More Homo-Panic In the Press, This time with a Twist!

Drew’s site has done it again. If you aren’t a Fark-er, become one. Quickly. It will make your day every day. Fark.com. Live it!

This time we have a lovely story from The Ladies Monthly where Ms. Ann Thrope gently advises moms who may not have done their matronly duties sufficiently enough to prevent their burgeoning young debutants to avoid becoming lesbians. Apparently to Ms. Thrope’s line of logic any girls who go hunting with their dads, eschew their pink clothes, and play basketball are destined to become gay. Her article, gently titled “Setting Your Gay Daughter Straight”, is chock full of bizarre advice to prevent such a tragedy. Link it:

http://www.theladiesmonthly.com/2010/07/how-to-set-your-gay-daughter-straight/

She begins with what one might construe as reasonable: remind her of her moral obligation to God and family. Grandma wants grandkids, and she can’t get what she wants if Suzie likes girls. Next we go to the pretty princess routine by the suggestion that mom’s paint their pumpkins up like little doll babies. That ended up well for Jon Benet Ramsey… Also music selection is apparently crucial: according to Ms. Thrope Lady Gaga and Britney Spears are guaranteed lesbian morphing artists. Just one listen and they’re out of the baby business for life.

Now comes the killer: Ann advises moms to set up her potential lesbian with what appears to be an attractive young girl as a homecoming or prom date. The first impression will be of love, acceptance, and respect for her apparent lifestyle, but ah-ha! Once the amorous notions of teen sex kick into drive her suitor will reveal himself to be a transvestite ready to woo her in the natural way. You know it’s so much better to have a cross dresser as a son-in-law than a lesbian for a daughter. Don’t you agree?

No I’m not kidding.

Ms. Thrope’s final solution is to have a cross-dresser have sex with a potential lesbian teenager to convince her that heterosexuality is the proper way to be a lady. I’m also wondering if Ms. Thorpe has a list of potentially available attractive young transvestites to provide this service. My goodness…

It will be a fine day indeed when we can cease being panicked by the potential of having a homosexual child. Articles like this demonstrate the ignorance of people and flat out stupidity inherent in the lengths some would go to prevent what is apparently described as a tragedy of all tragedies.

I hope when you follow the link, the same related ads appear on the side bar. I like that the randomizer but ads for meeting hot gay men and gay gospel selections attached to an article designed to prevent such behavior from girls. Now that’s a good use of technology.

The comments section only makes this article better. The author actually engages in debate with posters who take her idiotic stance to task, but only reveal what must be her true colors in the process. Here’s a beaut:

From Soy Latte:

You are a selfish, or at the very least ignorant person. What you try to do isn’t caring for girls, it’s frightening. I’ve had all of these tried on me before, thankfully not by my mother, but aunts and uncles and such, or as horrible pranks. They are some of the most traumatizing things you can do to someone, especially the “bait and switch.” That there is not a “surprise (sic)”, it is rape. Just because you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean you should do something as horrible as rape or even what would feel like castration to your daughter. If she’s straight, she’ll straight up and put those sexcapades behind her. If she’s not, there is not one s*** you can do in the world to make her straight.
Also: I don’t know why you should consider a skank like Britney Spears a role model for ambitious young women, or what kind of atheist decides to “Remind [their] daughter of the MORAL atrocity she is committing, as well as the ramifications of her decisions to her GOD.”

Reply from Ann Thrope:

Oh believe me, if you hire the right transvestites it is not rape. Its pretty hard to refuse a 15 year old Vietnamese ladyboy with supple, hormone-encouraged breasts, minimal male sex organs, and a jasmine-scented anus. Reguardless of your gender, they are pretty hard to pass up, so they fetch a high price… and they are shrewd barterers. I once traded an entire Tommy Bahama bedroom set for just 3 hours of service to two fine gentlemen/ladies. It was worth it, after that point my daughter totally stopped watching Sailor Moon with her bedroom door closed.

 So who’s the freak now? I don’t think I have ever before read the phrase “jasmine scented anus” in any legitimate work of literature. And by the way, watching Sailor Moon with her door closed might have been so she wasn’t seen watching such crap, not an excuse for a quiet moment with one’s thoughts.

Something tells me Ms. Thrope has a whole crypt full of fetish skeletons in her closet to come up with this line of argument. She apparently has a lot of experience with Vietnamese “ladyboys”. I would find them very easy to pass up. And she doesn’t stop there. Here’s another exchange:

            From MissAmerikka:

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that by deterring homosexual tendencies, you are promoting pre-marital sex. Isn’t that an abomination too?

Your plan is flawed on so many levels, but I wish you luck in converting your children.

Reply from Ann Thrope:

Why do you automatically assume I don’t believe in pre-marital sex? If my daughter would get knocked up it would save me a lot of time and money hiring transvestites. They aren’t cheap, especially when you need 3-4 Vietnamese lady-boys just to make her wet.

And, just to cover all the bases, we can use this to discredit the genetics argument:

From Steffanie:

If your child is homosexual it is because they were made that way. Their brains literally work like that of the opposite gender. As much as it “inconveniences” you, there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot pray it out, or trick them into being straight. The only thing you can do is love and accept your child for who they are.

Maybe your daughter is experimenting, maybe she isn’t. Either way, if you try to force her to be someone she isn’t you will ultimately push her away from you.

Reply from Ann Thrope:

I personally made my daughter in my womb, and I can tell you firsthand that I didn’t make her gay.

Somebody grab this lady and find out how she has mastered the art of embryonic gene manipulation. We could use her to mold and shape a new generation of like-minded pure youngsters… oops sorry. This has been tried before. A couple of times, I think.

I’m shocked this didn’t appear on Christ Wire with the “pedo-Teacher” article.

America, people are going to be gay. I’m not going to minimize the impact this has on family life. I haven’t had to deal with a child who tells me they are homosexual, so I can neither empathize nor sympathize. What I can do is tell people like Ann Thrope that to psychologically traumatize children using other sexual weirdoes just to have them make “wholesome” lifestyle choices is barbaric and tantamount to child abuse.

Jasmine scented anus. I just wanted to write that again. Has a certain literary flair to it, don’t you think?

Chip Grefski

The Tide Is Turning!

A group of motivated citizens in Missoula did it right. If you don’t think a few “buds” is enough to support a marijuana conviction, there’s no better place to express your opinion than in a jury pool. Link it:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

A man was on trial for a distributing marijuana charge, but the only evidence presented was 1/16 of an ounce of marijuana. Let me put that in perspective: there are 28.35 grams to the ounce. A gram is about the weight of two fat raisins. Now, take one of those raisins and divided into 8 equal pieces. And there you have 1/16 of an ounce.

