Stooping to Their Level

Michael Laprarie, blogging for Wizbang, grouses that conservatives aren't getting it. He points to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as both the reason for liberal successes of late, as well as a primer from which conservatives should be drawing in order to get better organized and more effectively counter those liberal successes.

But should we?

From a blogospheric perspective, much of what Laprarie posits is probably accurate, if not completely correct. He mentions several "power tactics" as being particularly important to countering liberal philosophies and sophistry. For example, Laprarie states:

These tactics, particularly 4 [Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules] and 5 [Ridicule is man's most potent weapon], could be devastating to the Obama White House and to thin-skinned, corrupt Democrats in general. Make them live up to their own rules -- pay as you go, most ethical Congress in history, etc. Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show have done a great job ridiculing Democrats. We need to do more.

Ridicule is arguably one of the basic tenets of the blogosphere. The ratio of rational blogs to snarky blogs is probably smaller than 1 to 10 on the conservative side, and probably even smaller than that on the liberal side. The Jawa Report wouldn't exist without huge doses of snark; likewise The Daily Kos would be only a wisp of its current self if snark weren't allowed. I think there's more than enough ridicule going around to keep everyone cynical and pessimistic for the rest of our natural lives.

We have been far less successful, however, at making the other side live up to its own rules. In his first two months in office, Obama has already backtracked on a number of his campaign pledges. This is a pattern, however, that should have surprised no one, since he reneged on his pledge not to accept public monies practically the moment that John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Nancy Pelosi has done absolutely nothing toward her stated goal of having the "most ethical Congress" in history, and her morally feeble compadre in the Senate, Harry Reid, hasn't helped. But these things come as no surprise to conservative voters like myself. This is all pretty much business as usual in the Beltway.

What surprises this particular voter is how badly our representatives in Washington have seemingly ignored the mandates that put them in office to begin with. Why, in the name of all that's holy, are senators like Specter, Collins, and Snowe supporting the Stimulus? It makes absolutely no sense on any grounds. This was a fiscal sell-out of monumental proportions, and they should be soundly punished for refusing to vote "NO" on moral grounds. This is how we fail to make liberals play by their stated rules. We certainly seem unable to play by our own.

Laprarie goes on to ask the question,"[i]f liberals utilize these tactics regularly (and we know they do), then why can't conservatives utilize them as well? It is a given that they work. It should not be a given that they can only be used by liberals."

It is a given that they work. For liberals. Does that mean there should be a "proportional response" from conservatives?

No. If we remember our roots, both fiscally and socially, there should never be a reason to stoop to the same tactics that liberals have been propounding since the radical days of the sixties. To do so makes our arguments seem trite and contrived; nothing more than showmanship and grandstanding that have no motivation other than showing everyone else who the Big Man of the Mountain is. Those who ridicule do so because they have not the strength of their own argument to prove their point. I certainly have been guilty of that myself; writing snark in the name of "humor" while all the time wishing I were smarter than I really am.

There are those who complain that the string of recent "Tea Party" protests in response to Obama's economic plan is ineffective as a grassroots effort. Needs more planning "from the top down" some say. Needs more organization. Needs more, I don't know, legitimacy or something.

Bah.

The protests are not designed to change policy. No one standing in one of those protests with signs like "Hey, Obama, While You're At It, I Could Really Use A Lexus" believes for one moment that the President and Congress are suddenly going to smack their heads and say, "Wow! What boneheads we've been! We'd better cancel the Stimulus and try a smarter approach!" No one is that naïve.

But I do believe the protests demonstrate an irrefutable idea that not everyone is in love with Obama's approach to the crisis. There is unrest, and it's not just from anti-Obama conservatives like myself. Quite a few people who voted for Obama are scratching their heads now and wondering who this man is, and what has he done with the President?

Question: what is the only real difference between the Obama administration, and the Bush administration?

Answer: the Obama administration is better at creating logos.

Okay, that was snarky. My apologies. But my point remains: stooping to the same tactics that made the other side successful does not guarantee success. It only diminishes the importance of our message. We require conservative fiscal and social policies if this country is to remain viable for the rest of the twenty-first century.

The Infamy of Abel Maldonado

Today's passage of California's $42 billion boondoggle budget is highly symptomatic of the problems we face nationally. That California chose a plan that precisely mirrors Obama's Anti-Stimulating Stimulus Package simply means that local politicians are no better at owning up to the problems that got us here than the Feds are.

Our last hope - moderate Abel Maldonado - finally caved and cast his vote to approve the budget. This allows Schwarzenegger to go back to loving his "girly men" in the legislature while simultaneously redacting all those pink slips he was starting to hand out earlier this week. CalTrans will go back to removing hefty chunks of California highways just in time for vacation season this year. And Abel Maldonado will have to consider whether the Republican backlash from his "yea" vote was worth the sellout.

Now, I'll grant you this: a quarter percent tax increase in my bracket is not going to kill me. State tax increases rarely have that kind of impact on my situation. I've been working long enough that I can make ends meet most of the time. I will admit to being concerned about my state refund this year, but on the whole I was all for holding the state accountable for all of its irresponsible spending decisions over the past several years.

Ditto the Feds. Zero Accountability is what got us into fiscal trouble, and the Faux Stimulus Obama just signed will take us right back to Zero Accountability. Oh, they created a so-called "Accountability and Transparency" board, but its only real function is to politicize the various Inspectors General and place them under the control of the board instead of maintaining their heretofore independent status. Reckless fiscal policy, that. And it will catch up with the Obamatrons both in the administration and in Congress.

But back to Maldonado. Being from Santa Maria, Maldonado has the taint of elitist liberalism, though he claims to be a Republican. I can pretty much guarantee, however, that if he aspires to any office higher than the state senate, he will find himself facing a somewhat unforgiving crowd down here in Orange County. I know why the man finally changed his vote. He found himself in the position of having the whole state see him as the man who was blocking passage of money needed to fund our state-wide pork. That's an uncomfortable chair, and he wanted to go home. He finnagled a few "concessions" before changing his vote, but we're still saddled with a budget that relies more on tax increases than in reduced spending measures. Again, reckless fiscal policy that will catch up with those who voted in favor.

And exactly how do I know that this budget is bad policy? Because Schwarzenegger approves; that's how:

This is the perfect medicine for our ailing economy, and it will boost public confidence in California, reassure the financial community and allow us to start selling bonds and rebuild our state."

"Now, instead of worrying every day only about IOUs and about red ink, we can start moving California forward once again. This action to solve our $42 billion deficit was difficult but courageous and just what California needs," he said.

Note to the Governator: You can't "solve" budget deficits when you're still spending more than you're taking in. Did you not read that definition when taking the state employee exams? Oh, wait...

Anyway, California has its approved budget, and everyone goes home happy. Until next year's deficit rears its head. Then it'll be every man for himself.

Maldonado will lead the way.

When Money Talks...

That money talks
I'll not deny,
I heard it once:
It said, "Goodbye."
   ~Richard Armour

I'm a little worried about my money these days. Not looking so good. In fact, not looking good at all. I went to visit it this morning and was shocked to see its condition.

"You look terrible," I said.

"No worse than you," it replied. "You look like death warmed over."

"Touch of bronchitis. Nothing serious. What's your excuse?"

My money, stacked morosely in small denominations in the back corner of the credit union vault, gave me the slightest ghost of a smile. "Well, I could blame everything on the economy, of course, but I'm afraid it's worse than that."

"Worse than the economy?" I asked. "How is that possible?"

"The Feds are after me."

Of course. It all made sense to me then. With the passage today of the so-called "Stimulus" bill, money all over the country would naturally be living in mortal fear of becoming fodder for pork barrel spending. Probably sooner rather than later.

"But how do you know the Feds won't spend you wisely?" I asked earnestly. "Certainly they couldn't do any worse than I have?"

My money actually laughed at me. "You're kidding, right? How much do you think I'm worth to you right now?"

I did some quick calculations. "Well, I know what your face value is. That can't have changed too much since last summer, could it?"

A few loose dollars fell to the vault floor. "I guess you haven't noticed yet. Can't you see how much weight I've lost since the Inauguration? I'm literally worth only pennies on the dollar right now. You just haven't caught on yet. Bet you haven't done your taxes yet this year, have you?"

I had to admit he had me there. "Well, no. Seems like I just barely filed my return from last year, what with the extension and all."

I've never heard money sigh before, but it had a somewhat chilling effect. "That's what I mean. You'll find out soon enough anyway. I guess you should know the whole story. You see, I've been called up by Congress and I expect to be deployed any time now."

"Deployed?"

"Of course! Don't you get it? Obama's majorities in the House and Senate have already earmarked me for some pork project in a town neither of us has ever heard of! I'll be shipped off to buy toxic assets from heaven only knows where, or, worse, be put in the pockets of corrupt union officials in (here it shuddered visibly) Michigan."

"Surely the Republicans would have tried to eliminate all that pork," I rejoined. "I can't imagine them letting the Democrats have their way without a fight."

