The plethora of Messianic references to Barack Obama have been mounting over the past several weeks.  A couple of days ago, Rush even referred to Obama as "The Chosen One." 

Hey hold on a minute.  That one is already taken.  Everyone who follows sports at all knows that for at least the past 4 years, the moniker "The Chosen One" belongs to LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers.  For those who don't follow the NBA, the 23 year old, 5 year veteran of the NBA is one of the greatest success stories in all of sports.  The first overall selection in the NBA draft 2003, James single handedly transformed his hometown Cavaliers from a bottom tier team to an NBA powerhouse. 

The description of Obama as "The Chosen One" prompted a curious thought. 

How much better would we all feel if it were LeBron James who the Democrats nominated as their candidate?

Much to his credit - Lebron's political views are not well known.  Of course, much the same is true of Obama.  We know Barack is for "Change" and "Hope", and recently we've found that he's for "Hoping" to "Change" the air pressure in ones automobile tires.  Other than that, Obama has expressed support and opposition to every conceivable political issue.  He's pro - Isreal, anti - Isreal; for talking to Iran, against talking to Iran; immediately withdrawing from Iraq, waiting to withdraw from Iraq; opposed to oil exploration, for oil exploration; etc, etc.

We are told that Barack posesses "Judgment."  It is this "Judgment" that is so keen and finely honed that supposedly makes Obama the superior candidate.  Yet there is suprisingly little reference to examples of any such "judgment."  Obama claims to have displayed superior judgment when he opposed the Iraq war from the outset.  This is a dubious claim.  First, given the recent turn of events, it now appears likely that Iraq will become a successfully functioning legitimate State; and that our actions there may not have been so misguided as was widely assumed a year ago.  Second, Obama didn't oppose the Iraq war in any meaningful way.  He wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time the war was authorized by the Senate.  His Democrat colleagues voted overwhelmingly in favor of the use of force in Iraq.  Since that time Obama has almost never voted against his own party.  He might have done so on the Iraq issue - but it's far from clear that he would've become a "maverick" on the Iraq war issue.

Other examples of Obama's judgment are even more suspect.  He judged Tony Rezko to be a fine personal and political associate, and Rezko was convicted on numerous counts of corruption.  He judged the now famous Reverend Wright to be a fine pastor - even mentor, but somehow was unphased by the reverend sceaming "God Damn America" at the top of his lungs during a church sermon.  He judged William Ayers to be a fine American despite his history as a known terrorist bomber of American institutions.

But back to LeBron.  He also has very few political accomplishments, but has sponsered as many peices of significant legislation as has Obama.  LeBron's judgment is much more public and the results much less subjective.  LeBron, as a youngster had the judgment to chose a private Catholic High School with a great sports and academic tradition.  He had the judgment to recognize that at 18 years old, he could not reasonably refuse the more than 100 million dollars that would accompany the decision to go directly to the NBA.

LeBron also has to excercise judgment during every game.  Pass, shoot, drive, jump shot, three point attempt, are just a few of the decisions LeBron faces each game.  A teenager playing against the greatest professionals in the world, the entire world of sport and especially the fan base of Cleveland, expected this young man to have the vision and judgment to make the correct decision - every time.  The results of LeBrons decisions are not subjective, either his team scores and wins, or they don't and lose.  Perhaps the stakes aren't so high, but cities have been burned over the results of playoff games, and in some countries riots result over the outcome of sporting events.  Surely the pressure on LeBron to make a correct judgment is at least as consequetial as selecting the best tire guage.  The frequency of LeBron's judgment being correct is stunning.  During this years semi-finals against the Celtics, LeBron began using penetrating drives late in one game, when the Celtics began to collapse their defense inside, he began making outlet passes to outside shooters.  As soon as the Celtics hesitated, he slammed a "posterizing" monster dunk over the heads of three Celtic defenders.

To be sure, LeBron sometimes errors in judgment.  It is perhaps most illustrative how LeBron James deals with his mis-ques.  LeBron James sits in a chair after every game being quizzed by often hostile media about his performance and judgment.  He's not yet mentioned lack of sleep, biased questioners, hostile environments, or even bad officiating.  Without exception, LeBron James has handled success and failure with the straight answers that most often conclude that it is he, and he alone that must improve before the situation improves.  Even when other teams have employed an obvious "hard foul" strategy against LeBron James, he's taken every bit of punishment his oppenents could dish out, and then returned more.

How refreshing it would be to hear even once, from a political leader, "I'll just have to do better."

No, Mr. Obama, you may be known as the Messiah, the Lord, the most revered, as well as a host of other descriptives; but you are not "The Chosen One" - his name is LeBron.

Of course, LeBron isn't yet 35 and not qualified to be President - but 12 years is only 3 elections away - and he'd damn sure carry Ohio !

Following the passage of the McCain / Feingold campaign finance laws, broadcast and print media have become an increasingly powerful factor in elective politics.  They have effectively chosen the candidates of both parties, and will now attempt to choose the President.

It is becoming clear that the Democrat strategy during this election cycle, is to see that John McCain be elected President of the United States.

Despite the clear evidence that Barack Obama's appeal as a unifying "post racial" candidate has gone up in smoke and been blown to the wind; Democrat super delegates appear to be on the brink of affirming his nomination. 

This is puzzling. 

Hillary Clinton won most of the major Democrat strongholds - even when facing Obama at the peak of his popularity.  Since Obama's precipitous fall from stratospheric popularity, Ms. Clinton has routinely and soundly whipped him like a red headed step child.  (umm maybe I have been in Texas a while)  In a addition to the reality that if the Dems followed the same nominating rules as the Republicans, Hillary would've sealed this nomination long ago; they have to alienate two major States to be able to hand the nomination to Obama.  Yet the Dem "Supers" appear to be more determined than ever to hand the nomination to Obama.

Do the Democrats want to lose this election?

Yes.  It's the only explanation that makes sense.  Consider the huge Democrat benefits of a McCain victory, balanced against the costs of either an Obama or Hillary victory.