So we have a jury trial, and that means the use of ordinary citizens away from their jobs, time for prosecutors and court personnel, and money to pay for it all particularly the defense if the accused had appointed council: a lot of resources for a handful of weed. And that was the point the jury pool made. And to do so, they staged a mutiny.

Only 5 of the 27 potential jurors felt it was right to prosecute the defendant for the trivial amount of marijuana officers found in his house. Granted, the small amount was part of a much larger felony charge (the details of which are not known by this article), but the attitude of the citizens called to do their civic duty were clear. With a smaller pool, the defendant took an Alford plea, where he accepts the guilt without admitting to the charge.

I cannot agree more. People who have a personal amount of marijuana on them should not be subject to a jury trial. At the most, how about levying a fine? How about a few hours of community service? How about not wasting time, money, and effort for a tiny amount of dope when the resources could be better spent elsewhere?

Not all illegal drugs are created equal. Even though many anti-drug activists feel it is hypocritical, there is a substantial difference between harder drugs and marijuana, and there should differences in prosecution and enforcement. Meth? Hammer them. Cocaine? Get them treatment and a punishment that will stick. A dime bag of shake? Don’t give it a second thought.

I realize that I’ve used this soapbox before to express my feelings about this issue, and I am resolved o continue to do so until we start being smarter about using our resources, especially in a time of need as we are now. Municipalities are struggling to make ends meet, yet we continually push to spend revenue and resources to punish folks with a handful ganja.

21 years old. No driving. Don’t act intoxicated in public. You can’t grow it, and you can’t sell it without a license. Sound familiar? Regulate and punish marijuana like alcohol, and spend the time finding crooks doing much more insidious damage to others.

Let me be clear: as an enforcer of laws, I will do so until it is changed. But I will continue to argue for that change until it happens. I hope we have more Missoulas in the future, and maybe we’ll get over our fear of weed.

Chip Grefski

Putting the "Civil" in Civil Rights...

Finally, Congress makes a vote that matters. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is gone. Link it:

http://savannahnow.com/latest-news/2010-12-19/gays-see-repeal-civil-rights-milestone

Even though I’m primed to pontificate on this issue as usual, a quote from the link says it all:

"I don't see what difference (sexual orientation) makes in the fighting military," said Melnikow, a public health researcher. "What's the big deal?"

I don’t see the difference either. During my four proud years as a soldier at Ft. Stewart, Ga., I am certain that a handful of my fellow soldiers were homosexuals. None of them gave any overt outward appearances, but there were a few situations- some with them talking about it in strict confidence- that cast aside all doubt. Did it matter to the others in my unit? Not at all, at least not to me. There may have been a few knuckleheads (well, maybe more than a few) who if they knew for sure would have made a move for their discharge, but it wasn’t my business, so I just served alongside them.

The downside of the policy was the abused “escape hatch” clause in it that would allow soldiers to be discharged by claiming they could no longer hide their homosexuality. A quick few meetings with the chaplain and you were gone. Your discharge was dishonorable, but if you wanted out, you got it. I know a female soldier who was briefly (very briefly) assigned to my unit that used it. She was a good worker, very pleasant, but after a few weeks began subtly asking how you can be chaptered out from her enlistment. She didn’t like and couldn’t adapt to Army life, and it was apparently too far into her contract to be sent home for her inability to do so. So, she told the chaplain she was having lesbian thoughts and tendencies, and for such she was quickly ushered home.

But those days are soon to be gone. And thank God they are. I said God. Yes I did.

The time has come to understand that it is God who is the ultimate judge of heavenly worth for His children, not us. This issue screams that fact very clearly. If a homosexual man or woman wants to serve their country with honor, let them do so. The whole concept that homosexuality is ruining the fabric of America is ludicrous. Homosexuality has been around longer than our country has existed, and I wager it will be here long after we’re gone, and I doubt that future historians will point to the gay population as the cause of it. Hate the sin, love the sinner may be an apocryphal anecdote, but it speaks to the crux of true Christianity.

Why is it we find radical Islamists who convert and oppress by spewing hate and violence distasteful, but yet say nothing when Christians love to do the same to homosexuals?

Not every gay man wears women’s clothes and works as a hairdresser. Guess what? There’s a bunch of heterosexual males who do the same thing, but because they have the ability to procreate no body lashes out against them. We just shudder at all that wasted sperm out there. And there are just as many heterosexual men out there who couldn’t handle the stress of rigorous training and combat, so please don’t labor under the notion that straight equals tough guy.

There are tough, motivated, and brave men from every walk of life, and since our nation’s defense lies in the decisions of volunteers to step up and make a commitment, we shouldn’t be in the business of limiting the pool of available candidates.

We used to sing a marching cadence with the phrase “pick up your weapon and follow me.” If any man or woman is willing to faithfully hear that call, I would be proud to be followed by- or follow for that matter- anyone who had the courage to muster.

Thank you, Congress. Now apply the same common sense to the rest of the docket, and we may get somewhere.

Chip Grefski

The After-Birther

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is either very resolute for his cause, or he is really ignorant. I propose the latter. Link it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/terrence-lakin-sentence_n_797906.html

A commissioned Army officer who posts videos challenging the authority of his Commander In Chief by nature of the status of the president’s birth certificate, then defies a deployment order issued under the authority of same Commander In Chief deserves what he was sentenced to: six months in prison then a discharge. So you’re going to put all the 17 years of work, time, and sacrifice that it took to raise your career to the rank equivalent to a Battalion Commander on the line for some conspiracy theory belief that Obama isn’t a naturalized citizen.

You’re also going to go so far as to say that you’re “inviting your own court martial” on a YouTube video.

Then you’re going to say that you’d like to push the reset button and start over. It’s a little late to wait for direct examination by your attorney to say that the Army was the wrong place to air his version of the president’s qualifications.

Really?

The right to your opinion is one not to be taken lightly. We as Americans are incredibly blessed and fortunate to have the right to express your opinion without fear of reprisal from the state. That is, unless you decide to express your views in highly questionable circumstances and situations. Like, for example, If you are a youth group pastor on a field trip, wearing a t-shirt promoting hardcore pornography may not be a good idea.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/12/15/Swedish-pastor-wore-porn-T-shirt/UPI-40601292406300/

Okay, he’s not a protected American, but it still shows the point of context. If he wore the shirt while housecleaning or hanging out with close, like-minded friends, nothing would have come of it. Same with Lakin. If he was expressing himself in a room full of his fellow “Birthers”, nothing would have come from expressing his position.