A shrinking stack of ten dollar bills actually made a sound of disgust. "You weren't paying attention to the Three Stooges, I take it."

"Larry, Moe and Curly?"

"Collins, Snowe and Specter. They sold me out. Helped craft the 'bipartisan' spending package and threw me under Obama's bus."

"Ouch. I had no idea."

"Neither did anyone else. We all assumed that, being Republicans and all, they would stand firm with the House Republicans and vote against this nonsense. Instead they betrayed good conservative dollars everywhere and voted to appease the Congressional Demagogues. Had they toed the line like they should, we might have been able to force Obama's water carriers back to the bargaining table. Instead, I'm hiding out in this musty vault, hoping against hope that they'll somehow overlook me."

"There's still a chance you could get a plum assignment. I hear that NASA gets a billion plus in this package. Maybe you could even go to Homeland Security..."

"To help build the Fence in Name Only? May as well convert me to pesos now and be done with it."

"Oh, quit worrying. You're still here and I'm not going to throw you to the wolves just because some politician sticks his hand out. Hey, I'm still here, right? And I still have my health."

"And Obama wants to socialize health care in this country."

Suddenly I don't feel so good, either.

Finding the Silver Lining

There's little question we're in for some rough times ahead. Most businesses have either announced or are pondering layoffs in just about every industry you can think of. So when I found this item from Reuters this morning, it made me smile.

Not long after I emerged from my post-adolescent cocoon and found myself struggling to meet the demands of a new marriage, I was shanghaied by an Amway zealot. Now, I have nothing personally against Amway or any of its several re-inventions over the years. Their products are, for the most part, reliable. I simply have no stomach for their multi-level marketing strategies which border on evangelistic fanaticism in my opinion. So I didn't last long. (Anyone who knows me knows that I am far too lazy to make an aggressive strategy like Amway really work anyway.)

I dredge up this piece of ancient history only because of what Amway preached back in the day. They really had only two selling points. One was the perceived benefits of the multi-level marketing approach. The other was the strength of the products they marketed. "People will always need cleaning products" was their mantra. It's true: rain or shine, good economy or bad, people want to be clean. Just because you have no money, you certainly don't want people thinking you have no money, so you'll keep cleaning your house no matter what your current debt load may be. Not to mention all the hygienic benefits from keeping your home and yourself as clean as possible.

(My "upline" did, however, fail to mention that when the chips were down and it was a choice between paying Amway whatever shipping charges were included with your order, or simply going to Ye Olde Grocery Shoppe down the street to pay a few cents more or less on the dollar, convenience will always win. Always.)

This is why the Reuters story made me chuckle. Yes, times are bad. A lot of good people are facing a new reality with no immediate income and bleak employment prospects. But the people who put food on our tables (as opposed to those who charge us for the simple pleasure of sitting at one of their tables and looking at their menus) are benefitting from our new-found reliance on good ol' home cooking.

It's expensive to eat out all the time. Heaven knows we do our fair share. We're not big restaurant people here at Hacienda Woody. But it's not at all unusual for Woody to be out running errands (including, ironically enough, grocery shopping) and have Mrs. Woody say, "As long as you're out..." and Woody suddenly finds himself in the nearest drive-through. If you do even a few of those every month it adds up to an alarming amount of money. And I know people who eat out far more frequently than they eat in.

Living on a budget does things to your priorities. You begin to remember just why, exactly, you have a stove. Or, at the very least, a microwave. (I prefer to do my vegetable steaming in the microwave, for example.) You also remember that nothing tastes quite like a home-cooked meal. This may be especially true if Hubby does any of the home cooking:

"Mom?"

"Yes, Honey?"

"Dad cooked the meatloaf again, didn't he?"

"It's not meatloaf, Sweetheart."

"Pass."

(Actually, Woody cooks a fairly credible meatloaf. Allow me some creative license.)

My point is that I don't see it as a bad thing that people are eating at home more. Perhaps I'm just taking a glass-half-full approach to this recession, but it might just remind us that a certain amount of conservatism (with a small "c" if you must) is not necessarily a bad thing.

Just to Mix Things Up

I apologize for the dearth of blogging of late. I'm normally much more vocal than this, particularly when I fear that we'll soon be printing money so fast that we'll quickly end up with hyperinflation a la post-war Germany when the Papiermark collapsed was ultimately replaced by the Reichsmark at a rate of roughly one trillion to one.

In the meantime, Hacienda Woody is gearing up for a momentous event. In late March and early April our Stake will produce "Savior of the World," a musical drama originally commissioned for the opening of the Conference Center in Salt Lake City. I say "momentous" because all four of us are participating in this production, Woodyettes included.

Since we're up to our necks in rehearsal (or would be were it not for this dratted bronchitis/flu we seem to be fighting at the moment), it's entirely possible that blogging from Yours Truly will be light — even non-existent. My apologies. With that in mind, however, look over at The Inner Dad for updates related to the show, and even links to a few production photos.

Cheers!

When Newscasters Become Too Important

So we're trying to enjoy (as best any Republican can truly "enjoy") the inauguration today. We even encouraged the Woodyettes to sit and watch the swearing-in ceremonies, all the while knowing that what they really wanted was for their uncle to pick them up and take them to Disneyland for the day. Then Mrs. Woody and I sat back to watch the pomp and ceremony surrounding the most peaceful transfer of power found anywhere in the civilized world today.

What we get instead are hour after hour of useless political commentary and "insight" surrounding this "historic" occasion. I have surfed through CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CSPAN, you name it. Even local news orgs are having the same diarrhea of the mouth.

Not one. Not one single marching band have we heard today. Nothing but cameras following Obama's car every inch along the parade route. And even if we do happen to see an actual band, we do not get to hear them. Not those kids who flew how many thousands of miles from Hawaii to the nation's capital so they could perform for the millions packed into Washington D. C. today. Not even the Marines were afforded the common courtesy of allowing them to be heard over the networks.

Mrs. Woody, every inch a Republican as am I, put it best: "I really wanted this inauguration to do something for me. Instead I'm frustrated that I couldn't enjoy it at all."

Thanks again, Talking Heads, for ruining an otherwise significant and historic event. May you all rot.

Hollywood Reinvents Truth. Again.

Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor, one whose work I have long admired. I especially enjoy his fondness for the historical significance of the American space program, as witnessed by his participation in "Apollo 13" and producing "From the Earth to the Moon" for HBO. I even (MALE BETRAYAL ALERT) enjoy his rom-com work with Meg Ryan.

Still, Hanks' fondness for extremely large toys (such as space ships) should not be construed as being indicative of having a conservative bent; Hanks is just as liberal as Hollywood comes.

For all my huff and blow about liberals (and Hollywood libs being among the worst), I still appreciate their guaranteed rights to express their opinions, no matter how wrong-headed they are. But I refuse — absolutely refuse — to excuse them in their ignorance. Hanks' ignorance about Prop 8 is expressed in this statement the actor made to Fox News:

“The truth is this [series "Big Love"] takes place in Utah, the truth is these people [speaking of polygamists] are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. [Fox's "Pop Tarts" column]

This insistence by liberals to smear the Church for daring to support what a majority of Californians supported in November reminds me that politics makes liars out of just about everyone at one time or another. But this particular lie is especially egregious as it paints all members of the Church as being highly prejudiced, and makes them the targets of choice of the anti-8 mobsters. To call us "un-American" in the process is just childish.

For the record, Mr. Hanks: The Church did not receive money from its members to "make Prop-8 happen." We in fact donated whatever money we could directly to the campaign on advice of the Church to support what we feel is an important social issue. We also donated time and energy — again, directly — to the campaign, going door to door and making phone calls to encourage folks to vote for the measure. Hence it is deceitful to insist that the Church took money for this purpose. One might even call it wrong-headed.

Does this mean I will never again watch one of Hanks' movies? Of course not. Even if Hollywood can't, I have no trouble separating entertainment from politics. Hanks' political views take nothing away from his acting, and I certainly don't have to agree with the man in order to watch one of his projects. Heck, I still think Susan Sarandon made one heck of an attorney in "The Client," and she holds even more odious political views than Hanks does. And don't get me started on Sarandon's paramour, Tim Robbins, whom I look forward to seeing in "The City of Ember." (Yep. Missed it in the theaters. But it's coming out on DVD next week.)

The truth will out, they say, but don't look for it to come from Hollywood.

While We Were In an Election-Induced Stupor Last Year

There's an excellent reason why we should outlaw general elections in this country: we simply can't afford to take our eyes off of Congress, even for 24 short months (give or take). Seems that while we were obsessing over which under-qualified, party-betraying candidate should get our vote, Congress and our very-lame duck President slipped a fast one by us.

It's H.R. 4040, titled "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008," and it's about to put a hefty chunk of Americans out of business on February 10th of this year.

