Before and After...Tony Stark

I've been working on perfecting my Halloween costume these past couple of days. As I said before, my grandkids had wanted me to dress up as something. I chose Tony Stark (for those wondering, he's he guy inside the Iron Man suit, played by Robert Downey Jr.). I took this picture of me with the goatee as the before shot (it's admittedly bad):

This weird lookin' guy is me.

Now, I went through the process of getting my hair cut, trimmed and dyed the goatee and removed my glasses. Obviously, I'm not Robert Downey Jr., but here's the result:

All I need is the suit.

Did it come out okay? Let me know if I need to keep the helmet on.

Mt. Sneffels, Colorado

My friend, Eric Reeder took this fabulous photo of Mt. Sneffels in Colorado:

I love this part of Colorado. We nearly moved to the Durango/Cortez area years ago, which is only a hop, skip and a jump from Ouray, the town closest to Sneffels, at least on the east. West of Mt. Sneffels is the touristy town of Telluride. For more of Eric's fine work check out ericreederphotography.com.

Halloween ideas

Here's a classic scene from The Avengers. My grandkids kept asking me what I was going to be for Halloween. Finally I decided on Tony Stark. I can pretty much resemble Stark, I think. The attitude is what I need to work on. I won't be in the Iron Man suit however.

I had ordered a shirt with the flashing lights power emblem on it, and it was supposed to barely make it before Halloween, but a week or so later I got a notice that it wouldn't be coming. All other sources seem to be bereft of that shirt as well. I'm not going to wear the Black Sabbath shirt on principle. I've got a Plan B going for that though, thanks to my cousin Gena.

A FB friend of mine hates Halloween because she believes it glorifies evil. I'm not a fan of the evil part of Halloween, but I'm always in favor of those who fight evil (fictional or otherwise). I told her that instead of focusing on evil, focus on helping little kids just be kids, and ask them to dress up as superheroes or other heroic figures. What are you going to be for Halloween?

BTW, do they make Grecian Formula for beards?

Kind of my theme song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6HUcI46s_o

Bob Seger's Against the Wind

Life is kind of like that. You all keep fighting and I will too. Cheers. 

Military service

People sometimes ask me if I ever served in the military, and the answer is "no". There was a time though when I considered it. Just after high school when I was trying to decide what to do with my life, I approached some Army recruiters who came over to my house and met with me. I was interested, but told them I needed to give it more consideration. After some days of thinking about it, I decided that I would go a different direction. About that time one of the recruiters called me back and asked me what I had decided. I told him that I'd decided not to do it. He said something like, "Well, you're never going to make it in life if you don't join up." That pretty much sealed the deal. I'm the kind of person who if someone tells me I can't do something, I go ahead and prove them wrong, which I've done.

That doesn't mean I've accomplished all I want to in my life. But the day is still young. I've got other people to prove things to, including me, and more causes to fight.

All that being said, my thoughts on this weekend are for those who gave their lives in defense of liberty. I honor all such men and women. To me, they are heroes. Other heroes to me are those who live to fight for freedom. One doesn't need to die to be a hero. One doesn't need to have joined the military to be a warrior in the cause of which I'm speaking. One only needs to stand up for the Constitution, to love liberty, to stand for our God-given rights, to not shut our mouths when confronted, but boldly make our points and defend them.

Writing challenges and how to overcome them

I found a solution to the schedule change dilemma I mentioned in my last post. I found a timer I could download and put on the desktop. I can set it for any length of time, so, what I've done is set it for 10-15 minutes. This allows me to wake up as I peruse Facebook or other things like that. When the timer goes off, I switch it to 30 minutes and do some kind of writing for that length of time. Now writing can mean revising a scene, posting on this blog, thinking about how to change a scene to incorporate all the info I need it to have--you know, anything to do with writing. I'll even use it to study a writing book. As long as I'm focused on writing.

As for finding more time in a day to write, I'm afraid I'm just out of luck. To be a writer when you have an eight hour job, you need to either write only for a short time per day, or abandon other things that need doing, such as keeping up the yard, working out, etc.

One idea I'm toying with is setting aside a specific night per week to write for a longer period of time, say two to three hours.

Work schedules and forming habits

Now, after having been screwed up in my writing schedule by my place of employment changing our starting time to 7:30 from 8:00, I find myself trying to adjust. And they've announced that they're doing a study as to whether or not they can change our starting times further...to 7:00. This seemingly small thing has caused me to stop writing, because I was doing both writing and my gym time before work. I find myself thrown off of my habits too easily. I've finally got the gym going (after work), and now I'm thinking I'll be able to do the writing before work. In fact, that's what I'm doing now by writing this. It's the most I've actually written in the few weeks since they changed our schedule.

It's said that it takes 21 days to form a habit and only about two weeks to lose the habit if you stop doing whatever it is you've been in the habit of doing, so it's kind of like starting over again. Nevertheless, we writers need to persevere and overcome these little roadblocks, for they are everywhere.

Law enforcement and the abuse of power

I have posted links on Facebook recently to stories that show acts of conduct unbecoming a Police Officer. For the observant, you will know that I continually post links about what I consider to be abuses of power, whether in the presidency, other political entities, or otherwise. I'm an equal opportunity reporter of abuses. Police are not exempt in this. I personally have nothing against law enforcement officers in general. I have known several and still know some---all of whom have been and are outstanding men. I have had brief run-ins with the other kind though—those who go into law enforcement for the love of power.

Considering all that, within law enforcement there are far too many incidences of mistaken shootings in which the officer mistakes a cane or a wallet for a gun. Nearly daily we see examples of brutality, and though a case may be made for some violence being warranted (I dislike the news media who only show the beatings and not what led up to the beatings. That too does not tell the full story) in far too many incidences, it is used inappropriately.

This is the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor:

On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust.  I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions.  I will always uphold the constitution, and will remain loyal to my community and the agency I serve.

Let me first say that I understand the challenges of being under pressure. I understand the danger that some suspects are to police officers. That being said, there is never an excuse for a police officer to shoot an innocent person. Rule number one in gun safety is to not even put your finger on the trigger until you know at what you're shooting. I'm thinking that cops violate this rule frequently and probably for their own safety. But their own safety is not the reason they should be involved in law enforcement. Their job is to protect the public. How does shooting someone in error protect the public?

A big issue is the attitude that “it's a war out there.” If it's a war, then casualties enemy and “friendlies” should be expected. This is not the proper approach.

I'm thinking that unless someone is really willing to risk their own life to protect the public, they shouldn't be doing the job. It should not be the public's lives that are at risk because someone failed to obey the first rule of gun safety in order to keep themselves from getting shot. Of course, an officer doesn't want to leave his or her children fatherless or motherless. So because of that, it's okay to be trigger happy? What about the innocent person who just got killed because of you? Don't you think their children need their father or mother?

So if they really want to go into law enforcement, they should go into it with the realization that they need to protect the public, even if their own lives are in jeopardy. If not, they should find another line of work.