Take the cases of Charles Schenk and Benjamin Gitlow. The Supreme Court overruled their right to free speech when during World War I Schenk publically told draftees to resist service and Gitlow in a written pamphlet advocated the violent overthrow of the government. During a time of war is not the time to tell people that the government should be shaken and overturned. Lakin’s situation here probably wouldn’t have made so much of a stink if he wasn’t being ordered to deploy in a time of war.

Sorry, Dr. Lakin. Your service to our country is over. You made the conscious decision to make a claim about your commander very public, and now you need to leave the armed forces and go into private practice. I’m sure there’s a hospital somewhere that would be happy to have a man of your talents and beliefs on staff.

Chip Grefski

Yes, Virginia, There Are Clear Thinkers!

Common sense prevails!

A Columbia Falls, Montana teen was expelled from school after officials found a unloaded rifle in the trunk of her car. The .243 caliber rifle was inadvertently left in the trunk after a hunting trip the previous weekend. Link it:

http://dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_96a4baac-073d-11e0-a8e8-001cc4c002e0.html

Here are the details: when school administration announced that a contraband sniffing dog would be conducting a search and the school was locked down, the student immediately remembered the rifle being left in her trunk. The student, a high performing honor roll cheerleader, went to the front office and notified the secretary. About 15 minutes later, the student was being escorted out of the school by an administrator and was told she would be expelled. After a large outcry from the public and a huge attendance at a school meeting, the student was to have her expulsion modified. She has returned to school, and is now making up her work to get back to her usual 3.0 status.

Okay- I am all about protecting kids from violence, especially in schools where they are a captive audience and a barrel of fish to any lunatic with a gun and a mission. That being said, there needs to be a common sense application to the zero tolerance philosophy. Yes, we don’t want weapons in our schools, but a forgetful student who left an unloaded rifle with no ammunition is sight is not grounds for labeling them a potential danger.

If you have a weapon on your person inside the school buildings or directly outside on the grounds, game over. You get the book thrown at you and a special place in the local lock up. If you make an honest mistake and own up to it like the student in this story did, there should be a mechanism to ensure that your mistake doesn’t become fatal.

Knives in pockets are one thing. Empty rifles from weekend trips are another. BB pistols in school bags are one thing. Unloaded, lawfully purchased, and properly secured owned long guns in a truck mount are another.

Regarding the search, I’m all for them. Anything we can do to make a school even 1% safer is worth it. The Supreme Court did us a favor in New Jersey vs. TLO (495 US 325, 1985) where a teenager who denied smoking in a restroom ended up having her purse searched to disprove her story where the administrator found marijuana and the proceeds and records of sales of same. The Court of Appeals and New Jersey Supreme Court said the administration had no right to search her purse, but the US Supreme Court disagreed. We’re talking about kids. Even the possession of cigarettes which by itself was not illegal was considered totally relevant to the reason to search since TLO denied smoking at all. The administrator obtained the right to search in this instance since smoking in school was a violation of school rules.

Rules are only good if they are enforced, and enforcement is only reasonable if based on common sense and the totality of circumstances. We don’t want concentration camps just as much as we don’t want a free-for-all. The big picture tells the story, and it’s more than 1000 words.

Chip Grefski

Prison Strikers Want Better Wages?

Hey now! Here’s the best news yet…

My great state of Georgia does it again. Georgia prisoners coordinated a seven-prison strike to complain about unfair labor practices, poor conditions and human rights violations.

No, this didn’t happen at a Vidalia onion processing plant. Nope, nor at a Fort Valley peach farm either. Prisons. Striking workers from seven Georgia prisons. That’s what I said. Link it:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/geor-d13.shtml

I’ll save you the paraphrasing and let you read it yourself:

In a press release, the prisoners listed foremost among their demands a wage for their work. Inmates under the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC) are forced to work without pay.

Prisoners are demanding access to educational opportunities beyond General Equivalency Diploma (GED) certification, improved living conditions, access to medical care, fruit and vegetables in their meals, family visitation and telephone communication rights, just parole decisions, and an end to cruel and unusual punishments.

Okay- let me see if I’m seeing this right: men who made bad life decisions and wound up in prisons now want to have good nutrition, reading-writing-‘rithmatic beyond the high school level, and a good wage. Really? I think you waited a bit too long, Bubba. No pun intended…

The parole decisions and any cruel and unusual punishment complaints are obviously legitimate and even the fruits and vegetables argument is sensible. Prisoners should be given a relatively healthy diet like anybody else. But this list of demands seems like they want prison to become a fast track to college and a part time job. Pull off a few armed robberies and you too can get a college education and a low wage job. If education and a good wage were so important, why did you decide to commit a crime? Somebody somewhere in your life advised you not to be a hood and to pay attention in school. Why didn’t you listen then?

I’m all about rehabilitation. I don’t think all criminals are destined for the recidivist revolving door. But it’s called punishment for a reason. Prison shouldn’t be a fun and engaging place to go, learn, and meet new friends. It’s the place you go to pay your debt to society and come out with your $25 and a bus ticket a changed man. If that means while you’re there you’ll be a cook, janitor, maintenance man, landscaper, trash detail picker, whatever, so be it. It’s prison, not Camp Whattajoy. You’re not supposed to be treated to creature comforts there. Three squares and a work detail. That’s the breaks.

I also realize that some of the prisoners do have educations and made mistakes. Georgia does have some pretty harsh sentences for drug users and dealers that would benefit from a good dose of decriminalization. But wow, c’mon dudes, its prison. You made the first step, and it was a wrong one.

Instead of making prison a vocational-technical school, let’s have a transitional program that helps these guys find their stride after they did their time. AFTER, mind you, not during. That’s a big difference.

I am compassionate for the imprisoned, but not to the point that we rebuild their lives during their time in punishment when they may have shattered another’s.

Chip Grefski

Hispanics: The Conservatives Just Don't Get It

They would staunchly deny it if asked directly, but the pure racism being spread by many conservative commentators has reached a point of flat out racism directed at Hispanic people. They don't use that word, because they have termed the narrative for their racism as "protecting our borders," or "halting illegal immigration," and "saving American jobs." But in the context of the DREAM act, which opens paths to citizenship for undocumented minors, the conservatives have openly displayed their real agenda, and against children at that:

Many in the conservative media are trying to block the DREAM Act by driving a wedge between Hispanics and white Americans. That, at least, is how Glenn Beck is doing it. "If you are white, or you're an American citizen, or a white American citizen, you are pretty much toast," Beck observed, as he joked with a caller who sarcastically suggested he would need to pretend to be an "illegal alien" in order to qualify for in-state tuition for his MBA program. Rush Limbaugh theorized that the legislation was Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) way of "thanking Hispanics for stealing the election for him."