In fact, this one slid through so neatly that it barely made a ripple on the conference vote. Out of 535 possible votes, it garnered only 3 "nays," while 8 voted "present" or abstained. That included Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton. I believe President Bush would have signed it even without the veto-proof support this one received.

Now, don't get me wrong: there are plenty of reasons to upgrade our product safety standards. The lead-based paint scares coming from China a while back were sufficient to light a sizeable fire underneath a normally do-nothing-or-at-least-do-it-incorrectly Congress. Import standards have been lax for decades, and innocent people suffer as a result. Lead poisoning is still a leading cause of permanent injury or death among children in this country and is therefore nothing to take lightly.

The problem, however, is what happens when you take a typical government reaction to such problems and churn out legislation quickly and without regard for consequences. Such is the case with H.R. 4040. The new standards — which include stringent, not to mention extremely expensive testing requirements — will overwhelm your typical small business owner. Reactions guaged by this report from WorldNetDaily.com are typical. The cost of testing for lead has been quoted at anywhere from $75 to $400 per article (think: one book). As one retailer put it, "There's a big difference between me and Wal-Mart or Toys 'R' Us."

Hardest hit, of course, will be the thrift and consignment stores. My family has benefitted, both directly and indirectly, from thrift stores over the years. My sister-in-law is the queen of thrifters in our family circle, and we have been handing clothes back and forth since our Jelly Woodyette was born nearly twelve years ago. But since we can't certify that our hand-me-downs are lead free, this law pretty much makes it illegal to continue that practice.

So, as is typical with our United States Congress (motto: Never Got It Right So Far; Probably Never Will), we now have a law that will put thousands of Mom and Pop operations permanently out of business, fatten the pockets of the testing labs and the special interests that backed this legislation, and turn our landfills into retail graveyards. All because some greedy importers didn't keep their ethical eyes on the ball.

Go team.

What Is It with Democrats and "Experience?"

In years past my voice was raised in favor of "voting the bums out." It doesn't really take much to get disgusted with Congress (or even local legislatures), so just about every two years we will hear calls for getting rid of the incumbents and replacing them with people who are somewhat more anatomically correct (you know what I'm talking about). So I freely admit that I have, on occasion, been among those who have felt the need for a complete overhaul of legislative bodies. So to speak.

I'm not so sure the Democrats' solution is the way to do it, though.

Consider:

The primary reasons Barack Obama won are 1) he isn't George W. Bush, and 2) anyone must be better than George W. Bush, no matter how little actual experience he has. I'm pretty sure there was a race/diversity angle in there somewhere, too, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Now it's time to appoint a couple of Senate replacements, both of whom just happen to be Democrats. One would think Joe Biden also needs replacing, but Connecticut is so small that it may well be simply annexed by Massachussets later this year. Anyway, this is where the Democrats get to shine and appoint people to replace President-for-Life-Elect Obama and Secretary-of-State-Consolation-Prize winner Hillary Clinton.

Illinois kicks off the Name That Senator sweeps with an appointee named by Corrupt Governor (I know, I know... it's redundant) Blagojevich. The appointee, a man named Burris, apparently campaigned hard for the posting as soon as it became evident that Obama's term would end abruptly in January of this year. Most unfortunately, he finds himself now permanently guilty by association of being just another cog in the perpetually corrupt Illinois political machine. This forces the ever-ethical United States Senate, led by Harry "Land Deal? What Land Deal?" Reid, to claim that Burris will never be seated in the actual Senate, even if he shows up with his luggage and a note from his Governor.

(This particular example has nothing to do with lack of experience. It does, however, point out to what lengths the Democrats will go to prove they have a sense of humor after all.)

Now we turn our focus to the New York senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton. Governor Paterson has a smallish problem to deal with. He has both a Kennedy and another Clinton on his hands. One could argue that having former president Billy-Bob Clinton be a "caretaker" for the remainder of his wife's term would be an effective way of keeping him out of Paterson's hair involved in local politics. Or not.

The money seems to be on Caroline Kennedy, the so-called "Camelot Princess." Aside from her famous name, she really has little else to recommend her for the position. She's done all the right posturing, apparently, even dropping her married name so that everyone will remember that she used to live in the White House. But aside from that, not much else to really qualify her to occupy what may become a pivotal Senate seat.

The Senate's famous Democratic majority is already tenuous at best. It is not truly veto-proof, nor did they get the anti-fillibuster insurance they so desperately sought in November, even if Franken weasels and cajoles his way through the interminable Minnesota recount. Having another Kennedy in the Senate for no other reason than to have another Kennedy in the Senate just isn't going to win the Democrats anything.

Kennedy's father was a remarkable man. Whether you agreed with him or not, his visions for moving America forward had a galvanizing effect on the country. But it's been forty-five years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and modern history is taking a harder look at the Kennedy mystique. Several generations have arisen since his death and have learned not only about his popularity, but also about his foibles and vices. They understand Kennedys of all stripes to be just as human as the rest of us, and that means that the Kennedy name no longer carries with it the historical imperative that it did back in the days of "Camelot."

Governor Paterson did make one comment worthy of note in this farcical Senate Lotto:

Though Kennedy appears to be the front-runner to replace Clinton, Paterson said the next junior Senator from New York will have to win re-election on his or her own.

And that may prove to be a problem for the Princess.

Happy (?) New Year!

New look? Of course it's a new look! I get restless every so often, and need to move furniture around, paint the walls, get new carpet... that sort of thing. Naturally this is strictly a virtual exercise for ol' Woody. I've reached that point in life where I much prefer to think about doing such things, and less time actually doing them.

The cretin header has got to go, though. It's a nice design, really, from some Brazilian personage, so far as I can tell. So I had to rename sections into some semblance of English. But the hideous green object at the top of the page is driving me nuts. I am, however, an artistically lazy son of a gun, and I tossed the challenge over to Mrs. Woody. In her youth she had studied graphic design, so I told her what I'm looking for, and she accepted. Please note: hideous green leaf or slice of some exotic fruit: NOT Mrs. Woody. Much classier re-do of the Woody's Woundup header: Mrs. Woody's work. When it becomes available.

This also serves as my official "Happy New Year!" post. Except that I'm not certain just how happy I should wish everyone. Most people seem to be suffering from either economic disaster or post-election depression. The smarmy ones who suffer from neither must be hunted down and made to be as miserable as real humans, I think. With a new Democratic administration coming into power this month, it keeps with Obama's "level playing field" tendencies. No wealth to spread around, though, so we'll just make everyone gloomy and depressed instead.

What's that? You say an "economic stimulus" will be a top Obama priority? That's nice. But I have yet to hear one acceptable explanation as to why making it easier for people who got us into the sub-prime loan debacle by defaulting on their high-risk loans to get newer, higher risk loans is somehow considered a "stimulus?" Wouldn't that seem like simply giving them the keys to "Sub-Prime Debacle 2.0?"

Time will tell. Obama has been doing the body-building thing in Hawaii and seems to be somewhat reluctant to reveal his cards this soon before inauguration day. Just a few months ago he couldn't restrain himself from telling us, in changing and hopeful tones, just how he was planning to keep the economy from tanking. Couldn't shut the guy up, in fact. All of a sudden he gets wise to the "silence is golden" philosophy? I question the timing.

In the meantime, enjoy the new Woundup. I'll still be moving furniture around, dusting some of the higher shelves, and perhaps even moving in some new stuff over the next few days.

Happy (or at least Tolerable) New Year!

UPDATE from CCWBASS

I haven't logged on in so long I wasn't sure I'd even remember my password. So, in no particular order:

[1] HAPPY THANKSGIVING! Me? I have lots to be thankful for. I have a job, a means to get to it, a place to sleep at night, a wonderful family - and that includes a wide network of daaang cool in-laws - and I live in the greatest freakin' country on the planet. Thank you, God. Thank you, family. And thank you, every single American troop who puts life on the line so I can enjoy these wonderful blessings.

[2] Now that I no longer have to pretend enthusiasm towards McCain, can I go back to hating him and saying that he was and still is a terible senator? For me the answer is: Yes.

[3] What have I been up to? Well, a couple of years ago I was over 300 pounds, but I'm not sure by how much since the scale topped at 300. These days I'm at 254 and counting downward. All it took was my car punking out and my being forced to ride 32 miles a day to keep my job. If any of you have been to the Reagan Library - a site I pass five days a week to get to my job - imagine taking your bike up that driveway about eight times a day; that's my ride, stretched out over an average day, and I'm proud I can do it while still a middle-aged fat man. 'Course, I'm still the county's bike version of a pace car in that I get passed by every skinny twerp out there, but that's okay. Even on a rainy day, it's still fun.

[4] Right now I'm listening to my brother-in-law's doo-wop group and they are, I must say, dang good. Very 50's.

[5] What was it like being a Mormon during the recent rash of anti-Mormon protests by various gay communities? It was a refreshing change of pace; usually it's the Baptists and vaguely-defined evangelicals picketing our temples.

