The Republicans Join the Suicide Pact

I have written previously that the Democrats have taken an election that should have been theirs in a walk and managed to screw it up enough to make the contest competitive in the general election. Now, not to be outdone, the Republicans are attempting to destroy themselves, as well. The truth is that no staunch conservative had a chance to win the Presidency in the current political environment given the war, the current economy, the Republican incumbent retirements, and the fact that a two-term President is leaving office. John McCain came along at the only time he could have been nominated as a Republican in recent history. Although he will be painted as “George W. Bush II” by the Democrats, anyone familiar with politics knows better. That being said, some contemptuous conservatives would rather leave the country to ultra-liberals than have a candidate that is not the “perfect” conservative. When I hear people like Ms. Coulter openly rail against John McCain, I cannot help but think of the ages and health of Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The conservatives whining about McCain cannot possibly be thinking if they do not consider twenty more years of judicial activism a problem. In the current climate, the Democrats will likely pick up seats in the Senate. Therefore, a Democratic President will be able to nominate and confirm any flaming liberal activist judge and the Republicans will just have to grin and bear it. If McCain is elected and nominates a conservative justice, the Democrats can not possibly stall a Supreme Court nomination for an entire four years, like they are doing to the Appeals Court justices now. The Democrats have been holding up hearings on judicial nominations “running out the clock” until the next election. The nomination of the next two or three Supreme Court justices and having hearings on the Appeals Court justices may be the single most important legacy of the next President. It is mind-boggling to think who Barack Obama might nominate, not only for the Supreme Court but also to the Appeals Court positions currently held in limbo. That alone has the potential to change the country more over the next two decades than any elected official. Republicans better wake up to reality before the entire country is San Francisco.

Recap of Recent Political Events

Where do we stand? Barack Obama does not have enough pledged delegates combined with super delegates to go over the top to the nomination. Hillary Clinton isn’t about to go away. John McCain is consolidating. It is quite a mess for the Democrats. Let’s look at some of the individual issues.

Florida and Michigan: First, let’s look at the electoral map. The way that the country is divided by historically Republican and Democrat states means that to win the Presidency, the candidates have to win two out of three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, assuming they win all the normal red and blue states. That the Democrats have managed to upset the people in Florida and Michigan is pretty poor strategy. John McCain, because of his record of support for Israel and other issues, will run strongly in Florida. The last thing the Democrats need to do is irritate the voters there. Florida has elected Republican governors and has a Republican Senator. Except for the famous “hanging chad” areas of West Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties, the state is primarily conservative. The Democrats are trying to blame the Republicans for the dilemma but the original piece of legislation introduced to change the date of the primary was introduced by a Democrat. That makes the “Republicans are to blame” argument hard to sell. Michigan will likely go Democratic unless they feel disrespected by the national party. There are currently no plans by the Democrats to revote. Therefore, any seating at the convention will be a non-representative appeasement, thus telling the voters that we can vote in your stead. It is bad politics all around. Howard Dean is looking remarkably ineffective as Democratic Party leader.

Hillary Clinton: The Clintons (you have to bunch them together) never cease to amaze. One the one hand, you have to give them credit for relentlessness going back throughout their entire public life. On the other hand, organized crime is relentless. The Clintons have historically complained about the “politics of personal destruction” but it has paradoxically always been their favorite weapon against their opponents. In the last day, she has again begun to plant more racial wedges by stating to USA today that, to paraphrase “the white voters are moving away from Obama and that makes me the stronger general election candidate”. There is a theory by Dick Morris that she is weakening Obama so that she can run in 2012. It looks more like she is using the scorched Earth strategy and will never bow out. It does lend credence to Morris’ argument that if she does manage to wrest the nomination from Obama on some sort of technicality, she is likely to lose in November anyway because several traditional Democratic constituencies would never support her. Therefore, wresting it away doesn’t seem to make sense.

