Finally! A Poll I Can Dispute!

Reuters reports on a New York Times/CBS News poll released today showing that Americans are "sharply divided by race." The numbers:

In the survey, 83 percent of blacks had a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 31 percent of white voters.

Which of course means that we in the other 69 percent of the white populace must be bigots. It's apparently the only explanation.

According to NYT/CBS, anyway.

Taken at face value, those numbers certainly seem to be polarizing. Gee, 83 percent of blacks like Obama. Only 31 percent of whites. But let's see why, exactly, the other 69 percent aren't falling all over themselves to paint Obama in glowing terms.

Let's start with his stance on the war in Iraq. The man wants to end it. Fine, I have no problem with that. I'd like it to end as well. Where we differ is in his projecting to the entire world that he will begin troop withdrawals "immediately" ("within days of taking office" I believe he said) and has committed to an actual timetable. While that looks like great news on the Ending Violence front, it's actually just a neat little statement that if Al Qaeda digs a deep enough hole to hide in for the next 24 months or so, they can emerge triumphantly and pick right up where they left off. I find this kind of broadcasting to be incredibly irresponsible and that, by itself, is reason enough for me to have an "unfavorable" opinion of Mr. Obama. Trying to make his anti-surge sentiments suddenly disappear from his web site does not, by the way, help.

I've mentioned his lack of experience. Several years of local state politics and three as a junior senator do NOT automatically qualify a man to serve as President of the United States. His insistence on relying upon extreme leftist policies (not to mention the extremists that helped shape his political philosophies over the decades) means that he won't even try to find a centrist position on any of the domestic issues that are important to me. The man does not have my back, and I expect he never will based on his many teleprompted speeches and rallies. One more notch in the "unfavorable" column, I'm afraid.

Although he has spoken recently about extending the stimulus package (Bush prefers a "wait and see" approach), he hasn't really shown any interest in pursuing policies that would truly stimulate the economy and allow us to wean ourselves off of foreign oil in a controlled manner. Instead we can look forward to either continuing high prices in energy costs, or efforts to nationalize our oil companies under an Obama administration. Big mistake. Still "unfavorable."

There are other issues of course. His likelihood of choosing liberal members of the Supreme Court is a serious concern. We need justices who will stick to constitutional limits rather than bench legislation. Just look at the train wreck that is the California Supreme Court. We just don't need that at a federal level.

Somewhere at the bottom of this list is the word "race." It is undeniable that the man is black (even if only partly so). But the color of his skin is not troublesome. It is instead his allegiance to the same party that brings us the biggest race-baiting demagogues this country has ever seen: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Two of the most cynical, dangerous men we will ever know. Even then, the color of their skin is not truly the issue. Any fool can foam at the mouth over racial issues as we've seen in an Obama colleague-cum-political-roadkill by the name of Michael Pfleger. So is it Obama's color that I find reprehensible? No. Just his philosophies and his denial of the culture of victimhood that has intensified since the days of Martin Luther King, Jr.

So there in a nutshell is why I am not included in those 31 percent who have a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama.

I can't speak for everyone else. But, really, do I have to?

Tasteless AND Offensive

I've been looking at this cover of "The New Yorker" all flamin' day. It's typical political porn: this is the kind of stuff that campaigns dream will come their way so they have someone to demonize and take the heat off whatever legitimate criticisms may be coming their way. While McCain tries to point out Obama's obvious lack of terrorism smarts (huge) and distance himself from Obama's position on immigration reform (not do-able, I'm afraid), this kind of pointed political satire just feeds an already frenzied bottom-dwelling class of voter. Reaction from the left, particularly Obama's campaign, is swift:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," he said in a statement.

Well, yes and no. Do I find it "tasteless and offensive?" Sure. It's an obvious hit piece; designed to evoke an emotional response from both sides of the political spectrum. Do I think it reflects badly on Obama?

Nope. Not even close.

Look, if tasteless and offensive were ever considered true political barometers, Clinton the First would never have made it to the Oval Office in the first place. We knew he was a womanizing shark before he ever took office. Tasteless and offensive in a single package. What a deal!

Also, if tasteless and offensive were truly worthy of contempt, then people like Ted Rall would have been arrested and waterboarded years ago.

It doesn't really help that McCain's campaign jumped on the bandwagon, either:

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it is tasteless and offensive," spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Is that as original as the campaign machine gets? If this is really that important, let's go after "The New Yorker" and take them down. (Rhetorically, of course. The press, for reasons that are still unclear, appear to be even more sacred than a black politician trying to reach the highest political office in the nation.)

But of course they won't. Enough, I guess, to state that it was "tasteless and offensive" and then hope to heaven the furor dies down before the MSM hits their stride.

As a conservative — no, scratch that... — as a right-wing conservative, what I find truly offensive about the artwork is that it's supposed to be an over-the-top representation of how we right-wingers truly feel about Obama and his missus.

Hogwash.

Yes, of course there are those pond-scum in the Republican camp who froth at the mouth over Obama's alleged Muslim allegiances (unproven), his America-hating wife (slight overreaction), and his political naivete (dead on).

So if this cover is meant to portray them, fine. I'm on board with that. But to project this attitude on the rest of us who try to take a far more reasonable assessment of this upstart is truly insulting.

I will state here that there are remarkable aspects of Obama's campaign from a historical perspective. He is black, and is considered the first such candidate to have more than a decent chance of winning the election in November. Historically this is proof that we as a nation have risen above our blood-soaked past and catapulted a man who would have been a slave 160 years ago into the national spotlight. It might be said that this is a true vindication of Lincoln's proclamation.

He is also evidence of the American dream. His story is one of success from many different angles, even if one doesn't completely agree with what constitutes "success."

But there my admiration for the man ends. Politically he still represents positions that I find completely untenable as a would-be President of the United States. His desire to broadcast to our enemies that if they hunker down for just a few more months they will be left to their own devices is truly alarming. His naivete with respect to international politics is also a hugely negative point to consider. And, just because he's a dyed-in-the-wool (LATE NIGHT POSTING ALERT: "dyed" in the wool, NOT "died" in the wool. I'm not trying to send any subliminal messages here!) liberal, his positions on such things as same-sex marriage and the judicial are anaethma. (I can't really complain as much about his immigration policies simply because McCain isn't all that different. I sigh a lot when I think about this one.)

Thus I find it to be a slap in my face that this "New Yorker" cover is meant to represent me. I don't accept that perception. As a satirical piece I think it bombed completely. No one (except, perhaps, the Kos sycophants) seems to be laughing, if indeed they were really meant to.

Speaking of laughing, Drudge also points to this piece which wonders why no one is allowed to laugh at Obama. Because this is such a "historical" candidacy, I suppose, folks are handling Obama with the proverbial kid gloves:

When [Jon] Stewart on "The Daily Show" recently tried to joke about Obama changing his position on campaign financing, for instance, he met with such obvious resistance from the audience, he said, "You know, you're allowed to laugh at him." Stewart said in a telephone interview on Monday, "People have a tendency to react as far as their ideology allows them."

The man is black, which means, apparently, hands off. I'm guessing this is the bottom line, even though the article doesn't come right out and say that. So we have to check our senses of humor at the door whenever Obama enters the room. McCain, being white and old, is fair game.

Well, I, too, am white and (getting) old. So come and get me, "New Yorker." I'll have my lawyer look into age discrimination as hate speech. Why not try a cover about that?

Parental Rights Amendment

Mrs. Woody sent me an item that's making the email rounds. It's a proposed constitutional amendment "relating to parental rights." It was introduced into the House on June 26, and contains the following intriguing language:

`Article --

`Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

`Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

`Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.'.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan introduced it, and Section 1 is spot-on. You'll not get any disagreement from any homeschooling parent that this has always been one of our most fundamental rights. Truth is, the very fact that we need to make this a constitutional amendment at all is a very telling indictment of just how ludicrous our interfering governments — federal and local — have become.

Section 2, however, bothers me. Rather than leave it where it was in Section 1, the lawyers just couldn't resist keeping that little loophole in there. So long as the feds or the states fail to demonstrate that their interests are of the "highest order," then no problem. But how on earth do they define "highest order?" I know how I define it, and I hardly think I'm on the same wavelength as a bunch of legal parasites in expensive clothing.

I can pretty much guarantee that, were this amendment to actually be ratified (and it has a loooooooong way to go before that happens) the Democrats of California would expend every effort to demonstrate exactly how the "problem" of homeschooling is an issue of the "highest order." You could probably measure how long it would take them to file the first court challenges with a stop-watch. I would prefer (silly me) to have that section redacted completely. Or, failing that, some language that speaks to only allowing the government to intervene where clear and demonstrable danger to the children exists. Even this language would be frought with potential misinterpretation, so a much smarter person than I am would have to craft that section.

It really is a nice gesture, but I won't be holding my breath. It's only just been introduced. It has to fight its way through both a Pelosi House and a Reid Senate before it can even be sent to the various states for consideration. If history is any teacher, this thing will die in committee long before it makes it to our state legislatures.

John McCain and Alien-nation

(Warning: Way Too Late at Night Hyperbole Alert)

There are things about this election that really irk me, and primary among them is that we Republicans have been saddled with a candidate who has gone out of his way to alienate Republican voters.