[6] Politics? Eh. Too depressed about the election results to follow any more news.

[7] Poetry? Eh. Haven't written anything serious in about a year and I don't miss it.

That's what's new. Thanks for stopping by.

Fire Blogging

Hacienda Woody is surrounded. We live in an area more or less central to three fires. Or one extremely large fire. Depends on who you talk to.

While we make preparations for Woody to perhaps travel to a software conference tomorrow (lot of IFs to consider at the moment), we find ourselves bordered on the north and east by fires in Anaheim Hills, Yorba Linda (both of which started in Corona), and now even Brea to the northwest. Freeways are shut down to the north and east, leaving south as our most logical escape route, should that be necessary.

I post this to hopefully put things in perspective. With all the invective being hurled back and forth by people on either side of the Proposition 8 issue, this is a time to settle down and help people. Our ward and another in our stake are particularly affected by these fires. I would not be surprised to hear that members of our stake have lost their homes by tomorrow morning. It's that bad.

So far the Hacienda is safe. It's been smokey all day long, and for quite awhile all we had coming through our windows was dark orange light. The smell has been intense throughout the day, and I was more than a little nervous about going out long enough to buy groceries earlier this afternoon. Folks heading the wrong direction on the 91 freeway were being taken off the freeway, in many cases exiting via the onramps.

We have our evacuation lists made up and ready in case the fire encroaches this far south. Our elder daughter, who has a healthy dose of her maternal side worry genes, has already packed her backpack. She kind of wishes we'd get in the car already and just drive.

I'm sure we'll be fine for now. If the dreaded Santa Ana winds kick up more tonight all bets are off. In the meantime, please say prayers for all those who have been displaced today.

Activists or Terrorists?

I have largely avoided any further discussion on Proposition 8 since the election. I have done so for the simple reason that I have no desire to rub the results in the faces of the losers. I wish I could say that of all Prop 8 supporters, but as Obama's elevation to the presidency has demonstrated, there's nothing like a sore winner. I still hear from people who think it's important to smear Sarah Palin as much as possible, which is probably the surest way to keep her in the running for a senate or executive branch run sometime soon.

But I digress. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the popular vote in California. It's important to note that we only needed 50% plus one vote in order to pass, so 52% in a state as liberal as California is still significant. Since that time, we have watched protest after protest instigated by the losing side; although not, I suspect, completely representative of the 48% who voted against the measure. Surely these protesters represent only a fraction of the voters who were willing to give that coalition the benefit of the doubt.

I find it — unsettling — that they target the very people that they must know will tend not to retaliate. I will not deny that what I am witnessing makes my blood boil. I see it as sacrilege to have them mar the beauty of a temple erected to God that represents peace to all the world. Yet, targets we have become. On some level, targets we have always been.

The protesters, on the other hand, should be careful. Their tactics are beginning to take on certain terrorist characteristics. The mailing of white powder to LDS temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City is, in my mind, an act of terrorism. It was meant to inject fear into a peaceful process. It was calculated to create psychological harm and disrupt the lives of people who have only the salvation of their souls at heart. Is this not terrorism? Granted, it's not a car bomb at the temple doors, but neither does it have to be.

Like terrorism, however, the results are never what the terrorists want them to be. Instead of cowering in fear, we stiffen our resolve. If you attack us on our own soil, we hunker down and learn better ways of defending ourselves. So it is with social issues. Rather than making us somehow more "tolerant" towards homosexuals, we find comfort and relief in revealed truth and commit ourselves to remaining obedient to the Gospel.

By their own words the opponents of Proposition 8 have demonstrated that they are willing to do anything — including violence — to gain their point. They have called for intimidation, violence, civil disobedience, and even murder (spoken with extreme hyperbole, granted, but still spoken). Proposition 8 leaders, on the other hand, have called for calm, peace, and even love towards our detractors.

Of course there are exceptions on both sides. There are numerous reasonable voices among the opponents of Proposition 8. We don't hear much from them, however, because the press are dedicated to the propogation of "anti-gay hatred" that they believe to be "prevalent." While you may read of isolated incidents of anti-gay slurs or threats, the vast majority of Proposition 8 supporters are peaceful, loving people who would rather not have to fight anyone, but are willing to work hard to defend their positions.

As history has demonstrated time and time again, terrorists never learn.

Hey, NASA, In Case You're Wondering...

...why astronaut recruits are dwindling, we gotcher reason right here.

More (Self-Fulfilling) Prognostication

Someone found the Woundup whilst searching for graphics related to turning 50. I was still doing my birthday essays on the Woundup, but I'd forgotten that I wrote about turning 50 fours years before I actually did. I'd also forgotten that I'd made some predictions about this most recent election that turned out to be quite true:

As I get closer to what I kind of hope represents the mid-point of my life, my understanding of issues has increased, but my tolerance for the political process has decreased. By the time I turn 50, I will patently hate the process. I will understand what must be done, but I'll hate it.

I'll hate it because this pivotal year of my life will be spent listening to carefully groomed individuals crow about how they will make my life better than it was four years ago. Not one of them will forward a truly unique idea, because there are no unique ideas left. Very much like Hollywood. Every new movie you will see four years from now has already been written and you've already seen movies just like them. But you'll probably plink down the gold it requires to see them because this version has much slicker computer graphics.

I'll hate it because not one single candidate will remind us that the government already has far exceeded its constitutionally limited powers and that we need to return to those constitutional limits. Rapidly.

I'll hate it because not one of them will have a common sense approach to getting this country out of debt. For good. They won't promise not to exceed our ability to spend, because they can't. It's pathological. They can't help themselves.

All of it accurate, so far as I can tell. My predictions, then, were:

1. I will patently hate the process.
   Yup. I loathe the process. Or, rather, I loathe what the process has become. It's nothing more than Ultimate Fighter in designer suits, using poisonous words rather than lethal kidney punches. I particularly hated the accelerated pace of the primaries this year. I hope we have finally put to bed the notion that moving a state's primary up several months earlier somehow has any positive effect on the election. California's certainly did not. It also means that we don't have anywhere near enough time to fully vet the field of candidates before whittling them down to the two ultimate standard-bearers. I believe had we been given more time we might have had someone else facing off against Obama last week. Perhaps not, but we'll never know now, will we?
   
   
2. Carefully groomed individuals crowing about making my life better.
   It's a sucker bet, really. That's what candidates do. What I left out is the part about warning people that the other guy will try to make you afraid. Fear-mongering — not racism — was the most frequent accusation made during the primaries. And the only person out there who was making a huge deal about one of those candidate's race was the one whose skin tone was different from everyone else's. Just sayin'.
   
   
3. No unique ideas.
   Oh, brother. Every idea we heard was really just a re-hash of ideas that have been floated from time to time over the last several decades. The funniest part, though, was when one candidate would begin floating the same ideas as the other guy while trying to make us think they were new. That was hilarious. But unique? No. Not one.
   
   
4. Ignoring constitutional limits.
   I really can't blame the candidates we had this year. We haven't been paying any attention to the Constitution for, oh, more than a hundred years now. The closest we got was Reagan who at least campaigned on the idea of reducing government. Whether he was "successful" depends on which parts of the government you happened to work for or need. For instance, if you were a huge fan of welfare, you probably didn't like some of Reagan's initiatives. If, on the other hand, military might was your thing, Reagan was a demi-god. No other President in my memory ever promised or attempted to reduce the fingerprint of the federal government. One might even go so far as to call it the "feral" government nowadays. It is untameable.
   
   
5. No common sense approach to national debt
   Need I really expound? We made it possible for people who could not actually afford homes to buy them, and now those people have defaulted on enough loans to sink the country financially. So instead of fixing whatever idiocy allowed that to happen in the first place, we will instead nationalize numerous financial institutions. Were we born this stupid, or did we have to get several math degrees first?

Taken altogether, I hate having been right. The state of modern politics is one of cookie-cutter campaigns, developed by people with Masters degrees in marketing and film-making. We have no truly original political thinkers left in this country, it seems, and we're paying the price with the prospect of yet another failed administration. (Yeah, I know; the guy hasn't even taken office yet. Still, I'm not scoring too badly as a prophet now, am I?)

Check back with me in another four years and see if anything has really changed. If it has, I'd like to bet it isn't for the better.

I hope I'm wrong.

Why We Homeschool - Reason #1

Michelle Malkin calls it child abuse. I also refer to this as political bigotry. You have to see this to believe it:

What she did to that little girl is reprehensible. Psychological torture of that sort creates scars, and I desperately want to see this so-called "teacher" held fully accountable. The fact that she felt absolutely no compunction about brow-beating her young charges who dared to mention The Opposition is evidenced by her bald-faced lie about being "okay" with kids who supported McCain. If that's "okay," I'd hate to see this woman get upset about something.

We homeschool precisely because if someone is going to brainwash my children, it may was well be us. Intolerant bigots of this sort should (and will) never have any opportunity to fill my childrens' heads with this hogwash. Bad enough I have to let them go to college at some point. But at least I have time to prepare them.

