B. Hussein Obama's response to McCain on al-Qaida in Iraq didn't address the core point.  Either he thinks we are too stupid to notice that, or he thinks he can hit a magical "reset" button on Iraq.

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable,"

Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.

"But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Let's assume that is true.  SO WHAT?  They ARE there NOW.  Does Obama really think that pulling our troops out immediately will be a good move?  Yes, yes, we know he thinks they shouldn't have been sent there in the first place.  But they ARE there.  THAT is the reality.  So will he really go against the advice of military and intelligence and humanitarian experts and simply pull out, and let the terrorists attack decent Iraqis and take the place over?

I don't think this guy deals with reality.  Presidents have to deal with things as they are when they get into office, not how they hope they'll be.

Get this straight and do it now:

Making fun of a person's pronunciation of "nuclear"?  That's okay.

Saying a candidate's whole name?  Not okay.

HUH?!?

Oh, just wait until the Dems have their candidate chosen.  Just wait and see how badly they go after McCain.

It’s the President’s job to make sure you get a high-quality free education, from all-day kindergarten through college degrees.

It’s the President’s job to keep you from snorting stuff, huffing stuff, drinking stuff, smoking stuff, or shooting stuff into your veins, and he or she can do it by telling you that you are wonderful just the way you are.

It’s the President’s job to find you a nice place to live and to pay for it.

It’s the President’s job to help you out if you run up your credit cards.

It’s the President’s job to find you a doctor, pay your medical bills, and make sure you visit.

It’s the President’s job to make sure you are getting paid as much as you want to get paid for your job.

It's the President's job to make sure any stocks in which you've invested only increase in value.

It’s the President’s job to make sure you feel like doing something worthwhile.


Can we please have a candidate besides Ron Paul stand up and say “Some things just aren’t the responsibility of Washington, D.C.!”?

Thanks for reading and an extra thanks to those of you who comment or send an e-mail.

I’m likely going to keep my postings here light or short for foreseeable future.  Life has gotten very hectic, and as someone who gets paid to write, I can’t justify spending too much of my time here venting and pondering for free right now.

I’ve expressed myself thoroughly here already in many previous postings.  Take a look through the archives.

It just keeps getting better.  Now, Calypso Louie has announced his support for Obama.  All that's left is OBL's endorsement.

It is great to start the week off by waking up to the news that Ralph Nader is running for President again.

Run, Ralph, Run!

My guess is he's running because he suspects Clinton and Obama are lying when they say they're going to transfer wealth from the "rich" and businesses to people who haven't done much with their opportunities. After all, they certainly sound communist enough.

B. Hussein Obama continues his winning streak.  Must be so frustrating for the Clintons.  We can expect more angry outbursts from Bill unless Hillary’s people get him medicated or sequestered.

While there can be value in having a charismatic leader, there has to be something behind all of the hype.  There has to be some substance, or there’s going to be trouble.

All I see from B.O. is a lot of promises that sound like they are going to cost “the rich” a lot of money, or cost our children and granddchildren a lot of money.  Neither is acceptable.  The rich will still be rich and live well – they’ll just have less to invest, thereby creating fewer jobs and opportunities and giving fewer people the ability to become rich themselves.  But you’ll never hear B.O. explain that part.

I really hope people wake up and see through the hype before it is too late.

For once, can someone besides Ron Paul look back at someone who is asking for the President to take care of their personal problems and say, “That’s not the job of the President of the United States?”

When I hear a Dem POTUS candidate bash “predatory” lenders because someone is going to be “forced out of their home” it makes my blood boil.  Those lenders are the people who have allowed those people to live in those houses.  Without those lenders, those people wouldn’t be in those houses in the first place.  Those people willingly took out loans they could not afford.

I used to get calls every day offering me refinance deals.  I would hang up.  Do I have some magical power that these other people don’t have?

Yes, those lenders should not have given loans to those people.  But what would we be hearing if they didn’t?  We’d be hearing about how the poor and “minority” populations were being denied loans!

In this case, the “victims” volunteered to participate in these loans, because it got them into a home they couldn’t really afford.  Some of them hoped that their home’s value would continue to increase at a rate that would allow them to replace the loan with another one.  Others just didn’t think about it.  Either way, it wasn’t a sound financial decision.

Both the companies that offered these loans and the people who signed on for them are responsible for driving home prices up too much too fast, leaving people like me to live more modestly than I’d like, because I refuse to upgrade into a better home until I can truly afford one.

Above all else, it isn’t the President’s job to get involved whether someone can make their mortgage payments or not.  Government should not bail out the lenders, and it should not bail out the people living in the homes.

