Over Four Years Later..........

...............I decided to finally write another post.  It's been an interesting few years, to say the least, and I make no promises that I'll blog again "full time".  It's just too time-consuming, and there is too much going on in life for me to devote all that much time to this (not that anyone is paying much attention, anyway!).  Let's see, where to start?  Well, for one thing, I am no longer a resident of the Garden State.  Last year, I moved from New Jersey to Florida.  Timing is everything, and I'm missing the worst winter in my old state in close to 20 years.  Still, I really miss my friends and the familiar sights from my old stomping grounds, and I wish that all of those friends were down here with me.  Love the weather down here, but I have to say, southern hospitality is largely a myth.  Yeah, sure, the people are friendly to your face, but that's about the extent of it. We've been here for eight months, and no "real" friends yet.

What else?  After 15+ years at my old firm, I left that job in April of 2010, and went to a firm that specialized in commercial litigation, bankruptcy and foreclosure work.  I don't know that that was such a great decision on my part.  In any case, I left THAT job in June of last year, before moving down here and taking a new job doing what I used to do at my old firm. So far, so good, as far as that's concerned.

Politically, I have done the proverbial "about face".  I left the Republican Party in 2012, mainly because I couldn't stand its positions on social issues or guns.  Very simply, I am "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion.  While I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not believe that I have a right to enforce that belief on anyone, and I don't think that the government should be in the business of banning it, as many Republicans seem to want.  I am also pro gay marriage.  Basically, if two people love each other, what business is it of mine to tell them that they shouldn't get married? Go, be happy--it has no effect on my life if two homosexuals tie the knot.  On guns, well, the Republicans seem to be completely beholden to the NRA. I am NOT a fan of that organization.  Maybe it's my Canadian upbringing, but I think that the prevalence of guns in the United States, and abject failure of our legislators to do anything about the level of violence that flows from these guns is completely unacceptable.  I had thought that maybe the massacre of 26 people, including 20 children, in Newtown, Connecticut, in December of 2012 might represent an opportunity for real change, but even that didn't do anything to change the attitudes of our government officials.  Hell, they couldn't even agree on background checks, which is something that the NRA itself favoured as recently as a decade ago (like the Republicans themselves, the NRA has grown more radicalized over the past decade).

And, then we get to the unemployed, for whom the Republicans, at least at the national level, seem to have utter contempt.  Full disclosure:  My wife lost her full-time job near the end of 2012, and was ardently looking for work from that point on.  While she looked, she collected unemployment benefits, but yes, she never stopped looking for jobs.  Unfortunately, she didn't get one (though I'm happy to say that she now has a job, and an exciting one at that).  In late December, her unemployment benefits were cut off, leaving us in a very precarious position financially.  We rode it out, but it for January and much of this month, until she landed her job, it was truly "touch and go" for us as to whether we would be able to make it.  Those benefits were the only "buffer" for us, and yet when they ran out, the Republicans started playing games............at least where they weren't expressing outright contempt for those who were collecting them (I won't forget or forgive Rand Paul for his asinine comments that the people collecting those benefits were "lazy".  Yeah right, Senator, because my wife WANTED to make 70% less than she was when she had a job.).  They demanded that before they would agree to a three-month extension, the extension had to be "paid for" (i.e., extending them would not add to the absurdly large and still-growing deficit).  That had never before been a demand when any benefits program was extended or enacted, but fair enough, with the deficit being as large as it is, I can understand that.  To their credit, the Democrats figured out a way to do it, and then the Senate Republicans STILL wouldn't let it come to a vote.  Bottom line, the Republicans don't want anyone to get these benefits.  Period.  Well, screw them.  This has a real world impact, and people are now losing their homes, or getting evicted, etc., because of this decision.  That was the final straw for me.

So, where do we stand now? I'm not a Republican anymore, but I'm not a Democrat, either, mainly because the Obama Administration's foreign policy is so horrendous that I can't ever see myself supporting it.  That foreign policy can best be summed up as follows:  Treat your friends/allies like crap and treat your enemies with deference.  So, that's why we have the Administration sucking up to Iran, letting Syria gas its own people and treating Israel and the UK with utter contempt (if not outright hostility).