Elsewhere in the right-wing press, pundits are asking whether a bill aimed at assisting Hispanics will be a "nightmare for hard-working Americans," calling the bill "shamnesty," and raising the specter of criminality, calling it "reckless illegal alien amnesty" and that "incentivizes illegality." Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher even compared the beneficiaries of the bill to bank robbers. (compiled by Media Matters)

See, I'm confused. For years the mantra from the right has been that undocumented workers absorb state services illegally because they are not citizens, and do not contribute meaningfully to the economy because they avoid income tax. Both premises have some truth to them, certainly. But when legislation is introduced to fast track or ease the path to citizenship, we get the above kind of rhetoric. They reveal themselves. They don't care about "legal" or "illegal" citizenship status, they simply don't like Hispanics. Period. There's no other way to spin this.

And this racism clouds a very obvious campaign strategy that is being totally ignored. Pundits like Limbaugh have accused President Obama of being elected mostly by minorities and illegal aliens. Well if that's the case, Mr. Obama has totally failed to live up to the promises of eased citizenship regulations and normalized relations with Mexico. For crying out loud, President Bush the second made more of an effort in his first term to accomplish these things. So what the conservatives are missing is this: they may be kicking a potentially very large voting block in the butt. Mexicans are acutely aware of the president's lack of action, and will be skeptical of further promises from democrats, which, rest assured, will be forthcoming and likely also to fall flat.

The conservatives need to capture this base. C'mon already. It's 2010. The days of most Americans regarding race as proof of bad behavior are over. Mexicans and other Hispanics are coming to this country to work, especially at jobs that most Americans, frankly, consider beneath them. Chili peppers rot on their plants in Texas, because no one wants the job of picking them. If the republicans extend a welcoming hand to Hispanics and get behind well written citizenship programs that uphold the law without punishing the applicants beforehand, they will gain esteem and trust from this community, justifiably. Moreover, they will steal this block from the dems, who have proven themselves to not only be long on talk and short on action over the issue, but also feel that they have the Hispanic voting block in their pocket, with no need to even worry about it. The fact that liberals take the black and Hispanic vote for granted creates a huge opportunity for republicans to steal them. The democrats will never see it coming.

But if they continue on in this way, the will lose the opportunity and continue to look like the caricature they so staunchly deny: a bunch of fat, old, racist white men.

Mike Grefski



One Judge, Two Judge, Wrong Judge, Right Judge

The third time is the charm, right?

According to the Associated Press, US District Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down Obamacare as Unconstitutional. The ruling focused on the key provision that citizens will either have to buy insurance or pay a penalty. I can’t disagree, in fact I applaud him for actually applying the Constitution to the argument. The sad thing is two other judges previously disagreed with him.

Now comes the next part of the story. The judge was a Bush appointee, the article makes clear, and apparently the White House knew they would lose this case. Was this really necessary? Sure if you still want to portray Bush as still dictating the pace of America. But I digress…

Back to the point: America is the land of the free. We have the ability to choose. I realize that some of these choices, particularly the one to have medical coverage or not, can present costs to unintended victims (read: taxpayers). But it is still out right. Those of us who work for organizations who provide healthcare are fortunate. Those who buy their own have a tough row to hoe. Those who chose to have none whatsoever are rolling the dice. But it is their dice, and they’re hand shaking the old bones.

The government should not provide healthcare. Period. The problem lays more with the fact that our runaway litigiousness has malpractice insurance so incredibly high and the red tape and hoops pharmaceutical companies have to go through to put a drug on the market. The costs are so high on the front end that the consumer is left with the burden on the back. This is not to say that a negligent doctor should not be responsible for his mistakes nor should a completely untested drug be put into use without due diligence. What I am saying is multi-million dollar jury awards for infected hangnails have soiled the water for the entire country.

How do we reign in health care costs? Simple! Interstate competition: give the consumer choices, and let the companies fight it out to provide the best coverage at the lowest price. Why should it matter that my insurer is in another state?

What do auto insurance companies do to attract new policy holders? Insurance companies champion lower rates and deductibles than those of their competition. Let’s face it, the government forces us to have automobile insurance, and there are a ton of companies- national and extremely local- that provide coverage.  Why can’t health care be the same? The more costumers sign up the company can offer lower premiums.  Offer discounts for good checkups and exercise. Like a good driver discount, give a bonus to folks who are healthy and don’t need to see a doctor. That might encourage healthier lifestyle choices from those who frequent their doctor’s office.

Face it: the minute we let the government into the health care trade, the more intrusive they can be with our lives and choices. The government needs to regulate commerce, not force it where it need not be enforced.

Chip Grefski

Who's Saying "No-No" Now?

Now we’ll see if bipartisanship is achievable.

Pres. Obama used his radio address to describe the new tax plan as the best opportunity for America. He didn’t like the leniency on the rich, but the Republicans stuck to their premise that it is these individuals that pay the lion’s share of taxes and run the concerns that employ others. There’s an increase in jobless benefits and a trim to Social Security. Sounds like this coalition boiled the bones and got a decent soup stock for next year’s recipes.

BUT… Obama had to appeal to his own party to pass the measure and start 2011 off right. The Democrats have already made it clear they didn’t like the deal, and they won’t pass it. Funny- isn’t that what they constantly accused the Republicans of when they were the minority party? The Republicans were the party of no, right? Everything a Democrat suggested was argued down. The Republicans had little toehold to really stop anything.

We could have had a super-quasi-socialist reorganization of wealth in this country rammed down our throats with the way the numbers were last election cycle o those long two years ago. They didn’t. Why? We acted like free citizens. As wacky as some of the Tea Party rallies were, they showed that he average conservative and the Libertarians (HOORAY!) of the country were out there and not hiding. They rallied PEACEFULLY and demanded a righting of the ship of state more towards the middle. Health care was a serious stain on Obama’s first attempts at a redefined presidency. It is so clear that we Americans don’t want what they offered. So we citizens told Congress that we were watching. They held their moves and perhaps purposefully hoped the tax cuts from the Bush administration would simply expire with excuses and accusations as to why.

We are still watching. If the Democrats want to regain or retain something of what they had, particularly the Oval Office in 2012, they need to listen to the country. The republicans need to as well. Neither party has the answers, but the people do.

Keep the heat on, folks. Whatever your ideology, keep DC honest and listening.

And, DC… do what we tell you. The days of us drinking the Kool-Aid are over. The motivated American voter is back!

Chip Grefski

The Ugly American Rides Again

Here we go again.

I must give a plug for Drew Curtis and Fark.com. his wonderfully eclectic and humorous anecdotes regarding the news of the day are a daily source of pleasure for me. I often don’t get my news any other way. Kudos, Drew…

It is from Fark that I found my latest subject matter to espouse my firm belief that if this country is to progress from our current doldrums, we must first recognize the responsibility of the individual to respect the rights of others and contemplate them as they express their personal views. Whether or not you agree with a person’s beliefs, lifestyle choices, or opinions is simply immaterial. We all have the right to agree to disagree unless someone is being harmed. Then we have a responsibility to restore order, and the actor should pay the appropriate consequences.

