launched.   The two Tillman brothers enlisted in the army together.   Kevin is a soldier.   But that's not why the AP picked up his "scathing report."   They did so because Pat Tillman's football cache still garners him attention.   And the AP just needed to publish some more anti-Bush propaganda before the coming elections.   Otherwise, Kevin Tillman's scathing report would have gone the way of Robert William Anderson's.   It would have taken up residence in a landfill.

I remember, as a five-year-old, playing at a neighbors house on a hot July day.   The fun was abruptly halted when I, gasp, punched a girl.   It was actually more like a light slap.   But I was a boy!   Boys are not allowed to hit girls, period.   Of course, lost in the mix was the fact that she had punched me.   She made a fist, performed a pitcher's windup and hit me squarely in the testicles!   But that didn't matter.   Boys are not allowed to EVER hit girls.

Yesterday brought word that the guy who is going to lose the New York Senate race (by almost as much as the Republican candidate in Connecticut) made a stupid remark.   He reportedly called Hillary out on her looks.   He reportedly claimed she underwent "millions of dollars" in plastic surgery to achieve her current look.   Of course he now claims he didn't say it but the "journalist" "stands by his report."   Maybe he said it and maybe he didn't.   Who cares?   Hillary is going to win this race, period.   It isn't particularly close.   And that's the bottom line.

Let's also realize that nobody suspects Hillary of going under the knife to improve her looks.   She threw off her frumpy look when her husband took over the big house.   Since then she got herself a couple new hairstyles and improved her makeup.   She has also practiced overcoming the dour facial experessions she used to make.   That's par for the course in politics where too many people determine their vote based on non-issue elements of a candidate.   One must do what one can do to improve one's image with the public.

Male and female candidates alike use minor cosmetic help to improve the way they look to the electorate.   There's hair dyes, botox, and even a little fake tan as John Kerry showed us when he attempted to portray himself as an athletic young man who had just come back from ripping it up on his sailboard.   Gone were the overwhelming evidences of normal aging such as the brightgray mane and deep facial lines of a man his age.   He was up against a somewhat youthful looking, though not overly so, opponent and his people determined that he must look younger in order to win.   He put on the makeup just as most candidates do.   There's nothing unusual about Kerry or Hillary, or anyone else for that matter.

But one thing does stand out in all this.   Boys are not allowed to hit girls.   Politicians are not allowed to make any sort of comment about a "girl" which involves anything about her looks.   That's "way over the line."   That's completely uncalled for.   How dare any man presume to judge a woman by her looks?   That's sexist, isn't it?   Women candidates should be judged by their views, their accomplishments, their records.

But if a man is the object of a comment about looks, there's nothing wrong with it.   If the media or an opponent want to claim George Jr. is a hick, they can point out to the cowboy-like visage or claim his face shows a complete lack of any higher-level intellection going on inside his head.   If a man makes comments about a male opponent, we wonder about his sexuality or over-inflated self-image.   If a woman makes the comment, well, that's fine.   There's nothing wrong with that.

And if a woman makes her looks relevant as Loretta Nall, the Libertarian candidate for governor has, then attacking a woman's looks has to be alright too.   The AP finds Nall's tactics amusing while at the same time expressing complete disdain for Hillary's opponent's cracks.   Why the double standard?

Boys and girls, I suggest to you that politics is a contact sport where apparently anything goes.   The same is true in other contact sports like war and business.   But even there we bring the old "boys can't hit girls" ethos into play.   That is perhaps the more sexist act.   If girls want to achieve equality with men, these artificial boundaries on conduct are going to have to be allowed to evaporate.   Punch me in the testicles and I'm going to punch back.   If any candidate's looks are relevant, that means all candidates are.   The behavior police need to recognize hypocrisy when they speak it.

Now that the mid-term elections appear to be shaping up favorably for the Bush-bashing liberals, there are beginning to be attempts to repair damage caused in the heat of battle.   While Bush had a Republican Congress, the attacks were relentless with collateral damage considered the unavoidable fallout of war, political war.   But some of the fallout holds potential to damage "the cause" the next time elections roll around.   So the liberal Democrat mouthpiece New York Times thinks it is safe to begin retracting some previously firm positions.   As Michelle Malkin points out today, an op-ed dude from the Times published a pile of words containing a "we were wrong" message yesterday.   That mea culpa was buried beneath an obscure op-ed piece having nothing to do with national security or the leak of classified intelligence information.   Expect more of this, provided that the Dem.s win back at least one house.   If they win both, the stuff will be gushing from CNN, the LA Times, the AP, et al.   They want you to know that they really are on your side.   Perhaps their indiscretions could be chalked up to political angst.   They are really sorry if any of those classified leaks or banner waiving for Constitutional rights for captured terrorists harmed anyone on our side.   They were over zealous in their pursuit of the Truth.   They're sorry and they'll try not to let these things happen again ... at least until the next time they are out of power.

I don't know why we should settle for universal healthcare.   As long as the subject is on the docket with Democrats likely to come to power, I think we should go for it all.   I think we should ask our government to provide each of us "infinite healthcare" but control costs by "outsourcing" some of the stuff routinely provided by the healthcare industry.