First, if Hillary is selected as the nominee; the Democrat nominating process is racist.  The Democrat race based political machine can ill afford to be designated as "racist."  It can also ill afford to have a black man successfully run and be elected President.  It would be far preferable for the Democrats to nominate a black man so that they may claim racial purity then watch their nominee go down to a humiliating defeat so that the balance of America could be labeled as obviously racist.  This scenario would enhance the standing of the race baiting industry all the way from Al Sharpton to Jerimiah Wright.

Second, if Hillary is nominated and wins the Presidency, the Democrat Party will once again be beholden to the Clintons.  Also, they will need to deal with all of the wild promises made about Iraq withdrawl.  They will either have to reneg on their promise of withdrawl, or bear the burden of causing a humiliating American defeat.  Neither scenario is good for the Democrats.


In John McCain however, the Democrats have a perfectly acceptable substitute for a Democrat President.  He agrees with Democrats on virtually all major issues, with the exception of the War in Iraq, and abortion. 

With respect to Iraq, McCain is the Democrat dream come true.  It's hard to imagine that the Democrats aren't aware that if elected - they can't really abandon Iraq.  The disasterous consequences of withdrawl could devestate the Democrats politically.  Likewise, should they be elected and maintain a U.S. presence in Iraq their own whacko kook base will go off like a multi-warhead nuclear weapon.  McCain becomes the perfect foil.  They can blast him mercilessly. The can attempt to cut funding and use the issue in the mid-term to point out that they need larger majorities to override Presidential vetos.  The Democrats will get to keep the issue, keep consistant on their position, never face the consequences of their irresponsible demands, and with the help of the media - further weaken another Republican President.

Regarding abortion, some would call this issue "Supreme Court Justices"; but really it's abortion - because John McCain agrees with the Democrats on most Supreme Court Issues except for abortion.  Consequently, the Democrats really have little concern about John McCain Supreme Court nominees.  The Democrats have already proven shameless in their attacks on any true constructionists even when they were in the minority in the Senate.  With Democrats holding a majority in the Senate, McCain will have no chance of getting a strict constructionist confirmed.  This is at least partially due to the reality that John McCain does not WANT a strict constructionist on the court, lest it could put his signature legislative accomplishment (McCain-Feingold) in jeapordy.  Quite clearly, the Democrats have little to fear in McCain Judicial appointees.

The election of John McCain becomes a win - win - win - win scenario for Democrats.  They're not racist (but the rest of us are), we stay in Iraq and Republicans continue to pay a political price to do so, the liberal agenda is advanced but labeled "bi-partisan" because McCain signs it, and the Democrats increase majorities in Congress during the mid term election by blasting the "Republican Administration" at every opportunity.

John McCains election as President of the United States may become the greatest political victory in the history of the Democrat Party, and unfortunately may unalterably change the course of this country as we continue our slide toward european styled socialism.  Perhaps there is yet hope for a conservative America that respects and reveres freedom, and individual liberty - but do not be fooled into believing that such hope can be found in the election of John McCain.

Limited Government.  It is the basis on which the United States has seperated itself from the balance of human civilization.  It's enemy - war. 

Limited Government existed from the founding of the United States, and continued until the United States entered the 2nd World War.  During that time, fueled by private sector inovation and industry, the United States grew to be an economic giant.  The engagement of the United States in World War II required an enormous  expansion  of Government.  That expansion has never been reversed, and has continued save and except for the brief period of time known as the Reagan adminstration. The justification for such a massive government has typically been a "war".  Usually not a real war, but a metaphoical war.

A decade after the end of World War II, the country was eager to return to the pre-war status quo that existed prior to the war.  A young and inspiring conservative leader emerged who captured the theme of limited government and promised to dismantle the "War Machine", lower taxes, and get the country back to the business of peacetime prosperity.  John Kennedy managed to lower taxes, but his efforts to begin thinning the bloated government machine were thwarted by an assasin's bullet.

Enter Lyndon Johnson, and the first "Metaphor War".  It was reasoned that the huge Federal government needed to be intact, not to fight a shooting war; but to battle poverty.  Thus the Federal government entered the "War on Poverty."  This lead to an increase of the Government Sector rather than a decrease.  When the Poverty war began to lose traction, we entered the "War on Drugs".  This was an equally useless excercise.  Its only real effect was to justify the continued increase of the Government sector.

Oddly, George Bush's "War on Terror" was originally widely supported by most Liberals.  They envisioned massive government expansion.  They dreamed of scenarios such as thousands of government employees watching hapless shoeless travelers shuffling through an airport security line.   While those dreams came true, it was the Democrats that first experienced shock and awe when they realized that President Bush actually intended there to be a military aspect to this war.

We now face the greatest and perhaps final metaphorical war.  It is the "War on Climate Change."  (Previously known as Global Warming - until the globe stopped warming)  It is from this war, that it may be impossible to recover.  The fix appears to be in.  Even the Republican President nominee wants to "cap and trade" carbon credits.

They goal is to quantify and monetize the production of carbon dioxide.  This effectively places a government authority in charge of every productive activity in the economy.  Perhaps even breathing.  Liberty, individual rights, property rights, all become secondary in a war on climate change.  Most discouraging of all, is the fact that enormous wealth will be expended, and absolutely no tangible effect will occur.  In all the previous metaphor wars, at least some measureable progress could be achieved.

For example:

We don't have starving people in the U.S.  (The biggest health concern of our poverty class is obesity).  Drugs are expensive and somewhat difficult to obtain.  We haven't had a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 2001.  We have achieved at least something, even if horribly disproportionate to the cost, for our expense during previous metaphorical wars.  The unparrelled expansion in Government authority, and the devestating drain on the productive wealth of the private sector will yield exactly NOTHING. 