Mrs. Woody has already deflected a couple of phone calls from Republican money grubbers in the past few weeks. I think she knows that there are few things that raise my blood pressure faster than people asking for money who clearly have not earned that right. If Mr. McCain really, truly "needs" my money as badly as he says he does (or his sycophantic telemarketers say they do, at any rate), then he needs to quit torquing us off.

Any Republican telemarketer that happens to have the bad fortune to get me on the phone had better hope the campaign will cover the costs of a good ear doctor. He's gonna get an earfull.

"You want my money, eh?"

"Yes, Mr. Woody, we need to be able to outspend Obama so that we can..."

"Hold it right there, Junior. Is your candidate still chummy with the Open Borders special interests?"

"Well, sir, I wouldn't really classify it that way..."

"No, I'm sure you wouldn't. Does he still believe that 'Global Warming' is our fault and therefore we should front the costs of 'fixing it?'"

"Sir, you can't deny that Global Warming is a problem..."

"I would never do that, but I have yet to see incontrovertible proof that it's my fault. Does McCain still claim to be a conservative even though he clearly has no patience with conservative voters?"

"John McCain is proud of his conservative recor..."

"Yes, I know. Good luck with your fundraising. You're gonna need it."

See, unlike John McCain, I still see open borders as a problem. In fact, were I a senior Republican senator from Arizona, and I knew that Mexican nationals had crossed the border into my home state to perform home invasion robberies and commit murder in the process, I think I'd be a bit more concerned with building the dam'd fence.

I also think that with our economy in the toilet (if not the actual U-bend), I might be more helpful in opening up the prospects of drilling for something that we badly need while we wait interminably for the infrastructure to support greener alternatives. Seems McCain wasn't even interested enough to attend the vote on that one.

Thanks, John, for alienating conservative voters and simultaneously creating an alien nation. I'm sure glad you, at least, can sleep soundly at night. Me... I might just have to thank the Supreme Court and go buy me a gun. Maybe then I'll sleep a bit better.

Okay, So Race is Off the Table

Fair is fair, Mr. Obama. You fear that Republicans will use race to attack you during the campaign. I can certainly understand where race would be a hugely distracting issue among such things as border security, global terrorism, global warming, and other such trivia. So let me set your mind at ease, sir:

I am perfectly happy with avoiding any and all reference to your ancestry.

However, since you seem to assume that I, as a Republican, would stoop to such tactics merely because my tan isn't anywhere near as great as yours, this smacks of being some sort of negotiation. And, of course, in any good negotiation there has to be some sort of consideration on both sides.

So here's the deal. I won't mention your race in this blog. However, I presume this to mean that all other aspects of your campaign are on the table. This includes your record, your inexperience, your previous statements on hot-key issues, your current statements on those same issues, your wife's statements that she makes on your behalf and which are truly part of the national debate whether you and she like it or not, and your continual efforts to smear all Republicans with one broad brush. This will include your statements on why you didn't feel that rule of law was sufficient qualification for a Supreme Court Justice, along with your previously stated intent to rely on public funding for your campaign which seems now to have become rather an inconvenient position for you. We also get to adjudicate your worthiness to hold office by studying the characters who make up a large part of your life experience; you know, pastors, advisors and such.

If you agree to these terms, Mr. Obama, then I welcome your desire to keep race out of this campaign. Good luck with that.

The Spirit is Willing, but the Budget is Weak

Much ado now over rapidly rising oil prices and, by extension, gas prices. A brief rundown of Drudge headlines yesterday and today focuses on oil having reached a record $139 on Friday, with $150 per barrel not far off (July 4??). Ford is already in reaction mode and and will lower production on trucks and SUVs while focusing on models with higher fuel economies. GMC has come up with what it terms a "hybrid" version of its humongous Yukon. That takes it up to a whopping 20-22 estimated MPG (from, probably, 6 or 7?). Well, I have news for GMC: our wonderful minivan that we purchased last year specifically so we could accommodate our family vacations in style gets 20-22 MPG on the open highway, and it still cost me nearly $70 to fill the tank on the return trip. That was two weekends ago when I was scandalized to find prices of $4.39 per gallon on the I-5 corridor at Lebec. Already that seems like the good ol' days compared to what my local Shell is going for as of today: $4.49 for the cheap stuff.

All this by way of saying that I need to have some serious discussions with my bosses about making the telecommute option more the norm than the exception.

In that respect, I've been "going green" for several months now. It started with Mrs. Woody's illness last summer and has more or less continued into this year. I've been rationalizing staying home due to hideous project deadlines that suffer whenever I take 45 minutes out of my morning to drive the 22 miles into the office. So, that, coupled with early morning meetings every few days means that I prefer to work from my couch.

It comes to this: with gas prices where they stand and are projected to go in the immediate future, I need to be seriously considering alternative forms of transportation.

I jokingly informed Mrs. Woody one day that I would consider getting a Vespa like my father before me. A noble experiment, that. He got the thing while I was in Guatemala and Mom sent me pictures of the results of that experiment. Dad was already recovering from gall bladder surgery that summer (back before they started doing those arthroscopically) and had about six inches of incision that simply refused to heal over. Add to that a spill that Dad had taken on the Vespa with the resulting abrasions, and Dad suddenly looked like the poster boy for a hospital cadaver study program. Mrs. Woody knows this story well, and has seen the photos. She unjokingly nixed the idea. I really don't blame her. I'm no more likely to be riding a Vespa any time soon than I am to be visiting the Space Station.

The heck of it is, there's hope on the distant horizon. Many folks are going in for the hybrids. My boss is among them. He had ordered his back several months ago and has been driving it for a few months now. He told us last week that with gas prices where they were a week ago (the good ol' days!) he is now paying about as much per week for gas as he had been last year (during the Revolution!) when driving his pickup to work every day. At some point he's bound to be in a loss position even with the hybrid now that gas prices are flirting with the $5.00 level. In the meantime, my own gas "champ" (our ageing Saturn) is driveway-bound because I haven't had time to take it in for servicing.

Besides the hybrids, Honda has announced its hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Should start leasing here in Southern Cal this summer. The trick there is fuel availability. We'd have to live in Irvine to even qualify for this initial release. I'm also unsure what the fuel pricing/economy is at this point, not to mention overall availability of fueling stations. RINO-in-Chief Schwarzenegger is nowhere near to delivering on his "hydrogen corridor" and seems unlikely to arrive there before he leaves the Governor's mansion in 2010. We have a few stations dotting the landscape here and there, but the nearest one to me is not in a terribly convenient place. Economy, economy, economy. (Same as "location, location, location" in real estate terms.)

For my invisible money, the vehicles to watch are the electrics. Battery technology has improved now to the point that one company (which I found via Dave Barry, of all people) boasts of a vehicle design that would drive 2,500 miles using what they call "hot-swap" technology. It's patented! (It would have to be.) This model, which is inflatable, won't be in production until 2010 at the earliest. (Could it be that they're waiting for Schwarzenegger to leave office, too?)

One that I've been watching for a few years now is the Tango. Developed by Commuter Cars Corp., this is a car that has been well thought out and executed. The problem, again, is production. In their case they make no bones about the fact that it essentially boils down to investment money. It's a classic Catch-22; investors don't want to put out the money required for production (the company claims it needs tens of millions for start-up) unless they see some market interest. The market won't rise to the bait unless they know they can get one for production prices. Leaving deposits with a company that may go out business while holding your cash (even in a trust, which is CCC's solution) doesn't sit well with too many people, especially in today's economy. This is a car I would buy in a heart-beat if it ever came to within spitting distance of my personal budget. It's that good.

Europe, meanwhile, is making it's Smart Car available stateside finally. Apparently they're not so upset with our capitalistic vices that they mind taking our capitalistic money. All to the good, I guess, except that the darn things still run on petrol and petrol is becoming increasingly expensive. The downside here is driving around in a car that got pretty thoroughly roughed up in a Tom Hanks movie. Also, 2008 EPA ratings of 34-41 MPG are on par with most hybrids that look more like normal cars today.

I really want to get an electric for my commuting, but I fear that production models are far enough away that it may not happen before I retire. This is a pity, because this is definitely one commuter who wouldn't mind going green.

When I absolutely have to commute, that is.

In Parody One Finds Great Truth

This needs to be required reading for all GOP Congresscritters. It was so funny that I got thoroughly depressed. Can you guess why?

The blasted GOP is calling and begging for money again.

- sigh -

When you've earned it, boys... when you've earned it.

Another Day, Another Primary

Although well documented over at the OC Flash Report (Fleischman may look smarmy, but he's undeniably bright), I need to outline my own reasons why this primary was a farce from the beginning.

It was a crap shoot over a year ago when Schwarzenegger signed the legislation that moved California's presidential primary up to February 5th. While the headlines were breathless ("With Earlier Primary, Calif. Reshapes Race"), the analysis underneath spoke of a potential result that had all the glamour and excitement of a mine field. Indeed, rather than "reshaping" the race this year, all California did in the long run was exhaust its voters.

That's not how you want to run your politics.

Thus we arrive at the normal June primary election in this state with a hugely underwhelming voter turnout after having acheived record-breaking numbers in February. Even for me, and in spite of having written an admittedly lackluster "Curmudgeon's Guide" once again, this election caught me pretty much by complete surprise. Or perhaps I was just so politically spent that I didn't really register the numerous campaign placards posted on all street corners this year. I certainly saw them when I was driving home from the polling place earlier this afternoon. Oh, well. C'est le guerre.

