It amazes me how the media can claim they have no bias whatsoever when reports like this are coming from the presidential campaigns:

From Newsweek.  Read the whole article here.

“The McCain campaign is mightily annoyed at the disparity in the media coverage this week. And it’s not hard to understand why. Barack Obama has a newly chartered jumbo jet, loaded to the gills with reporters and network anchors accompanying him to the Middle East and Europe, while McCain’s traveling press corps numbers only about 25, including camera crews. While CBS News anchor Katie Couric and ABC News anchor Charles Gibson are traveling with Obama, neither CBS News nor ABC News sent even a correspondent to cover McCain. (NBC News is covering both). And this is hardly unique to this week. Only the Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal among big newspapers are consistently covering McCain. NEWSWEEK almost always has a reporter on the plane, but Time and U.S. News do not.”

emphasis added

Props to those media outlets with the balls to let America decide which candidate they like better instead of attempting to decide for America.  To CBS, ABC, Time, and U.S. News: frankly, I’m not surprised, but I am horribly dissappointed.  It’s was always hard to believe you when you said you didn’t have a bias; now it’s damn near impossible.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Have we, in our lust for that which is shiney, killed the market for the crt?*  I remember when I worked for Sears in the summer after my freshman year of college (that would be 4 years ago) that plasmas were rare, and a new breed of CRT tvs were emerging: HD Wide Screen flat tube tvs.  These bohemoth tv’s offered a stunning 16:9 ratio flat screen capable of 1080i resolution, and they were selling for nearly $400-$800.  They were gorgeous, but they were heavy.

After plasmas came out, they started taking over the market to the point where now, you are lucky if you can find a store which even carries crt tvs, let alone those rare HDTV gems whose poor timing prevented them from reaching technological maturity.  Their biggest problem? Their size. 

Samsung, however, started to fix this last year when they came out with their slim fit crt’s, which are 2/3 the depth of the old crts.  This year, the slim fits are on clearance; no one is buying. 

So what is my point?  We have killed the CRT.  As a result, a relatively cheap tv has been replaced with a tv that costs nearly $400 for a 19″ no-name brand.  As for a Sony and be ready to fork over your paycheck.  But for those of us unwilling to fork over half a G for a tv with a questionable lifespan, irritating heat radiation, and occasional color distortion, there is little other option.  Imagine, if you will, today’s market with yesterday’s crts!  Those HDTV widescreens would be selling for about $250 for a magnificent - albeit large - 36″ crt tv.  But alas, we, through our shortsidedness and our need for everything to be new and shiny (regardless of how much interest on our credit card it costs us) bought crt’s out of existence.  Now new tvs are a thing for the upper middle class, or the credit card laden lower class.  Make no mistake, tvs are becoming a sort of status symbol.  And it’s rather disturbing for me who still longs for the crt’s of 2004. 

I’m not against new technology.  I’m just against it eliminating the old at the expense of my pocketbook.  And as I move into my new house in August, I refuse to buy a plasma.  More accurately, I can’t afford to.  I will watch my movies on my laptop, shop craigslist for $50 crt tvs, or perhaps even begin my own puppet show.  Take that technology.

I win… even though I lost…

*For those of you who don’t know, CRT = cathode ray tube.  It is the term used to describe regular tvs and monitors… you know… the ones that took up half your living room before you bought that fancy new plasma…

Popularity: 2% [?]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people I email about business questions do not respond.  When people work 8 hours a day, and spend a majority of that day in front of a computer as most of us do now, ignoring emails is a huge affront to professionalism and just out and out irritates me.  It almost irritates me as much as not getting my calls returned. 

Communication is the key to just about every relationship.  This, my friends, includes client-business relationships, tenant-landlord relationships, and coworker relationships. 

I am aware that at times my emails to my landlords, my potential suppliers, my deans, or other people I do business with are burdensome; loaded with questions, what if’s, and a quandry of grammatical errors.  I understand not being able to answer every aspect of every one of my emails.  But for Heaven’s sake, at least reply back with a “I’m working on it…” response.  It’s the least you can do. 

If you are employed and you use email, do everyone who works with you a favor: use the reply button to the point of annoyance.  It is always better to get a non-helpful reply than to get nothing at all.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Caution all evil-doers… er McCain voters… er people who think for themselves: You are violating a Democratic Party principle and as such you shall receive no support from any Democrat, elected official or not.

Just when I thought my faith in the Democratic party could not be shaken any further, along comes the state party chairman for Wisconsin with this wonderfully tolerant, open-minded, accepting, and democratic remark:

“It’s extremely important that we send a message that Democrats in the state of Wisconsin will never support somebody who supports John McCain for president.” See associated story here.

While this statement may not be tolerant, open-minded, accepting, or democratic, it marks a rare moment in history: a Democrat leaders speaks the truth.  Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars: this won’t happen for a long time again.