My next issue involves another point in which I think many (but not all) law enforcement officers are breaking their oath, and that's the phrase “I will always uphold the Constitution”. Consider the recent law that was passed in Connecticut, which turned gun-owners who failed to register their semi-automatic guns into felons overnight. Officers were willing to go into people's homes to confiscate their guns, a clear violation of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

What is going to happen if there is some general order from the President to confiscate guns? How many officers are going to march in lock-step with such laws and go ahead and try and carry out the confiscations? How many, if ordered to, will carry out such laws just because they have been ordered and have the power to do so? I'm encouraged by county sheriffs in various states around the country who refuse to enforce gun control laws. These individuals take seriously their edict to uphold the Constitution. We can only hope that that is the majority opinion amongst law enforcement officers and administrators.

The misuse of power has long been a problem among law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, adding more violations on to speeding tickets because someone is a smart aleck. Adding on violations because one can is just the smallest example of the abuse of power. Everyone with power has the potential to abuse it. Abuse of power amongst law enforcement is why some people come to dislike police officers. Think of someone you know who was abused or molested as a child. Does that person not have a reason to hate the abuser? The same thing goes for law enforcement officers who abuse their power, especially in its most extreme forms, such as unwarranted tazing, beatings, and shootings.

Now I've said this because I post a lot of links about such abuses. I also post good stories about police officers when I find them. I know and love some fine police officers to whom I am grateful for the hard work they do, but I hope that these good people will not turn a blind eye to the abusers within their ranks, or to the oath breakers who walk among them. I have a pretty good idea that those I know will not do so. I hope that they believe that their main job is to protect the public, not themselves. I hope most of all, that those who have been entrusted by the public to protect them, will do so, whether it's protecting them from criminals, or protecting them from their own government who is violating the Constitution. They have sworn an oath to do so.

Working on the story

So, I've been going back over my story Last Stand at Cibola, and I can see some really well-written sections. I'm not trying to brag, but maybe I'm not as far away from that million word level as I thought I was. That's really a step up from where I was a while back when I reread my first novel Gateway to Fear. I had thought I had done a good job with that, and there were some places in it where I did, but overall, it sucked. I could rewrite it, and maybe will some day, but for now, it's onward and upward.

 I think the hardest part for me is organizing the plot into a story that makes sense on every level. My characters have complicated back stories and relationships and it's difficult to keep all of that straight. I'm using a program called “Scrivener” now and I think it's going to help in the organizing process, though there's definitely a learning curve associated with it. If we as writers keep plugging away though, eventually we will write something good.

On writing a million words

They say you don't get good at writing until you've written a million words. I'm not really sure what that means. Does it mean you need to write a million words of fiction in order to be a good fiction writer, or is that million words any words that you've written? If it's any words you've written in your lifetime, then I'm pretty sure I've eclipsed the million word mark. If it's a million words of fiction writing, such as novels, short stories etc., I'm probably well below that level.

I kind of like the 10,000 hour approach. Basically that is that one must spend a minimum of 10,000 hours at something in order to become really good at it. It's definitely a good rule of thumb for guitar practice, and I'm pretty sure I could become a darn good writer if I spent 10k hours doing it. I don't know about golfing though. I'd probably become better, but that would just get my hopes up and get me spending more money playing golf, which, since I've only golfed twice in my life, would be a substantial increase. Still if 10,000 hours would make me really good at it, perhaps I could make it back.

Back to writing, I've started a "million word" file in OpenOffice and I'm trying go do as many words as possible. Still though, it would help to know if they all need to be fiction in order for me to become great at writing fiction.

My thoughts on "Life, the Universe and Everything: the Marion K. "Doc" Smith Symposium on Science Fiction and Fantasy

This past Thursday and Saturday (I missed Friday, because my cold got the better of me), I attended the LTUE Symposium held in the Marriott Hotel in Provo, Utah. I had preregistered for the event and it only cost me thirty bucks. I didn't attend any of the things you had to pay extra for, like the dinner etc., which meant I didn't get to listen to Brandon Sanderson. I feel bad about that, but I didn't want to fork out another $30 to do so. Like most of these events, there are some good classes and some that aren't as good as one had hoped. I attended a few of both. The class presenters and panels were a smattering of local writers and some who weren't local. Some had published many books, and some had published few. The number of books published wasn't necessarily representative of how good of instructors they were either.

One of the highlights was Orson Scott Card as the keynote speaker. Card had been expected to arrive earlier in the week, but due to weather, made it for the Saturday sessions. The talk he gave was effective and interesting, geared in large part to the majority LDS audience. It was marred a bit in the end when those running the symposium kept cutting in and telling him his time was up. You could tell he was frustrated by the interruptions. "Those of you who need to go to other classes can go," he said at one point, "I won't hate you." I'm not sure he understood that the large room where he was speaking was taking up three rooms (movable walls) in which some of those classes were supposed to take place, or if he didn't care that this was the case. It didn't hurt my feelings either way.

At any rate, for most of the people in the crowd, he was the one they had come to see, so they didn't care all that much if the other classes were shortened. One has to wonder how the other presenters felt about it though.

I had arrived early in the morning to get on the list for a class called "1000 Ideas in 1 Hour" taught by OSC--a class that would be a maximum of fifty people. When it was time for that class in the late afternoon, I thought it was well worth the time I spent arriving early in order to take part. With five minutes to go, one of the organizers came in with a sign that read "Five minutes". Card said "It'll be ten." In fact, it ended up being closer to thirty. However, unlike the earlier time, there weren't repeated interruptions.

It was my first time attending this event and I'd definitely go back again if my schedule permitted it. Whether or not the classes were valuable, the action of attending helped me to focus more on writing and getting on with it. That's a plus in and of itself.

Olympics=nation versus nation

No matter if you like to look at the Olympics as the opportunity for great individual achievement--it's certainly that--at their core, the Olympics are about nation versus nation.

If not, then why the national anthems played for the winners? Why the parade of nations? Why the medals tally?

Of course national pride is on the line.

When one goes to an NBA or NFL game, one doesn't go to watch great individual achievement, although that often happens. One goes to support one's team. In the Olympics, one's team is that team which represents one's country.

That great individual sports achievement occurs and sometimes transcends such support is what often makes the Olympics a thing of beauty. I might have gone to watch the Utah Jazz play the Chicago Bulls, but the fact that Michael Jordan scored 45 points was not lost on me. At the core though, it was about the Jazz winning even when MJ was at his best.

The same goes for the Olympics. I want the Americans to win against the best the world has to offer.

Don't say the "T" word?

It looks like now we can't say the word "thug" without being accused of racism. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/richard-sherman-is-right-thug-is-the-new-n-world.html
Never mind that those of us who use that phrase use it as a term referring to criminal elements, of any race, who often use violence in their crimes.
Sheesh, stop turning everything into a race issue.

Glenn Beck says he shouldn't have been so divisive

Glenn Beck says that he shouldn't have been so "divisive". Hmm. I wonder if any of the democratic pundits and leaders will ever say the same thing. I don't think so. It's really only the people on the right who ever have any remorse for the harm they've caused. On the left, it's part of a means to an end. Divide and conquer has been a huge part of the Obama administration strategy from the get go. Whether it's pitting rich against poor, male against female, black against white, or any number of this versus that, it's a strategy that seems to work for them.

I think there's a time and a place for divisiveness anyway. Consider Samuel Adams, agitator for the patriots in the American Revolution. Was he divisive? Yes. Was it necessary at the time? Again, my answer is yes.