How can one be so sure?  While the proof is demonstrable in many ways (see a previous blog post for the %'s of man made carbon dioxide), consider this undeniable and indisputable truth:

The entire human population of the earth, placed heel to toe - shoulder to shoulder, could fit in a land mass about half the size of Travis County Texas.  Now, picture the globe, then try to focus in on the size of a single county in a single state.  With a letter sized world map image, a mark showing that size is virtually invisible.  Consider that spec of inconsequential living being of which we belong, and think once again how we are going to change the climate of the earth.

It now seems likely that Barack Obama will be the Democrat Nominee for President.  He claims to represent "change" and "hope."  Or perhaps more succinctly "hope for change."  It is more likely, however that the candidacy of B. Hussein Obama represents the extension of a creeping trend in American politics.  That is, the election of figureheads to executive offices while exective authority is usurped by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

This trend has been increasing at all levels of elected government.  Many cities now elect a mayor with only ceremonial responsibility while executive functions are carried out by a "City Manager."  This council-manager form of government currently is in use by the majority of cities in the U.S. with populations over 12,000. (source - Wikipedia).  While the goals of this format are to make the executive position less political, the effect is often to make it less accountable.  The elected council supposedly establishes policy, while the professional managers establish rules to enforce established policy.  Often the rules become defacto laws, although no ordinance or other legislative action has been taken.

On the State and Federal level, similar conditions exist when agencies are established and given authority to regulate a specific activity.  The agency, in many cases, establishes rules which have the effect of laws, again without the benefit of any specific legislative action.  The EPA comes to mind as the most visible example of this condition.  The EPA exerts specific authority over wide berth of activities, setting rules on everything from insecticide concentrations to the quality of emissions coming from an individuals personal vehicle.  Once again, should one take issue with agency established "rules" there is no direct redress available via the election process.  The executive activties of the Government therefore become increasingly insulated from true public scrutiny.

In Barack Obama, we have a candidate who brings to the table virtually no executive experience, nor the promise of such.  His credentials include his activities as a "community organizer" in the Chicago area.  Given his meteoric rise in popularity in his pursuit of the most powerful executive office in the world, one could expect to be inundated with the spectacular success of the Chicago area communities that were successfully organized and miraculously reformed as a result of Obama's work.  Yet, no such stories seem to exist.

In Barack Obama we have an extrordinarly gifted speaker who is a good looking black man.  This seems to be the most important issue to his supporters.  They want the world to know, that their elected "face" in the world, is an attractive, elequent black man.  Or in other words, a "Figurehead."  Somehow that makes up for eight years of being identified with an inarticulate white Texan.

Obama's grasp of economic issues and foreign policy are stunningly inept.  To many Americans though, the lack policy expertise is inconsequential.  That is because they've come to regard the Government as an entrenched bureaucracy, with which neither they nor the elected President will have much effect.  To a great extent the model of Government as an immovable behemoth may explain some of the intense hatred directed toward George Bush.  GWB has, after all, behaved more like an executive than any President since Ronald Reagan.  He's made decisions, taken action, and taken all the heat for the consequences.  By contrast, Obama indicates no specific policy directive and given his lack of political experience, is unlikely to do anything but go along with the initiatives of Congress and their powerful lobbying constituencies. 

Should Barack Obama be successful in his bid to be elected President, he will mark the start of the ceremonial Presidency, and the increased distancing of governing power from the hands of the electorate.  This unfortunately is not "change", it's the furthering of a trend that has been growing for too long.

Perhaps there will yet be an epiphany within the Republican ranks and this post will become useless.  We can still hope.  Notwithstanding, one must assume at this point that Republicans are going to nominate John McCain to run for President.  It is this writers sincere belief that a President John McCain would be worse for the conservative movement and America in general, than a President Hillary Clinton, or President Barack Obama. 

It is important to clarify, that the argument here is NOT, "They will screw things up so badly that we'll be able to win in 2012."  That agument has been made by others, and makes little sense.  It is never a preferred option to hope for problems just so that they can be assigned to others.  The argument being presented here is that conservatives and Americans will actually be better off if John McCain loses - even if it is to Hillary or Barack.

Perhaps it is best to start with the McCain strong suit.  Defense.  War on Terror.  Iraq.  All different sides of the same coin.  This is the McCain answer to all questions.  "I put my career on the line for Iraq and the "surge", so I should be President.  This has been the accepted and unchallenged  conventional thinking throughout the campaign. 

In truth, McCain began his criticism of Donald Rumsfeld and insufficient troop strength at the earliest politically available opportunity.  McCain, found a way to maintain his pro-invasion position; and still politically attack President Bush.  In 2004, when public opinion on the war began to sour, and Democrats saw a vulnerablity in George Bush's position, they began attacking him.  McCain piled on.  A different attack, but an attack none the less.  Most of McCains early anti Bush/Rumsfeld criticism alluded to the need for a 400,000 troop invasion force as described by General Shinseki.  Almost always his answer to troubles in Iraq was "More boots on the ground."

The "More Boots" argument is hardly a strategy.  It is all too remindful to this writer, of the most common complaint about construction progress.  If a project is not progressing to a clients satisfaction the most commonly heard comment is "you need more people on site."  Again, this is not strategy.  To further the construction / war analogy - both are advanced by working on specific tasks that allow the attainment of specific milestones which then allow for other tasks to begin.  It may, for instance, require 30 masons to adequately man a particular project; but until enough foundation and structure are in place; no increase in the amount of masons will advance the project.  When confronting such arguments, it is impossible to win by simply conceding - ok we'll put more people here.  The only useful information to be gained from such commentary as needing "More Boots" or "More People" is that the client isn't satisfied with the progress.  Accordingly, McCains only real commentary was that he wasn't satisfied with the progress of the war in Iraq.  No more useful than the Democrats criticism.