The polling place should have tipped me off. When I arrived at about 2:30(ish), the place was deserted. I literally had the run of the booths. The polling workers were so happy to see me that I could have sworn that they were kind of deliberately dragging out the process of getting me signed in, just so they could say they were occasionally busy today. On later reflection, although incredibly convenient for me, it was pathetic in the extreme.

Truthfully, though, I can't lay all of the blame at Schwarzenegger's feet, much as I may want to. There are other elements at play, and they have to do with the "larger picture," the one whose results we're most interested in this November.

For months now, we've been subjected to one of the most rancorous races just to capture the nomination that the Democrats have ever run. I may only vaguely remember the Sixties, but once Johnson dropped out in '68 I still don't remember a race that was anywhere near as contentious as the one between Clinton II and the Religion of Obama (whatever that may be). Citizens, fueled partly by an enabling internet, along with their own absolute "moral authority" as whatever victims they choose to portray, have yelled themselves hoarse (virtually) in proclaiming the merits of their candidates of choice.

Meanwhile, those of us at the other end of the political spectrum are left to contemplate whether we live with what we've been given, or whether we dare try to write in our own candidate this November purely out of principle.

I'd do it, but the only thing stopping me (and I do mean the ONLY thing) is the dread of having Obama in the driver's seat and dictating our foreign policy, especially in the Fertile Crescent. At a point in time where the surge is producing demonstrable benefits in that region, an Obama win in November will nearly instantly erase whatever gains we've made and thoroughly negate the sacrifices made by numerous U. S. heroes throughout this conflict. No matter what the argument, I just can't justify in my own mind and heart allowing that to happen.

(Please understand: this same dread extended to Hillary as well. We've just finally reached the point where Obama seems to be the Anointed One of the Party, so we may as well accept that and move on. So to speak.)

So now I face the unenviable task of choking down my distaste of John McCain and voting for him this November. I am absolutely certain that I will regret this decision on several fronts. I have no delusions that he will not buy into the Global Warming hysteria. He already has. I do not look to this man to stand up to (rather than with) the Open Borders special interests. I have known many conservatives, and this man is no conservative. He's far too chummy with the far-left side of the aisle. But he's all we've got.

If I look listless this November, just push me into the booth and remind me what my duties are. That should rouse me long enough to push the buttons, then fall back into my politically-induced stupor once again.

It's June 3 - Do You Know Where Your Vote Is?

Uncle Woody just wants to take this opportunity to remind you young voters to get out there and vote today. Of course, Uncle Woody is more interested in you Republican voters, as we seem to have a bad habit of avoiding elections where nothing is really in danger of changing. I mean, we didn't do too badly in February when we really, really wanted Romney to kick McCain's borders, but in this primary we have no incumbents here in Orange County, for example, who seem to be in imminent danger of defeat. That's when we Republicans get lazy. So go vote today.

You Democrats can vote, too, for all the good it'll do you. You still have "Peyton Place Meets Falcon Crest" to deal with. Good luck with that.

What Hath the Rules Wrought?

Most of the buzz now regarding the Democratic race concerns the seating (or not) of the delegates from Florida and Michigan at the convention. There is much following of the fallout now over at blogs like WaPo's "The Fix" where they are watching developments closely. Likewise the Republicans are keeping a sharp eye on what's going on, as are the conservative banner-wavers at Townhall.com such as Hugh Hewitt. Not surprisingly, there is fallout from a source that DNC officials seem willing to ignore for the time being: the voters themselves.

One such voter (presumably, anyway) by the name of Robert Tell writes to the Detroit Free Press:

This is not a partisan issue of support for either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton. It is an outrage that the silly rules artificially imposed by the Democratic National Committee should trump the honest attempt of millions of voters to express their political choice.

This of course doesn't help Howard Dean who must now navigate through this very thorny issue without completely invalidating the entire primary process. Good luck with that.

In the meantime, there is the very real prospect of voter revolt which could still affect the general election in November. Push your voters hard enough and they'll begin to push back.

Assuming Obama gets the party's nod at the convention, it would be a shame (really, I'm saying all of this with a very straight face) to invalidate the will of two complete states just because their state leadership wanted to have their say earlier than party rules allowed. As Mr. Tell said, the "artificially imposed" rules of the DNC have in essence wiped out two state primaries. Way to go.

I'm pretty sure the DNC had no idea that this race would become so pivotal, nor that the votes of two large-ish states would be become so contentious a topic. However, when you make rules that even potentially invalidate the voices of people you may need desperately in the general election, you essentially reap what you sow.

I suppose one could lay blame for this fiasco squarely at the feet of the respective state leaders in Michigan and Florida who insisted on holding their primary elections earlier than party rules allowed and created this political stalemate. However, their own decisions have been influenced by the larger "need" (a perception I still don't agree with) to have states be more "influential" by having their primaries earlier. California was just as guilty of this hysteria and created a situation where we now need three elections to handle the work previously accommodated by two. What a waste of money, among other things. There's also the accelerated pace of the campaign itself. We were inundated with so much information in such a compressed space of time that we weren't allowed to properly formulate our impressions of any given candidate. I believe Romney would have been in a better position to capture more votes were he still looking forward to a June California primary, rather than trying to criss-cross the nation as he was forced to do back in February on "Super Tuesday."

Thus it is that in this election, Republicans are pretty much left with a candidate who has not captured the hearts of the conservative base, while Democrats must sit through several weeks more of a true carnival sideshow. If this is what the general election may look like this November, both parties may need to run their state and national leadership out of town on one very large rail. We need a much cleaner, slower campaign in 2012.

National No Effect Whatsoever Registry

So we registered our phone number with the so-called National Do Not Call Registry. I, like many Americans, feel that telemarketers are one of those substrates of humanity that are probably most directly responsible for gangs, drugs, oppressive tax codes, global warming, and Michael Moore. Hence they serve absolutely no productive purpose whatsoever, and I have banished them from my phone.

Except...

Turns out that there are a couple of loopholes, and certain callers have taken full advantage of them.

Since signing the Registry late last year, Mrs. Woody and I have been perplexed by continuing annoyances in the form of "credit protection." If you have a credit card, you've gotten these calls. It's always a recording.

Hello, we're calling you about your credit accounts. There's no problems...

They always say that. "There's no problems." Which leaves us with the Big But.

We always end the call immediately after that phrase so that the entire conversation goes like this:

Me: Hello?

Unknown Number: "Hello, we're calling you about your credit accounts. There's no problems..."

Me: [CLICK]

That's because we've gotten enough of these calls to know that the next paragraph in their script will offer us "credit protection" in the event one or both of us loses our life and the credit company finds itself in very real danger of not receiving any more money from us. Oh, and maybe they can help our survivors while they're at it. How helpful.

Anyway, we'd just about gotten trained to know that whenever our Caller ID flashes "UNKNOWN," we're probably going to get one of those calls. Mrs. Woody had just gotten to the point where the [CLICK] came even sooner than what I depicted above. Then they changed tactics.

This morning we got a call from a "DAVID SMITH" calling from the 904 area code. I always do a quick brain scan to see if an area code resonates. I work for an international corporation, and I get calls from all over the country (although not generally on my home phone) which means that I can identify a fairly hefty number of codes. Ah, 435. Overlay for Utah. Whoops, 314. St. Louis. 410, that's my daughter. And so forth. 904 didn't register. (Florida, it turns out.) Neither did "DAVID SMITH." Nor, I must say, did the caller sound anything like "DAVID SMITH," unless "DAVID SMITH" has been taking copious amounts of "FEMALE HORMONES."

Hello, we're calling about your...

You know the rest.

So it disturbs me that the credit protection racketeers have taken this battle up a notch. Now they're taking individual business numbers and assigning them names in order to defeat our Caller ID defense. I suspect "DAVID SMITH" is a concocted name. It's too generic. I might know a David Smith, after all. Sounds familiar. Maybe he was that gent in Irvine (now what was Irvine's area code again...? Can't remember!) that owed me some information for Church. No, that can't be it... I know that name from somewhere. Better answer it.

GOTCHA.

So, thanks for next-to-nuthin', FTC. The Mongols have breached the Great Wall and are bearing down on us once again.

Read 'Em and Weep

[WARNING: Long-winded diatribe follows. Proceed at your own risk.]

If you're a registered Republican right now, you're probably wondering whether your party leaders have merely taken momentary leave of their collective senses, or have gone whole-hog certifiable.

I'm afraid it's worse than that.

Behold, the "American Families Agenda."

On its surface — which is, I'm certain, all the deeper the GOP wants us to dig — it sounds wonderful. The Republican party has always been about the family; protecting its "values," defending it from all intruders, keeping it safe from enemies both foreign and domestic. Hurrah for the American family, without whom we wouldn't have anyone left to deceive have enough taxes to spend on meaningless tripe be any better than [insert favorite third-world scapegoat here].

Upon reading it, however, anyone with a functioning brain stem immediately recognizes the complete lack of any substance, the failure to give more than passing mention to many party-base hot buttons, and the utter arrogance of a party leadership who is completely out of touch with the voters who put their pathetic carcasses in office in the first place. In other words, they sound like Democratic leaders.