Barack Obama: He is in an interesting position. He claims to be the candidate that will “cross party lines and bring people together” although he has a record diametrically opposed to doing that. He is the single most liberal Senator in the Senate and routinely refuses to join bipartisan coalitions. He also wants to change “politics as usual” but has himself and his representatives constantly lying about McCain’s statement about the security force in Iraq despite knowing better. He is going to have a hard time running as a moderate when nothing in his record remotely suggests he would ever take a moderate position. Obama should get a bump in the polls after he clinches the nomination and after the Democratic convention. Obama always seems to poll higher than he actually does in the voting. It is an interesting phenomenon.

John McCain: McCain has always been an independent thinker. It some cases (Iraq, federal judges) he is very conservative. On others (immigration, environment), he is moderate. The conservatives are complaining that he is not going ultra-conservative to please “the base of the party”. To win the general election, that would be a huge mistake. Why anyone expects him to change from the last twenty-five years is silly. Additionally, we won the primaries running as himself. Why would he make a disingenuous change at this point after watching how “flip-flopping” hurt John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton?

Issues: The economy – Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax despite the fact that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, government revenue increases because the economy expands. McCain wants to lower the tax to keep industry in the United States. Obama keeps speaking of how opportunity exists in the United States but if you do manage to get rich, the government will take your money away in taxes on the rich.
Health Care – Obama wants universal care through a government program which will raise taxes and will not affect prices. McCain wants to have individuals buy their own policies so there will be competition and prices will lower. Additionally, this allows portability of policies between jobs.
Iraq – Obama wants to remove troops from Iraq regardless of the conditions there; McCain wants to continue the fight until we win.
Judges – Obama conforms to the Democratic position that since they cannot get the liberal agenda through elected legislatures, they will appoint activist judges who will create law through judicial fiat. McCain want to appoint judges who will interpret law rather than create it. Of course, that is what the United States Constitution says should happen.

One of the Democratic “strategists” Robert Zimmerman stated on CNN last night that the race would be between a “conservative Republican” and a “main-stream Democrat”. There is a load of manure if you ever heard it. McCain is a well-known moderate whom the conservatives are complaining about and Obama is the single most liberal Senator in the United States Congress. It is disgusting to hear both the right wing and left wing commentators spit out their vitriol. I almost e-mailed Bill O’Reilly about that. He calls his show the “no spin zone” but after every interview, he always has two “strategists” from either side who come on the show to do nothing other than “spin” the interview answers shamelessly.

CounterSpin is a Crock

I was on the road today and happened to be listening to National Public Radio. A program came on that was called CounterSpin. It purports to be a review of recent print and electronic media reports published or broadcast recently. It is a product of a group called Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). It only took several minutes to realize that there is nothing fair about this program. A rhetorical question: How far left do you have to be when you complain about the “conservative bias” of the New York Times and Washington Post? The “reporters” that present the stories throw in snide comments throughout the stories often. One of the guests was an investigative reporter named Mark Shapiro who was really giving a thoughtful review and analysis of the problems encountered when reporting on matters of scientific research. He has written a book about the dangers of chemical additives in commercial products in the United States. He later spent some time extolling the European Union because they have, in his opinion, done a better job of restricting chemical additives which can be added to products produced in China. In an interesting paradox, many pharmaceuticals are allowed to be sold to consumers in Europe which have not been approved for safety in the United States. I suppose you get to pick your poison literally. The person interviewing him could not let his very skilled answering of the questions stand without leading him toward criticizing any conservative policy or business. While Shapiro was very interesting and thought-provoking, the remainder of the program was an ode to socialization and had an obvious anti-business bias. After doing a little internet searching, it was easy to find out that one of the former leaders of FAIR was Laura Flanders, who hosts a program on the flaming left Air America. To be “fair”, the program does not report to be news; it is a commentary show. I can say without equivocation that there is nothing fair and accurate in the interpretation presented by this group. The FAIR group is as objective as the group Media Matters which has been shown over and over to be a left-wing smear machine. How anyone can claim to be an objective observer and be associated with this program is disingenuous.