In truth, it was General Patreus who convinced George Bush that he had a specific counter insurgency plan that would work in Iraq, and that plan called for an additional 30,000 troops.  To either Bush's credit or detriment - this was clearly the answer for which he was looking; and in choosing Patreus he was choosing to continue, rather than fold in Iraq.  It was during this time that Bush was under huge congressional and public pressure to abandon Iraq.  He needed a congressional supporter very badly.  It was George Bush that recognized McCain, as a constant complainer about inadequate troop strength, could be tapped as a possible supporter.  To a great degree, it was George Bush who put McCain on the spot and politically manuvered the issue to the extent that McCain had no reasonable position to take other than support.  This is why McCain keeps saying, "I bet my politcal future on the surge."  He did.  Not because he wanted to.  McCain became a supporter of "the surge" because George Bush framed the issue so that he'd have no choice.

On other security related issues, it's difficult to find McCain's entrenched anti-Bush rhetoric to be reassuring.  John McCain introduced "anti - torture" legislation.  This was nothing but a slap in the face of the current administration.  By it's very introduction, the bill signaled to the world the the U.S. routinely tortured people once captured.  This discussion devolved into a rediculous argument about "water boarding" Al Queda members.  McCain sides strongly with the Democrats, that harsh interrogation techniques should be outlawed.

McCain has been an outspoken opponent of the Guantanamo Bay prisoner camp.  His reasoning is that "we will look better in the eyes of the world."  This is circular logic.  If one relentlessly disparages any particular policy it becomes increasingly possible that it will decline in world opinon.  To then offer the best reason for the action to be taken is to bolster world opinion is reasonable to only the most dim witted. 

While McCain has remained faithful to his "surge support", he's been quite suspect in his support of intelligence gathering.  In truth, our best defense against future attacks comes from our ability to gather intelligence.  One must consider McCains position in these matters before one proclaims him to be the candidate best suited to fight the war on terror.

It is most likely, should John McCain be elected President, that he will deal with Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate.  John McCain has made a career of "walking across the isle" to support Democrat causes.  We could expect that he will at least sign, if not advocate for, legislation supporting carbon taxes, illegal alien amnesty, and higher taxes.  It is also reasonable to expect that a Democrat Congress will pass a new version of "The Fairness Doctrine."  After years of fighting against talk radio, it is difficult to be confident that John McCain would veto "The Fairness Doctrine."  This is especially true if the Fairness Doctrine is introduced by way of an extension of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform.

Judges?  Perhaps abortion is safe.  But rest assured John McCain will not appoint anyone he believes would overturn his signiture issue - Campaign Finance.  Could any judge supporting such a clear infringement on political speech be a true "constructionist?"

By contrast if liberal legislation is advocated by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it could be loudly and strongly opposed by a unified Congressional Republican opposition.  With a Democrat President, Republicans can be full throated in their opposition, and they can apply pressure to conservative and centerist Democrats to break ranks.  Many forget that the original HIllary Care bill was thwarted by a minority Republican Congress.  Many believe, that it was this political victory that provided the impetus for what became the Republican Revolution of 1994.  Arguably, the finest moments of coherent conservative philosophy came about as a reasoned response to the excesses of the established liberal status quo.   A Democrat President, advocating an extreme liberal agenda, could provide fertile ground to refine and promote the policies of principled conservatism.

Looking ahead a breif two years.  If political history tells us anything, the party losing the White House will be at a disadvantage in the off year election.  A Democrat victory would provide an opportunity to make Congressional gains in both the House and Senate.  When issues of political controversy arose, the Republican standard bearers would no longer be either relics of the past or unknowns.  Their names will be Romney, Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo and Thompson; all taking the opportunity to increase their "brand" identity and develop their political voice.

Conversely, with a McCain Presidency; we could anticipate further Congressional losses in 2010.  True conservatives would become marginalized in the new administration and the voices of opposition to liberal policy (the same Romney, Huckabee, Hunter et al) will have been roundly seen as already out of step with even Republicans.  We then face the prospect of even less enthusiasm going into the mid-term election, thereby almost guaranteeing the traditional loss of seats by the party in power.

Even more depressing is the thought of having trying to rally around a 76 year old left leaning President who not only presided over, but participated in, the dessimation of the conservative base in the Republican Party.

In summary.  We need bad news fast.  A Democrat President victory will mark the bottom of the Republican downward slide, and offer us the opportunity to rebound with strong conservative values.  A McCain victory will guarantee an onslaught of left leaning policy, as well as the continued decline of conservatism in the Republican party.  The downward spiral will continue for the next four years - at least.

If McCain is nominated, the only prudent action of a principled conservative - is to vote Democrat.

There was a time when the word "hero" had a quite distinct connotation.  A hero was traditionally a single person who through great valor, bravery, cunning, and determination vanquished an enemy or saved an innocent.  In most cases, heros faced overwhelming odds and seemingly impossible disadvantages - yet somehow they succeeded.  There were the heroes of both fiction and fact, military and civilian.  One remembers various John Wayne movies where the hero takes out dozens of villains or enemies single handedly.  Then there were heroes of fact, like Sgt. York who captured over a hundred German attackers with a group of six.  

Some where in time, the definition of "hero" changed.  It seems to have been combined with the word once known as "victim."  We've all been told of  the "heroes of 911".  We even had a movie starring Nick Cage as the main hero.  In that movie, as in realy life, the heroic act was to have a building collapse on him - and lay there til someone found him.   Clearly anyone who is willing to enter a burning building in a rescue attempt deserves accolades, but when the building collapses on them and everyone dies are they really a hero?

In todays vacabulary the answer is yes. 

In fact, we've come to diminish those that actually kill enemies and save innocents.  We've had numerous incidents of bravery and valor in Iraq which resulted in vast death and destruction for the terrorist insurgency that we've been battleing.  We've heard nothing of these heroes.  To the contrary, we've had extensive coverage of the wounded and maimed soldiers who've returned from Iraq.  While I join all good Americans in exhaulting these brave warrior and defenders of freedom, it is troubling that we seem comfortable only in the exhaultation of our fallen, rather than our victors.

This is the template for the new American hero.  The template that was forged by John McCain. 

His heroic act?