That said, we find a story from San Francisco where a transgender woman was harassed by an agent at the local Department of Motor Vehicles when the new she went to apply for a new driver’s license. The agent took the woman’s address and wrote her a letter admonishing her for her decision to change genders, making the point that it was a “very evil decision”. Link it:   

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/12/09/san-francisco-transgender-woman-files-privacy-claim-against-dmv/

Please tell me why this individual put their governmental organization in the path of a litigious freight train for this issue. Why was it so necessary for the agent to make their displeasure with this woman’s decision to radically alter her life? Why was it their business? Who was harmed, besides the person who received such an assault? Yes, she was assaulted. Like it or not.

The best way to express displeasure for a lifestyle choice is to not engage in its practice. It is none of the individual’s business what a complete stranger does to their own body unless the action places others in jeopardy of life, limb, or liberty. There is no cause for the community to rise in anger over a sex change. The was no right for anyone to subject this woman to anonymous scrutiny- almost voyeuristic to a degree- when she is simply doing what needs to be done to stay in compliance with the law.

In her suit, she claims her privacy and civil rights were violated. I totally agree. If the agent in question saw fit to disparage Ms. Yust’s choices, they should have saved the editorial for their own circle of friends. There is no law against being intolerant, but there exists a requirement for intolerance to be saved for one’s own circle and not spread it like a miasma.

This brings to my mind a Supreme Court case, People v. Rokicki, where the defendant referred to a Pizza Hut employee as a “Mary” amongst other homosexual epithets when he expressed displeasure at the employee handling his food. After his tirade, he actually went to a local police station to make a complaint against people who aren’t “normal” to handle his food. He was charged with hate speech, and the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. You can believe what you will, but you cannot spread bile for general consumption.

Grow up, America. Everybody is different. That’s what makes us great. Intolerance is the match that lights the fuse.

Chip Grefski

The Better Mousetrap

Let me tell you a story...when I was 18 in 1987, I went to work for an independently owned video rental store in Oak Ridge, NJ. It was owned by a man named Ed Malvey, and for 4-5 years off and on, myself and his other employees helped grow the business to be, at least to my perception, quite successful. There was only one other video store in town, which had bad customer service. We, however, had a popcorn machine, a killer candy counter, and since everyone who worked there loved to watch movies, we gave great customer service. Our customers trusted us to help them choose movies for them, and to let them know what the stinkers were. It was not only a good job, it was a fun job.

A couple of years after I'd left the business, the owner heard a Blockbuster was coming to town, and made plans to close the video store and do something different. He believed there was no way he could compete, and he may have been right. Back then, Blockbuster was seen as the diva of the video rental world, better than any other such company. Personally, I felt the stores to be horribly common denominator, only stocking tons of the most obvious titles, while customer service simply devolved into asking if they had a particular title or not. But as I clearly am not a typical consumer (not a boast) I was wrong about Blockbuster, and for many years the chain floiurished, putting indie stores out of business with their lower pricing and copious concessions. It reminded me of the times I spent with Musicland Inc., the company that owned Sam Goody, Suncoast Video, Musicland, and Media Play stores. That company was the top music retailer in the nation in 1991, and it didn't look like that was going to change any time soon.

But, as with all evolutions, things change. And in the case of video rentals and sales, the change that altered the industry forever and will continue to do so, is singular: the internet.

It started slowly, with online video retailers popping up, mostly catering to speciality genres that video stores tend to be unkind to, like horror and foreign film. Blockbuster's selection looked shoddy and lazy alongside these competitors. And then in 1999...Netflix. I have been a Netflix subscriber for about 7 years now, so I'm kind of a veteran. While deciding to join, I logged onto the site and checked to see if they had some obscure titles I was interested in. They had them. Other titles I checked were unavailable anywhere at the time, and when they became so, I emailed Netflix to advise them. With about 6 weeks, they were stocking the titles. I was being given better customer service by an unseen phantom at the other end of my modem than I'd ever gotten from Blockbuster.

The other factor that is the bigger bugaboo for the rental industry, is the exponential increase in computer processor's speed and the velocity of the internet itself. Remember trying to download video clips online back in '99? More frustration than it was worth. Today, I watched two documentaries for free on Netflix without a buffering message in sight.

Now it may sound like I'm rooting for Blockbuster's demise, but I'm not. Netflix built the better mousetrap, and Blockbuster will struggle to work their way out of bankruptcy and fight back. But thinking back to my personal vdeo store employee days, I miss the one thing I also miss about downloading music or buying books online: human interaction. We laughed and joked with our customers, and got into talks and debates about the movies. We waited to see what a customer would think of a film we'd recommended to them. My boss and I would debate what titles we ought to stock. Netflix is great, but I feel like I'd need to form a film society to get back the kind of anima that was so easily obtained back then. The same is true of music stores nowadays (less so of books). The personal touch is virtually vanished. Now some people don't care about that. They want convienience and the top ten titles at their beck and call and have no desire to dig deeper. But some of us do, and a computer is, ultimatley, far worse at helping with that than an actual person.

I hope Blockbuster survives. I think by using far less retail outlets with sizably improved selecions, they might. Maybe just have Blockbuster Supercenters that strive to be the best damn video store in a given major city, and throw the rest of their business into video on demand and online renting. That's just my thought, for what it's worth. For now the better mousetrap is Netflix...how long will it be before someone re-unlocks the human interaction aspect of the business, and we all get to glare at a new one?

TSA: Terrorists Sure Applaud

Ever since 9/11, we have had to redefine the way we travel by air. The travails of the traveler going through security have become more than a hot topic. The ultimate result? The terrorists win another victory.

I am convinced that the wonderful guys that shocked us into panic those years ago continue to succeed in winning the little battles in the war on terror by virtue of the fact that we cannot enjoy the simple little freedom of getting on a plane and going where we want to go. The initial shock of the Trade Center going down has been replaced by the fact that because of it we are no longer able to take security for granted like we used to. Now we have to be nearly groped and strip searched to hop on a plane.

I also believe that the continued attempts and dopes that get caught like the shoe bomber and the underwear guy are plants to keep the fear factor up. They're step-ups to make us keep twitching. It works.