One thing those of us who tend to complain about the other side should do though, is use facts and reason...the Thomas Paine approach works best. If Glenn Beck has a fault in this, it's mostly through hyperbole in his divisiveness. Avoiding hyperbole and meanness, and sticking with facts will go a long way toward persuading people, much further than attacks made with acid tongues. At a time when the nation is on the skids, some times, attacking those who are doing the damage is the only way to help stop the slide.

But do it in a civil manner, and don't stoop to their level.

Civil disobedience - we owe it to ourselves

Across the nation, Americans are in revolt. Since the Obama administration has decided that we can't attend our publicly-owned lands like the World War II memorial, Mt. Rushmore, other national parks, we should be up in arms. Numerous reports of civil disobedience regarding this unlawful confiscation of our lands are making their way through the various news media. Here in Utah, a group of hikers did what all of us should be doing if we have the opportunity--they entered a national park. Check it out here.

These are not lands owned by the government. We own them. It's time they learned that.

Taking some time to remember

As we neared completion on our house renovation, I paused for a moment, remembering. It won't be long now before someone else owns the home that we owned for 27 years, and I'll no longer be able to go inside and think about things. A lot of life was lived in that home. Many many memories came flooding back. I looked up at the chain dangling from the ceiling fan. Still attached to it, was a small piece of tape. Why is this tape here? I wondered. And then it came to me--we used to tape the mistletoe to that chain. I had shared many a smooch with my amazing wife, Ann, under that mistletoe. I gazed at the stairs--there was the place where I had broken down and cried when I was explaining to Rebecca that our cat Ralph had cancer and was going to have to be put to sleep. Looking around that kitchen I remembered fond times when our family made sugar cookies, or when I pulled out the cast iron cookware and made Mountainman breakfast. I thought about my grandchildren coming over and helping me put together some cookies or make scone dough on that counter, and of the kitten we thought we wanted that crawled through a broken part of the baseboard beneath the sink and hid--we had to tear apart the bottom of the cabinet to get it out.

I looked over at our newly remodeled dining area. The new light there and the new floor, the missing table--none of it could dim my memories of the time spent playing board games--Scrabble, Boggle, Clue, Probe and the rest. Or of eating family meals together--ketchup roast, jackpot, to die for blueberry muffins, tacos. Or of Ann and the kids working on art projects together.

The basement brought back memories of writing, guitars, working on the computer, building a bookcase with Ben, cats on the window ledge, and the time when I was lifting weights overhead and felt something on my leg and glanced down to spy a black widow creeping up my bare leg.

I went back up to the main floor and saw the Christmas trees. The piano. The birds in the quakies out the south window, and the magnificent silver maple out front. I saw snowmen in the yard and started whistling Walking in the Air. I envisioned my kids and I playing in the front yard with baseballs and footballs, and playing horse on the driveway.

Further upstairs I looked out the windows for one last time. From the master bedroom, I looked across the church lawn, glad that I could see it, missing the poplars, but not really. I never really liked them anyway. Now, without them I could see my beloved mountains far across the valley. I remembered seeing my fellow church members out there on the lawn for activities---the ward picnic, the stake carnival, young men and young women activities. In the yellow room, I looked down upon the garden, the one that wouldn't grow because of the shade from the poplars, and which now was growing splendidly---the season we leave. It's fitting. I look further and spot Mt. Timpanogos. I've always been thrilled that  I can see "Timp" from my house so far away.

I look over at my good neighbor's, the Robbins, house and think about the good people they are, and think about how blessed we have been to have had them as neighbors since the beginning, and also to have the Earls on the other side of us for many of those years. A lot of good memories flood my mind associated with my friends who also happen to be my neighbors.

Memories. So many memories. They say you can't go home again, and perhaps literally that's true. But good kind people, good memories and good times are the fiber of which life is made. Treasure them all. We can go home again.

Cleaning out the crawl space = arachnophobia (part two)

The day when I was to go into the nether regions of the crawl space dawned. I turned on every possible light (one) to attempt to illuminate the darkest corners. It was a failed effort. I decided if I was to move, I needed to move quickly--get in and out as fast as possible to limit my exposure to her. Yes, I was convinced that Shelob lurked somewhere in that dark nest of spiderdom.

I edged my way into the crawl space, reaching out with my glaive to probe behind the various boxes and paint cans casting shadows in the dim light. I knew that any second she could drop from above, and I was terrified to even cast my eyes upward. I swung the glaive in wild arcs to knock down the webs that dangled to entrap. So far, I'd managed to launch my way into the crawl space the distance of one foot from the door that led to safety.

In time, I conquered my fear enough to haul out the 2 liter bottles filled with water for emergency storage, although I was thinking to myself it would have to be some kind of catastrophic emergency to induce me to go in there and get those things. Amongst the other goodies of Shelob's treasure was a bowling ball in a bag, a tubed container that contained maps, some old grave stones created for a Halloween party decades ago, and a box of various household cleaners and other products. Why we ever stashed those in that place, I'll never know. Perhaps I was thinking I would one day know Chuck Norris personally, or command an army. Neither one has ever happened. I guess that's why it was still down there.

The bottom line is, I conquered my fear momentarily, dragged it all out, and then pulled out my secret weapon to clear the dust from the concrete---my leaf blower. It worked great too, although clouds of dust filled the basement for a few minutes, I knew I was going to have to clean that too. I think I gave some of the smaller spiders a fun ride to the back of the crawl space, which is probably why I decided against going in there again and putting up the insulation that had fallen years ago. At that far end, an unused roll of fiberglass insulation sat there, waiting for someone to install it underneath the living room floor, where it had sat for decades. As I turned off my leaf blower and leaned over to close the door, I thought I saw a gigantic arachnid leg rising over the top of the roll of insulation.

I slammed the door and fled.

New movie trailer: The Desolation of Smaug

Of course, I had to post this: The Desolation of Smaug

Coming December 13 to a theater near you.

Clearing out the crawl space = arachnophobia

As our old house nears the completion stage in its renovation---well, as complete as it's going to get---we're getting down to the last little nitty gritty things that need to be done---touch up painting, cleaning out the remaining bits of clutter and tools we used for the remodel,  a little bit of mudding in the unfinished basement, and fighting Shelob in the crawlspace.

I've purposely left this job until the end, because, quite frankly, I do not want to deal with potential behemoth spiders lurking behind whatever we've shoved in the crawlspace because we had no place to put it. In all honesty, I thought that we'd have to clean that out one day as a last resort, or rather, our descendents would get that honor. I was hoping they'd have a sword like "Sting" around to do the dastardly work of killing her.

I'm frankly too tired to deal with the creature. But what needs to be done, needs to be done. You can bet I'll be dressed head to toe in long sleeve shirts, pants and long socks, a ski mask, gloves, and a flak jacket. I think I'd better pack the bazooka along too.

 

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest": Playing out in real time

The story "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" for those who've never read the book, nor seen the film, is basically about a free spirit individualist, named Randall P. McMurphy, who tries to buck the system, pleads insanity for some crimes, and finds himself in an insane asylum. Once there, his individualistic attitude helps to transform some of the other inmates--even improving their lot in life. McMurphy finds himself confronted on every turn by "Nurse Ratched", a power hungry, controlling person who's power comes from forcing other people to conform. (coming spoiler alert) In the end, McMurphy cannot beat this system and finds himself at the wrong end of a lobotomy. He doesn't win his personal war with Ratched, but he inspires one of the other inmates to escape, thus breaking the hold Ratched has upon the escaping inmate.