He was shot down and captured.  He then remained in captivity until the end of the war.  This provided the perfect template for the politically correct hero.  He didn't kill anyone, he didn't capture anyone, he didn't save anyone.  He was subjected to the harsh treatment of a North Viet Nam prison camp while trying to fulfill his duty in what many believed was an unjust U.S. military action.   For many, John McCain was taking the punishment for the evils of America.  For additional emphasis, this all took place in the only military defeat in U.S. history.

This all makes John McCain the perfect hero for the politically correct leftists of the world.  He participated in a failed war effort, he failed in his mission effort, he surrendered, did his time in captivity, and returned home safely after a humiliating military defeat.

Such is the stuff of heroes for the new generation.

Congress needs to attend the business of Government, and forget about micro managing professional sports.  They are uninformed or stupid - probably both.

Steriods are not magic.  They are not illegal.  They are controlled.  Not a single player has been charged with obtaining them illegally.  They were also not prohibited in baseball until very recently.

Barry Bonds has been charged in a trumped up process crime.  They asked him if he took steroids.  He said no.  Others said yes.  They say that may be perjury or obstruction.  It may be.  Ask Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart.  No one has charged Bonds with illegal sterioid use or posession, no one has ever tested him positive for a banned substance.  If he did use steroids, they were likely legally obtained, and used during a period that there was no rule against it in Major League Baseball.

Simalarly, Mark McGuire broke no rules, broke no laws.  Ban him because we've all become holistic.

Is surgery natural?  How about over the counter creatine?  How about numerous nutritional supplements?  Where is the line drawn?  And when did we start drawing it retroactively.

Steroids are most often prescribed, and are most effective for rebuilding injured muscle tissue.  I did training consultation for two olympic athletes in the mid and late 80's.  One became among the first American Olympic athletes to be banned from the olympics because of a positive test for a steroid masking agent. 

Go to any gym in the United States and you'll find a number of gym rats who use steroids just to look better.  Not a single one of them can hit a baseball from a major league pitcher.  Muscle strength is almost incidental to hitting home runs.  Virtually every adult male has the "strength"  to generate the bat speed required to hit a home run.  Certainly the gym rats that are bench pressing 400 lbs do.  Yet, almost no one can routinely connect a round bat to a spherical ball thrown by a major league pitcher.  So few, in fact, that those that do it as often as 30% of the time are considered to be worth 10's of millions of dollars a year. 


Steroids help batters and pitchers for one reason.  It allows them to train incessantly over an almost 200 game season without severe muscle degeneration.  The advent of the pitching machine makes it possible for an elite batter to routinely take several hundred full speed swings a day.  This allows batters to make the hand/eye coordination needed to connect with a 90+ mph a finely tuned skill.  It also requires 10's of thousands of muscle contractions over the course of a season.  Steroids make it possible to maintain a peak performance level for batters and pitchers over a long season.

Is that cheating?  By the rules of today - yes.  So go ahead and test and suspend offenders.  By the rules of 5 years ago - no.  So shut up and forget about it.  You can't penalize some one for breaking a rule that wasn't there, but we now decide it should have been.

But what about the Children????

First, if you don't want kids to use this stuff, quit talking like it's a magic pill for athletic success.  It's not.

Second, if your high school age or younger  kid is illegally obtaining and using anabolic sterioids you are a crappy parent, and your kid is an idiot.  I doubt Congress can legislate anything effectively to alter either of those condition.

Would it be cheating if similar results were obtained by using over the counter body building supplements?  By the rules of today - no.

So when a bunch of politicians and sports writers want to create the next bunch of hysterics will they go after Creatine?  Caffiene?  Taurine?  Anti-Estrogens? Methoxyisoflavone? Glutamine?  Nitric Oxide? ZMA? Ecdysterone?  Never heard of them?  All legal.  All available.  All capable of producing significant muscle building effects.  All dangerous?  Probably, at least in some combination for some people.

All certain to be experiemented with by elite athletes attempting to gain that last increment of edge over their opponent. 

Want to ban steroids because you think they're dangerous?  Fine.

Want to ban athletes because they seek out and use every legal and available means of improvement.  Good luck.  You're wasting your time.

The American League Championship Series was underway.  My beloved Cleveland Indians were attempting to overtake the Boston Red Sox and advance to the World Series.  I worked through the first several innings of the first game, keeping tabs on the game via MLB.com.  If anyone has ever tried to keep up with a baseball game in that fashion, particularly a crucial playoff game, they would know that it is an excrutiating experience. 

It works something like this:

Browser reloads and reads: Ball outside.

A few seconds later it reloads again and reads: In play - out(s)

Or maybe: In play - no outs

Then what seems like an eternity later an explanatory sentence appears saying something like: Manny Ramirez homers - 3 runs score.

Eventually I finished working on the latest crises in my world, got in the car and headed home to catch the rest of the game on TV, with the Indians nursing a small lead.  It seemed that as soon as I turned on the TV, the Indians fell apart.  They eventually lost in a lobsided defeat.

The following day, my sister and I discussed the unfortunate outcome of the game.  I told her I guess I'll have to "watch" the rest of the series on the internet - they don't do well when I watch on TV.  My sister concluded that I'd better stick to the internet.

Probably all of us that follow sports have done similar things.  Someone moves to a different seat in the living room and the home team scores a touchdown.  Hey, that's the good luck seat.  Don't move!  Such things are common, and often the associations are compelling..

For example, in the following game, I also began keeping tabs on the internet.  This time the Indians took a sizable lead.  Again, I finished working and headed home.  I tuned in the game on the radio.  The very first Red Sox batter hit's a home run.  Damn.  I knew I should've stayed with the internet, I kidded myself.  The next Red Sox batter hits a home run.  Wow, good thing we've got a big lead.  Or else I might have to go back an watch on the internet.  The third consecutive Red Sox batter then hits yet another  home run. 

I do a U-turn and race back to the office, sprint to my desk before the next batter is up.  Wow, lucky thing there was a pitching change so I had a few more minutes to get back.