I suppose that going forward, I'll pick and choose the people for whom I vote based on how they stand on various issues.  I don't really know what else to do.  I'll save the sports commentary for another post.............

President Obama

It is official; Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States a few minutes after noon today. The Bush Administration is no more. I thought that President Obama's Inauguration Speech was masterful. To use a baseball cliche, he "hit a home run". Now, we will see if his actions match up with his soaring rhetoric.

I may dismay or anger some of my fellow conservatives, but I'm going to give him a chance, a chance that the left in this country NEVER gave President George W. Bush. Even now, now that President Bush is an "ex-President", the left's hatred for him endures, and if anything, is intensifying. I'm on Facebook and have about 260 "Facebook friends". A fair number of those people are on the left politically, and as I scroll through their status updates, I can't help but be struck by how mean-spirited and even vicious their comments are. Certainly, they are entitled to be gleeful that their candidate won the Presidency, but can't they exhibit SOME graciousness?

I know, I know, this is something that the left never showed during the eight years of the Bush 43 Administration--hey, for all you morons who kept screaming that "Bush is a fascist", blah, blah, blah, how do you explain that your candidate is now the President? And to those who loudly and insistently proclaim that President George W. Bush is "the worst President ever", I would only remind you that one James Earl Carter held the Presidency from 1977-1981. The angry comments about President Bush show historical ignorance that is simply unforgivable. As far left as my late mother was politically, she was a Nazi refugee, and she would have told the left in this country what REAL fascism was like.

In any event, and to come full circle, I truly do wish President Obama success. It's what would be best for all of us, like it or not. Time will tell over the next four years what kind of President he will be..................

Barack Obama, President-Elect

It's over now. Barack Obama decisively won yesterday's Presidential Election, as I predicted months ago would be the case. As of this morning, he has 349 electoral college votes to 162 for John McCain, with Missouri and North Carolina still in the balance. Obama's victory was decisive--he captured every swing state that he contested; Virginia, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Florida and turned states that weren't supposed to be swing states into ones that John McCain had to defend (eg., North Carolina). He won 52% of the popular vote, become the first Democrat to capture that high a percentage since LBJ in 1964. This was no fluke and it was no upset.

So, the question becomes "Now what?", not only for the Republicans but for the country in general. The Republicans have been given a thorough beating in this election. In addition to the Presidency, they lost 20 House seats. They have lost at least five Senate seats, with several still being decided. The RNC needs to examine its strategy as to what it did wrong here, because it can't all just be blamed on Bush 43 or the economy. The primary process itself needs to be evaluated, because forcing people to constantly appease certain interest groups obviously isn't working.

As far as the country is concerned, well, I've been pondering the question as to how I feel about this. I just posted an entry about 40 minutes ago or so on Little Green Footballs where I said that I wasn't sure what to think. My initial thought was "Obama won, so he's MY President, too", but then I thought about all the comments I have heard from people on the left over the past eight years about how Bush 43 was not their President, and it gave me pause. I don't know if that type of thinking is helpful, but I certainly understand it now.

I guess that I'll end by saying this: President-Elect Obama is going to have a tough road down which he will have to travel to earn my confidence. He has made many promises, and I don't know how he'll be able to keep them. But, I'll be watching to see if he does. And, if he DOES keep them (without hiking my taxes to absurd levels or bankrupting the country), I'll give him credit. If he doesn't, I'll certainly point it out, and I'll keep my eyes on the prize, which is the next General Election, in November, 2012..........

Why I think that it's (almost) over

The fat lady may not have started to sing for the McCain-Palin Presidential campaign, but it appears as though she has finished warming up and is waiting just offstage. Tracking polls are giving the Obama-Biden campaign a nearly insurmountable delegate lead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5. Most of the so-called toss-up states are leaning the Democrats' way. As well, it looks to be more or less certain the Republicans will lose even more seats in the Senate and the House. While it is unlikely that the the Democrats will get to the 60+ seats they need for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (they're going to come very close, though), they will add to their majority in the House of Represntatives, probably by at least 10-15 seats.

Republicans will talk for years about this election the same way our grandparents talked about the 1932 election.................