Immigration Politics

I listened to a “news report” on National Public Radio today about “undocumented workers” and the passage of a law in Prince William County, Virginia. The law basically states that when a person is arrested or brought to the attention of law enforcement, they will notify the US Government about the illegal status of the person. Therefore, a person who is violating the law of the United States will be reported to the appropriate authority about the law violation. On the surface, this seems to be a pretty intuitively obvious thing to do. However, the political left is outraged. National Public Radio tends to be a liberal news outlet and the story was, of course, extremely sympathetic to the plight of the law-breakers (“victims”). Some of the justifications they used require some severe stretching.

The focus of the story was two women who entered the country legally using work visas and then stayed past the expiration of their visas. Let’s make sure this is clear: the two women knowingly violated the law by overstaying the visa that the United States granted them. How does that make them sympathetic characters? The story lamented how one could not visit a friend in the hospital because she might have to produce identification. I suppose we should feel badly for bank robbers on the run who can’t visit their families because they might get caught. We are also supposed to be feeling sorry for illegal aliens because they might be reported if they commit a crime and get arrested. Am I the only one who sees how stupid this argument is?

The next segment was an interview with someone who was talking about how a group of three or four hundred illegal aliens (“undocumented workers”) who were receiving free tax-funded education to learn English as a second language were no longer attending classes. Let’s make sure this is clear: A group of immigration law violators are no longer using U.S. tax funds to receive educational benefits in a country where they shouldn’t be present. How is that a problem? The point was that the new law was causing illegal aliens to leave the county. How is that a problem?

The next portion of the report was about the financial burden. A County Commissioner was saying that because of the volume of illegal aliens in the county, it would cost a lot of money to enforce the law. Let me make sure we understand this: We won’t enforce laws because it costs money. It sounds like the county needs a new commissioner.

I found the interview with the head of the police force very interesting. He stated that the police force does not set up immigration screens or checkpoints. If they encounter someone who is an illegal alien, they do not detain the person unless they are being detained for committing a crime. They do appropriately report the encounter to the federal immigration authorities, as they should. They do detain illegal aliens who are arrested for committing a crime. How is that a problem? Should illegal aliens have special benefits that criminals that are American citizens do not? That is patently ridiculous.

I assume all of this ridiculous logic is way to try to obtain Hispanic support in the upcoming elections. The liberals also said that committing perjury was no big deal for President Clinton because it was about sex. Therefore, the political left can pick the subjects in which it is okay to tell lies in court. When a woman accused Clinton of sexual assault, the National Organization of Women said nothing, because their political agenda (abortion) agreed with Clinton’s. The liberal wing chooses which laws to obey and not obey and when the law contradicts their philosophy or goals, they find a judge who agrees and the just “re-interpret” the law. One cannot cease to be amazed.

Infomercials, the Epitome of Falsehoods

As someone who tends to see a lot of late night television peripherally while working on my computer, I have found a really entertaining habit. Every time one of those obnoxious commercials comes on, I immediately do a search on the product. A pretty consistent pattern has emerged. Let’s look at some examples:

First, there are “the product is completely bogus” scams.

Lipozene, the magic pill that helps you lose weight rapidly by “burning fat”. The retailers of Lipozene have been fined twice previously for deceptive business practices regarding television advertising. Lipozene does cause a brief weight loss in that it is a laxative. Therefore, if you are constipated, you lose the weight of the stool you lose. Other than that, the product does nothing. This is a total scam.

Shapely Secrets, the “motionless exercise”: Greer Childers, the attractive blonde who hypes the program, was ordered by the Federal Trade Commission to stop advertising her previous scam, BodyFlex, in which she insisted that you could lose weight by breathing deeply. Why anyone fell for that one, I have no idea. Her new scam is to stand still and lose weight. She also includes some diet tips, presumably to keep from getting fined again. Once again, a total scam.