I watched the entire stupid game on the internet.  The Indians won.  I watched that way until they lost in game 5.

Of course it's ridiculous to think that my behavior had any effect on the outcome of the series.  But I did it anyway.  Why?  Some would say it's superstition.  I would offer a different explanation.  I think we all want to feel that we're doing "our part" in our teams victory.  It makes the victory that much sweeter when one thinks they've participated in the victory.

This is roughly the reasoning behind all "Global Warming" initiatives.

Consider first that the "greenhouse effect" is only one of several variables that effect climate variations.  Other major factors include solar activity (is a duh required here?), precipitation patterns, and the angle of tilt on the earths axis.

Consider also that CO2 accounts for only about 3.5% percent of all greenhouse gasses.

Consider that 99.89% of that CO2 is naturally occurring.

That leaves us with making a whopping contribution of .117% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Consequently, if humanity suddenly vanished our total reduction in the CO2 levels would be considered statistically insignificant.

Consider that the drastic actions called for in the Kyoto protocol call for a 30% reduction in CO2 by developed nations, and very little from "developing" nations.  This would mean roughly a 20% reduction in manmade CO2, or a .022% reduction in greenhouse gasses.  For those of you that have difficulty with place value that's 22 hundreths of 1 percent.

Of course, we would be then living on vastly lower standards of living, struggling to pay exhorbitant electric and fuel bills and desperate to take any kind of work available in a depression style econonmy.  But many would still look fondly to the sky and proclaim that they've sacrificed their comfort - but they saved the world from climate catastrophe.

Pretty much the same way I saved the game for the Cleveland Indians - by watching  on the internet.

After attending the Texas Straw Poll as a voting Delegate, I posted a comment concerning Congressman Paul and the "Paul Bots".  As a result of that post, I was asked to expand my assertions in a longer blog post.  Since I've generally assumed I was the only human being reading my blog posts - how could I refuse?  Here goes:

Ron Paul is an admirable man.  He has been a lifetime proponent of Pro-Life legislation, 2nd amendment rights, individual liberties. limited government, and lower taxes.  It is upon these issues that Dr. Paul has distinguished himself to be a verifiable great American.  It is upon these positions that Dr. Paul has become an icon of Texas legislators.  He has never relied on "pork" deliveries to maintain his Congressional seat, only his persistent and consistent message of strong individuals, and limited government have kept his political career intact.  Such is the stuff of Ron Paul, such is the stuff of his Texas constituency.

Such is not, however, the stuff of the "Ron Paul Revolution."  It became painfully evident during the Texas Straw Poll event, that when Ron Paul "shakes his internet moneymaker", he attracts a huge following of people that have little respect for, and in fact a great deal of disdain for, Ron Paul's traditional political positions.  The  "money line" in the Ron Paul platform is, "Bush lied", "Out of Iraq Now."  More than that, he's got a Congressional voting record to match that position.  For good measure throw in that Ron Paul is, at his very core, a Libertarian that believes all drugs should be legal.

The result is a Paul Bot following  repleat with disaffected, conspiracy theory, anti-military, anti-American, substance abusing nut bags.  Think "Cindy Shehan" and you get the picture.  In all fairness, these folks don't make up ALL of the Paul Bots.  Discussing the virtues of "strict Constitutional Government" with some college age Paul Bots was uplifting and encouraging.  The largest portion of the bunch though, blended seamlessly into the simultaneous demonstrations adjacent to the Straw Poll titled, "Out of Iraq Now,"  "Arrest Bush," and "911 Was an Inside Job" were among the more notable organized groups.

As a long time admirer of Ron Paul, this writer would like to believe that Representative Paul is simply, and quite profoundly wrong on his assesment of Iraq.  A review of his positions on his web site however, strains that belief.  His "issues" description of Iraq policy is repleat with  Democrat propoganda.  For good measure consider these direct quotes:  (quotes in italics)

      "-The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information."
This worn out Democrat talking point is simply untrue.  There were WMD in Iraq.  Though we only recoverd about enough to decimate 3 or 4 major American cities, we never found huge stock piles.  More importantly, if one reads George Bush's speeches leading up to the war, or reads the legislation which authorizes the war, it is obvious that WMD was only one of several reasons to invade Iraq.  None of the others are in dispute.

    "-We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of       new recruits for them."
This is beyond absurd.  The links between state sponsored terrorism and Iraq are extensive and well documented.  One can consult Tom Clancy's (non-fiction) Shadow Warriors, or for a more dramatic point of view try Jack Cashill's strikingly clear   http://www.cashill.com/terrorism/index2.htm.  Lastlly, the idea that killing jihadists by the thousands for the first time in modern history is a great recruiting tool for jihadists is crazy.  Their greatest recruiting tools are the Democrat leadership which insists that despite approximately a 50 - 1 kill ratio - we're getting our butts kicked in Iraq.

   "-there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women."
This quote is absolutely a lie.  It didn't work for the Kerry campaign.  It won't work for Paul.

    "-No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as       required by the Constitution."
This is a lame argument of semantics.  The Congress voted overwhelmingly (twice) to authorize the invasion of Iraq.  Whether or not the legislation used the word "declare" is irrelevant to any thinking human.  They Congress clearly "declared" war when they authorized the President to Invade Iraq.  If they didn't vote on going to war - what does Ron Paul claim he voted against?

These above examples are so clearly inspired by anti-war talking points, it's difficult to imagine that they are the sincere beliefs of Ron Paul.  It seems rather, that his candidacy has been hijacked by the lunatic fringe who've been looking unsuccessfully for a home in the Obama, or Clinton camps.  They're loud.  They're ugly.  They're mostly stupid, naive, and dangerously uninformed.  Luckily, they're a very small group that appear very signigicant when they travel to small functions like The Texas Straw Poll.