Much like the story of Randall P. McMurphy, the United States has been a renegade, individualistic nation. There are the Nurse Ratcheds on the left who wish to make all Americans conform to their view of how the world should be. They do this by trying to force gun control laws, by enacting other laws and regulations, causing mountains of paperwork, red tape, and cost at the tax-payer's expense. They do it in myriad other ways, all designed for gaining control over the people, eliminating freedom (for it there is too much freedom, someone could get hurt, they say), and forcing Europeanizing of America.

The question is, who has the most will power? Will the Americans represented by McMurphy win out in the end with their irrepressible desire to remain free? Or will the folks represented by Nurse Ratched end up winning the day? Will we become a nation of children, cared for by a supposedly benevolent government or will we fight for the right to stand on our own two feet and live and breathe as free men and women, taking the consequences of our own actions, being able to make mistakes, then make up for them ourselves? Will we continue down the road of despair and poverty generated by the dregs of socialism, or will we continue to fight for  our grand experiment of a republican form of government, in which liberty wins the day and in which personal responsibility is the key player?

We have a choice. Wake up dear people and make the right one. Start paying attention to what's happening around you. Take action. Write to your Congressmen, march in the streets. Do something positive to influence the world rather than sitting back, watching your favorite tv program, and vegging. The world you fail to fight for, will become the world your children and grandchildren inherit.

What is morally right behavior when it comes to self-defense, or the defense of others?

The conundrum comes because of topics currently in world news. Few would argue that defending one's self from an attacker is wrong. Most people believe that if your life or well-being is in danger, you can act to defend yourself, without any qualifications. Most people also believe that if you see someone else being brutally attacked, raped, tortured, or threatened with deadly force, you can come to their aid. In fact, if you turn your back on such a person and do nothing, you are most likely a coward. An individual acting to help others is considered one of the highest forms of altruism. This is how the prototypical hero is born.

So, how does that translate into world affairs? Most people would say that a country has a right to defend itself. That being said, should a country go to the aid of people in another country who are being brutally attacked, raped, tortured, or threatened with deadly force?

If  I saw a woman on the street being brutally beaten and did nothing, I would consider myself guilty of if not the crime itself, of aiding and abetting, and a virtual nodding of consent for the crime to continue. What then of the women in Afghanistan who have acid thrown in their faces for talking to an unmarried man? What of those who are killed in the name of honor for holding hands with a young man whom they have taken a liking to?

If a nation has the power to act and does not, is this not the same thing as if an individual has the power to act and refuses to? For what individual would refuse to come to the aid of someone being attacked if they had the power to do something about it?

I'm not saying there are any right answers here. I've never believed that countries had the same responsibilities as individuals in acting, but as a collective of individuals who would act on an individual basis to stop a brutal attack (and after recent stories in the news about people who have done nothing to stop such attacks, I'm wondering at the veracity of my point), would in not therefore be likely or even expected that the collective would act?

Obama the same as Bush?

Back about 2001, right after America was attacked, President Bush sent our military to Afghanistan to try and kill Osama bin-Laden and the other terrorists who had planned the attack that took place on 9/11. A couple of years later, an attack was launched against the nightmarish regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Bush administration's justification was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to develop them, and that he was a brutal dictator who had killed thousands of his own people, and that he harbored ill-will against America and perhaps was sympathetic and therefore hiding terrorists that would launch further attacks against the U.S.

Jump to 2013 and President Obama's war-like talk toward Syria. To the best of my knowledge, Syria hasn't attacked us, though there's evidence that they are sympathetic to would-be terrorists, so far, none of those terrorists has attacked the U.S. They've perhaps used WMDs against their own people, but there is doubt about that.

Yet Obama seems ready to go to war.

What, therefore, is the same about the two Presidents? One was representing a nation that had only recently been attacked and was trying to prevent further attacks. The other? Perhaps looking for ways to distract Americans from his failed policies, ala Bill Clinton who launched a few cruise missiles back in the day to distract folks from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This is a dangerous game the administration is playing. A dangerous game indeed.

The search for a new house

My lovely wife, Ann and I have been looking for a new house to move into. Ann has a couple of really terrible diseases (rheumatoid arthritis and sjogren's syndrome) that make it increasingly difficult for her to climb the stairs the bedroom and bathroom in our current home. Our objective is to find a house in which those rooms are on the same level as the living room and kitchen, and if possible, the laundry room as well. We have other needs in a home too, so we've been trying to find one that also has a "great" room as our current home does, and a yard at least as big as our current yard. The yard thing is because I'd like to have enough land that we can plant enough to live off of if necessary.

Last night, we finally found a home that with a few modifications (like removing some trees and updating flooring etc.) could fit the parameters. We prayed about it and decided to make an offer. We got a call back from Steve, our agent a few minutes later. "They've already had seven offers and some are actually higher than what it's listed at. Two of them are cash offers." We told him we'd call him back in a few minutes. After talking, we raised our offer by $5000. We waited for Steve to call us back. Finally he did. "They are going with one of the cash offers as they want to close quickly and with cash, they can close in about five days." Apparently we had slightly beaten all the offers, but not enough to sway those selling the house to take our offer, which would take a few weeks to get to closing.

This seller's market has been a frustrating experience as many homes that we thought might work have been sold within the first couple of days of listing, many with multiple offers, and before we could go and see them.

Our other option is to convert our garage into a bedroom/bathroom. But there have been some frustrations there as well, as the first two appointments for contractors to bid on the job have fallen through and had to be rescheduled. So frustration mounts, but we need to keep clear head and keep positive. Things will happen.

The Parable of the Chocolate Cake

There once was a chocolate cake that didn't like being called that. He saw a pumpkin pie that had crust, sometimes had whipped cream on it, and was served on Thanksgiving. "I want to be a pumpkin pie," said the cake. He found some other chocolate cakes who were dissatisfied with being cakes. Together, they petitioned the government, talking to lawyers and lawmakers, picketing in front of court rooms in order to have their status changed from "chocolate cake" to "pumpkin pie". They held up signs saying things like "Don't be bigoted, let us be pumpkin pies too." Much of the media sided with the cakes, after all, why couldn't the chocolate cakes be pumpkin pies if they wanted to be? It didn't seem fair to them to exclude the cakes from becoming pies. Eventually, those who didn't want the change lost. They were forced to call any chocolate cake that wanted to be a pie, a pie. But when they got home at night, the pumpkin pies discussed with each other how the chocolate cakes weren't really pies, and when the cakes looked in the mirror, they still looked like cakes, not like pies. Legally, they were pies. In reality, they remained cakes.

Thoughts on Immigration Reform: What should happen?

In responding to Congress's inability to get things done (and if so, to get things done right) on immigration reform, it's important to remember A) that stopping illegal border crossings is necessary, and B) trying to get 12 million illegals deported is not going to work. Further a distinction needs to be made between citizenship and legal residency.

That being said, what should be done? First of all, the borders need to be secured. Second, provisions need to be made for those who are here illegally to either be allowed to remain on a legal basis, or to be awarded citizenship in some way. Disregarding the huge impact on elections that awarding citizenship would bring, one must first ask the question: is it right to allow those who came here illegally a path to citizenship that differs from the path others have taken to acquire citizenship? My response is that no, it isn't right. Those who came here illegally should not be rewarded for doing so by giving them citizenship...at least, not until they have gotten in line and filed the appropriate paperwork.