Dual Action Cleanse: That is the one where the guy who sort of looks like a 1970s porno star tells everyone about the terrible toxins in the colon and basically hawks an expensive natural laxative. The implication is that your own feces are poisoning you. Since most people find bowel movements pretty disgusting, it is an easy sell to the uninformed. There is nothing about his product does that can’t be accomplished with a healthy diet containing fruit and vegetables. Another total scam.

Free and Clear: A real estate investment program where people can buy foreclosed homes for a couple of hundred dollars. Take a minute to think about this: There are hundreds of properties worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be purchased for a couple of hundred dollars but real estate people don’t know about them, bankers don’t know about them, or even more unbelievable, they know about them and don’t snap them up two seconds after they become available. Does this sound logical? If it doesn’t, congratulations, you have figured out this guy is full of crap.

Next, there are a series of what are called “implied consent” scams. This is where the seller continues to send you stuff you don’t want and continues to bill you monthly.

Video professor, the guy who wants to send you his “free” demonstration software: The are hundreds of complaints about another billing scam where people are charged $79.95 a month for a subscription service which sends them educational software, sometimes for programs they don’t even own. Consumeraffairs.com reports “But in actuality, it appears impossible to just get one free disc. Instead, it is a packaged bundle of three discs that cost $6.95 for shipping and handling. If the customer doesn't return one of the discs, at their expense, within 10 days, they will be enrolled in an automatic renewal service which sends new three-disc bundles every month for $79.95.”

Girls Gone Wild: This is the group that gets women drunk and has them flash and do other nefarious activities. They use the same business model. They sell you a cheap initial DVD and then continue to send them and bill you much larger fees. Once again, getting them stopped is apparently not very easy. By the way, Joe Francis, the founder and owner of the company, just spent time in prison and is up on further charges for using under aged girls in his videos. Therefore, owning any videos he produced with under aged girls means you legally own child pornography. Just something to think about.

Pro-Activ: This is the anti-acne program hawked by Vanessa Williams, P. Diddy, Jessica Simpson, and others. I have some personal experience with this one as my daughter and one of my sons used it a while. It seems like an honest product although my daughter found stuff at Walgreen’s that worked better. The problem is getting them to stop shipping it and charging you for it. It took months to turn it off. Of course, during that entire period, they bill your credit card.

Then there is the ultimate combination of bogus product and implied consent.

Enzyte, the magic pill that enhances “that certain part of the male anatomy”: There are literally thousands of complaints to the Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Protection Agency, and the Federal Trade Commision over this scam. The obvious complaint is that the product is totally bogus, but it is much worse than that. Apparently, the product retailers entice customers with a 30 day free trial, after which you can return the product or stop the additional shipments. The common complaint is that as soon as the initial “free trial” is shipped, the customer’s credit card is billed. When customers complain that it doesn’t work (which it always doesn’t since it is bogus), they are directed to a number in India which takes information and is supposed to contact the customer. They don’t. Since the subscription doesn’t stop, the customer continues to be billed for several months at about $50 a month. The product and the billing are a total scam.

Kevin Trudeau’s Natural Cures book: Knowing something about medicine, I knew this charlatan was full of crap but it seems a lot of people listened to him. He charges a lot, about $100, for the book which is relatively useless then charges $9.95 a month for a newsletter that the customer is apparently not told about and doesn’t ask for.

Then there is the “Hard Sell” approach.

Direct Buy: I am particularly sensitive to this one because once, a long time ago, my wife and I fell for one of these against my better judgment. This reminds me of the “free” vacation or “free dinner” you receive just for listening to a sales pitch. It tends to be a time share or vacation sharing. At least when my wife talked me into a “buyer’s club” back in the day, it only cost about $600. By the way, we never bought one item from the club. The prices were not good and it was an incredible hassle. Now, Direct Buy is charging about $6900 to join and there are loads of consumer complaints about them. Avoid these people like the plague.