You see, for Democrat leaders, the point of democracy is to create jobs… for themselves.  They see the White House as a goal of an election, not a place for governing.  As such, they see any office they hold as a conduit for policies that support Democrats, not policies that support the United States.  Democrats do not believe that a government official represents all who reside in their district, state, or country.  Rather, they believe they represent “the people who brought ‘em,” and forget about the rest.  If you didn’t vote for them, you get no representation.  Sorry.

This is clearly a case of a Democratic leader finally admitting, if you vote for McCain, Democrats will not support you.  Period.

Freedom of voting/freedom of thought: 0

Democratic Party: 1

Popularity: 4% [?]

Obvious grandstanding irritates me.  It insults my intelligence and nothing irritates me more than that.

This Tuesday, James Dobson attacked Senator Obama for a speech in which he assumed ultimate authority on Christianity by declaring that the Bible is open to interpretation.  In a nutshell, Obama explained that no right view exists.  And such, my friends, is Obama’s sense of morality: there are no right ‘morals.’  Seems Bill Clinton believed this too when he flat out refused to help stop the genocide in Rwanda.  Obama is also joined in this view by pal Jimmy Carter, who let dozens of Americans suffer as hostages under the jihadist-Islamic regime in Iran.  Lets not forget Obama’s friend in the House: Pelosi, who felt giving a tax break to Hugo Chavez was a great idea.  But I digress.

Obama has declared himself the agent of change, and the combatant of corruption.  Yet he openly embraced Washington’s political games, and opened his campaign up to special interests and high dollar donations in a way never done since Watergate.  Perhaps this ‘change’ he speaks of is taking two steps forward and 30 years back…

Obama has declared himself devoutly religious and a man of faith.  Yet he placed his faith in a pastor who, during a church service, cursed America; he refuses to take any moral stand that will lose him votes in Michigan; and… HE HAS A RELIGIOUS ADVISER.

Don’t get me wrong; he needs it.  But don’t come knocking on my door, talk to me supposedly as “Christian to Christian,” and then tell me “oh, by the way, everything I know about religion I know from a political adviser.”  I am so angry about this: how religious can you be, how guided by your faith are you, if you need to hire a full time religious adviser to help you woo Christian votes?!  And how stupid does he think Christians are to think that we will vote for him simply because he says the right things (because they are being whispered into his ear by his religious adviser)?

Now, frankly, I don’t care if he has a religious adviser or not.  What I detest about Obama is that he is presenting himself as some righteous religious zealot, attempting to tell us “Democrats can be religious too,” but he himself has to hire a religious adviser to make that all true!  What blatant grandstanding!  What atrocious positioning!

I have a religious adviser too: my pastor.  A true Christian shouldn’t need advice to know what to say to a fellow Christian.

Popularity: 5% [?]

DECLARATIONS

By PEGGY NOONAN

…

“In the Old America, love of country was natural. You breathed it in. You either loved it or knew you should.

In the New America, love of country is a decision. It’s one you make after weighing the pros and cons. What you breathe in is skepticism and a heightened appreciation of the global view.

Old America: Tradition is a guide in human affairs. New America: Tradition is a challenge, a barrier, or a lovely antique.

The Old America had big families. You married and had children. Life happened to you. You didn’t decide, it decided. Now it’s all on you. Old America, when life didn’t work out: “Luck of the draw!” New America when life doesn’t work: “I made bad choices!” Old America: “I had faith, and trust.” New America: “You had limited autonomy!”

Old America: “We’ve been here three generations.” New America: “You’re still here?”

Old America: We have to have a government, but that doesn’t mean I have to love it. New America: We have to have a government and I am desperate to love it. Old America: Politics is a duty. New America: Politics is life.

The Old America: Religion is good. The New America: Religion is problematic. The Old: Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. The New: I’ll sue.

Mr. McCain is the old world of concepts like “personal honor,” of a manliness that was a style of being, of an attachment to the fact of higher principles.

Mr. Obama is the new world, which is marked in part by doubt as to the excellence of the old. It prizes ambivalence as proof of thoughtfulness, as evidence of a textured seriousness.

Both Old and New America honor sacrifice, but in the Old America it was more essential, more needed for survival both personally (don’t buy today, save for tomorrow) and in larger ways.

The Old and New define sacrifice differently. An Old America opinion: Abjuring a life as a corporate lawyer and choosing instead community organizing, a job that does not pay you in money but will, if you have political ambitions, provide a base and help you win office, is not precisely a sacrifice. Political office will pay you in power and fame, which will be followed in time by money (see Clinton, Bill). This has more to do with timing than sacrifice. In fact, it’s less a sacrifice than a strategy.

A New America answer: He didn’t become a rich lawyer like everyone else—and that was a sacrifice! Old America: Five years in a cage—that’s a sacrifice!