Vice-Presidential Debate Recap

I watched the debate last night between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden from beginning to end, and then flipped channels watching the various pundits and talking heads babble about who they thought had "won" the debate. Surprisingly, there was a consensus, albeit a weak one, that Sarah Palin may have won. I didn't see it that way at all--in my mind, the floundering McCain campaign needed a sharp boost from a strong Palin performance, and that's not what I saw last night. Rather, I thought that she was evasive, to the point of occasionally being stubborn in her refusal to answer the questions which were put to her. Now, Joe Biden had the same problem at times, but let's not forget, Barack Obama and he are in the lead. They didn't need a great showing last night. Coming out of the debate where they were when they went in was good enough for them, and that's exactly what happened.

The only explanation I have for the perception that Sarah Palin may have won might be that expectations of her were so low that she couldn't help but exceed them. Ultimately, I think that she needed to clean Biden's clock last night for John McCain's campaign to regain the momentum, and she didn't accomplish that.

Go away

Some nutcase religious leader in Pakistan has issued a "fatwa" against Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari because Zardari apparently had the temerity to comment on Sarah Palin's actrativeness: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/pakistani-religious-leader-issues-fatwa-president-complimenting-palin/. Apparently, this was "immoral and shameful".

Now, this particular "fatwa" didn't carry with it a death sentence, but how far down the road do you think that is?

Trashing Sarah Palin, part 2,398,050,572,375

The MSM is nothing if not relentless, so I guess that the latest attack on Sarah Palin shouldn't be a surprise. Now, it's going after her foreign policy experience, screeching that she has only negotiated with one country, Canada: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_el_pr/palin_foreign_policy. Well, first of all, given that Canada is by far the largest trading partner for the United States, that's kind of a big deal. Second, I don't recall seeing similar attacks on Bill Clinton when he ran for the Presidency, and I am fairly certain that President Peanut Farmer's credentials weren't scrutinized this way in 1976. Third, she's NOT at the top of her party's Presidential ticket; John McCain is. Fourth, what is Barack Obama's experience in this area? Other than his "world tour" this past summer, it's not too impressive.

Nope, no bias at all, just keep moving along, nothing to see here................

Come again?

Representative Alcee Hastings, a Democrat from Florida, offered Jewish voters in Florida a "good" reason not to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, which is that she's a moose-hunter: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/24/florida-congressman-points-to-palin-to-rally-jews-to-obama/. Here is the one quote that jumped out at me: “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

Is Hastings suggesting that Sarah Palin would go hunting Jews and Blacks? What in the world is he trying to say here?

Presidential Debate #1

Last night, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama had the first of their three debates. Frankly, I thought that both came across well. McCain kept true to his theme that Obama lacked the experience and wisdom necessary to be the President, Obama responded by arguing that for all of his supposed judgment, McCain had come down on the wrong side of many issues. Both scored points, but neither delivered a knockout blow. Media reports are all over the place; some have McCain as the winner (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3aec9d034f-e49d-4a39-9420-976a206ad4a6&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com), others saw an Obama win (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1845114,00.html).

Here's the problem for John McCain: He trails in the polls, and more importantly, he trails in the majority of the so-called battleground states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In those states where he is leading, i is generally within the margin of error and he has not made any inroads into any of the leads that Obama has held in those states where the Democratic nominee is leading. In fact, Obama has been slowly but steadily increasing his leads.

So, ultimately, John McCain can't afford ties in the debates. He needs wins. BIG wins. Last night, his first chance to get one went by the boards. Now, the attention will turn to next Thursday's Vice-Presidential debate. The bump that Sarah Palin gave the Republican ticket has worn off, and this will be her first real chance to try to regain the momentum. Given the way the campaign is playing out, this could very well represent the last, best chance for the Republicans to keep the White House in 2009.

So, it's racism again.....

Let's be honest about this. Is there a segment of the American population who will never vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances because he is Black? Absolutely. However many people that may be, it is too many. Of course, the flip side of that question, one that never seems to receive any attention at all, is why Obama has essentially completely locked up the African American vote, and no one at all is calling them racist for supporting Obama purely based on his race.

That said, I have another question: Why is is that for all of the cries of racism, it is only the left that seems to be obsessed with it: http://www.progressive.org/mag/comment1008.html. I have plenty of friends and acquaintances on both the left on the right, and it is inevitably those on the left who bring up the subject of race, who focus on it, and who preemptively blame their candidate's loss next month (as an FYI, I think that Obama is going to win, but that's neither here nor there) on racism. To me, this is a sign of a defective mind, one that cannot debate ideas, policies or candidates on their merits, so it must fall back on shrill, bitter claims that the adversary is evil. It's pathetic, frankly.