How about the “we bill you and sometimes we don’t even ship the product?””

Milinex Power Storm Vacuum is supposed to cost about $55. With a bunch of bogus charges, it sometimes costs up to $400 and some customers never received their vacuum. There seems to be no way to return it or get a refund. This is a classic example of if it sounds too good to be true, it probably stinks.

In thinking back over the years, I can only remember one infomercial which had a legitimate product that didn’t over bill, good old George Foreman and his grills. We actually own one of those (bought in a store, not from television) which actually works really well. Therefore, I know the possibility actually exists for a product on late night television which isn’t a scam but it is the only legitimate one I have ever seen.

B Movies and Stretching the Truth

How can you tell a B movie when you see it? The most obvious clue is that it stars a bunch of folks that you have never heard of or seen before (excluding Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Shannon Whirry, Sybil Danning, Cynthia Rothrock, Linnea Quiggley, etc. all known B movie actors). The sets tend to be a lot cheaper. They don’t seem to be able to afford a decent script supervisor. For those of you wondering, the script supervisor is the person whose job it is to ensure continuity between scenes and some semblance of reality to the movie. Movies are filmed in the order that will defray costs so the scenes are not done in chronologic order. Examples of famous mistakes are:

- Julia Roberts is eating a pancake, then a bagel, then a pancake in a scene in Pretty Woman

- The windshield of the truck Arnold Schwarzenegger is driving in Terminator I shatters as he jumps into the drainage conduit and is back to normal five seconds later.

I just watched part of a movie, Freedom Strike (made in 1998) which is about a Middle East peace accord being signed on a US aircraft carrier. The only actor I recognized was Tone Loc, which should have told me something. The President arrives by helicopter (an appropriate one) as seen from the Pri-Fly tower (obviously stock footage). During the broadcast news conference, a Middle Eastern cameraman tries to assassinate the President and fails due to the efforts of a Navy SeAL (the hero). I noticed a few script supervisor moments:

- The SeAL’s haircut isn’t close to military.

- Two Middle Eastern cameramen that close to the President of the United States and on a US aircraft carrier? Are you kidding?

- The SeAL’s partner is a super-model female Marine weapons expert.

- When the President is whisked away from the “carrier” he leaves on a CH-46 helicopter from a flight deck full of them. CH-46 helicopters are never on a carrier. Clearly, the film was stock footage from an amphibious assault ship.

- The Commander of the carrier is wearing dress blues showing him to be a four-star Admiral. The commander of a carrier strike group is usually a one-star and occasionally a two-star Admiral but NEVER a four-star. I would have given them a little slack on that one because the President was on board but they lost it when the same Admiral is wearing a khaki uniform with FIVE stars on his collar. There have only been four five-star Admirals in the history of the US Navy (Leahy, King, Nimitz, and Halsey, all in World War II).

- When the bad guy runs from the hero, he runs down passageways with railings (not present on a carrier), and goes down to the engineering spaces which are unoccupied. You can’t turn around on a carrier without excusing yourself for running into someone. You have to merge into passageways like an interstate highway. In fact, during the entire chase scene, only one other person is seen. They must have had a really tight budget.

- Interestingly, the chase would actually have been conducted by the ship’s security department. There is a scene where one of the bad guys is texting a message back to his co-conspirators in Syria (not possible within the hull of the ship) and one security person walks by (the only time a security person is ever seen). Clearly, a tight budget.

- A second bad guy jumps to his death from the island (tower) of the carrier which is white (wrong) and has multiple balconies (wrong). It looked like a freighter was used.

- The Navy physician shows up to take care of the injured Syrian Ambassador in a khaki uniform with a crisp white doctor’s coat over it (no doctor wears a white coat on a Navy ship).