In the Old America, high value was put on education, but character trumped it. That’s how Lincoln got elected: Honest Abe had no formal schooling. In Mr. McCain’s world, a Harvard Ph.D. is a very good thing, but it won’t help you endure five years in Vietnam. It may be a comfort or an inspiration, but it won’t see you through. Only character, and faith, can do that.”

Read the whole article here.

Popularity: 6% [?]

I haven’t posted in a while.  A long while. Ok… over a month.

Here is the deal: my website needs an overhaul really really bad.  Especially on the admin side which still has remnants from a website 5 designs ago.  Don’t believe me?  Click on the “graphics” link above.

I’m also working on several other more pressing projects, like getting a wedding website up and running, as well as designing/printing/sending save the dates and wedding invites.  oh… and work.  I work now.

So basically what I’m saying is that there won’t be any new posts here for a while as I get this site back up to date and finish the other stuff.

So forgive the hiatus.  It won’t be long, but it will be worth it as I streamline the site and make it a bit more user friendly to those without a 19″ monitor like I designed the site on.

Until then, have a great summer!

Popularity: 8% [?]

McCain just couldn’t help himself.  Apparently the work it takes to unite the party behind him was just a bit too much for him to handle, and he went back to his normal-self and started criticizing the GOP more than the Democrats themselves do.

His criticism de jour?  That the North Carolina state Republican party is “out of touch with reality” for making and airing this ad:

He said it was inappropriate for them to connect Obama with Obama’s pastor… what?!  Is it unfair for us to connect McCain to his now-jailed lobbyist friends too?  Is it unfair for us to point out that Obama has been listening to a pastor that obviously holds great contempt for America?  Really?!

I know McCain wants to fight fair, but come on: you’re fighting against a party that attempted to connect Jack Abramoff (the convicted lobbyist/briber) to members of the Republican party who hadn’t ever even met him.

Yet my biggest problem is this: McCain tried to convince the NCGOP not to air the ad, and when they did anyway he decided the best course of action as future leader of the GOP, was to publicly lambaste his own party!!!!  Way to get the GOP behind ya buddy.

And so I conclude: props to the NCGOP for airing this ad in spite of McCain’s flailing, whining, and general tissy-fit.  Way to keep running the ad after McCain publicly attempted to humiliate you.  You are true conservatives being led by a Democrat-in-denial.

To McCain: I hope you know that millions of loyal Republicans like myself are only voting for you because we don’t want Obama or Clinton.  While you may be fine with that, you should note that this strategy didn’t work so well for John Kerry.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Ronald Reagan once said that Republicans believe every day is July 4th, while Democrats believe every day is April 15th.

This couldn’t be any clearer than this election cycle in which the two Democratic candidates on one hand accuse President Bush of letting fiscal responsibility slip out the window, yet on the other hand have proposed a combined total of over $1.3 Trillion dollars of new spending.  For the record, if they succeed in their proposals, that would account for a nearly 40% increase in the federal budget, and nearly a 300% increase in the federal budget deficit.

If every program that Clinton has proposed were enacted, it would amount to $709 Billion dollars in new federal spending.

If every program that Obama has proposed were enacted, it would amount to $662 Billion dollars in new federal spending.

So… is this what Democrats call fiscal responsibility?  Or maybe it is more like Obama’s act: for years he has chastised fellow Senators and Congressmen for hording millions and millions of dollars away for special pork barrel pet projects, such as Clinton’s Woodstock Museum or North Carolina’s Teapot Museum, but when it comes to his own pork Obama is silently exuberant: in 2008 alone Obama secured nearly $100 Million dollars in earmarks for his own state.  That my friends, is what we call hypocrisy.  That my friends, is what we call putting the election’s needs before the needs of the nation.

We need leaders, not welfare stamp distributors.  We need a strong person whose political decisions will be based off of what is best for this nation, not off of what is best for next week’s Gallop polls.  We need a president who can cut out the fat, cut out the pork, cut out the waste, and cut out the caviar on Nancy Pelosi’s military jet.  Ultimately, you have to visualize this:

The president has been handed a bill asking for more funding for a program that is failing, defunct, and wasteful.  The news cameras surround him; lights flashing.  All anticipate what he will do.  Behind him stand the children who would be “benefited” by this extra funding (though in reality they will likely never see any benefit whatsoever).  If he signs, he will be hailed as a bleeding heart; a man with compassion.  If he vetoes, he will be derided as a cold hearted budget hawk.

Here is the question you must answer: what would your candidate do?  Because the candidate this country needs is one strong enough to veto.

Popularity: 14% [?]

A Living Lie

By Thomas Sowell
RealClearPolitics
April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama’s election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation — nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk — glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama’s public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so “bitter” that they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction — and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions (”bitter” in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects “stereotypes” when they are stereotypes he doesn’t like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about “a typical white person” or “bitter” gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification,” when people react adversely to what was plainly said. …

Click here for the full article…

Popularity: 13% [?]