And they talk about AMERICAN arrogance?

Growing up in Canada, one of the constant themes that was beaten into my head was that "Americans are arrogant". There was a perception on the part of just about everyone in my homeland that all Americans had a superiority complex. A funny thing happened after I relocated south of the 49th parallel: I realized that the exact opposite was true. If you want a Canadian to show his or her true stripes, get them to talk about Canada vs. the United States. What you will get (in many--NOT ALL--cases) is a stream of generalizations about how much better Canada is than the U.S., about how stupid and ill-informed Americans are, about how wasteful they are, etc., etc., etc. Here's a case in point, the column on September 5 (sorry that I'm late to this party) from one Heather Mallick on the CBC (note, the CBC is the official, government-funded radio and television outlet) heaping abuse on Americans in general and Republicans in particular: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html. Here are some of her pearls of wisdom:

1) "She [Sarah Palin] added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote........"
2) "It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman."
3) "Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too."
4) "John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I'd had the wit to come up with it first. It's safer than "white trash" but I'll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something."
5) "White trash — not trailer trash, that's something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity."
6) "Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?"
7) "The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."

It goes on and on. Read it only if you have the stomach. And if that's not enough, she spewed her venom overseas as well, in an article in the Guardian (a case of preaching to the anti-American choir, I guess): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/05/usa.sarahpalin. After reading this puerile drivel, I don't want to hear from any Canadian about how "condescending and arrogant" Americans are, because I don't know of any creature on the planet who fits that definition more than a Canadian elite.

Greed is good! Greed is right!

I remember that line from Gordon Geckko's speech to stockholders in the movie "Wall Street", and it seems particularly prophetic as I (and everyone else in the United States) ponder Wall Street's collapse over the past week, and in a more specific sense, the failures over recent months of Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, FannieMae, FeddieMac, etc., etc., etc.: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/. Here are some numbers for one and all to ponder: The Dow Jones Industrial Average ("DJIA"), which is considered by virtually everyone to be the bellweather for the health of the stock market, closed yesterday at 10,609.66, dropping almost 450 points. This followed Monday's 500+ point drop. On October 9, 2007, the DJIA closed at 14,164.53, its all-time high. After yesterday's close, it has dropped in value since that date by 3,554.87 points, or 25.1% (and those figures are even worse overseas), and that's despite the government pouring almost half a TRILLION dollars into the market to rescue some of those failed corporations. Like so many others, I have a 401(k) plan. That means that my investments--my FUTURE--are worth that much less today than they were 11 months ago. Given that so many people in the country have similar plans, that goes for them, too.

So, the inevitable question becomes, "Who is to blame for this mess?". To me, the answer is "All of us." At the risk of offending my conservative brethren, we overly deregulated in the late 1990s (thanks to a Republican Congress and a Democratic President). We the people over-leveraged our properties. Our banks got caught up in the property speculation boom and lent money to people who never should have received loans and then were shocked when those people couldn't repay the loans. The Federal Reserve pursued (in my opinion) a borderline idiotic policy regarding interest rates, making it far too easy for people to obtain loans that as noted above they could not repay. SOME CEO's (not all) looted their companies and then took golden parachutes as the company's employees were left hanging when the companies failed. We all followed Gordon Geckko's mantra; Greed is good, greed is right........

Ultimately, the situation will iron itself out--it always does. However, the road back will be long, painful, and it will be years for the market to recover the ground lost since October of last year. That said, here's what I want out of our "leaders" in Washington: SHUT UP. Stop the posturing. Stop the finger-pointing. This isn't a Democratic problem. It isn't a Republican problem. It is an AMERICAN problem. Do your jobs and work for us. Figure this out. Or, am I asking too much of them?

Very well said

Somebody by the name of Joseph Epstein has a fascinating piece on what it is like to the that most incongruous of people, a Jewish Republican: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143719228934301.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. He's right, too. Other than perhaps African Americans, no group is identified more with the Democratic Party than Jews, going back to the days of Franking Delano Roosevelt.