I'm not saying that we should back off by any means, but I firmly believe that we have hardened our collective target to the point that even our own law abiding citizens are scrutinized as terrorists.
Check this link for a wonderful airline over reacts story: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/11/adam_c_pearson_pulled_off_delt.php
Now I might not care his ink display, but Adam Pearson certainly need to be pulled off of a plane because of having "Atom Bomb" emblazoned on his knuckles. I realize this isn't TSA, but it speaks to the whole freaked out flier mentality. If we banned everybody with a questionable tattoo from an airplane, we'd be flying the empty skies.

TSA has a tough job to do. They have limited resources to ensure every American can travel safely and no other groups of terrorists can crash planes into critical or significant infrastructure. Instead of complaining though, we need to go into the security zone prepared to be checked with a knowledge of the rules and regulations. Unless we stay vigilant, we'll have an even stricter set of hoops to jump through just to get on an airplane.

They're not going away. Neither are the terrorists.

Chip Grefski

I'm Glad the Turkey Isn't Me

Here we are on Turkey Day. A great day for reflection and gratitude. Couple of good football games on the tube. Nice way to get the family together.

But its more than that.

We as Americans need to really remember why this day came about. We relied on the benevolence of the natives for survival, and shared the bounty of what we learned with then once we became stablized. Neighbors helped neighbors without thinking twice. That's where we need to be today.

There are few differences between you and your neighbors and even the folks who live across town on the other side of the tracks. We all have the same basic needs and goals. The problem is our small clans create narrow views of how those goals are best accomplished. Some have the notion that it takes work and dedication. Others feel you get what you can take, and may the best scam win.

It's human nature to want something for nothing. Even the hardest working families with the strongest sets of ethics and values loves to take a bigger bite of the apple. But when you make it your purpose in life to find the short route, you end up taking more risks and wasting more time and energy if you actually made it the right way.

Lotteries are the best example. I hear so many of my coworkers talking about their "numbers" and whose hit and when. It's like a very expensive hobby that becomes a part of their lives. Frieghtening. They honestly believe the lie that their day could be tomorrow, when instead if they saved their ticket money they would actually have something. Yes there are those who win them, but the statistics show that lotto winners often commit suicide or go bankrupt within 3 to 5 years of a win.

My solution is simple. Let's get together and be thankful for the ability to work, earn, and share. We can't rely on the government. We can't rely on the numbers lining up. What we can rely on is making a difference first within, then to those close by, then reaching outside your neighborhood. We are the ones ultimately responsible for our success and our failures. We can rise above and reinvent our nation if we focus on what's real and openly encourage others to pick up the rope.

That's what I'm thankful for most. I'm thankful that I've grown enough courage and guts to sieze the day and shape it with my will and wit. My wish is for everyone I touch to do the same.

I for one will not be the turkey, but I will be doing the carving.

Chip Grefski

Common Sense And The Free Market: The Tale of Four Loko

I am a pro-free market libertarian. I feel that a mostly unregulated and government supported business model is the right way for capitalism to grow and succeed. But in the current profit at all costs view of the right, and the generally anti-business model of the left, we have an interesting example of product creation run amuck. I could have easily titled this post  "Just Because You CAN Create A Product, Doesn't Mean You SHOULD."

For those of you unfamilliar with the product called Four Loko, it is a drink manufactured primarily by a company called Phusion Projects, and is a fruit flavored, malt liquor based product with plenty of caffiene shoveled into it. The effect of drinking one 23.5 ounce can is roughly the same as consuming 3-5 beers, with a major kick from the caffeiene acting as a stimulant on top of it. And the results? Ahoy, Wikipedia!

The drink has come under major fire as colleges and universities across the nation have begun to see injuries and blackouts due to the drink's use. The University of Rhode Island banned this product from their campus on November 5, 2010. The state of Washington banned Four Loko after nine university students aged 17 to 19 from Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington became ill at a house party in Roslyn, Washington. The university students were hospitalized and one university student, with a blood alcohol level of .30, almost died.

Obivously, the problem here is the combination of alcohol and caffeine, which tends to delay the affects of the alcohol, leading to overconsumption of both substances, and a sort of doubly dangerous high occuring. In the wake of the incidents reported above, many states have banned the product outright, and the company has now agreed to reformulate the product by removing the caffeine altogether. And it wasn't long before the nanny state decriers, those who have the odd idea that when the department of health and safety regulates products, they are actually destroying our freedoms, came out to bawl:

Once again, fear, overreaction, and the Nanny State have crushed liberty and common sense. Four Loko, a caffeinated, alcoholic beverage, will no longer be distributed in New York State. This follows previous Four Loko bannings in Washington, Michigan, Utah, and Oklahoma. (from blogger Elie Mystal at http://www.abovethelaw.com/)

Her argument is that by banning or altering the drink, you make it popular, telling college kids it's the pandora's box of fun that you can grab and go with at any 7-11.  And she may be right about that. But when a product can have the effects described below, we have to wonder: did this need to be on the market in the first place:

In Maryland, friends and family of a 21-year-old who died last weekend after she crashed a Ford pickup truck into a telephone poll blamed the drink dubbed "blackout-in-a-can" for making her "lose her mind". After drinking two cans of Four Loko, mourners told WJZ at a memorial service on Thursday night that Courtney Spurry "changed." "She was not the same person," said Abby Sherwood, a friend of Spurry's. "She could not remember people's names. She was passed out within 30 minutes of having the alcoholic beverage." (NY Times)

And here's the event horizon where common sense and the free market clash. It's an odd position that those on the right seem to take, one that argues that any restrcition or regulation on consumables, sensible or otherwise, is the sign of an omnipresent "nanny state," and is inevitably a slippery slope into deeper government control in our lives. Odd that most of the things they seem to want the least regulation on, tend to be the most dangerous products available health-wise, i.e. very high fat foods, tobacco and alcohol. In other words, while often opposing the legalization of marijuana, a drug poven to have relatively low danger to it's use, they decry attempts to regulate the consumption of more dangerous drugs/foods. 

Now, I believe a person should be able to eat, drink or smoke whatever they like within the structure of the law. But Four Loko is a tricky test for my free market attitude, for this reason only: it has been proven to be a dangerous item that seems to be marketed directly to the people who would be most likely to abuse it: college students. So we free market fans must ask ourselves: where does the jubilous celebration of runaway capitalism end, and the responsibility of companies and goevernment begin? The question we might be asking should be directed not at the state, but at the company that produces it and the people who have chosen to abuse it, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Should Phusion have created a product that contains two potentially dangerous drugs, two made more deadly by the presence of the other, and why did those who overindulged in it do so? As deaths and injuries began to pile up, they should have voluntarily altered or recalled the product before states started banning it outright. But they didn't. In fact, they struck back in this manner:

Phusion Projects, the manufacturer of Four Loko has struck back against the negative press, arguing that their drink is no more dangerous than a drink like Red Bull and vodka. "While we don't agree with the notion that mixing caffeine and alcohol is inherently unsafe, we do agree with the goal of keeping adults of legal age who choose to drink responsibly as safe and as informed as possible," the company wrote in an open letter to regulators on it's website. (N.Y. Times)

Just for a little persepctive on this, Anheuser Busch and MillerCoors, who manufactured similar drinks agreed to reformulate their products in 2008, without any government pressure. They seemed to reconsider the effects of marketing and selling a potentially dangerous product, and did the right thing.