Even their latest catch-phrase "Change You Deserve" sounds like it was lifted right off the Democratic playbook. It's in their website's URL, for corn's sake: http://www.gop.gov/web/guest/changeyoudeserve

And therein lies the rub. The change we crave is not in the traditional values of the Republican party. Those we support, and have supported for decades. It is our elected representatives who have long since forgotten what exactly it is they were supposed to represent when they took our votes and parlayed them into lucrative retirement benefits in the House or Senate. Those we need to change.

Gone are the days when a Ronald Reagan would take a copy of the tax code into Congress, thump it down on the podium, and demand they write one that works for all Americans. We don't hear that kind of rhetoric anymore, and I miss it. We no longer hear about reducing the size of the federal government. We no longer hear about making tough choices on such issues as social security, border security, and the welfare state.

Why is that, we wonder? What happened to create a Republican congressional leadership that has somehow lost its backbone? Why are they so afraid to be labelled "conservatives?" One can only guess. I blame global warming.

In the meantime, we have this "agenda" out there that will do absolutely none of what it "promises." Reading through the agenda, one finds at the end of each explanatory paragraph the words "We must:" followed by a short list of To Do's that are apparently supposed to impress us that Our Congress is Working for Us. It is, for lack of a more descriptive (and still family-friendly) phrase, entirely underwhelming. (I must also note that whenever Congress uses the phrase "we must," they really mean "the American taxpayers must." But you probably already knew that.)

Consider just one example of this classic piece of American political boondogglery:

Solution #1: Assuring More Time & Money For America’s Families
One of the biggest struggles families face is how to balance work and family. Caring for a sick child or elderly parent can make the traditional 40-hour work week a challenge. What parents need more than anything is more flexibility and time with their family. Moreover, the government must reduce the burden on America’s family-owned small businesses so they can grow and compete in the global economy. Across the board, it is costing families more and more just to put food on the table or drive to work. In many cases, it costs them more per month to fill their gas tank than it does to make their car payment. We must:

• Lower gas prices and energy costs
• Provide for a family-friendly work week
• Grow our small businesses

Isn't that stirring? Wow. I don't know who wrote that, but it sure sounds like a committee.

Let's start with "balancing work and family." Like I need a Congressperson to tell me how to do that. When was the last time you got the impression that a Congressperson — any Congressperson — had any clue how to balance anything, including their own checkbook? Balancing work and family? Senator Boondoggle? Right.

I don't know about Congress, but I do alright with the "traditional 40-hour work week." I currently put in far more than 40 hours, as it happens, and still find time to spend with my family. I've even been able to work in an emergency or two just to keep myself limber. In fact, except for those few times when they feel a pathological need to fillibuster, I'd like to know when the last time was that Congress put in an honest 40-hour work week. And let's not even get started on how much time off they get during the year. All this for a larger salary than I happen to make nowadays, and with better guaranteed benefits than I'll ever see, especially in my future retirement. Now, if they're ready to guarantee that we get exactly the same flexibility in our work schedules as they have, complete with powers to subpoena whatever cretin Scapegoat-of-the-Week we like, then I'll buy into their little agenda.

Here's another corker: They want to "reduce the burden on America's family-owned small businesses." Most unfortunately, in the New Republican World Order, this means more government regulation, not less. Later in the hit-list they specifically name "Allow workers to take their benefits with them when they change jobs" as one of their "We must:s." Sounds like more regulation to me.

The "We must:" list that follows this first paragraph is also highly amusing. Lower gas and energy costs? Laughable. They have no power over either the supply or the demand, and the oil companies are already regulated to the corporate hilt. Anyone see gas prices dropping? Anyone? Me, neither. Provide for a "family friendly" work week? Now what kind of sense does that make? Whom, precisely, does this help? I already telecommute far more in my career than ever before. In fact, since Mrs. Woody took ill last summer, I've telecommuted more than I've spent working in my office. Was that any doing of the government? It was not. It was a company taking a hard look at the realities of life and realizing that they were gonna bleed to death when people began jumping ship to work for companies that already had "family friendly" work policies. That's like Gore taking credit for inventing the internet. He may have overseen policies to make it easier for people to get hooked up, but the market made that possible. Not Mr. Gore.

Finally there's "growing our small businesses." Right. Just like they've done for the last twenty five years that I've been working in the aerospace industry. I can't tell you how many small businesses started up, tanked up on government incentives, floated for a few years, then bombed out, never to be seen again. The government is incapable of growing anything but our federal debt. Debt they have perfected. They can't handle anything else. They're too dysfunctional.

So, to those Congressional staffers who may end up here on the Woundup reading this tripe, don't take it too hard. Your bosses are just trying to do their jobs, after all.

It's not your fault that they have no idea what their jobs are.

A Little Cheese with the Whine - UPDATED

So a sitting president of the country addresses our allies in Israel and makes the following factual statement:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Which, of course, touched off paroxysms of powder-keg politicking on the part of certain candidates and other prominent Democrats.

Obama, who appears to have one whopper of a guilty conscience, immediately assumed the remarks were targeted at him personally, even though the President said no such thing. Clinton, seemingly happy to indulge Obama's guilt complex, fanned the flames further. "I may disagree with the little snoot, "she was heard to say, "but that was out of line, even for Bush." Or words to that effect. Paragon of Virtue Joe Biden weighed in with his alliterative "bulls**t!" just so no one would forget his own countless failed bids for the office he envies Mr. Bush. Pelosi claimed the President's remarks were "beneath the dignity" of the office. That would be devastating, were she one who brought such dignity to her own office at the same time.

So, reading through the words myself, and having watched the video, I can only wonder where and when the President actually accused Mr. Obama specifically (or any Democrat, for that matter) in his remarks. Perhaps I missed that part. I believe he meant those remarks for anyone (hello Robert Gates?) who believes that talking with people like Ahmadinejad accomplishes anything.

I also find it humorous that the Democrats, most of whom have been comparing Bush with Hitler for years now, suddenly get upset to believe themselves accused of being "appeasers." How dare the President suggest that, simply because they want to talk to Ahmadinejad, this makes them somehow guilty of pandering to terrorists?

Could it be partly because the rest of us — those without the bully pulpit that Obama, Clinton, Pelosi and even Bush utilize nowadays — find it incredible that the Democrats want us to backpedal our merry ways out of Iraq so that terrorists will sleep better at night? You mean that kind of appeasement?

Or is it the fact that no one but Democrats are allowed to use the Nazi metaphor? Could this whole thing be simply a petty jealousy?

I tire of leading Democrats' continual whining about what victims they all are. If they're so exhausted by our refusal to take them seriously, they can always move en masse to the Bay area. They'll take any victim seriously, so long as they don't wear a uniform and dare to defend the country.

UPDATE: So I'm sitting in a motel breakfast room this morning (Mrs. Woody and I celebrating our anniversary this weekend!), and I hear this on CNN (Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Victimhood):

President Bush, in remarks obviously directed at Democratic candidate, Barack Obama...

Whine, whine, whine...

Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters (California June 3 Edition) - UPDATED

UPDATE: Latest General Election edition is up here.

[As the primary looms (tomorrow!), I realize that many of you have come here searching for either a Christian or conservative voters guide. You found this instead. My deepest and most sincere apologies. We should probably fire the idiots who came up with the initiatives and/or candidates we have to select from in this election, but we are California Republicans, and we are inherently lazy.]

Uncle Woody isn't sure what to tell you young conservative voters about this coming primary election. It's only a few short weeks away, yet Uncle Woody can't help but feel that this one won't add any value to our process this time around. Uncle Woody thinks we all got so burned out in the February presidential primary that we've nearly forgotten we still had a regular primary election coming up.

"Didn't we just do this?" Uncle Woody can hear you say. Yes, we did, and it garnered us the only Republican candidate who not only won't go out of his way to protect our borders, he very well may help to erase them. But I digress. The point is, you're here because you were looking for a conservative voter guide, and Uncle Woody's is seemingly the only one you could find.

Buena suerte, as we say here in Mexifornia.

Anyway, here's Uncle Woody's curmudgeonly take on the California June 3 Primary. We begin, as always, with the ballot initiatives.

Oddly enough, Uncle Woody was more interested this time around in the initiatives that didn't qualify for inclusion on the ballot. I presume this means they fell short of the required signatures, although a couple of them were "withdrawn." We do NOT have an opportunity to vote for those poor farm animals who are raised primarily so we can eat them later. We also do not get to vote on whether to eliminate "domestic partner benefits." Uncle Woody is pretty sure that Berkeley alone would have registered enough dead voters to make certain that this particular initiative would have dropped like a stone. There was also one that dealt with "coerced sterilization of animals or humans." I had no idea we had a coerced human sterilization problem in California. This may explain Schwarzenegger.

Anyway, only two initiatives qualified in time for this election. Although they share traits in common, they have different purposes and results:

Proposition 98 - Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 99 - Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.

Uncle Woody smells several rats here. This is obviously in reaction to land-grab headlines of a few years ago that had folks very much up in arms. No problem; Uncle Woody can understand the desire to protect one's property and assets. If Uncle Woody HAD any property or assets, he would definitely want to protect them.