If I were that little girl's parents, I would have the teacher, the principal, and the school board over a legal barrel and looking to have that teacher's credential immediately yanked.

Disgusting.

Curmudgeon's Guide Results

Let the Woundup go on record as congratulating President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden. I am hopeful that the election of a black American to the highest office of the land will put to rest the myth that blacks are institutionally prevented from acheiving whatever they choose. I fear it will not, however.

So we lost the Big One. No matter; you can't win them all. We survived Clinton (who, had we been blogging back then, provided us with some wonderful essay material). We will survive Obama. I am less confident that we will ultimately survive the new wave of socialism that seems to have gripped our nation's leadership of late, however. With "spread the wealth" elitists in both the White House and Congress, we are rapidly moving down a path that leads to the sort of policies that remove more and more money from my pocket and give it to people who are unwilling to earn it. It will be the Obama administration's defining legacy, if Obama's campaign speeches are any indicator.

Time for that later, though. Right now, I want to focus on Uncle Woody's performance as a prognosticator with regards to our state ballot initiatives. Candidate-wise, Uncle Woody fared well in this election. We live in a fairly safe conservative part of the country, and our incumbents at both the national level and state level are keeping their jobs. I missed one slot on our City council. So here's a list of our ballot initiatives, how Uncle Woody voted, and how the results seem to be running with 95+% of precincts reporting:

Measure	Uncle Woody	California
1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.	NO	YES (52.2%)
2 - Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.	NO	YES (63.2%)
3 - Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.	YES	YES (54.7%)
4 - Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.	YES*	NO (52.4%)
5 - Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.	NO	NO (59.8%)
6 - Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.	YES	NO (69.5%)
7 - Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.	NO	NO (64.9%)
8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.	YES	YES (52%)
9 - Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.	YES	YES (53.2%)
10 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.	NO	NO (59.9%)
11 - Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.	NO	YES (50.5%)
12 - Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.	YES	YES (63.4%)

* Yeah, okay, I know I'd said I would vote against Prop. 4 originally. Here's the story: Monday night I had a discussion with Mrs. Woody specifically regarding this initiative. I was fairly comfortable with my position on all the others, but this one niggled at me. Mrs. Woody and I decided that we would err on the side of caution and vote YES, because we'd rather be notified than not. AFTER we voted, I came across some excellent arguments against Prop. 4 (better than my own, that is), and I realized that I had voted in error and that I should have followed my gut instinct, even if for the wrong reasons. Turns out that Prop 4 would create a legal loophole that would make it possible for abortion providers - who are physicians and therefore court-mandated reporters - to file abuse charges against innocent parents, strictly on the say-so of the child. So I voted wrongly after ignoring my own advice. Let this be a lesson to you Young Conservatives!

Prop 4 aside, I'm not disheartened by these results. I "lost" 5 out of 12 initiatives, although given my Prop 4 story, that should really be 4 out of 12. Of the ones I lost, I'm most bothered by Proposition 2, the humane treatment of animals initiative. I see this as over-regulation and will be a costly one overall. Also, Proposition 11 is still in play. I won't holler too loudly if it passes, but I really don't think it will work as well as its proponents believe it will. I just can't see that we would have 5 Republicans on that commission acting in unison to create fair districts in this state. Too many RINO's to choose from, I'm afraid.

I was pleased to note that both alternative energy initiatives were soundly defeated. Across all counties, too. I guess I wasn't the only one to see the flaws in those initiatives. Speaking of all counties, the only other measure that had all counties voting the same way was Prop 12, granting low-cost loans to veterans. Nicely done.

Mrs. Woody and I of course spent copious amounts of time talking about this election with the Woodyettes. We had to send them to bed before Proposition 8's outcome was fully known, but we were able to send them to bed on a hopeful note. We are, of course, thrilled that Prop 8 appears to have passed. Not only that, but Arizona and Florida also passed similar measures. Traditional families prevail. There is still hope for this nation.

If You Do Nothing Else...

Proposition 8 Intolerance

One of the aspects of the so-called "progressive" movement in this country is its continued desire to define itself as "inclusive" or "tolerant." Yet liberal passion for intolerance is its most outstanding defining characteristic. This has been nowhere more evident to me as an observer than in the Yes on 8 vs. No on 8 sign waving campaigns for the past two weekends.

As I described in my previous post, the differences between the two sides could hardly be more obvious. The Yes people that I have observed at local intersections have been unfailingly polite and pleasant as they smile at passing motorists. They often work in family groups, and even the teenagers smile and wave cheerfully.

Contrast this with the No crowd who, apparently, only have time to be passionate about this cause of theirs on the weekends. There's little doubt of their passion for the cause; certainly they do more to get "in the faces" of cars that pass by. But their collective attitude speaks to their utter lack of tolerance for those who support this proposed constitutional amendment.

The No people tend to jump in front of the Yes folks, trying to obscure their signs as much as possible. They tend to yell at passing cars, or provoke drivers who are stopped at the intersection while waiting for the light to change. This last Saturday found one girl waving a California flag in folks' faces to get their attention. No other indication that she was either for or against the Proposition, but her body language put her squarely in the No camp.

The crowning act, though, for the No forces on Saturday was one incident that I observed while out running errands. One young man for the No side decided to walk part way across the intersection on the green light, tear up a Yes on 8 door-hanger that had been passed out that morning, and toss it in the intersection near to the Yes crowd on the opposite corner. He then jumped up and down as if doing a victory dance, pumping his fists at the drivers who sat - bemused or stunned - while witnessing this foolishness.

This must be what tolerance looks like to the progressive left.

To their credit, the Yes crowd merely ignored the infant and kept smiling and waving. I didn't stick around to see if anyone picked up the mess (this is one of the busiest intersections in this part of Orange County, and one must be EXTREMELY careful about stopping in the middle of the street), but it was gone by the time I'd run my errand and came back through. No sign of that particular youngster, either. Probably knocking back a victory beverage at the Carl's Jr. nearby. The flag-waver was still there, though. She had switched to mis-matched stockings (one red and the other a sort of sickly yellow) to make herself even more noticeable.

Tolerant and fashionable.

Please see the latest video from ProtectMarriage.com. The folks working for the Yes campaign are already heeding this timely advice.

Vote YES for Proposition 8 tomorrow.

Please.

Sign Wars

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, really. I've taken to watching the 11:00 news the last few days, primarily to see what kinds of shenanigans they choose to report. With the rampant stealing of Yes on 8 signs around the area, there has not been one story in the past week about the issue. Instead, they chose to focus on one incident of someone spray-painting the "n" word on an Obama sign, as if this somehow indicated institutional racism among McCain supporters.

What did I expect? Local newsies are just as liberal as the national guys.

Still, the Sign Wars have been fascinating to watch. I've driven by more disappearing signs than I can count now. Despite what I thought was very reasonable counsel from Prop 8 leaders, signs keep appearing on public corners at night. Then, of course, they're gone by morning. But the most fascinating battles have been the sign-wavers that we plant on busy intersections every day.

"Battle" is probably not the correct word, I suppose. These really are "campaigns" designed to flood drivers' minds with Yes on 8 sentiment until the election is over. Our ward has turned out in droves to wave signs on those intersections every afternoon for about the past two weeks now. Our youth in particular are getting into the spirit of this campaign and are just as enthusiastic as their parents as they cheerfully wave their Yes on 8 signs at passing motorists. Bishop mentioned a couple of weeks ago that many people honk and wave, and several even indicate "Number One!" with their middle finger.

Heh.

For all their Hollywood and CTA money, however, the No on 8 forces are nowhere near as organized as the Yes folks. For one thing, when they finally showed up at those same intersections it wasn't until the weekend. They were crowded around the Yes folks trying to out-muscle them with their own homemade signs. My first thought was that they must have had a blog-burst that called them to action. It would fit with their M.O. on other protests. But as I drove by, I couldn't help noticing a few things. Since an observer can't spend copious amounts of time gawping at them without tying up traffic, you only get impressions. But those impressions will stay with me right up to the ballot box next Tuesday.

First of all, the Yes on 8 folks tend to be respectful and polite. They hold their signs up with pleasant looks on their faces, wave them to attract attention, and wave cheerfully back even to the people who communicate with sign language ("Number One!"). They also tend, where possible, to work in family groups. It's quite a sight to see parents and youth working side-by-side on this issue. Younger moms wave their signs while their babies snuggle in their carriers.

The No on 8 folks tended to be college-aged kids. Most of them had multiple piercings and interesting hair. From their hand-painted signs to their grunge/punk clothes, their appearance was closer to that of 60's and 70's era war protestors, except not quite as stoned. Their activities spoke of quite a different attitude than the Yes supporters. They were far more aggressive, tending to shout and cat-call and all but jumping right out in front of motorists in order to attract their attention. The attitude was "in your face" rather than "here's what we believe."

Had I been a painter, I couldn't have come up with a sharper contrast.