On the other hand, those who think to send all of them back to their countries of origin make a grave mistake. First of all, breaking up families isn't right. Secondly, harm to our already fragile economy will soon follow such steps. Third, it can never realistically be done without a huge amount of expenditure and policing.

So, what should be done? Secure the borders, then create a way for those who are here to retain legal status, but not citizenship. They can work here, with some kind of credentials, but they cannot vote here unless they go through the traditional steps to acquire citizenship. Perhaps some kind of fine should be levied for illegal entry in order for them to gain such legal status. Perhaps some kind of military service could take the place of such a fine. All these things can and should be worked out.

All criminals should be sent back, no questions asked.

The bottom line is, no illegal activity should be rewarded with citizenship. That just encourages further illegal activity.

Stan "the Man" Musial dies

It's been nearly two weeks since the great Stan Musial passed away at 92. Here's a link to read about the great St. Louis Cardinal: clickety-click I remember one story told on the radio about Musial. When he was in his seventies, he was being interviewed by a well-known sports caster. Part of the interview went something like this:

Interviewer: Stan could you still hit .350 against the pitchers of today?
Musial: Well maybe not .350. It would be tough.
Interviewer: Well, why would it?
Musial: Well, geez, I'm 75 years old.

Here's to a great ball player, and great American. R.I.P., Stan.

Why you might need a gun with a large clip

Many liberal politicians are saying things like "no one needs a twenty round clip to stop a burglar", or "who needs a thirty round clip to go hunting?". Perhaps they haven't heard of this incident in which five people invaded someone's home. Presumably in such a situation, the invaders aren't going to stand there in a straight line while you plug away at them with your six-shooter. They will be diving behind things, spreading out, looking for cover, perhaps firing back. You, with your six-shooter revolver will have emptied it and perhaps wounded one or two of them, because you're likely not going to be calm, and you're probably not going to hit a moving target with the first shot. It may take two or three or even more shots to get one of them. Now, hopefully, once you pull out your gun, they high-tail it out of there, but what if they don't? Would you want to face them with a six-load revolver, or a thirty round semi-auto? You make the call.

Changing directions of this blog

I've gotten sidetracked for a long time into commenting majorly on policital issues. That stuff is important, which is why I've been commenting on it. I feel a great need to do what I can to change the direction that my country is heading. At the same time, I feel I have focused for too much of the time on that kind of commentary and neglected other things I'd like to write about. So, I'm changing the direction of this blog. There may be a few political rants in the future, but I'm thinking of starting a new blog specifically dedicated to that forum, and using this blog to comment on other things, and to share important links.

A new kind of slavery

As we begin the new year, we are marching inexorably into a new kind of slavery. It’s a kind of slavery that is nearly invisible, unless you know how to look, and how to interpret it’s guise. If slavery can be described as one being forced against his will to work for someone else, then our government, and those who refuse to work for their own living, but instead live upon the taxes of others, are guilty of enslaving millions of Americans.

Millions of people voted for Barack Obama because he seemed most likely to give them stuff. It seemed like a good idea to them. Perhaps they only think of themselves and never think of where the stuff they get actually comes from, but someone somewhere actually has to work to provide that stuff to them. Joe Citizen in Topeka, Kansas works every week for five days, eight hours, and part of his paycheck goes to paying taxes. Part of those taxes go to people who freeload and intend to freeload their entire lives. (Let me state categorically that there are many people using entitlement programs whose intent is not to abuse, but to get by with it until they can improve their situation. With these folks I have no beef.)

This is forcing someone else to work for you, and to do for you what you are unwilling to do for yourselves. And, as described above, if they do it against their will, you are in fact enslaving them. While not as visible as plantations in the 18th and 19th centuries, and while the workers are not routinely shackled and whipped, they are still slaves to an ever-increasing degree. And the further in debt we go as a nation, the more the slavery will increase and continue.

What to do about it? Well, for one, I think ridicule of those who abuse those programs designed for welfare is a good thing. Decades ago, it used to be shameful for people to milk the system and try and stay on welfare indefinitely. Families used to struggle to find work, but they would struggle and they would find work eventually. Now, they just let the government take care of them, with no intentions of ever finding work. Instead of shaming these kinds of freeloaders, the American public has been cajoled into saying nothing. It’s no longer considered politically correct to use shame as a way of encouraging people to work their way off these programs that drain away resources and make us a weaker nation. That there are legitimate reasons for people being on welfare is true, but all who are in that situation should have the desire to improve their lot in life and get out of that situation. Welfare is a fallback, not a lifestyle–or at least, it should be.

Thus, the slavery continues, and will until this country finally goes so broke that there will be no way that it can. Better to wean people off of the welfare now, instead of waiting that day.

Why we should not re-elect Barack Obama (part 3)

In the continuing series of reasons not to re-elect Obama, I've previously provided ten. Here are the next five. Though there are many more, most are sub-divisions of reasons I've already listed. Here is Part 1. Here is Part 2.

11. Division. The President promised to be the Great Unifier . That there would be healing between red and blue states. He implied racial healing. Instead he’s driven more wedges between people. He has used race to divide America and to get votes. He called Republicans their “enemies” as he spoke to one Latino group He has pitted the rich against the poor and the middle class. His attempts to pit women against men (especially conservative men)  have largely failed, though he made a valiant effort. Instead of a unified country, we now have a country that is more divided than ever before, but then again, “divide and conquer” wasn’t penned as a strategy for nothing.

12. Hanging out with the stars. You know what I mean. He spends more time hobnobbing with Beyonce, Jay-Z, and a whole host of other stars than he does doing his job. He flits from talk show to talk show, instead of meeting with world leaders. In times of peace and ease in this nation, that wouldn’t be optimal, but with our country in the economic peril that we are currently in, it’s frankly appalling. Hanging out with stars, Mr. President, does not make you one, but it seems that your desire is to win the stupid vote. It looks like you've got that.

13. Golfing. It’s not bad to have an outlet. To let your outlet take more of your time away from your real job, just like hanging out with entertainers, is similar to Roman Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

14. Stimulus. The Obama stimulus program has largely gone up in flames. His plan, costing upwards of 800 billion dollars has shown no results  of significance. Instead, he says that it wasn’t enough to do the job. He’d like to dump more money that belongs to you and me down the drain in his Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy.

15. His vision. On the night of his election, he said he would "fundamentally transform the United States of America." Obama would like nothing more than to redo the Constitution which he considers “deeply flawed”.  He and his associates view America as a place that needs to be torn down and rebuilt in the image of Europe. We’ve seen the fruits of the Euro-style, entitlement rampage that plagues such countries as Greece, Spain, Italy, France et al. Yet open display of the failure of such systems has left little impact on Obama’s philosophy. His has been a failed philosophy all around the world, yet he still plans to transform America in the image of Europe. Don’t let him do it.

Why we should not re-elect Barack Obama (part 2)

6. The “Apology Tour”. Though fact checkers will tell you Obama never went on one because he never used the terms “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”, there are a multitude of sound bites, video clips, and transcripts of Obama condemning American intrusion, arrogance, etc., while speaking to foreign audiences. The fact that Obama is too narcissistic himself to utter the words “I’m sorry” or to include himself as an American in the phrase “We’re sorry,” is beside the point. What he did do was tell the world America was bad and that now that he was in power, all that would change.