As always, however, one needs to have a far better sense of legal maneuvering to fully understand these initiatives. One bellwether I tend to watch are the Howard Jarvis folks. Jarvis was responsible for Proposition 13 lo these many years ago that limited the state's ability to raise property taxes beyond what Jarvis felt were "reasonable" limits. Whether or not you appreciated Jarvis' stance (Uncle Woody benefitted tremendously from those limitations in his earlier life), he was definitely looking out for taxpayers' interests.

He is, of course, dead.

Still, that doesn't stop other taxpayer protectionists from using his name, and they all have a bunch of legal letters after their names. They all say pretty much the same thing: Proposition 99 is evil, and Proposition 98 is the guy in the white hat riding in to save the day.

Besides all that, Schwarzenegger doesn't like Prop 98 which, by itself, is pretty much all the motivation I need to vote for it. Prop 99 is full of more loopholes than my Grandma's afghan and I wouldn't trust it as far as I could wad it up and throw it.

Proposition 98 = Yes
Proposition 99 = No

There aren't any local ballot initiatives in the part of Orange County where Hacienda Woody is located. This is all to the good as Uncle Woody blew a few fuses trying to muddle through the state ballots.

As for candidates, as always Uncle Woody urges you young conservatives to vote your consciences. Neither of our U. S. Senators is up for re-election this year, so I can't poke fun at California's continuing inability to front a GOP candidate that anyone can take seriously. I suppose there's little chance of getting Mitt Romney to relocate here so he can qualify for one of those seats in a couple of years. Still, hopefully someone will float to the surface that a) is well enough known that folks won't ignore them, and b) will actually be a threat to the Lib Sisters.

In other words, look for pigs to perform activities contrary to established laws of physics before that happens.

Maybe I Should Get a Restraining Order

You might think, what with living next door to a BN&SF mainline and in close proximity to Disneyland and their nightly fireworks, that we have a level of sound saturation here at Hacienda Woody. The trains rumble through at more or less regular intervals, day or night. It's not uncommon for me to look up from my computer and see key pieces of furniture shaking as if we were having a minor temblor. First thing I do anymore is listen for that deep three-octaves-low rumble that tells me whether it's a freight or passenger consist passing by. The Big D, on the other hand, tosses their boomers high in the sky every night on a schedule. "9:30, Dear." "Ayup, thar she blows." The booms last between 15 and 25 minutes depending on season.

Then there's the freeway that sits a mere half mile from here, plus having our park abut one of the more active streets in Orange County at certain parts of the day. We're also in a construction zone at the moment, as they attempt to build an overpass for Imperial Highway on one side of us, and construct a power station across the street on another side.

Sound saturation is putting it mildly.

As noisy as things get around here, though, none of them hold a candle to a rather diminuitive fellow who resides immediately behind us. Every night at just past midnight, this character fills his lungs and begins an all-night serenade that will fade only when the first light of dawn approaches. These gratuitous concerts run for nearly seven hours without intermission or, seemingly, any level of discomfort on the part of the performer.

It used to be mildly annoying when he started this nonsense a year ago. Mrs. Woody and I are not always the best of sleepers, and when the weather is hot enough in the summer months it doesn't take much to wake us. This guy can do that. I used to harbor secret fantasies about getting a pellet gun and letting the guy have it right between the eyes, but a couple of things prevent me:

I don't really want any guns in the house.

My intended victim is probably protected by the Wildlife Protection Act.

When I grew up I harbored certain expectations about wildlife. During the day I figured the more interesting animals were in hiding from predators and rambunctious kids like myself. At night I figured I was safe and snug in my house, and once asleep wouldn't have to give them another thought. This was especially true of the various birds that roamed our neighborhood throughout the day. They were a noisy bunch but always seemed to tone it down at night so the crickets could have their say. And, as I say, I could safely ignore them in any case.

Whatever species of bird this character may be, he is the noisiest neighbor I've ever had. It's probably as much because after midnight sound really seems to carry, but this guy is LOUD. He runs through just about his entire repertoire every night. He may actually run through it multiple times. I don't know, because I've finally gotten to the point where I can generally consign him to that region of white noise that my ears create more and more as I get older. On a night like tonight, though, when everyone with an ounce of sanity is asleep and the other night noises are relatively low, I get the feeling this warbler (or whatever he is) can be heard as far away as Guam.

Not being a birder of any kind, I have absolutely no idea whether this is normal behavior for this bird or not. Don't really care, to be honest. All I know is that he is, above all, a gifted performer. Although, if he's trying to find a mate, I might suggest he try doing this during the day. Keeping the gals awake all night may not be conducive to romance.

The other possibility is that his internal clock is completely out of whack. Unless he's simply drowning everyone else out, I hear no other birds anywhere near here anytime after dark. This is in keeping with my own concept of nature as it applies to darkness, and this guy is like a Flat-Earther trying to convince a bunch of rocket scientists that they're full of hooey. I don't expect he's got much of an audience.

Except for the inhabitants of Hacienda Woody, who desperately need to get some sleep tonight.

Remembering Diversity University

It is with some sadness that I note the passing a couple of years ago of an online environment that once held tremendous significance in my life. I got to thinking about it today as Mrs. Woody and I prepare to celebrate a dozen years of wedded bliss. I quickly found that the environment no longer seems to exist. A library association newsletter explains: Diversity University MOO was taken offline early in 2006 after a run of (depending on whose history you read) between 11 and 14 years. (I'd bumped into the librarian who wrote the article, by the way. A tremendous lady.) DU was the brain-child of Jeanne McWhorter who saw in it the tremendous potential for on-line education, with particular benefits for many with learning disabilities. What it became was a mighty social network that pre-dated Facebook or MySpace by a good many years, and boasted a sophistication that AOL's chat rooms could only dream of.

For the uninitiated, a MOO (MUD, Object Oriented) was an online TELNET technology based on an old text-based gaming platform. An over-simplification, to be sure, but there are numerous articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere that explain the concept more fully.

Diversity University was unique in that it had a definite purpose and theme. Its goal was to provide an online learning environment and was patterned after a typical college campus. You could visit numerous buildings (history, art, library, etc.) and socialize anywhere on campus. I became a programmer there and created some rooms in the US History section.

But for me, the most significant aspect of my experience at DU was bumping into the future Mrs. Woody after a mutual absence of more than a dozen years.

By sheer coincidence (or not, we've since decided) we were both evaluating DU as a technology for potential use in our respective industries (aerospace for me, and educational publishing for her). By the time we bumped into each other, I was well into actually programming my own rooms and controls. Mrs. Woody was just getting her feet wet, so to speak, and saw a character online one day who went by the name of "Woody" (it's always been a nickname of mine) and who claimed to be from a town where she used to live. The fact that this Woody had been a singer and an actor particularly intrigued her. So she asked him about it.

Imagine my shock and surprise to hear from this very pretty blond lady whom I hadn't seen since just after my mission.

The rest, as they say, is history. No mere coincidence can account for our meeting that day. I had by that time decided to separate from my first wife in advance of our inevitable divorce, and it is perhaps fortuitous that she lost her connection information to DU for a couple of weeks after our chance encounter (I hadn't even asked her for her phone number). By the time we met virtually again, I was on my way to bachelorhood. Our friendship was rekindled in due time and blossomed to the point where I knew that here was my eternal soulmate.

So Diversity University holds a very special place in my heart. It was there, for example, that she first called me "Bud." I'd never gone by that name in my life, but was thrilled when she tagged me with it. That was my grandfather's nickname, and I considered it a true honor to be called that by this wonderful woman. It was there also that we consumed many an hour playing virtual Scrabble® (in the days before company lawyers threatened anyone who dared create and play such a game online). We chatted endlessly about anything and everything that popped into our minds. And we continued to build worlds together there and on other MOOs that she joined with me. It became good practice for the worlds we would soon build together in real life.

The last time I was able to log on to DU (apparently more than a couple of years ago) I visited my old virtual office and found everything in order. Nice and neat; not anything at all like my real office. And Mrs. Woody's character sitting in the office with me. We were both asleep, according to the interface. We'd been asleep for many years by that time.

Now it's gone. I'd like to think that whoever retired it kept a copy of it on some archive somewhere. I hate to think that all that creativity just simply vanished into the ether. I had met some wonderful personalities over the months I was active there. One Scottish gent, fresh out of college and with no prospects for work there, came to America to be with a sweet lady he'd met at DU himself. Last I'd heard from them they were planning their life together in West Virginia, I think. There was a young kid from the Netherlands who loved to chat with Mrs. Woody and me over a wide range of topics. His desire to learn about American life was insatiable. There was the passionate young liberal meteorologist who loved to get into political discussions with the campus "token conservative." He tried to tweak me on all sorts of issues, and I generally tweaked him right back. Those were fun conversations. Mrs. Woody and I even had a chance to meet another DU couple who had flown out to Los Angeles to attend a conference, and specifically wanted to meet us. We'd become good friends in the virtual world, and meeting them was a wonderful experience. She had numerous health challenges, though, and I often wonder if she's still okay, or even still with us. If not, I hope she knows that we love her and wish her well.

There were only a couple of personalities that I tried to avoid over that span of time, and in each case they tended to burn out and leave before I got too distracted myself. Otherwise, I have nothing but fond memories of my time spent at DU. I got married to the best part of that experience, and we've lived happily ever after.

Long live Diversity University.