Sadly, Ron Paul; the great Texas supporter of individual liberties, a champion of the sovereignty of the individual (on which this blog has previously expounded), a great leader of gun rights, and right to life, has mounted a so called "internet grass roots phenomenon" based on none of the above.  When people think "Ron Paul" they think "Bush Lied - People Died; No blood for oil; Impeach Bush"

Sad - but true.



    
    

Ok, I admit I got this idea from Limbaugh and his little parody about Obama - the Magic Negro.  I just couldn't help it.  Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to modify, improve, or otherwise edit "The Magic Redneck".  It would be a riot to see a U-Tube Version (sorry my singing isn't up to it!)


Fred the Magic Redneck

Fred the magic redneck, comes from Tenessee
He wants to be the President cause he looks great on TV
Talk radio and bloggers, are sure he is the one
He leads the polls on all their shows before he's even run

(chorus)
Oh Fred, the magic redneck comes from Tennessee
A southern drawl to charm y'all and an actor from TV
Fred the magic redneck wants the Presidency
He figures that Republicans will make him their Nominee

Around the land he travels, talk shows and radio
Softball questions, and red pickup trucks, man just watch him go!
Impeachment, or McFeingold, were never asked of Fred
The Magic Redneck  now makes everyone else look dead

(chorus)

An actor gets media passes, but not a candidate
If the Magic Redneck runs, what will be his fate?
One gray night it happened, the Redneck did anounce
Within a single news cycle the media did pounce!

(chorus)

His balding head then lowered, his voice grew ever faint
A staunch conservative this Thompson guy just aint
Without scripted lines and writers Fred was not the same
Within two weeks of running, they all forgot his name!

(chorus)




 

Larry Craig did some very weird stuff in a public restroom.

It wasn't "lewd."

It wasn't particulary "offensive."

It was in the presence of an undercover vice investigator.  The investigator thought the behavior weird enough to charge Larry Craig with disorderly conduct.

The media is in a feeding frenzy.  One more Republican is discovered to be a closet pervert.  A homosexual one at that.  Every disgusting detail has been exhaustingly and repeatedly broadcast.  It may forever be impossible to comment on a baseball players batting position without conjuring up ludicrous visual images of the Craig explanation.

There are those on the conservative side who are quick to point out that the media has a double standard for Conservatives and Liberals.  When a Democrat is accused of any transgression, the media seem quick to point out the "lack of evidence," make some other excuse, or simply not broadcast or print the story at all.  Conversely, when a Conservative steps off the straight and narrow, it is trumpeted from the highest mountain for as long as anyone will listen.

Invariably, a disgraced Republican; weather it be Bob Packwood, Tom Foley, or Larry Craig; will be summarily relieved of his position and effectively be severed from the party.  By contrast, embattled Democrats will be defended, cast as victims, and ultimately celebrated for their triumph over the evil opponents who dared hold them accountable for their behavior.  Hello, Kennedy, Frank, Clinton et al.

What is often missing in the analysis of those who decry media bias, is that while the media may in fact be biased, it is not truely a "media" double standard that makes such things a story.  The real double standard is the difference between the parties.

Bluntly -

Conservative Republicans Have Standards.

Liberal Democrats Do Not.

This is the "Double Standard."  Larry Craigs actions may have been innocent.  (seems unlikely, but certainly possible)  Craigs actions  were way out of line for any normal person.  Republicans simply demand superior public behavior from the their elected officials.  Larry Craig should remain in office only long enough for every Republican of any standing to call for his expulsion from the Senate. 

Yes, the Democrats would rally to his aid if he were one of theirs.  No, they wouldn't sacrifice one of their own.  The media would circle the wagons in his defense.  That's one big reason why I'm not a Democrat.  Let's not worry that a double standard exists.

Let's be grateful for it.  Unfortunately, with out the "double standard" we may be left with no standards at all.

In recent days it has been reported in several spheres that Republicans have all but conceded defeat in the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections.  Among the sources of such rumors are Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh; far from Gospel, but clearly not moonbats.  An honest evaluation of recent events tends to lend credence to the defeatist rumor.  Senators Voinavich, Hagel, Lugar, and Domenici have all voiced opposition to the war effort in Iraq.  The defecting Senators appear to be flailing for political cover, and show not the slightest courage of any conviction.  In truth, they all deserve to be soundly defeated.  Hopefully in  a primary, but most likely by a quasi - socialist Democrat.

The Democrat strategy for the 2008 election has crystalized.  They promise peace through defeat, Environmental Purity through Government oppression, and free HealthCare through class warfare.  The Republican strategy has not yet crystalized - but appears to be something like; "duh, dat won't work."

Such is the result of electing those who posess political skill, and lack any conviction to conservative principles.  These poloticians are quite willing to expouse conservitive talking points as long as the polls are in agreement; but the moment popular opinion changes - so does the position.

It is time that the basic principles of conservatism be restated and clearly articulated in the party Platform, and campaign themes.  The underlying priciple of conservatism is the concept of the "Sovereign Individual."  It is from this concept that the constitutional endowment of unalienable rights comes.  It is the belief that it is the individual that is sovereign, and that the State is the recipient of sovereign authority assigned by the individual to promote the common good.

From the concept of the sovereign individual flow many of the aspects of free capitalist societies.  The right to own private property, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, the right to bear arms, the right of free speech,  and the right of free passage are all examples of rights which come from the concept of the sovereign individual.  It is the concept of the soveriegn individual, that is, the empowered individual; combined with the belief that a strong national defense is needed to safeguard the empowered individual, that comprise the underlying principles of conservatism.

The empowered individual in a free capitalist society can be definitively shown to have advanced human standards of living far in excess of any other social/economic/political system in history.  This novel approach has enabled the free societies of the Western World to achieve accomplishments beyond even the imagination of those only a few generations ago.  Yet, almost inexplicably, societies have gravitated toward lessening the power of the individual, while increasing the power of the State.  History teaches us that Government that is vested with absolute authority will eventually turn on it's population and become oppresive and totalitarian.

The limitation of Government power and the corresponding empowerment of the individual are the basic concepts of conservatism and the best method of preventing totalitarian oppression. 