As for the individuals who have sickened themselves, damaged property and even died as a result of abusing this product, I can say nothing. I don't know them, or their motivations. But to look at their fate, and defend the product, or the manufacturer, or attack a government that felt there was a serious problem here, has the ring of blaming the victim. But hey, the facts are the facts. We have the freedom to decide this one for ourselves, so maybe we ought to align our moral compasses for a moment, and do just that. 

And by the way, friends who have tried Four Loko tell me it tastes like crap.

-Mike Grefski



If There Was Ever A Time For Bi-Partisan-ship, It's Now.

Okay, the wake up call has been delivered, the American people are severley disenchanted with the direction of our nation. President Obama will not likely have a very good second half to his presidency if our course is not seriously changed. The Tea Party woke up the sleeping elephant, and the torch has, at least in part, been passed. Now the Republicans have to decide what to do with the torch before it burns them.

For years I have heard AM radio conservatives yelp about how bi-partisanship is akin to treason to your own party, and only allows your voice to be stifled or diluted. This approach is akin to slapping one's hand's over one's ears and pretending your enemies simply don't exist. And the liberals have hardly shown that the extended hand of compromise would be anything less than torn off and eaten. Or perhaps the problem is right there in that statement...why do the two political parties view each other as enemies?

Sure, there are some radical differences in theory and approach, but in these days of worry and want, the idelogical arguments we all have need to be put in perspective. When the nation is floundering, which is more important: saving people or saving principles? 

Now here's where the problem comes in, it being that we have too many ideologs and too few leaders. Look, it's very easy to shout dogma, belief and political theory all day long, and maybe it makes the speaker feel empowered by the thrill of their bombast. But who does it help? What worries me is that, while basking in the warm glow of secure jobs, the newly elected (and re-elected) Republicans will do nothing but continue to watch the president's policies flounder. And, being the academic elitist that he is, I highly doubt Mr. Obama would admit to the flaws in his actions to date. So he'll continue on course, unemployment may get worse, the foreclosure situation will continue to fester, and in 2012 the Repubs will have to answer for their failure to correct the nation's direction.

Wouldn't it be better for a bold coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans to form a plan, bring it to the people, and actually include us in planning a new direction for our nation, especially in the economic sense. Yes, they would be decried, and yes, they would be laughed at. But consider this; the Tea Party has already confirmed the fact that a third party option is much more than viable. I said in a previous posting that from this situation in our history, heroes could emerge. I really believe that the American people are looking for a new group of politicians outside of the Washington echo chamber of corruption and bickering, But the real new vocie of reason and progess will not come from extremes, it will come from the mainstream. And the far ends of our glorious parties have been steering this American craft far too long. In truth, they are the people we need to take the nation back from. 

Mike Grefski (now, with added fiber!)

Sorry for the delay, folks... we're back!

It stinks when life and work interfere with your blogging schedule. We'll try not to let it happen again!

In the Why?!? Corner...

The ACLU is helping a group of concerned citizens lift the local school district's ban on parents with felony records to volunteer in classrooms.

What?

Yes... They want people who have committed bad enough crimes to fall into the "Big F" category to  help out around the kids. Check it:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/aclu_urges_grand_rapids_school.html

Let's be fair: I'm all about forgiveness. I am after all a Christian. Everyone deserves a second chance.

But do it somewhere else.

We have enough problems with sex offenders - the one's we've caught and not- approaching schools. We've got a full time job in the vigilance arena trying to stop potential criminals from entering the school zones. If anything happens even remotely near a school the media goes gaga over it. No, not Lady Gaga either. That's just silly.

They're asking for "individualized screening". In other words, having a felony shouldn't outright discredit you from volunteering. You should have an opportunity to explain your criminal activity. Heck, you might be a cute and cuddly felon, not an icky-sticky one.

If you are a felon, you have demonstrated that you can't abide by the rules. I don't know too many felonies that are in the "oops" category. the woman in the article wrote bad checks years ago. Okay, did Old Scratch move your hand on the signature line? You made a bad decision. You may have very well improved your life and won't ever do it again. Sorry. You're in the felon bin.

Don't want restrictions on your freedom? Don't be a felon. Sounds like common sense.

Why is it we have these advocacy groups pop up and support these "feel good" stories on the pretext that America is somehow to blame for people being arrested for felonies. Click that link and read the third paragraph from the bottom. Why do we jail people? Because they are criminals. Do we make mistakes? Sure, but we can't be THAT wrong THAT often...

In the eyes of some of our citizens, the police are viewed as the mindless jackbooted arm of oppression sent forth to incarcerate the poor for no reason. I have never attended a forum for the "Oppression Target of the Month" club, though my status as a cop lumps me in there. It's even worse that I'm white. That makes everything I do tantamount to depriving someone of their civil rights. No matter how much I try to SERVE (the word after PROTECT), I get lumped into the pot with the real racist cops. Trust me, I've met some in my 14 years. They need to be put out of the business too.

But back to the issue, these folks made big mistakes in their lives. Bad enough to have big punishments hung on them for particularly damaging crimes. Using the story as an example, have you ever fought with a bank over a disputed check that was cleverly forged? Now we should give them a hug, say we're sorry, and give them access to other people's kids?

Nope. Not on my watch.

Chip Grefski

The Huh? File: Olbermann vs. Williams

Kieth wasn't gone long, was he... He closed his return show with a nice, humble quote.

"I'd like to close tonight by discussing something that I'm sure has happened to you dozens of times in your own life. You know, when there is a petition supporting you and it winds up being signed by 300,000 people, and you get 21,000 tweets in a 72 hour period, and then you’re invited to be on television because you aren't on television because they want you on to be the lead story on “Good Morning America,” and “Larry King,” and "Letterman," and you break the traffic records on the Huffington Post, and you're on the front page of the New York Times without being dead or in jail or Charlie Sheen or something. Well maybe you’re used to it, but for me it was a kind of a surprise, and all I can seriously say is I'm stunned and grateful and it still feels like a universal hug."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/09/keith-olbermann-almost-dislocates-shoulder-patting-himself-back#ixzz14uNKCVmI"

No, Keith, I haven't experienced the wonder that 300,00 signatures brings you. Nevertheless...