The thing is, that Democratic Party is not today's party, which has taken a fairly sharp turn to the left and which is now home to many people who don't hold what I would call "Traditional Jewish Interests". For example, Jews are high achievers, by and large, yet the Democrats stridently support quotas which have the effect, albeit unintended, of keeping them out of certain positions. Jews support Israel by an overwhelming majority, yet the Democratic Party is home to the President Peanut Farmer ("Israel is an apartheid state!") and the denizens of the Daily Kos and Moveon.org, who regularly and loudly villify Israel in the most vile language.

Those are but two examples, and I don't know that anyone will agree with either Mr. Epstein or myself, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Some political humour

Ice Fishing

The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle things. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election.

Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner.

After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota .There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out separately on this isol ated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties. At the end of the first day, McCain. returned to the starting line and he had ten fish.Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would catch up the next day.

At the end of the 2nd day McCain. came in with 20 fish and Obama came in again with none.

That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said, 'Obama, I think McCain. is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating.'

The next night (after McCain. returns with 30 fish), Reid said to Obama, '"Well, tell me, how is McCain. cheating?'Obama replied, 'Harry, you're not going to believe this, but he's cutting holes in the ice ! '

Experience Counts.

Twice the reason to not care!

Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia who is now running for President under the Libertarian banner, has asked current Republican Congressman and one-time candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination to be his Vice-Presidential candidate: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/10/barr_paul_veep.html. I only care about this story to this extent--Barr and Paul will inevitably draw some voters away from John McCain. The question is, will they do so in enough numbers to flip some states over to the Democrats? Of course, the flip side of that question is, will Ralph Nader do the same thing for the Republicans?

And how many electoral college votes do they have?

A BBC-commissioned survery of some 22,500 people in 22 countries across the world found that those polled overwhelmingly favoured Barack Obama over John McCain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm. Well, well, well, what a shocking development THAT is! Obama would defer to everyone, so why wouldn't those living in other countries like that in a U.S. President? The problem is, he's elected to represent US, not THEM. Ultimately, they have no stake in this election. They won't be the ones paying the taxes or the consequences of his policies. So, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I really don't care what they think.

Like he has a clue

Ron Reagan, Jr., has opined that his father, the late President, would not have backed a ticket on which Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was a candidate: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74558. Of course, there is no way to know that for sure, but something tells me that Junior has no clue what his father would have done. After all, Ron Reagan, Jr., is unquestionably a Democrat, and his view of things is slightly skewed, to say the least.

When obscene just isn't enough

OPEC ministers have decided to cut oil production by 500,000 barrels a day, because the billions in oil revenue they have been raking in for over half a decade now apparently aren't adequate: http://finance.comcast.net/www/news.html?x=http://www.origin.comcast.akadns.net/data/news/2008/09/09/1054942.xml. Of course, there will be grumbling about this, but for the most part, the reaction on the part of the West in general and United States in particular will be..............nothing. I suppose that the inevitable response is "Well, what can we do?" The answer to that is, "We can drill here", everywhere and anywhere. We can do whatever it takes to find new sources of energy. Unfortunately, oil (like just about everything else), has become just another issue over which Republicans and Democrats can spar. Neither of them accomplishes a damned thing, nor do they care to do so.

The latest rant from a very angry leftie

They don't get much more dishonest (or angry) than the Jew- and Israel-hating Juan Cole, and here he is in fine form, comparing Sarah Palin unfavourably with Islamic fascists: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/index.html. Sure, Juan, sure. I'll accept that comparison when Sarah Palin indicates her support for Christians who want to fly passenger jets into buildings in Mecca, or who want to strap bombs onto themselves and blow up Muslims around the world. Of course, that isn't happening, it's never happened and it never will, which is what makes Cole's comparison so specious. Try telling that to someone on the left, though.

And STILL we not only do nothing, we say nothing

I am convinced that just as our generation looks back at the Holocaust and asks, "How could they do nothing?", future generations will look back at the inaction of the world on the ongoing genocide in Sudan and say that our inaction and silence were and are criminal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065894281205691.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. Our political leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have failed us completely here. What the Sudanese government is being allowed to get away with is nothing short of mass murder, and it will be a permanent stain on human history that we allowed it to happen.