It should now become a common portion of Conservative campaign rehtoric, that conservatives support and promote the sovereignty of the individual.  All campaign issues, and platform positions should be discussed in terms of how they support the individual as the sovereign and how they limit the governments ability to be authoritarian and eventually totalitarian.  The Democrats are moving sharply towards expanding government authority and power.  In essence, they are promoting moving us one step closer to totalitarian oppression. 

During this upcoming election cycle, we will often here those who contend, "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans!"  We must be quick to point out that there is a vast and crucial difference.  Democrats clearly believe that Sovereignty is vested in the State, and apportioned to the people as the State sees fit.  This is found over and over again as Democrats strive to equalize outcome in health, wealth, and education.  Conversely, Conservatives believe that Sovereingty is vested in each and every individual, and that it is apportioned to the State only with the consent of the individual.  Accordingly, Conservatives recognize that such a system often distributes health, wealth, and education on unequal terms - we believe such to be fair and in aggregate, far better for all parties.

Remember - poor people in most of the world battle starvation, poor people in America battle obesity. 

We have at least 12 million people living in the United States in violation of Immigration Statute.  This reality creates a variety of social ills as well as some societal gains.  The net gain or loss can be argued convincingly from both sides. 

In a previous post, this writer offered a "solution" to the problem.

While this proposed solution might well be the best policy to pursue relative to this issue, it is troubling to consider the likelihood that illegal Immigration may be the result of a much greater ill.

The troubling much greater ill is that we have become weaker and inferior work force to our immigrant population.   As an entrepreneur who's often worked near the Texas / Mexico border it is possible to witness this disparity first hand.

It is often said that, "Business just wants cheap labor."

That is not entirely true.  Business wants reliable and respectful labor also.

Respectful? .....

Yes, respectful of the hierarchy of trade and business.  Respectful of the fact that business does not exist for the benefit of the worker.  Respectful of the fact that in the long run, the business has much more at risk than the worker.  Respectful of the fact that employment is not a entitlement. 

All of the above are things that we seem to have gone to great length to drive out of our workforce.  Between indulgent "helicopter" parents, outcome based education, and pandering politicians; we have produced a typical American Worker that is more likely to sue his employer than to thank him.
This part time blogger has been involved in numerous employee litigations.  Once was because the $25,000 "bonus" check I handed to a worker with only a year's seniority was too small.   That is because this worker found out that another employee got a $30,000 bonus.  

That's become a typical American employment scenario.  Hand out a significant bonus, then watch the employee spend the bonus money on an attorney to try to extract a larger bonus.

Admittedly, the above is an exaggerated and isolated example.  It is in character, however with much of the current American worker mindset.  This mindset is simply not present in illegal Mexicans.
(purposely choosing to avoid politically correct terms for the group we all know we are talking about)

Therein lies much of the problem.  It is not good policy to encourage law breaking.  But if this group of workers is "assimilated" into the current American values that teach the evil of corporations and the worth of "jackpot justice"; they will lose their appeal as workers.  They then become likely candidates for social services such as food stamps and welfare.

Could it be then, that the real answer to the immigration issue, in the long run, is to reverse the anti-employer culture that we've developed in this country?  Could it be that if we were better employees, businesses might not be so tempted to hire illegals?

Most importantly, if the above is true in the long run - it's likely that we the current status quo on immigration is as good as it's going to get in the short run.

The issue of illegal immigration has the potential to devastate the Republican Party.  It is imperative that a clear and consistent platform position be forged among conservatives if there is any hope of regaining Congressional majorities, or winning the Presidency.  On the bright side, it must be noted that all significant debate on this issue, like most issues, is being done on the right.  The left is nearly  unanimous.  Their solution is: Let them all in.  Let them all vote.  The sooner, the better.  Surely, we can do better.

Before one can solve a problem, one must understand the problem.  In this case, it seems that many on each side of the issue refuse to recognize the problems that motivate those on the other side.  In truth, both sides have valid concerns, and any solution must address both.  

To briefly summarize each side:

The Pro immigrant side:
-We have a shortage of dependable unskilled and semi-skilled labor in the U.S.
-The demand created for this labor provides incentive for illegal border crossing.
-Creating a legal means to meet the labor demand will weaken illegal networks that currently   facilitate illegal entry into the country which could be used by terrorist elements.

The Anti immigrant side:
-We are losing our American culture to an invasion of immigration.
-There are huge strains placed on our medical and social services.
-To many illegals drives down the market wage for American workers.
-Many illegals do not pay a fair share of income tax burden.
-Our current porous borders present a national security risk.

Those who are on either side of this issue need to make an honest effort to understand that ALL of the above concerns are valid.  Therefore any proposed legislative solution must address all or these concerns.  Without further delay - The Solution:

1. Provide a legal resident status for non-criminal inhabitants of the United States. This status will require a tax ID number.  This legal status, once accepted by the immigrant, will forever preclude the ability to become a U.S. citizen with voting rights. 

2. No citizenship status should ever be conferred on any person who enters the United States in violation of the existing law.  This should even be offered as a Constitutional amendment.

3. The border fence should be built.  This can do no harm.  If there is a legal method to enter the United States there is no reason that honest people should need to cross the border illegally.

4. No welfare services should be available for those holding legal resident status.

5. Because this legal status should be simple to obtain and verify, there should be no reason to employ those that do not have such status.  Civil penalties should apply to all those who do not make diligent effort to verify the status of workers.

Legislation that follows the above five points would address all of the issues except the erosion of American Culture.  Unfortunately, this culture is under attack from more directions than just illegal immigrants.  In truth, many of those coming here identify with the classic American ideals of rugged individualism than many of those who are entrenched in our educational and social bureaucracies.   The preservation of our culture must be accomplished by trying to reverse the anti-American indoctrination being perused by the left in our educational and social systems.  This may be impossible unless we can get the immigration issue under control, and re-unite conservatives in the Republican Party.