Stephen King Channels John Kerry

Look, I know the man is some sort of literary demi-god. I'm probably too illiterate myself to bother reading one of his books. (Or, maybe, it's just that I don't appreciate his particular genré.) And, sure, he's great friends with Dave Barry. But for an author who (I would hope) reads as much as he writes, this is an ignorant statement.

As John Kerry before him, King makes the crass assumption that only ignorant people end up in the armed forces, serving in Iraq. Once again we see the tolerance of the progressive movement as King insults those who willingly serve their country.

It helped cost Kerry his candidacy. I hope this costs King some sales.

Whatever a person's thoughts or feelings may be about the war with Iraq or the administration in general, insulting our courageous soldiers accomplishes nothing but point out a person's own peculiar prejudices. Man Serves Country = Ignorant Tool of Administration is getting old, people. Too old.

King needs to apologize, quickly, lest he find himself on the receiving end of some less-than-gracious sentiments.

Newsweek Thought Piece

Fareed Zakaria, writing for Newsweek, has created a thought-provoking essay that is sure to have a polarizing effect on its readers. It's called "The Post-American World," and it tries to analyze the socio-political influences of the United States in comparison with the rest of the world.

I say "thought-provoking" because he makes some valid points along the way. It isn't so much that the United States is necessarily declining in influence, but rather that other countries are rising. This is perhaps the central theme of Zakaria's essay and it's meant to demonstrate that the U. S. must "globalize" if it wishes to remain a key player in world affairs.

It also, unfortunately, smacks of the sort of "new world order" thinking that ultimately diminishes our sovereignty as a nation and subjects us to the whims of the rest of the world.

Read it for yourself, though. I suspect reactions will run pretty much along party and ideological lines. As a somewhat moderate conservative, I can see those valid points and agree with much of his analysis. I also believe, however, that some of his base assumptions are incorrect. He points, for example, to U. S. carmakers having more employees in Canada than in the United States, at least partly because Canadian health-care costs are lower. The implication would be that the United States should be adopting a health-care system similar to Canada's if we wish to remain a viable competitor. What he fails to mention, however, is that Canada's socialized health-care system is also fundamentally flawed; the waiting lists to see key specialists alone would sound a death-knell to many who need critical care in a timely manner. It's not that they have bad doctors. It's that they don't have enough doctors who are willing to accept the salaries to which they are mandated by the state. Our doctors are expensive, but there's a market that supports them and enables us to have immediate access to the right care. These are over-simplified arguments, but useful for the discussion at hand.

Zakaria does a pretty good job of pointing out that, dangerous as today's world is, it's somewhat less violent overall than it was a few decades ago. He points out the massive losses of life during conflicts in Vietnam, Iran and Iraq, and Cambodia. With this data he attempts to quell a rising feeling of uneasiness that many Americans (Woody included) have had regarding the continuing states of war and terrorism that permeate today's political landscape. His suggestion is that we need to get along more with our worldly neighbors (NWO thinking) and accept their places at our side as allies. He fears that our political leadership (he specifically mentions McCain in this train of thought) are too willing to buy into the next Cold War. He downplays such things as nuclear proliferation as if to lead us to believe that such things are of no more concern in our world.

Here I disagree vehemently with Zakaria. It is precisely such things as nuclear proliferation and the rise of global terrorism that should make us wary of such powers as North Korea, Russia, and especially China. It's one thing to encourage trade with "neighbors" like these. It is another to simply trust them not to take their aggressions out on us just because we no longer hold the position of "world leader" that Zakaria feels we've lost. From a standpoint of safety and security, we can never take our eyes off of these nations. We do so at our own peril. I have felt this way ever since someone once declared that we had "won" the original Cold War. We "won" nothing. Other nations gained a measure of independence, and many communist regimes fell. But there can be no declared "winner" when the ability to wipe out an enemy is still in the hands of politicians who clearly do not like the United States.

As I say, read the whole thing. Some of it I agree with, some of it I obviously don't. We may not have the largest Ferris wheel in the world, or even the largest mall. We don't need to have these things to be leaders of freedom and democratic thinking in the world today. We just need to have unshakeable standards, and live them.

For Balance - Updated

So after kvetching about whining bloggers in my previous post, here comes one of those feel-good stories that remind us how good people — regardless of political affiliation — can really be: (H/T: Mrs. Woody)

It's one of those magical moments in a young athlete's life. Sara Tucholsky came to the plate near the end of the second game in a college softball doubleheader. At stake was the opportunity to move on to post-season play and a shot at the championship. Sara had never hit a home run in her collegiate career, but she connected with "the sweet spot," as she puts it, and put one over the fence. It was a three run homer. It was also the game winner.

As she rounded first she apparently missed touching the bag. (She was catching a glimpse of her hit as it disappeared behind the fence.) Athletes tend to have quick reflexes, and hers was probably a quick slam of the brakes in order to touch the bag and then continue. Her cleat stopped. Her knee didn't.

As the first base coach urged her to crawl back to first base, the umps were consulted. Rules state that a designated runner can be used, but she forfeits the home run and is credited with only a single. Her teammates cannot help her or they forfeit the run. Then comes the surprise.

Opposing first baseman Mallory Holtman approaches the homeplate ump and asks if there's any rule against the opposing team assisting her around the bases. Apparently not. (Probably whoever wrote the rules never figured on the opposing team wanting to help lose a game.) Holtman and her shortstop teammate Liz Wallace trot out to first, pick up the increduluous Tucholsky and carry her around the bases, allowing her foot to touch each bag along the way.

The girls involved in this heroic show of sportsmanship are a little bewildered at all the fuss. Tucholsky may have had a career-ending injury. "What a way to go out, though," she says. Holtman says they were doing what they assumed anyone in their position would do: putting the needs of another player above those of the game itself.

Unfortunately, according to this USA Today report, not everyone's reaction is positive. One idiot grouses about Holtman's "selfish act" that cost her team the game. Those who deal with Little League parents (and it's certainly not limited to baseball) will understand. Some people just don't understand the "game" part of sports.

For the rest of us, this ranks among those moments that, as parents, make us proud to have kids. Had I been in attendance at that game, even as a Washington supporter, I would have screamed myself hoarse in support of those girls. I hope those who were there did just that.

Sports is all about excellence. These girls — Tucholsky, Holtman and Wallace — are excellent.

UPDATE: Guys, who have a pathological need to be masters of all sports whether they play them or not ("fantasy" leagues, anyone?), have pointed out that the umps messed up. The rules do in fact allow for a pinch runner in this particular situation. (The headline cracks me up: "It was a nice gesture, but...") C'mon, guys. It was a classy move by those girls, and all the deep analysis in the world isn't going to take that away from them. Get over it.

Fraternizing with the Enemy? Oh, Puhleeeeze...

Via Drudge this morning comes this delicious piece of political hypocrisy: Left-leaning bloggers are going ballistic over Democratic candidates and leaders appearing on Fox News.

As a refresher, this is the party that claims to...

• fully support free speech
• be tolerant of all peoples everywhere
• respect the diversity not only of people but of ideas

Unless, of course, you happen to be a conservative. This we cannot tolerate, apparently.

Hence the Kos-ocrats are soiling their collective britches over the thought that their current standard-bearers are kanoodling with the likes of Bill O'Reilly (Public Enemy No. 1 and a half), "Fox News Sunday," and the like.

Get over it, kids. If you really respect diversity, then the opinions of the political right should be every bit as valid as your own. I personally am far more interested in how my candidate handles questions and accusations from CNN, the NY Times, and other liberal flagships (including that most odious of commentators, Keith Olbermann). Fox News should be a cakewalk for a John McCain. I would expect him to ace their questions. All the better if he can hold his own against the leftist bombasts.

Also, don't forget the injunction to "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." There's wisdom in keeping those lines of communication open, and recently failed Democratic candidate John Edwards is case in point. He it was to lead the initial boycotts of Fox News-sponsored Democratic debates, and ultimately his strategy failed him. As the battle for those suddenly all-important "swing votes" heats up, Clinton and Obama are now ready and (it seems) willing to confront the enemy on his turf. That it hasn't turned out so bad does not appease the Kos whiners. They have sinned by speaking directly with the enemy, and this sin is apparently unforgiveable.

[Total Aside Having Little or Nothing to Do with the Main Point: Sheesh. One commenter to the story used one of those precious little quotes that people often tag onto their emails as if to show how progressive and self-improving they are (as opposed to a school motto, which is what Mrs. Woody uses on her emails). It's a quote attributed to John F. Kennedy which says, "Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind." No argument from me. But did this young lady (she calls herself "Red Girl" — youth is assumed on my part) ever stop to research just how much effort Kennedy himself put into "ending war?" Did he not have opportunity to end our involvement in Vietnam? Could he not have encouraged his Vice President and ultimate successor to do the same?]

If "progressives" really want to have a national discussion and debate, they need to get over this exclusivity of party doctrine and engage the battle. Whining about their candidates doing just that is about the most regressive behavior I can think of. Makes it look like they don't have enough confidence in their own positions to allow a few broadsides from enemy cruisers.

This 'N' That

It's dangerous to scan Drudge when feeling at all snarky these days:

Prepare Ye, Lest Ye Be Consumed
Brett Arends, writing for the Wall Street Journal, opens his column with this line:

I don't want to alarm anybody [Ed.: Oh, you most certainly DO, sir.], but maybe it's time for Americans to start stockpiling food.