7. Investments. To take money from American citizens and cherry pick businesses to “invest” in, such as Solyndra and many other “green energy” companies, isn’t what the government should be doing. Yet, that’s precisely what Obama means when he says the government should invest in green energy and technology. Sure, we should encourage cleaner air and water and the uses of renewable forms of energy, but not put billions of dollars of taxpayer money into individual companies. Offer grants to universities and other public entities for research perhaps.

8. Obamacare. Obama, with the help of his Democratic Congress, railroaded the Affordable Health Care Act through Congress, against the wishes of the American people. The repercussions are already happening with companies such as Olive Garden, Autozone, and many more, reducing their employees hours to below 30 so as to not have to provide prohibitively expensive coverage to them. In the future, the plan will limit health screenings to keep costs down, which ends up being far more repressive of women’s health issues than closing Planned Parenthood ever would be.

9. Coverups. Will we ever know what happened at Benghazi? There’s a whole lot of dishonesty going on there with the administration first telling us it was about a film when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Why the smoke screen? Why did four Americans die when we had the ability to keep it from happening? Why wasn’t the security beefed up when requested by the Ambassador? And of course the other major coverup was the Fast and Furious scandal. Can we afford this kind of dishonesty in a presidency?

10. Classlessness. From Obama calling Romney a B.S.er, to the crass Lena Dunham commercial, these past few weeks have been an endless stream of classlessness. Certainly unpresidential.

(To be continued)

Why we should not re-elect Barack Obama (part 1)

1. Blaming. Obama has blamed Bush for all the financial problems he (Obama) inherited since day one. He refuses to blame himself for anything he has or hasn’t done (such as his failure to reduce the deficit by half as he promised in his 2008 campaign speech). He has blamed America for the woes of the world, but more on that later. In contrast, he has continually patted himself on the back for getting Osama bin-Laden.

2. Leadership. In ‘08 when running for president, Obama promised to work across the aisle. However, instead of doing so, he instead railroaded Obamacare through without a single vote from “across the aisle”. That may have been the first time, but it wasn’t the only time Obama has used a “my way or the highway” approach to getting things through Congress. Since 2010 when the landslide Congressional elections fired by the Tea Party revolt left even less Democrats in Congress, he’s used decrees to make laws when Congress wouldn’t. That’s not leadership. That’s dictatorship. A true leader works with the opposite side to build consensus. A leader has the ability to speak to the American people and to galvanize them to face their future resolutely. Obama has created a sense of hopelessness among many, not optimism.

3. Failure to follow the Constitution. He has disregarded enforcement of immigration laws, used executive privilege for something it was never intended (hiding documents in the Fast and Furious scandal), failed to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, use of drones to spy on U.S. citizens (unconstitutional because we have a right to privacy). He has also tried, through Obamacare to force religious institutions who provide insurance to their employees to pay for contraception, even if their religious tenets expressly forbid it. This is a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.

4. Increased dependency. Obama’s policies have led to the largest increase in food stamps in American history. Instead of encouraging self-reliance, responsibility, and liberty, his administration has crowed about the number of new food stamp recipients, even calling it a good thing. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack said, “If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times." Like those same people wouldn’t buy things from the store if they actually had jobs.

5. The Supreme Court. Whomever is president during the next four years may likely be called upon to choose two new members of the Supreme Court. Obama has leaned toward activist judges who seek to not interpret the law so much as to legislate from the bench. That is not what the courts are intended to be. Likely nominees would be in favor of gun control and a whole host of other things that are not in keeping with Constitutional principles. Obama’s campaign promise was to nominate judges that judge based upon their "deepest values" and what's in their own "heart"(s). These are not what judges should be doing. They should be judging based upon the law. A judge who judges based upon his or her personal feelings, will have a hard time dispensing justice impartially.

(To be continued...)

Thoughts on Monday night's debate

    Monday night’s Presidential debate showed one man who can look you in the face and outright lie, and another man, who though he isn’t perfect, seemed much more capable. Unfortunately, the one who can lie with impunity is the President as many factcheckers have discovered. Not that Romney doesn’t stretch the truth a bit at times. But let me give you some examples of what I’m talking about.

Romney stated that the President went on an “apology tour”. The President denied it. However, from my perspective, though the President didn’t and wouldn’t call it that, it amounted to an apology tour. Rush Limbaugh has done the not so hard work of compiling examples of the world wide tour of American “condemnation”. You can find it here: It wasn't just an apology tour, it was a condemnation tour
In fact that also proves many of the fact checkers wrong. Here’s what factcheck.org had to say: “Romney repeated his claim that the president undertook “an apology tour … criticizing America” after Obama became president. Obama called that “probably the biggest whopper that’s been told” during the entire campaign. And in fact, our own analysis, and that of other fact-checkers, found no “apology” in the president’s speeches.”

Obama also accused Romney of wanting the car makers to go out of business, and that Romney did not say he wanted the government to help them through the reorganization process. The full text of the op-ed that Romney wrote can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1& . And indeed Obama was wrong.

Thoughout the debate, the President used a death stare on Romney, as one viewer put it, perhaps trying Jedi mind tricks on him. At any rate it looked very odd, especially as the camera pulled back to show Obama leaning foward, glaring at Romney anytime he (Romney) was speaking.

The President was childish and scored points on scathing sarcasm when he chided Romney after Romney had said we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. We don’t by the way, but the President’s response was really unpresidential. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did back then,” the President responded. “We have things called aircraft carriers...and submarines now.”

All in all, I think it did Romney no harm with undecided people, and may have swayed more of them to his side. The President, speaking largely to his base, probably persuaded few of the undecideds that he’s the man to continue the job. We’ll find out soon enough.

Writing to avoid writing

As a writer, I often find myself puttering about in the style P.J. O'Rourke writes about here: On Avoiding Writing. Further, rather than doing things to avoid writing altogether, I find myself writing things other than projects that I'm supposed to be completing--that is, while I should be working on my novel, which is currently gathering pixel dust somewhere on the dusty shelves of my hard drive, I find myself writing responses to political arguments or other posts, creating blog entries, etc. The question is, what to do about it.

I've tried the old, make it your habit to work on your current writing project for a set time before you do anything else approach, and just have not found myself to be disciplined enough. Personally, I think that's a cop out and I know if I really wanted to do it, I could make myself do it, just as I do other things that aren't really that pleasant, such as exercise, for the reward of good health. The reward of working on the appropriate writing project is a completed project that could perhaps go before a publisher.

I think I must find more enjoyment in the present from avoiding writing than I do in working toward the goal of completion. Maybe that's because I have so many interests that it doesn't really matter to me if I write or not, but again, I'm losing the big picture that would tell me that if I worked on writing long enough to become a successful writer, that is making a good living at it, I'd have more time to pursue those things I'm interested in.

That and it's much easier to fit in a three or four paragraph blog post than it is finding time to work on my novel. Part of the problem is, my blocks of time are so small, it seems like I'm riding a tricycle across America when I work on my novel. The old adage "slow and steady wins the race" may be true, but sometimes it just isn't pleasant.

So what to do about this? I think I need to complete the inner struggle of defining who I am as a writer and at a deeper level, as a person. If I'm to continue as a writer, I must write, and I must work on those projects that will define me as such, not for anyone else's definition, but for my own. In my own mind, in my heart of hearts, when I have written and published a novel which people actually buy, only then will I truly have become what I personally believe I'm capable of becoming.