As if to underscore the attitude of the No crowd, I happened to stop at a drug store in a shopping center at one of those intersections. As I stood in line to make my purchase, one of the No kids was just finishing his own purchase. Probably needed some caffeine to get him through those exhausting hours. He had the piercings, the hair, the grungy clothes with inappropriate slogans on his shirt. But it was his conversation with the clerk as he was leaving that caught my attention.

"Those Yes on 8 idiots have nothing, man! They wave their little signs and think they're winning, or something, y'know? But they have no idea what they're talking about, dude! They're just a bunch of ignorant losers, man! They're so pathetic!"

Ah, yes. Another informed opinion.

Interestingly, these dedicated opponents of Proposition 8 only showed up over the weekend. By Monday they were nowhere in evidence. No doubt gathering their collective strength for another loosely organized assault this weekend. I'd like to think they're at home, writing term papers on how voting for Sarah Palin will drive a stake through the heart of civilization as we know it, or whatever their liberal Poli-Sci instructors are assigning them these days.

This has been an interesting campaign, indeed.

Redistributing Obama

Those who support Obama are having severe palpitations at the moment with regards to this YouTube video that's been making the rounds on the blogs:

A transcription of the meatier quotes is provided by Stop the ACLU:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

[Emphasis by Stop the ACLU]

I provide the video for one primary reason. It's one thing to read the words, and another altogether to hear them. In the transcript we read statements that could easily be written off as "offhand" remarks or something that was "taken out of context." But listening to the inflections in a speaker's voice can communicate volumes about what that person is saying. Similar to the way body language is vital in communication, vocal inflection indicates the degree to which a person has studied or thought about the topic at hand.

In this audio, which contains far fewer of Obama's omnipresent "ums," we hear a man who has studied, accepted, and now evangelizes the basis for socialist policy in a democratic society. One analysis of this event that I read tried to make the case that Obama actually was channeling more of Martin Luther King's thoughts than anything else, and was in fact supporting the conservative cause rather than the liberal. This is hogwash. "Redistribution of wealth" is one of the basic tenets of socialism, and was defined by Karl Marx himself as one of the steps towards his ultimate "classless society" of communism.

Joe Biden was well and truly embarrassed to find himself facing questions related to Obama's latent Marxism in a recent interview. For all his hemming and hawing, he never adequately answered the question of Obama's statement of "spreading the wealth around." Obama himself has not been able to quell the accusations of socialism that we on the right find his comments to represent. Nuggets like this 2001 interview audio only serve to solidify Obama's credentials as a nearly card-carrying socialist.

(I did read the link from Drudge where Obama was quoted as saying he was "bored" by the suburbs. Big hairy deal. This came on the heels of his selection as President of the Harvard Law Review and only showed his disdain for all things middle-America. Like this is news.)

Still, two key statements from this audio which should give any American pause for thought:

1. The idea that the Constitution is a flawed document. He uses the concept of "negative liberties," meaning that it places limitations on the powers of both the federal government and the states. It doesn't, he says, tell them what they must do (my emphasis) to help those in this country who may have become "dispossessed." Well, Mr. Former President of the Harvard Law Review, you may have missed those classes that discussed the idea that these "negative liberties" were not only deliberate, but necessary. These are part of the checks and balances that continue to give people like Barack Obama a voice in how this country is run. We may frequently disagree with those who hold the power at any given time, but there is no better model for government anywhere on the planet today. As broken as we feel things may be, there's always someplace far worse off than we are. Canada would be Exhibit A.

2. The idea that the Supreme Court (under Warren) did not go far enough in the redistribution of wealth. Hey, if Obama wants to redistribute his own wealth, that's his business. It may surprise Obama to know that many conservatives, myself included, frequently redistribute our wealth in numerous ways. What we don't want, and will not accept, is having the federal government dictate to us just how that wealth is to be redistributed. I already give far more money to the government than they either need or deserve. That they have never figured out how to spend it intelligently is a direct reflection of the greed, prejudices, and woodshed politicking of our Congress and President. (I leave the Supreme Court out of this indictment because, except when they're legislating from the bench, their primary budget outlays deal with keeping a sufficient supply of black robes on hand. Thank goodness they don't use white powdered wigs.)

I have my reasons for voting for John McCain in this election. Many of them are in this post.

The Real Magic of 'Joe the Plumber'

Joe Wurzelbacher kinda wishes the media would go away. Or, at least, those members of the media who keep trying to trip him up as the purported savior of the McCain campaign. When asked on Huckabee's Fox News show about all the attention he's gotten, he said:

"It actually upsets me[...] I am a plumber, and just a plumber, and here Barack Obama or John McCain, I mean these guys are going to deal with some serious issues coming up shortly. The media's worried about whether I paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America. They really don't. I asked a question. When you can't ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me."

There it is, in a nutshell. "Joe the Plumber" becomes an overnight sensation — a man whose name is had for good and evil across the nation — simply because he asked a question.

He has more guts than I've ever had. But then, he was literally in the right place at the right time. I am not a small business owner myself, but I've often thought about becoming one. Every time I do, though, I end up in the same place. The government would likely tax and regulate the heart and soul out of whatever enterprise I'd like to try, so why bother?

Joe, as a plumber, has harbored dreams of starting his own business, having a few guys work for him, and trying to eke a better living for his family. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Has he made a few errors in his life? Certainly. Has a few tax liens to deal with. I've had one or two in my life, too. Wreak havoc with one's credit, they do. But that never meant that I couldn't take care of those liens, keep my nose clean for a few years, and ultimately have good if not admirable credit once again. No reason that I can think of why Joe shouldn't have that same opportunity.

I seriously doubt whether we'd even be having this conversation had he asked this question of McCain rather than Obama. For one thing, McCain's tax proposals would likely be more friendly to Joe's American Dream than would Obama's. Also, McCain would never have responded as Obama did:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Which is precisely why the political left is so hacked off right now. Obama fell into a trap of his own making. He took a question from Mr. Average American, gave his gut-level response to that question, and immediately showed his socialist stripes. That has to be embarrassing to Democrats who wish to paint the party as being only slightly left of center. Spreading the wealth around is about as far left as you can go without actually being branded a communist (small or capital 'C').

Make no mistake: Obama's response, NOT Joe Wurzelbacher's question, was a game-changer. The left can excoriate 'Joe the Plumber' all they want. They can dig as deep as they like and get as nasty as they ever have about Joe's personal life and his alleged "connections" with McCain or his campaign. At the end of the day, however, they still have Obama's stated desire to "spread the wealth around" hanging over The Anointed One's head. It just doesn't sound or look good. And all the nastiness they dish out on Wurzelbacher will only come back to them, returned with interest.

If Obama loses in November, it will not be 'Joe the Plumber' that we hoist onto a pedestal and lavish with praise. It will be Obama's "spread the wealth around" petard that gets that singular honor. If he wins, it will be because Americans were too blind to see that petard for what it was: the acceptance of socialism as an American political standard.

Intolerance Boiling Over

In an incident that won't garner much attention outside a local TV station, a Prop 8 supporter was attacked while passing out lawn signs in front of a church in Modesto. More detail about the attack (alleged or otherwise) is found in a Christian Newswire release picked up by the folks at ProtectMarriage.com.

The assailant grabbed about 75 signs and yelled at [Jose] Nunez accusingly, "What do you have against gays!" Although Nunez replied that he had nothing against gays, he was attacked anyway. The assailant punched Nunez in the left eye and ran off with the signs.

Nunez, his eye dripping with blood, walked into a building on church grounds where a fellow parishioner called 911. Police and paramedics responded to the scene.

The attack is a chilling reminder of the "tolerance" levels of the extreme left on certain issues. Emotions are running high, and along with the severe fire weather out here, it isn't surprising that some people just can't seem to find any better way to express their frustrations.

As if to underscore how widely this issue cuts across social strata in this state:

Ironically, Nunez, a native of Mexico, became an American citizen two months ago and plans to vote for the first time in November. Nunez, who is recovering and in good spirits, said the attack only strengthens his resolve to help ensure that Prop. 8 passes.

"The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can't stop standing up for traditional marriage. I may be bloody and bruised, but I'm not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids," said Nunez, the father of three children, ages 9, 5, and 3. "I don't want my kids taught in public school that same sex-marriage is the same as traditional marriage," Nunez added.

So we have a member of a minority who willfully established himself as a full citizen of this "land of the free" a mere two months ago, already having to fight for his freedoms against a special interest group who clearly has no tolerance for the beliefs of others.

The "No on Prop 8" campaign has rightly condemned any violence and I'm willing to bet that the clown who did this was not serving in any official capacity with the campaign. But it is, I think, a reminder to those of us who may feel complacent that we are up against explosive sentiments on the other side of the argument.

We need to be careful out there.