A relative of mine recently underwent a serious cardiac episode requiring a week-long hospital stay and two big procedures.   Today she received notification of some of the charges which had been submitted to our friendly federal government for coverage.   I won't go into the specifics of the episode or the procedures.   Suffice it to say the cost was significant.   It got me to wondering about alternatives to her hospital stay.

As I factored in the various costs I came to a startling conclusion.   My relative could have stayed at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan instead of the hospital.   She could have provided rooms for each of the doctors involved in her case.   Instead of merely paying them for the minutes, sometimes hours, they were involved, she could have hired them each out for two full weeks and provided them rooms at the Plaza including all meals, Broadway shows during off hours, and tickets to go watch the National League baseball playoffs.   The same could have been afforded the floor nurses who catered to her every whim for 15 minutes each day.   She could also have brought in all the incidental services the hospital staff provided.   And just in case something went wrong, a staff of emergency doctors could be hired as well.   All the equipment needed would be rented for the one week period she was in the hospital.   The rest of the time for doctors, etc. could be afforded as a sort of bonus for their one on one care.   And this would have cost less than half the actual charges!

There's something fundamentally wrong about that.

Well, after all sorts of machinations, tweaking and manipulations, nine computer climate models are now in agreement.   They allo point to dangerous consequences of anthropogenic global greenhouse warming several decades into the future.   The only problem with the analysis is none of these models has ever successfully predicted any climate scenario even one year out.   So, now they all agree but none of them has ever proven itself to be correct!   Isn't that just great?

If you are contemplating voting out the Republicans in this election, here is a very good reason to do so.   The majority Republicans are completely unable to police the minority Democrats!   Democrats are leaking sensitive defense and intelligence information at every turn.   The latest leak involved a Democrat staffer leaking the National Intelligence Estimate.   Over the past year or so, there have been at least a half dozen important leaks of classified information to the media.   This country simply cannot protect itself if these circumstances continue.

The only way I can see to put a stop to these irresponsible acts bordering on treason is to give the Democrats what they want, complete control of our government.   It starts with this election and then the job can be completed in 2008.   Once they have the majority in both houses and own the office of the Presidency, maybe they'll stop leaking.   While I don't like advocating liberal policies, some things are more important.   We must staunch the flow of classified information or we are doomed.

Another human being was reportedly attacked by a stingray today.   And all the naturalists are very quick to point out "fatal stingray attacks are rare" and "even when they are under duress, they don't usually attack."   All the nature freaks want to maintain this image of wildlife as docile, unthreatening, and at peace with their fellow creatures.   The truth is animals in nature are savage, violent, messy, and in competition with every other creature.   Stingrays have but one weapon in their arsenal and they sure know how to use it.   Why can't we simply see things as they are?   Stronger animals kill weaker ones and not merely for food.   Sometimes buffalo kill lion cubs for no other reason than they are able to.   Hyenas actually look for competitors' offspring to cause what can only be described as genocide.   Baboons sometimes demonstrate enjoyment resulting from the act of killing leopard cubs.   These creatures don't always eat these things when they kill them.   Sometimes they fling them around in a sort of celebration of victory.   Yet somehow we humans ignore this and refer to nature as amoral.   Nature is dirty, smelly, and dangerous.   Animals kill people, sometimes not for the purpose of acquiring a meal.   Stop trying to sell us an unrealistic picture.

In the wake of Air America's bankruptcy filing, another liberal media stalwart is showing its warts.   The NY Times reported yet even weaker ad sales - 4.2% lower than the previous year's sales which were abysmal.   Circulation revenues were also down significantly.   Shares of the company dropped almost 3% on the news.   If you purchased shares of NYT in 2002, after the stock market pretty much bottomed out, you would only have lost half your money as of the middle of the day, today.

In other media news, NBC announced major cost savings steps including significant layoffs in its news division.

As we move towards the election, one ponders whether the liberals will regain control over Congress.   Given the financial condition of the businesses which aid the Democrat party, one is also left wondering if what is eventually gained was worth the expense.

I once believed in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and "very intelligent" President Carter.   The first three were explained away as fun myths by my parents.   The last one was unearthed by God-awful first-hand experience.   Such are myths.   Sometimes we come to understand that they aren't so much lies as they are "make-believe."   I used to believe there were such things as "political moderates."   I'm not sure when that mythology was exposed to me but it is driven home very clearly today.

An article appears on the pages of Real Clear Politics discussing the country's "Move Back to the Political Center."   It discusses a book by "two of the media's best political observers, Mark Halperin of ABC News and John F. Harris of The Washington Post."   The book apparently analyzes the administrations of Presidents Clinton and Bush, Jr. and concludes Clinton's Politics are "centrist, practical, polite, civil, and compromise-minded."   Bush's politics, on the other hand, are politics of the "base" which should be interpreted as the far right, extremist base.   Is this a valid conclusion?   Absolutely not!

Before one can call Clinton's poli