Nice opening. Kind of thing that makes a fella feel warm all over. Reminds me a little of the scene in Monsters, Inc:

"In my professional opinion, now would be the perfect time to panic!"

[TV crashes to floor as if to underscore the need for panic.]

Nothing like a little dire warning to get the blood flowing. Latter-day Saints, however, take these warnings with a huge grain of salt. It's not that we don't understand that inflationary pressures will drive the cost of food through the roof. It's simply that we've been counselling our members for decades to store up against calamity. No need to specify; you can take your choice: earthquake, famine, floods, fires, hurricanes, sickness, loss of job, Democrats in the White House. The prudent need not fear. Much.

Oh, Bother
So a "report" says that oil prices will more or less double within the next four years. Q'uel surprise. I suppose we'd better start stockpiling oil, too.

Oh. Wait.

Hot on the heels of that report comes word that Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, has decided that, yeah, fossil fuels need to be eliminated, but, y'know... nuclear power may not be so bad after all. He said this to the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce.

His remarks were interrupted by the appearance of a pig flying low over the pulpit.

I will state for the record that we at Hacienda Woody are doing our part. Grudgingly, but we're doing our part. We have decided that gas prices have finally forced us to have a non-travel vacation this year. We'll spend our time working around the Hacienda (heaven knows, it needs our attention), and taking a couple of day trips around the immediate area. May have to include Disneyland in our plans. I'll just pull the fam behind my bicycle.

Jenna Said WHAT??

Finally, we have word that young Jenna Bush, heiress to the fabulous Bush empire, has indicated she "may not" support Sen. McCain for President this November. Now, while this statement may have been reported by the same newswires that have completely ignored the Obama-Ayers connection, and while it has caused ripples of fear through every Republican as far away as the Rose Garden, most of us Republicans (and I count myself in that number) are not losing any sleep over it. Jenna is a young twenty-something girl who still has a lot to learn about the political world around her. She's at just the right age to have those liberal leanings that say, hey, life isn't at all fair and we need to do something about that. At some point, she'll find out that doing something about it and actually solving it are two completely different things. Time and experience will teach her those lessons.

For me? The whole "Jenna-gate" controversy is a non-entity. Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Huge Quake in Next 30 Years

Okay, so where have we heard this one before?

Every so often the seismic scientific community crawls out of its cave deep under Cal Poly, blinks up at the sun, and pronounces that California is in Big Trouble. The "Big One" is gonna hit. Soon. Next thirty years, tops.

We've been hearing this for at least the last thirty years.

I'm not mocking the seismologists, you understand. No one knows better than Woody that we live in a hot quake zone. It also has not eluded Woody that the ability to accurately predict quakes in any region of the world is still a lot more guess work than actual scientific ability. Predictions of this nature are like self-fulfilling prophecies. It's easy to say that California will have a huge earthquake because California has had them before. The seismologists look for patterns that are verifiable. They point to the recent swarm of quakes off the coast of Oregon and note that this is "unusual" activity. "Something" must be happening, but they can't pinpoint just what that something may be. Couple of plates getting a little too snug, I guess, and need to release some energy. Instant swarm.

The highly unpredictable nature of tectonic activity puts the seismologists in a bad spot, really. People have this unreasonable need for predictions. We want plenty of warning if a hurricane is going to hit our house so we have time to put up the shutters, buy plywood to cover our doors, buy water at the store before it runs out. Anything but actually MOVE OUT OF A HURRICANE ZONE. Likewise earthquakes. We seem to want warning, even though we have never, in thousands of years of trying, been able to figure out how to get warning. People who watch their animals for unusual activity seem to have the best record so far, but animals only give you a few minutes' worth of warning. Barely enough to get out of the house in most cases.

So we pound on scientists when they fail to warn us adequately. When those tsunamis hit several years ago (has it been that long already??) the scientific community was ridden out of town on a virtual rail. How could they have failed to give fair warning that such an event was about to strike? Only after long, hard debriefs did we discover that there were multiple errors along every step of that process. Warning was given, but the ability to disseminate that warning was seriously lacking. Then there were those who willingly chose to ignore what warning they were given, especially if that warning came from a local shaman who'd been reading the signs and knew they were in trouble. Those who listened to the shaman lived to grieve over those who didn't.

In response to our unreasoning need, the scientists in turn stick their fingers in their mouths, hold them up in the air, then predict that a quake will hit "with 99% probability" in the next thirty years. A big one, mind you. At least 6.7 on the scale. If you want a bigger one — say, 7.5 or more — we have to lower the probability to only about 46%. Sorry.

About all this accomplishes is giving the Talking News Heads something to justify their Frowny Faces. They will gleefully regurgitate this particular Dire Warning over and over for the next several days, all the while hiding their glee with a masterful combination of acting school and enough makeup to make their faces permanently stiff. "Look concerned," they say in acting school, "but don't forget that little ironic half-smile at the end of your report."

Look, let's get real. We live in California. There are (and always have been) earthquakes in California. We have tremendous things going for us in this state. We have miles of beaches. We have fabulous weather most of the time. It doesn't rain much, generally, and we occasionally get those Santa Ana winds that make us wonder if St. Anne had digestive trouble. Enough to cause 75 MPH wind, at any rate. Still, it's a beautiful state. Unless you don't like desert. If you don't like desert, stay north of, say, Monterey.

California also has its dangerous side. We have lots of gangs here. Freeway shootings ebb and wane, and seem to be ebbing at the moment. We have Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, not to mention Berkeley. We also have numerous tectonic faults (as opposed to our political ones). They run up, down, and across the state in nearly every valley or plain. The San Andreas is the best known of these, and seems to be a contributor to most of the others. (Andrew, it must be noted, was a fisherman. No idea how he came to be associated with an earthquake fault.)

People driving into California should be presented with this sign at our borders:

Welcome to California

We have earthquakes. Be prepared.

There will be no warning.

The point is, if you live in California, be prepared for a quake. If you really want to be prepared, prepare for the Big One. The one that will finally allow the scientists to say "toldja so!" The one that will finally convert San Bernardino into beach-front property. Otherwise, don't act surprised and get all bent out of shape when the next quake hits and you want to whine about never having been warned.

Consider this your warning. Sometime in the next thirty years.

Cheap at Twice the Price

Politico.com (H/T: Drudge) posts this nugget about Billy-Bob Clinton's post-presidential perquisites. Reportedly he pulls down a budget of around $8 million annually, which is fairly hefty when stacked up against $5.5 million for Bush 41 and $4 million for Carter. I'm not at all certain what the fuss is, though:

Commercial

[Camera pans through various shots of a Manhattan highrise, Staples store, and stock footage of Clinton sitting on a runway getting his now infamous haircut.]

VOICEOVER: Highrise office space in Manhattan... $3.2 million

VOICEOVER: Other services, supplies, and "equipment"... $1.2 million

VOICEOVER: Post-presidential health care option... $10,000.


VOICEOVER: Keeping Bill Clinton out of public office...

VOICEOVER: Priceless.

In our federal budget, this business of millions of dollars for any one item is strictly peanuts. Especially when compared to certain pet projects Congress keeps trying to foist on us.

VOICEOVER: Bridge to nowhere... $320 million

So the idea of keeping a former president fat and happy in his supposedly reclining years doesn't raise my hackles, really. I mean, compared to what it cost us as a country to have him physically in office in terms of domestic spending and one very costly impeachment, a cool $8 million a year is probably cheap.

The article points out that all former presidents — Clinton included — have refused parts of their retirement packages at various times. In the last years of Reagan's life he reportedly eschewed the proffered health care benefit altogether. The article fails to say what Carter uses his benefits for; rabbit culls in the bayou, perhaps. Or maybe he needs the money to "encourage" publishers to accept his manuscripts.

I'm sure there are bigger — and costlier — fish to fry. I think Politico.com needs a hobby. Maybe they could track the election for awhile?

Out of the Mold

At some point in my past I joined the Woundup with a "ring" of LDS blogs as a way of participating in the broader discussion of all things Mormon. Since then the Woundup has become my political arm; a collection of essays with broader socio-political undertones that don't really fit with the doctrinal discussions found on what has now become the "Bloggernacle." My writings on The Inner Dad are much better suited to the Bloggernacle overall, but I have no idea how to effect a change. Who's in charge? Who decides who gets to be a member at large? It's probably more trouble than it's worth to find out and have them switch over.

On the other hand, the Woundup makes for an amusing juxtaposition of worldly snark on top of otherwise sincere attempts to find some spiritual common ground among the more active Bloggernaclers. One will see on any given day posts related to anything from fasting to gay Mormon issues to what Brigham Young really did to foment the whole Mountain Meadows thing. Suddenly, in jumps ol' Woody calling liberals something out of a Faustian nightmare and barking about how the United Nations is just a cover for the Illuminati (no, I didn't actually write that, but I've thought it many times). Not what you'd call "standard Bloggernacle fare," by any means. I chuckle a lot whenever I bother to look at the two or three LDS aggregators out there and see just how out of place the Woundup really is.