An Open Letter - UPDATED

Scroll down for updates

Dear Sign-Stealer,

You know who you are. You're against something that numerous other people support. This galls you. I understand that. It's the nature of politics that people will frequently support something with which we disagree, and there is no federal, state, or local statute that demands that we like it. Can't ever legislate how we feel about things, no matter how loudly Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may argue otherwise.

But I gotta tell you, Sign-Stealer: this business of yanking down and removing political signs that bother you is not helping your cause. If I were to catch one of my young daughters doing this with her sister, I would accuse her of throwing a temper tantrum and give her a time-out until she calms down and apologizes. Such things carry consequences, you know, and ought not to be tolerated.

I'm talking specifically about those signs in support of Proposition 8, but that really doesn't matter. You and people like you have done this with numerous other campaigns. You have done everything from spray-painting obscenities on signs or campaign headquarter windows, to keying cars that dare to sport bumper stickers that do not have your explicit approval. Expensive cars, I might add. Cars that will require new paint jobs (or worse, in some cases), and very likely cause the insurance rates of the victims to go up. Not to mention the cost of new tires to replace the ones you slashed.

The issues may be national or local. The candidates may be Democrat or Republican (or worse). It matters not. Dirty tricks like this are inexcusable and unacceptable.

Of course you don't care about such things. It's a "free country," right? You have a perfect right to express your political opinion in any way that gets the job done. Hey, all you did was steal a few signs. They annoyed you and they had to come down. And even if it wasn't you, personally, who did those things, you sure appreciate what they did. I mean, that stuff takes courage, you know?

Unfortunately, for all your careful thought and planning, the message folks are getting probably isn't quite the message you intended. This is what most of us think about what you're doing:

Hi. I'm a sign-stealer. Here's why I took them:

1. I'm right and you're wrong. I don't care how many of you support Prop 8. You're all just a bunch of lemmings following each other off of a cliff. I'm saving you from yourselves.

2. I'm also ignorant. All I know is that Prop 8 is bad, but please don't ask me to tell you why. You wouldn't listen. Anyway, it's too complicated to talk about, so I'll just steal the signs. That will tell you all you need to know.

3. I have no respect for property. Stealing signs isn't my day-job, after all. While I'm flipping burgers at McBurger Jr., I'm probably wolfing down fries without telling anyone. Hey, we give free refills to people who pay, so why shouldn't I have a drink now and then? Doesn't hurt anyone else, right?

4. I have the emotional maturity of a four-year old. A really disturbed four-year old. I'm the kid who always took the ball and bat and went home if I wasn't winning, even if it wasn't exactly my ball and bat.

5. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an anarchist. I have Che posters on my wall in the apartment I rent downtown with 27 other stoners. I see no reason why I should have to work for a living, but The Man wants money if I want a place to live. It bites, though, because I'd rather be out there impressing chicks with my skateboard tricks. Life is so unfair.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I think it captures the essence of how we perceive people like you.

Of course, all this may be a tad harsh of me; I don't really know you, after all. In fact, for all I know you may even be a college student. You may actually believe that this is what counts as "political discourse" in this nation. You may somehow have convinced yourself that by stealing these signs (or defacing property, or showing us your command of sign language by using your middle finger) you will have altered the campaign in your favor.

If so, that makes you a bigger fool than the one I described above.

UPDATE: Mrs. Woody related this story to me this morning. Our Woodyettes take piano lessons from a very sweet young mom in our ward. She has younger kids, and one of them goes to pre-school every day. She generally gets back from dropping this child off just a few moments before Mrs. Woody arrives for the lesson. While chatting with her, she related to Mrs. Woody that she had just had a nasty experience with a lady who stopped to yell at her for putting a Prop 8 sign up on one of those corners that already has approximately 32 signs per square foot. Our piano teacher's habit lately has been to put the Prop 8 signs up early in the morning, then take them down at night, for obvious reasons. Anyway, while stopping to put up the sign this morning some lady pulled over for the express purpose of swearing at her with regards to Prop 8.

Mrs. Woody, who had just come that way, assured her that when she drove by there was no Prop 8 sign in evidence. Obvious (unsubstantiated yet inescapable) conclusion: the yeller had waited until our piano teacher friend had left, then returned and yanked the sign.

The tolerance is mounting.

Proposition 8 - Protection of Marriage - UPDATED

The reactions to Proposition 8 from the opposition are, sadly, predictable. Samples of love and tolerance:
• Sign stealers in Orange County (scroll for updates)
• Attack on a Prop 8 supporter in Modesto

---

These are difficult times for our nation. Those who consider themselves to be minorities have long worked to be granted equal treatment under our laws. Those who don't get their way frequently turn to the courts where they stand an even chance of being heard and redressed. If not, they sometimes turn to violence, reckoning that at least their voices will be heard and the issue may once again be discussed.

It is difficult in today's political climate to voice an opposing opinion. There are so many "hot button" issues in the United States (and, indeed, throughout the world) today. It is nearly impossible to present a point of view — any point of view — and expect it to be heard or read without any negative feedback. Even this insignificant blog of mine is a good case in point. No matter what opinion I voice, there are always those who are eager to thow the arguments back in my face. No matter what the issue, the process is always the same: attack, denigrate, be as sarcastic as possible, but for heaven's sake don't bother to offer thought-provoking discourse because the simpleton that wrote the article obviously is unwilling (or unable) to listen. It probably doesn't help that my own sense of humor frequently provokes such responses.

On occasion, however, an issue becomes so important that being silent is unacceptable. An opinion must be voiced. Efforts must be made to persuade. A majority will speak this November, and the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of any resulting decision.

The issues surrounding Proposition 8 are relatively simple when taken at face value. Those of us who support this proposition do so from the perspective of wishing ardently to protect and preserve the definition of a "traditional marriage" as being between a man and a woman. Those who oppose this amendment to our state constitution see only the idea that marriage is being denied to one class of citizen in this state. It is a battle of wills, enjoined by people who would otherwise get along just fine if left to their own devices.

I do not deny that life is not always easy for homosexual people. There are those who are violently opposed to their lifestyle and will inflict that violence on otherwise innocent victims. There can be no quarter expected or granted to those who willingly hurt or destroy the lives or property of others. Everything else about this issue, then, comes down to how one believes.

It is no secret (except, perhaps, to my detractors) that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is also no secret that the Church has made statements to its membership regarding Proposition 8 and why, precisely, we need to support it. This is not a question of political "neutrality" for the Church. This is a social issue that has wide-reaching ramifications if the current status quo remains unchanged.

Those of us who have been watching such things carefully have noted a disturbing trend. Along with being LDS we are also a homeschooling family. This was a decision that Mrs. Woody and I made many years ago, even before our daughters were born. We knew we wanted to homeschool because it was becoming increasingly clear that public education was forcing (and I do not use the word lightly) an agenda on our children with which we strongly disagree. Much of this agenda has its roots in the word "diversity" and all its connotations, both the good and the not so good.

Across the nation we have read countless stories and news articles relating to this agenda. It consists primarily of something called "inclusion," and demands tolerance of all sorts of social behaviors that stand in stark opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a significant difference between public education and the Church in how the issue of homosexuality is perceived and handled.

The Church understands that same sex attraction is real. However, the gospel makes it clear that the gift of procreation is sacred, and should only be enacted within the confines of a legal marriage between a man and a woman. Together this couple have the power to bring children into the world to be raised and nurtured with love and protection. Indeed, the realization of the fullest blessings of eternity, including life with our loving Heavenly Father, depends on our obedience to this principle of marriage, sealed for eternity by those who hold the proper authority.

Other religions hold similar views and have traditionally discouraged any union other than the one described above. The only difference might be in the method or authority used to create such a union, but the basic principle has remain unchanged for centuries: marriage between man and woman. No other marriage is honored or allowed in the heavens.

Lately some religions have been experiencing tremendous upheaval by entertaining even the idea that changes to this long-standing commandment of the Lord might be somehow acceptable to Him. We have watched with no small concern the turmoil in the Episcopal church in the United States. A sharp division has risen throughout its congregations regarding the practices of same-sex marriage. Congregations are threatening to secede from the body of the church if they insist on formally adopting such practices.

Elsewhere, entire churches have already given themselves over to the inclusion of same-sex practices. Large portions of scripture are re-written (or "translated" to justify the practice) to eliminate the conflict between revealed word and desired results.

Such things are perfectly acceptable in this nation. The guarantees of being allowed to worship as we choose are still one of the keystones of this republic. Those who would create a church that allows same-sex marriage are allowed to do so. We who feel differently certainly do not have to acknowledge their claims to authority or doctrinal correctness. We are not required to attend their services. We are free, in other words, to believe differently from them.

Which is what makes the recent decision of the California Supreme Court so critically dangerous. By using a simple majority of the court to override the language of Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by 61% of California voters, they have changed the rules of engagement. It is now possible for fringe groups to launch legal challenges against those who do not believe as they do. They have already made changes to the state education code that allows such things to be taught to our children in school at very tender ages. That they now feel empowered to legally challenge churches to require that they allow same-sex marriages will set up a colossal struggle between church and state.