Let's look at the big picture: Olbermann, a rather vocal supporter of all things Democratic (read: jackass) was suspended for contributing to candidates during the election. This was in violation network policies.

Excuse me?

Please tell me why he's allowed to publicly tell America to push the Democratic buttons on the machine and to lampoon anyone who even smells conservative but yet his station doesn't allow him to contribute cash to a candidate? I ask you, what's the difference?

Conflict of interest? I don't think so. It would have been so if he supported Libertarian or Republican candidates.

Undue influence? I don't think so. He contributed to John Conway of Kentucky who ran against Rand Paul and two Representatives from Arizona, Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. Would his contribution have cemented an interview or some other privilege? I submit his verbal support would have done more than his dollars. He donated after he interviewed each of the candidates. I donate to people I like too.

Violation of policy? What kind of corporation makes their employees who can visibly stump for a cause cease from financial contributions? That's like Peyton Manning being suspended for supporting NFL Charities, but using him as a sound bite to tell others to support the cause.

Aha! here's the issue! We made it! Hypocrisy 101:

Juan Williams got canned for expressing his opinion. OPINION. Trumped by official NPR policy. Williams should be entitled to expressing his journalistic opinion. He's got a right to it. But Williams apparently wasn't slurped like Olbie was to come back. The journalistic world turned their backs on him because he answered a question honestly.

Olbermann gets suspended and allowed to make a triumphant return (rightfully so) for expressing his opinion with his checkbook instead of his bully pulpit. In between he was apparently the toast of the town and MSNBC became a pundit pinata.

Where we these folks for Juan? Oh, I'm sorry... he went counter to the mantra. Grounds for excommunication.

I disagree with Olbermann's politics, but he should have the same rights as you or I. He was taking a positive step to ensure candidates of his choice had potential success. He does it everyday.

How about having a foil for Olbermann's Left-Side Story on the air, then hold both to the same standard. The entire network goes democrat, why shouldn't a portion of their paychecks?

Chip Grefski

Okay, Now the Waiting Game Begins

We can all take a big yawn and stretch moment. The tumult and shouting from Tuesday is dying down. The ads are gone (mercifully) and now thoughts turn to Thanksgiving and Christmas. How many shopping days left? Who cares...

The Obama phenomenon was remarkable. They didn't come out and campaign on it, but the allusion was fairly clear: electing Obama means instant change fort he better. It didn't happen, not that it would have. Besides, he began alienating himself from the people who fought for his election almost immediately. Saying that he liked the Patriot Act after all was kind of kooky, don't you think? Maybe the difference is between having the power and only looking at it.

But now, our amazing world of instant gratification swings its piercing gaze to the folks who just won. Nancy P. will take a back seat for a new speaker. I hope she holds on to the gavel like a teenager throwing a fit when you take her cell phone away...

But will we have patience with the newly arrived winners? Probably not. We want results and we want them yesterday. Why? Because we are used to the way the government handles us, not the other way around.

If you owe taxes, the IRS hits you right away. If you're due a refund, you'll have to wait.

If you violated a federal offense, you'll receive a visit from a nice man or lady dressed in business attire very soon. If the government caused you an injury, please have patience and enjoy the red tape.

This of course is perceptional: bureaucracies all run slow unless they're on fire, and even then they need a committee to approve the water discharge. The problem is the average American doesn't understand the workings of our government and the basic rules of civics. Nothing happens quickly, and if it does, you get sour results. Case in point: Obama care. We have to vote for it to see what's in it. Thanks, Nancy.

So my call is for patience, but vigilant patience. We know what we want done, so we need to keep the battleship turning. It is time for the citizen to demonstrate who has the power in this equation.

Be patient, but don't sleep on it. There's an advantage to cooking with a slow simmer...

Chip Grefski

We Didn't Evict Harry, But At Least We Didn't Get Sharron

Now that we're on the other side of Tuesday's Democrat bloodbath, I'm happy to say that two key Republican candidates did not win their battles: Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle. Am I glad that Harry Reid retained his post in the face of Angle’s challenge? No, I am not. But I firmly believe that many of the Tea Party favored candidates are absolutely the wrong choice for the offices they sought, and the wrong direction for the Republican Party to be going in.

Angle is simply too extreme, and while she probably would never have accrued the power to carry out some of her more “out-there” ideas like eliminating the Department of Education, she’s the kind of candidate that would reveal herself to be woefully out of touch with her own constituency. Her campaign seemed to say little about correcting Nevada’s crippling unemployment rate, but seemed to spend most of its energy on attacking Reid. And when not doing that, she positioned herself among the paranoid fringes of her supporters. But don’t take my word for it; check out this reporting on Angle from the Christian Science Monitor:

Citing Thomas Jefferson’s notion about the periodic need for revolution, Angle told conservative talk radio host Lars Larson: “If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” She’s said essentially the same thing in other venues.

Whether or not Angle is actually suggesting armed opposition to political opponents, she’s also associated herself with some of the tenets of the “Oath Keepers,” a controversial group that claims a membership of law enforcement officers and active duty military personnel ready to disobey any “orders to disarm the American people.”

Hey, everyone’s entitled to their opinions, but at a time when the economy is at a real crisis point in the state you hope to represent, I don’t think the first thing on your mind ought to be black helicopters. And frankly, for a candidate running for office to come very close to advocating violence, that should have been a huge warning sign for voters. Apparently it was.

And then we have Christine O’Donnell, another Tea Party favored candidate who lost her bid in Delaware. My first issue with her was her insistence on taking interviews only from “friendly outlets,” and sometimes ducking the press completely (Angle also did this, to the point of using decoys). Her campaign was full of broad platitudes and idealistic notions, but little strategy. She was a walking collection of talking points, continually hitting all the keywords which those in the Tea Party seem to respond to like Pavlov’s Dog.

But apart from that, she has some pretty wild quotes to enjoy. Now I’m not going to stoop to going all the way back to the 1998 anti-masturbation, anti-evolution statements, some of which she has retracted. Why? Because I don’t have to. Check this doozy out:

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." - Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, 2007

Do I really need to explain what an overflowing basket of crazy that is? I’ve watched many a 1950’s science fiction movie, and never encountered a mad scientist plotline that wacky.

This is not the kind of gibberish the Republicans ought to be engaging in. What the party needs now is to locate the real core of what made the Reagan-Bush era so successful, and convince, not browbeat, the nation that they have a direction and a solid plan. It’s going to take stepping away from the “cut taxes, smaller government” mantra that they have continually failed to deliver on, and making some radical choices geared toward getting the country back to work, and encourage the growth of business at the street level. In this political environment, heroes could emerge out of the party. Neither O’Donnell nor Angle was up to that challenge.

Mike Grefski