- They take the patient to a storage room, not to the Medical Department, and operate on him in the storage room. I don’t even have to explain how wrong that is.

- At the conclusion of the “successful” operation, I noted the patient was never prepared sterilely and is still wearing his shirt and ECG leads despite the doctor working on a chest wound.

- Additionally, the “explosive” shell is removed pristine and intact. The actual way to remove one is to remove a layer of tissue around it (a little technical, but true). The way the doctor did it in the film gets you killed. Any surgeon would know better.

- And, as usual, despite both being wounded with gunshots, both heroes are smiling and walking normally after killing the last bad guy. Contrast that to how Bruce Willis usually looks at the end of a Die Hard movie.

It reminded me of the movie GI Jane, when the script required some sort of made up mission so that Demi Moore could look heroic and competent at the end of the movie. The scenario was that an American spy satellite had fallen into Libya and there was fear that the Plutonium core could be recovered by the Libyans. I actually said “B*llsh*t!” out loud when Demi Moore declared “It’s weapons-grade”. For those of you who don’t know, there are three fissionable materials known to man (stuff you can make an atomic bomb from): Uranium-233, Uranium-235, and Plutonium-239. The power core of a satellite is made from Plutonium-238 which is a very long term source of heat but cannot fission. Therefore, it can NEVER be “weapons-grade”. The people that are making these movies really need to hire a technical expert. Dale Dye has made a good living doing that. He is in every major military film made in Hollywood, or at least it seems that way.

Granted, I have a lot more expertise in these areas than most (or maybe anyone in this strange combination) but I really wish they would take the time to do these things correctly. . Even with nothing else to do at midnight, these movies are a waste of time.

Obama Unwittingly Helps McCain's Fundraising

There has been much made recently about the differential between Democratic and Republican fund-raising for the Presidential election. John McCain is lagging significantly behind the Democratic candidates due to the contentious race for the Democratic nomination. Surprisingly, I believe Barack Obama came to McCain’s rescue today. In a “major” speech about the economy, Obama, the presumptive nominee, stated that the solution to the country’s economic problems was more regulation. He proposed a tax cut to “working families”. Of course, that already exists in the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. In proposing more regulation by the government, Obama has begun the process of filling McCain’s election coffers by stimulating donations from almost every business in the country. If there is anything a business doesn’t like, it is the federal government telling them how to do their jobs.

The two Democratic candidates are locked in a heated battle. On the nasty side, they continue to delve deeper into accusations and nit-picking and it is wearing the voters thin. On the other hand, they battle by trying to out-promise each other, thereby buying the votes with bribes. It is an interesting paradox that if a candidate walked up to you and offered you $100 cash to vote their way, they could go to jail. Yet it is perfectly legal for them to offer you thousands of dollars in government money for the same goal. What no one seems to realize is that the money they offer comes from tax revenues. Obama has already offered up something like one trillion dollars in new spending proposals. Someone will have to pay for his programs. It will be people who work, thereby removing the incentive to work.

We have all heard someone say, “Why work harder? The government is going to take it, anyway.” There is some tipping point where people lose the incentive to try. That is the very reason communism fails as a form of government. It flies in the face of human nature. The reason the United States became the most powerful economic nation in history in only roughly 200 years is because there is incentive to work and produce. If you work hard or come up with a better product, YOU live in a better home, drive a better car, take a nicer vacation, not everyone else. In communism, everyone works down to the lowest level at which you can maintain your job (kind of like the US Civil Service). When liberals take more money from working people for socialist-like economic redistribution programs, they remove the incentive for people to work harder. A graduated tax table does the same thing. Graduated tax brackets are the driving force behind loopholes and tax cheating to reduce income levels on paper.

So, as the Democratic candidates continue to promise bigger government (meaning more taxes and more regulation), they spur contributions to the McCain candidacy from business and people who earn income. McCain should send Obama a thank you card.