If I fail to reach that goal, then I have not maximized my abilities. I may have improved them and honed them in such a way that I can convey thoughts in a lucid manner on the printed page, but I have not achieved what I set out to achieve many years ago. It's something I need to seriously think about.

Are Romney and Obama the same man? Not hardly.

For some people,  making a political decision isn’t easy, and distorting the facts about the candidates to  try and make political points doesn’t do anyone any kind of service at all. For example, Libertarians who are fond of posting on Facebook and other social media sites, what amounts to a visual “sound bite” that attempts to distort records and facts in order to show how Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are one in the same in ideas. While they do have some similarities on some policies, in most ways they are vastly different.  Libertarians will say that it doesn’t matter, that the basic premise that a statist is a statist is what they’re really getting at, and that since both Romney and Obama believe in big government solutions to problems, this makes them equivalent. I’m here today to prove otherwise.

One way of making comparisons is between theories and policies on specific issues. That is what I intend to do here—to compare what the two  candidates have said in regards to specific issues. The first item on the list is abortion. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he apparently came out in favor of a woman’s right to choose. That was true then. In 2002, Romney said "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws." Later on, he changed his position. On August 27, 2012, Romney told a CBS Evening News interviewer, Scott Pelley: "My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother." Clearly, he now has a much more limited view on when abortion should be legal. He has made similar changes (or what anti-Romney folk like to call ‘flip-flops’) on several other issues, including gay rights issues and gun control. However, the flip-flop issue is really a red herring.

A person can have things happen throughout his life that will influence how he feels  about certain things—maybe even change his perspective. For example, someone could be a big partier, drinking, then driving home and feel they are perfectly fine doing so, but when they lose a loved one to a drunk driver they suddenly decide that’s not such a good idea after all. For Obama and abortion, this hasn’t happened. He’s fully in favor of a woman’s absolute right to do anything she wants with her body—even to the point of being in support of partial birth abortion. Notably, he doesn’t support the rights of the females still in the womb to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, only those who have already been born.

Another big item on the list of Romney/Obama sameness is stated on the visual bites that are making the rounds. That is that they are both in favor of the bailouts. That is misleading. It’s true that both were in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), also known as the “bank bailout” which was initiated by President George Bush in 2008. While this writer was against it, it appears to have largely worked and the loans to the banks have been paid back. Subsequent bailouts, such as the auto industry bailout, have been vastly different. Obama led the charge on the auto bailout, while Romney thought that the auto companies should be allowed to go into bankruptcy. In fact, he wrote a rather famous op-ed piece in ’08 called, Let Detroit go Bankrupt. On the other hand, Obama has bragged about the auto industry bailouts he proposed and that were passed by Congress. To this date, GM still owes theAmerican taxpayers a minimum of $25 billion.

There are big differences between the two on other budget items as well. Obama continually presents stimulus plans. He follows the Keynesian philosophy of spending your way out of debt. He has ignored impending signs of doom in the economy. Romney has proposed cut backs and limiting the federal government spending. He has vowed to balance the budget. In his own words from the Tea Party debate held on September 12, 2011, he said: “The key to balancing the budget--having spent 25 years in business, I know something about taking waste out of enterprises--I'd love to do that to the federal government. And there is massive waste. But we're not going to balance the budget just by pretending that all we have to do is take out the [waste]. We're going to have to cut spending. And I'm in favor of cutting spending, capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP, at 20 percent or less, and having a balanced budget amendment. That's essential to rein in the scale of the federal government. And there's a second part to balancing the budget, and that's growing the economy again. The right answer for America is to stop the growth of the federal government and to start the growth of the private sector.”  The bottom line is, that Romney actually has a plan to do something other than to throw money at it, as the President’s plan promotes. Here is what Romney himself says on it: Clickety-click 

As for big government solutions, there has been a comparison made between Obamacare and Romney care. Romney is correct when he says that one is a state plan and one is a federal plan. He opposes the federal plan, though it is worrisome that he continues to use the terminology “repeal and replace”. One wonders what the word replace actually entails. His point though that states have a right to do what they think is best is quite accurate, according to the Constitution. He has publicly stated that he opposes Obamacare and will taking steps to get rid of it his first day in office.

Another claim is that both Romney and Obama are the same on foreign policy. First, I ask you in reference to the Obama administration, what foreign policy? Obama’s foreign policy has included running around from country to country apologizing for American arrogance and promising the moon. Well known is his aside to Medvedev when the President thought he was off mike. This is how the conversation went:

In the comments caught by the mic, Obama urged Medvedev to tell incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin to give him time: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved – but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev replied: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."
Obama then elaborated: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev responded: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Romney has plans to keep the military strong. Obama would like to weaken it. Romney would like to keep the U.S. presence strong in the world. Obama would like to let other nations catch up. Obama has an “it’s not fair” attitude about American strength in the world. Romney believes that American ideals are the best. Obama believes that it’s fine for dictators and rogue nations to possess nuclear weapons. Romney believes that rogue nations (such as Iran under its current regime) should not be allowed to have such weapons. Obama has had a helter-skelter approach to foreign diplomacy—send in the troops to Libya, apologize in Saudi Arabia. Obama has appeared weak in the eyes of our enemies, thus the continued attacks against our embassies. Romney has said he will take a harder stance against China’s unfair trade practices.

What about the premise that both Romney and Obama are beholden to such corporate contributors as Goldman Sachs etc.? According to this article:

 “Wall Street has favored Obama and the Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1 during the 2008 elections. Goldman Sachs has been giving four times more to democrats than republicans since 2006.” The implication is that because a corporation or individual makes a donation that the candidate owes that corporation something in return. Seems logical, but nevertheless doesn’t mean it’s true. For example, you or I might contribute to a candidate, not to buy his or her favor, but because we believe they will do the best job. Since Goldman Sachs and other entities contribute to both campaigns, it is likely that they are trying to buy favor. However, that doesn’t mean they will get it. Obama seems to be very willing to give taxpayer money away to his favorite companies, like Solyndra and Fisker Automotive, among others. I have been unable to find any evidence that Mitt Romney while in public office, has done likewise. Claims that because he has high profile donors, he will give them favors are pure speculation at this point.
The Obama administration is infested with people from Goldman Sachs. Goldman was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor ($994,795) in 2008.
In fact, Mr. Obama, the class warrior, received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in history. It was his largest source of campaign funds."

Other issues in which Obama and Romney are fundamentally different are gun control, government freebies, and gay marriage. Once upon a  time, Romney favored a ban on assault weapons, however, in an interview with Piers Morgan this past July, Romney stated: “I don’t support new gun laws in our country.”
Frankly, there are very few issues upon which Romney and Obama agree. I believe that the thing libertarians dislike about both is the perceived tendency to big government solutions. While Romney certainly did do some of those kinds of things as governor, and some of his proposals for what he will do as president display a tendency toward those things, his apparent dedication to reducing federal government waste and spending will hopefully preclude any attempts to do such. The original intent of the Founders wasn’t to have a weak government—that’s why the Articles of Confederation failed—but to have a strong government. The key is that it needed to be responsive to the will of the people, and to not usurp powers for which it was never given responsibility.