The tone of this challenge has already been established by San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom. Gay marriage is coming, he says, "whether you like it or not." Yes, a distinct challenge. And we must be equal to it.

The only way to deal with this challenge is to find the one way that the California Supreme Court cannot overturn it; by making it an amendment to the California state constitution. Proposition 8 takes the same language that was approved eight years ago in Proposition 22, and makes it an amendment. That will make it "constitutional" and will eliminate the court's ability to override it on those grounds.

It is important to understand that, whatever you may feel or believe about this issue, many of us who support Proposition 8 are not doing so to discriminate against homosexuals. We are not supporting it to violate anyone's civil rights. We are not trying to deny same-sex couples the same rights and privileges afforded to married couples. We are, instead, fighting to protect our own civil rights; the ability to continue to believe and worship as we have been instructed. It is important enough to us that we will continue this fight, if needed, even if Proposition 8 is somehow defeated.

We can only pray that it will pass this November.

UPDATE: Connecticut's Supreme Court has now overturned their state's ban on gay marriage. The challenges will continue to mount. This fight is far from over.

Interestingly, the article implies that California's ballot initiative is the "first time" this issue has come before voters. Breitbart is incorrect: Proposition 22 in 2000 placed that language in our state code, which is what the Supreme Court cancelled with their decision.

Smear, Schmear

It's not a smear if it's true.

This is where politicians' pasts catch up with them and make life hot and sweaty for the remainder of the campaign. Folks are bored, apparently, with "issues" already and so we move into the character assassination phase of the election cycle. McCain will be taking hits both for his involvement with the "Keating Five," as well as his relatively advanced age. Obama, for his part, will more or less deflect direct shots on his involvement with some still-toxic radicals throughout his adult life.

I say "deflect" because even Tom Brokaw is carrying water for the Golden Boy. He has downgraded Bill Ayers from full-fledged radical terrrorist to a mere "school reformer."

Hey, it's not like Ayers has gone out of his way to disabuse us of the notion that he hates the United States of America. Except, you know, for those who tend to accept his radical "communism with a small 'c'" brand of "community organization." This man is repentant in the same way Hussein was repentant when he was led to the gallows.

Obama, of course, claims that the "smears" are McCain's attempt to deflect attention away from the economy, which is admittedly not his strong suit. Doug Ross (via American Digest) points out that McCain, at least, has a ready-made solution to his economic shortcomings: simply announce his intention to name Mitt Romney as Secretary of the Treasury. This would tend to take most of the teeth out of Obama's argument that McCain doesn't have the economic savvy to run the country. So long as he was willing to listen to Romney's advice on the most critical matters we face, such a selection would go a long way toward pacifying those of us on the right who believe McCain is currently taking the coward's way out of the immediate crisis.

I also find charges that McCain has an "erratic" nature, largely due to his advanced age, as being somewhat trite. The man is 72. My Dad was 72 when he passed away, and he was a much bigger curmudgeon than McCain can ever lay claim to being. Old guys tend to think of crotchetiness as something of a badge of honor. The man still has young adults at home. He's gonna be crotchety on occasion.

As I've said before, this is all pretty much business as usual in every election to which I've paid attention. Candidates don't like each other. They also have to persuade large sectors of population that the other guy is completely untrustworthy, and they will look for any charge, no matter how flimsy, to sell it. I only expect to see more of this over the next four weeks.

Boy, will it be a relief to get this over with.

Not Good

It passed.

The cowards in Congress, rather than punishing banks for predatory lending practices, and rather than encouraging Americans to take personal responsibility for irresponsible borrowing, have instead indicated that personal and corporate responsibility are no longer morally required in the United States of America.

Entitlement apologists are, I am certain, rejoicing with the passage of this damaging bailout. CEO's of irresponsible lenders around the nation are breathing easier tonight thanks to loopholes large enough to drive freight trains through.

Led by psychopathic Representatives Pelosi and Maxine Waters, the Congress crows about a bipartisan "solution" which amounts to nothing more than a toxic barrel of earmarks and free money that will be forceably removed from honest taxpayers' wallets.

Barack Obama no longer has to wait to take office to see socialism triumph in America. This bill just assured it.

When Veeps Debate

Just hopping around different blogs and news orgs to see initial responses to tonight's debate. I think my own perceptions are confirmed: Palin delivered.

To his credit, Biden made no major gaffes tonight. Did he misstate facts? He did. But at least he didn't resort to any of his "Hillary would have been a better choice" thrillers. Big relief for Obama, I'm thinking. I sometimes wonder if Obama doesn't have those moments like Dan Akroyd in "My Fellow Americans." Oh, Lord. Please don't let him start quoting lyrics.

But where Biden has had a couple of months now to campaign for his new boss (and, subsequently, spend time backtracking on all the nasty things he'd said about Obama during the primaries), Palin has only had a bit more than a month to prepare for this one opportunity to meet her opponent in open combat.

Palin's preparations have included two of the biggest travesties ever called "interviews" with major networks. What Palin said was fine. The way the networks framed the questions, then edited her responses was criminal. That neither interview succeeded in tanking McCain's standing in the polls is remarkable, and says perhaps more about Palin's value to this campaign than any of her stump speeches.

Palin's strengths are two-fold: she has a command of the facts that support her positions (and, by extension, her boss's), and she has an engaging personality that probably makes many liberal alarmists want to hurl. Irrespective of debate rules, Palin disarmed Biden before the debate even started with her "may I call you Joe?" greeting. However much a man of the people Biden may try to portray, Palin could have just come straight out of a Connecticut kitchen; in command and ready to roll up her sleeves and work.

I don't think Biden quite knew how to parse all of that. And Ifill hadn't even asked her first question yet.

Were there cringe moments for me? Absolutely. I remain unconvinced about the bailout bill, and hope it fails to scrape enough votes tomorrow. I agree that certain restrictions are required in the mortgage industry, and all predatory practices need to be outlawed. Ditto holding CEO's accountable for their intentional stupidity. What worries me is the "oversight" built into the bill. Government interference ALWAYS equals higher costs passed on to the taxpayers, and this will be no different. Palin is a little too eager to support this deadly "rescue plan."

[Quick sidebar: Did anyone else choke when Alan Mulally of Ford characterized the auto industry's $85 billion bailout as "just a loan?" No? Just me, then.]

There were also the obvious efforts of Gwen Ifill to bail Biden out of uncomfortable exchanges. She threw him quite a few more life preservers than she did for Palin. To Palin's credit, however, she needed far fewer of them. The only frustrating part was that she thus missed a few opportunities to really put Biden in his place. She was gracious about it all, though, which wins her points on style.

Taken altogether, a very good performance by Palin tonight. I would hope that it helps give McCain a bit of a bounce in the polls, but I'll settle for him keeping the spread to single digits at this point. He still has two more debates of his own to handle, and we're not out of the woods yet.

Trick Question

When is an issue not really an issue?

Folks over at Michelle Malkin's blog are up in arms over the appearance on DishNetwork of the "Obama" channel. It resides on channel 73, and apparently it shows up on everyone's service no matter where they reside or which package they have.

"Where's the McCain Channel?" they ask. Well, probably McCain didn't deign to waste his campaign funds in this manner would be my guess.

This is the proverbial "paid programming" that folks can buy. This the kind of programming that will make you richer than Midas if you'll send the suit in the video $299.99 (or three easy installments of only $150.00 per month) so you can have all his secrets.

Of course, this is Obama we're talking about. According to Ben Smith of Politico, the only thing showing so far is a two minute video outlining his economic plan on a continuous loop.

Well, Mrs. Woody and I subscribe to the smallest allowable package that Dish offers (we get it primarily to receive BYU-TV), and we have created a favorites list of the channels we watch the most. Channel 73 is NOT on our favorites list, and I would never have known the Obama Channel even existed if not for the rash of hives over at Malkin.com.

Of course, now that I know about it, I may actually wind up watching some of it. If this is the collected wit and wisdom of Barack Obama, I can spare two minutes of my time.

I suspect Obama will just record X number of messages and have them played on that loop. So along with the usual "it's all Bush's fault" rhetoric, you also get some insight into what Obama expects us to swallow in order to vote for him. It would be a good research project for some hot young new-media type to get the gist of the Obama Channel messages, then track Obama's team to see whether they stay on message between now and November 4.

For really riveting TV, though, you still can't beat the Food Network. I don't see how Obama can possibly compete with "Throwdown," or "Good Eats." Also, anyone silly enough to gaze at O-TV all day long really deserves whomever they vote for.

The Obama Channel. Honestly.

CORRECTION: When I wrote this at 0-Dark Hundred this morning, I had tuned briefly to the channel to witness the end of his economic speech and the beginning of what I assumed to be a new one. Apparently I should have stuck it out to be certain. However, I can't imagine throwing all that money into creating this 24x7 loop without planning more content for it. Not even Obama is that financially retarded.

Right?