It was, in fact, a blog calling itself "Mormon Shadow" (seemingly defunct now) that called me "pretty much a dyed-in-the-wool upright, uptight Mormon who has little use for those who don't swallow either the mormon dogma or the republican party line." I laughed then, and I'm still laughing now. Mostly because it's true. I am a fairly dyed-in-the-wool kind of Latter-day Saint. I will say, however, that it's not so much that I have "little use" for those who disagree with me. I may lack patience, I suppose, but it's just because whatever else I am, I am also a dyed-in-the-wool curmudgeon. It's also a studied personality quirk of mine. I am an actor by nature, and a character actor by birth and breeding. I don't play leading men or heroes of any kind; I portray the weasels and snarks of society. I do it well. So if I appear brusque on occasion, it's only because I have rehearsed it long and hard over the past forty or so years.

This by way of stating that the Woundup is a lousy barometer of my spirituality. A tad over three years ago I started The Inner Dad as a family-oriented (and, by extension, a more spiritual) blog. It is there that I post my inner-most thoughts and feelings, as well as no small amount of bluster in regards to my oh-so-put-upon status as a father.

I am a little surprised, however, that the Bloggernacle at large seems to have overlooked something very significant that happened in this just-completed General Conference. The Sunday sessions were wonderful. Every talk seemed to resonate with me on a spiritual level, and I found myself wondering whether the next talk could possibly measure up to the one just ended. When President Monson stood up to speak at the end of the morning session, however, I found myself completely mesmerized. About midway through his talk I looked at Mrs. Woody and said something about just having witnessed the prophetic mantle on President Monson's shoulders. She agreed with me, and we watched the remainder of his talk in quiet awe.

We of course got busy between sessions with lunch and wiggle time for the Woodyettes (who, it must be noted, sat through all four sessions this time!). So we didn't get much time to discuss what we'd witnessed before the next session began. When Elder Holland stood and immediately voiced what we ourselves had felt during President Monson's talk, I knew we'd had a significant experience on par with any other spiritual manifestation of the restoration.

So I've been somewhat dismayed tonight to surf around the Bloggernacle a bit and find (so far) only one reference to the "prophetic mantle" by way of a summary of Elder Holland's remarks.

Did no one outside of Hacienda Woody feel what we felt? Or was I just first out of the box with my comments? Perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough.

I had assumed (here's my original post) that others must have felt it as well. Perhaps the very nature of the experience was personal enough that no one wants to post it on the Bloggernacle for all the world to see. I hope that's the case.

It may be possible that it's more an indicator of where my own spiritual journey has taken me over the past few years. I've always had a firm testimony of the gospel, even though I've been through my own ups and downs. Yet this entire conference was very easy for me to experience. In times past I may have harbored some small resistance to, say, President Packer talking about music in the Church, or anyone who reminds me — for the 329th time — that my family history is seriously lacking. But not this conference. There wasn't a single talk that made me at all uncomfortable. Most, in fact, lifted my soul in ways I'd forgotten were even possible. I appreciated the fact that several of the Twelve attempted to put a more human face on these Priesthood leaders. (Contrary to several Bloggernaclers out there, I loved Elder Ballard's talk about sitting with his kids in Sacrament meeting. Been there, done that!)

Whatever the case, I was spiritually fed, and fed well. If the Spirit were measured in calories, I'd be in serious need of some fiber along about now. But this kind of food needs to be digested over a long period of time. This is a time of examining my initial impressions and seeing where they take me.

I'm looking forward to the ride.

Another Homeschool Justification

As if we needed another one:

Third graders in a Georgia elementary school are caught in a plot to kill their teacher. They even bring assorted tools, including a knife and toy handcuffs, with them to school.

Yeah, I want my daughters socializing with kids like that.

I just hope there are extreme attitude adjustments in these kids' futures.

Oh, Fer Cryin' Out Loud! Again!

For better or worse, there is a caste system in the United States. Or, better said, there are multiple caste systems in this country. The obvious one is the economic caste system, wherein everyone in the country makes more money than I do, so I can be a victim for the rest of my life and appear on Oprah and whine about how underprivileged I am and maybe she'll build me a luxury home and give me three or four luxury cars because she feels so sorry for me.

Or not.

Anyway, there is also an intelligence caste system in this nation, wherein the people with the least intelligence are placed in the positions of highest power. Think of it as a re-statement of the Dilbert Principle (probably ®) that says something like "management" is just nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow. In my example of the intelligence caste system, people with higher IQ's would tend to work hard in their occupations and make sure the economy of the country continues to grow apace. Lower on the IQ scale are those empowered to make decisions on behalf of the rest of us. Recent decisions proffered by our 2nd District Court of Appeals would tend to bear out this hypothesis by demonstrating that the average appellate court justice suffers from a nearly 30% decrease in intelligence compared with normal folks.

Thus it stands to reason that the true morons are not to be found in executive boardrooms (although they hardly shine by comparison), but rather are elected and sent to Washington, D. C. to serve as legislators.

Congress has a set of rituals that they perform depending on circumstance. No matter what the problem may be (or, more accurately, is perceived to be), they see their job in terms of forming a committee whose express purpose is to FIND SOMEONE TO BLAME. It is a behavior that I have never understood. Why, for example, should Congress get involved if baseball players are getting tanked up on steroids and billion-dollar contracts? Does anyone in this country care enough about steroids in baseball that our gut reaction would be, "Hey, major league stars are injecting themselves with substances that most of us with functioning brain stems instinctively avoid, so let's get Congress to form a committee so we can get to the bottom of this!" I sure don't. So a guy that won multiple awards in an otherwise distinguished career got poked with a needle or two (or fifty). The shame is his to bear. The worst form of punishment this person could possibly receive would be the disdain with which his former fans may now regard him. (Anyone remember Pete Rose? How's he doing these days after that gambling disgrace?) How does Congress holding endless "hearings" on this topic solve anything? Awareness? Hardly... most of us change the channel the minute we see some legislator begin droning on about how shameful a thing it is to have this hero of young people turn out to be a tarnished idol, while simultaneously figuring out how to avoid being prosecuted himself for some snarky little ethics charge stemming from some spurious campaign finance "misinterpretation."

Hence it should not come as a surprise to anyone that our heroes in Congress, in the face of tremendous economic pressure on their constituents (who must decide whether to reelect this same set of morons this year) have (for what feels like the 27th time this century) put Big Oil executives in the hot seat to complain about their "obscene" profits.

Quick, answer this question: Has this maneuver ever, even once, produced any results other than having Big Oil execs walk away chuckling to themselves while Congress sits helplessly by, powerless to do anything to reduce their profits in any way, shape, or form?

Time's up.

The answer is: of course not. This line of attack has NEVER worked. It never will. There is nothing (repeat: nothing) illegal about making a profit. In fact, the way this market works, the more profit a company makes, the better the chances its stockholders will get a return on their investments. It's not an absolute guarantee, you understand, but their chances improve with each percentage point of profit made by the company.

Congress can hem and haw and threaten to raise Big Oil taxes, but it's an empty threat. They've tried that, in fact, and Big Oil taxes are among the highest in private industry. Yet they seem to keep making money. This in spite of the fact that OPEC and other oil producers keep raising their own prices for crude. Wow. A perpetual money-making machine.

The claim here is "obscene profit." Well, if anyone can define "obscene," it's Congress. In the dictionary, the picture next the word "obscene" is the Capitol dome. Hey, William Jefferson may well be called in as an expert in obscene profits himself. Stashing an extra $90K in the freezer may well make him one of the more ethical representatives these days. Duke Cunningham would likely decline an invitation to testify. So Congress calling anyone's profits "obscene" is laughable at best. Particularly when compared with the pork projects these people continually pump into our national budgets.

In this report from FreeMarketProject.org, Amy Menefee points out that of all the entities that profit from Big Oil, the United States Government is the largest beneficiary. Written in November 2005 and using July 2005 figures, Menefee reports that there had only been three years between 1980 and 1982 where Big Oil made more money on their revenues than the Government did. In other words, whatever profits the oil industries claim, Uncle Sam takes an even bigger cut. We may live in a "free market" society, but this actually points out what happens when you overregulate that market. Or, really, just plain steal from it. Menefee also points out that as of July 2005, Exxon's actual profit (as a percentage of revenue) was just under 10%. Now, there's obscenity for you. She states, however, that in the same period, Johnson & Johnson was reporting profits of nearly 18%. Why weren't they sitting in Congress's Hot Seat?

(I notice, by the way, that Congress has so far been careful to tiptoe around the issue of obscene executive compensation. Are they actually worried about their self-image? One wonders.)

Now, I'm all for trying to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. I think it can only be good if we manage to do so. But from my perspective as a lowly consumer, things have got to get a whole bunch cheaper before I start switching to alternatives myself. You want me to drive a hydrogen-powered car? Great. Happy to oblige. Just make that car affordable and the fuel, too. Otherwise, I'll have to stick with sniffing my carbon monoxide.

Ultimately, this whole exercise is really about Congress appearing to be doing something about this "crisis." They have to do this so that their constituents will see how tirelessly they work in an election year so they can get reelected. They really don't have a prayer of reducing Big Oil profits. Besides which, they're too busy trying to ban prayer in all public forums.

In the meantime, Congress, the next time you want to put someone in one of your Committee Hot Seats, stick with putting a few of your own on the stand. Everyone else is making you guys look stupid.