The bottom line is that attempts to paint Romney and Obama with the same brush are ludicrous. While this writer doesn't necessarily agree 100 percent with the Romney approach, he is a vastly superior alternative to the current president, and the only alternative who has a chance of defeating the current president.  

Arthritis: The distinction between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis

It happens frequently. My wife will wince or say "ouch" and someone will say..."what's wrong?"
"I have RA," she responds.
"RA? What's that?"
"Rheumatoid Arthritis."
"Oh," comes the response, "I have arthritis." This is typical, yet expresses the ignorance of people in regards to one of the most insidious and debilitating diseases. Though I'm no physician,  I will try and explain why except in extreme cases of osteoarthritis, its effects pale in comparison with RA.
Rheumatoid arthritis is an auto-immune disease, that is, it's an overly-energetic immune response of the body, which actually begins attacking itself. It's about one tenth as common as osteoarthritis and can affect young people as well as older people. Every single joint in the body can and usually is affected at one time or another. Some days it might be the knees are worst, some days the elbows. Sometimes the small joints in the jaw or where the ribs connect to the spine or sternum are inflamed. It is a progressive disease which can affect not only the body's joints, but other organs of the body, including the lungs.
Osteoarthritis is the "wear and tear" type of arthritis and generally occurs in those over 60. This type of arthritis has nothing to do with the immune system, it is caused by overuse of a joint, and usually begins in one joint. For example, when I had my knee surgery back in the 1980s, the doc told me I had the arthritis of a 70 year old man in that knee. I was in my twenties at the time. Thankfully, that arthritis hasn't really been much of a problem since the surgery. To be fair, this type of arthritis can end up being severely debilitating in some people. From the website Rheumatoid Arthritis Diagnosis: "Rheumatoid arthritis is a more severe disorder due to systemic involvement, which may produce complications such as, pericarditis… pleuritis… vasculitis, etc., causing a shorter life expectancy if not diagnosed and treated properly."
About 1 in 10 have osteoarthritis, while RA affects 1 in 100.

Here is a video that explains some of the differences between the two types of arthritis: The difference between osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

John Stockton: Should he have been on the Dream Team?

When Jason Whitlock wrote that the only reason Chris Mullen, John Stockton, and Christian Laettner were added to the Dream Team in 1992 was because they were white, he opened up a can of racial worms. He’s wrong of course. I’ll just give you reasons why Stockton should’ve been on the team, and ignore the others for now.

Stockton is the all-time assists leader. His passes helped Karl Malone become the second all-time scorer in the NBA. He was tough, savvy, and a great team leader. He is the all-time steals leader as well. He wasn’t a great one on one defender, that’s true, but not many in the league are.

So he was definitely a great player, and one that has been named to the top 50 all-time. Not that Isaiah Thomas wasn’t a great player. He was. But Whitlock makes the claim that it wasn’t Jordan’s negative response to Thomas being on the team that kept him off, but Stockton’s whiteness. That’s a racist comment. Jordan has recently come out and said that he did not want Thomas on the team. That’s plain and simple. They wanted the best player in the world on the team, and that was Jordan, so in order to get him, they left Thomas off. But that doesn’t mean Stockton was undeserving.

As for the current debate in question of whether the 2012 team could have beaten the ‘92 team, a lot of that has been centered around the point guards as well. Many think that the trio of Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams, and Chris Paul could’ve eaten Stockton’s and Magic’s lunch.

While there’s no way that Stockton could’ve stayed with Westbrook and the others through an entire game, that was never his strong point. He played the passing lanes. I’m sure he’d have picked their pockets a number of times, leading to fast breaks going back the other way. And was Isaiah Thomas ever known as a great defender?

The author of DREAM TEAM: How Michael, Magic, Larry, Charles and the Greatest Team of All Time Conquered the World and Changed the Game of Basketball Forever, Jack McCallum said in an interview recently that the only players on the 2012 team that would’ve even made the ‘92 team are LeBron, Kobe, and Durrant. Think about that. He didn’t mention any of the point guards.

Why I was against Obama from Day One

I've been accused recently of not being willing to give President Obama a chance. And that accusation is basically true. However, I have good, sound reasons for doing so--reasons which I will try to explain in the next few paragraphs. Long before we had President Obama, we had candidate Obama. A bit of research at the time would've shown anyone that believes in liberty and free market values, that we did not want this man as president. I did the research. What I found told me all I needed to know to figure out that this guy would be bad for America. The number one thing was his leftist voting record in Congress. But I had more than that. I had a gut feel for what this man might do to America. And my hunches are nearly always right in these kinds of circumstances. Did I know he would mess up the country so bad? No I did not. I just always felt that it would be a major mistake to elect him. I said so on several forums. I argued with people who wouldn't vote for McCain because he was another big government politician. These folk would rather vote their conscience and vote for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning, than to vote for either of the two major party candidates. I could and do understand that logic.

But I argued vehemently against making that kind of mistake in '08, and yes, I still believe it to be a mistake. We can with our own eyes, and with our own pocketbooks see just exactly what kind of mistake it was to let Obama get elected by refusing to vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain.

Now, back to what Obama has done that has set me off from the very beginning. In his first 100 days, he initiated a vast, sweeping change of government involvement in healthcare. Never mind that the majority of the people of America were against it--he and the Democrats in Congress shoved the Affordable Health Care Act through. I'm not going to go into the intricacies of why this law is so insidious right now. That's for another time and place and if you are paying attention to your own bank accounts and the verified future tax increases that will be paying for it, you will know part of its problems. For now though, my biggest beef is that it was done against the will of the people. That is not what America is about.

Further changes initiated by the President included bail outs of car companies, dumping billions into favorite "green" companies that have filed for bankruptcy, and trillions of dollars in increase in the national debt--a debt that will eventually be paid, probably by our children and grandchildren. That is not what America is about.

He has failed to lead anyone, has failed in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression to provide one ounce of leadership. Instead, he has campaigned, attended functions, and golfed more than any other president. He hasn't spent his time working with Congress to come to solutions, but instead has taken the attitude that if you don't go along with him 100%, you aren't willing to work with him. His idea of compromise is for Congress to blindly go along with everything he recommends. He has continually blamed others instead of manning up and realizing that the buck stops with him. He is supposed to be the leader. He is supposed to be able to convince others of what needs to be done, to forge alliances and make progress in keeping this country strong. Instead, he blames the prior administration for his own failure.

So, since he has offered no solutions, has shown no ability to work well with others, and has not tried to work with members of Congress to come to solutions, but has only denigrated them for not accepting his own plan lock, stock and barrel, I am accused of not giving him a chance. Since he has nearly bankrupted the country with failed policies and crony capitalism, I'm not giving him a chance. Since he has been dishonest about tax increases included in Obamacare, and kept jobs growth minimal because of his failed policies, I am guilty because I have not given him a chance.

I am too conservative, some people say, because I won't give him a chance. Others say I'm racist because I disagree with him. What a lot of hooey. The day he treats America as the great country it is and stops bowing to tyrants and stops giving away American treasure to the undeserving, the day he starts showing that liberty is more important than equality---that a person builds his own life through his own efforts and doesn't get to depend upon the government to give him handouts. The day he actually believes that a man should stand on his own two feet and take responsibility for his own actions, well, that's the day I may give the man a chance.

But alas, that chance is nearly over.