Why is my blog messed up so that the content doesn't appear until you scroll down?  I'm too tired to check the other blogs right now to see if it is happening to them, too

He's been made redundant by Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama.  Listening to their speeches tonight, it sounded like something Fidel Castro or any communist could write.

It's sad that people fall for it, too.  Most of those cheering crowds have no idea how screwed up things would be if Clinton or Obama got everything they claim they want.

I heard Hillary say “we need to take care of the middle class.”  Who is this “we”?  Apparently, she means Washington D.C. politicians.

Well, Hillary, as a member of the middle class, let me say… “no thanks”.  I don’t want your help if it comes in the form of more government programs, restrictions, and social engineering.

Do you know what I need?  I need less interference in my life from Washington.  There are things the federal government is doing that either no government should be doing, or state and local governments should be doing.  I need you to let me decide what to do with more of my own money.  I don’t need your involvement in my dealings with my employer, or my insurance companies, or anyone I voluntarily choose to hire to perform a service for me.

Here’s what I do need from our elected officials in Washington, D.C.:

--Aggressive, sound national defense, including disrupting terrorist networks and thwarting terrorist plots.

--A secure national border

--The appointment of judges who will interpret law instead of making new law.

--Basically, only the things the Constitution specifically instructs Congress and the President to do.

Those are things that help all Americans, not just the “middle class”.

Gregory W. Griggs, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, reports on the latest evil act that the “GLBT” activist crowd is using to gain sympathy for themselves, instead of the actual victim.

Prompted by the fatal classroom shooting of an Oxnard student that prosecutors allege was a hate crime, a state legislator Monday announced plans to introduce a bill to expand diversity education in California schools.

Uh, how about teaching kids not to murder for any reason?  I thought assault and murder was already illegal?  We don’t need new laws in reaction to every bad thing that happens.

Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park), chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Hate Crimes, said his bill would supplement existing criminal statutes regarding crimes against victims based on their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

We needlessly complicate things.

"My bill is focusing on [hate crime] prevention," Eng said after a news conference at his El Monte district office. "We already have bills on the books about proper punishment; mine will focus on dealing with hatred in a school setting."

In other words, the schools will drill into the heads of the children that it is a GOOD thing for some people to dress like members of the opposite sex.

Prosecutors said Lawrence King, 15, was shot Feb. 12 by classmate Brandon McInerney, 14, in front of other students at E.O. Green Junior High School.

How many stories do we see where the names of underage suspects are not printed?  Why is this different?

Supporters of Eng's bill said they hope that the notoriety of the case may help get legislation passed in 2008.

Nothing like using a tragedy for political gain.

"Race and religion are more readily acknowledged as unacceptable reasons for treating someone in a negative way, but when you talk about sexual orientation it's more commonly seen that there will be fear, harassment and, oftentimes, violence," said Robin Toma, executive director of the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission.

"All students need to feel like they're safe," Toma said.

Uh, yeah, well how can they feel safe with the gangs and the bullies and teachers who come on to them?  Or knowing that if another student brings a gun to school, no adult will be armed to counter the threat?

State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), California's first openly gay legislator, helped pass a state law nine years ago that banned discrimination against and harassment of gay students.

And yet this happened anyway.  Go figure.

Nothing excuses murder, but I’d like to know more about the interaction between these two students.  The suspect is younger than the victim.  Are we sure this is a case of someone getting shot for being gay, or was there something else going on here?

These stories tend to get disproportionate attention, while reports of what is called “homo-cide” are not publicized.  I don’t have the statistics ready, but I suspect more gay people are killed or assaulted by other gay people than are killed or assaulted by straight people because they are gay, even when controlling for levels of violence between straight people.  What about the high level of substance abuse, domestic violence, and disease transmission?  What about injuries and death from “rough play”?

Ultimately, it is not okay to harass, assault, or murder anyone – even if they dress like a freak or act strangely, or are simply attracted to people of the same sex.  Everyone should have their rights protected, and those who violate those rights should be prosecuted.

A Brisith company opens a grocery store in Compton, and gets dogged by local agitators.

Cynthia E. Griffin writes in a publication called Our Weekly about the opening of British company Tesco's Fresh and Easy store in Compton.

The Compton Fresh and Easy is built on a 10,000-square site, and features fresh fruits, meats, as well as staples like cereal, bread, juice, and more. It also sells magazines and fresh flowers. According to chief marketing officer Simon Uwins, there are no artificial colors nor artificial flavors added to the Fresh and Easy brand items, nor are there any added transfats. Additionally, only the preservatives needed to keep food fresh are used. Uwins also said about half the items in the store are Fresh and Easy products delivered from the company’s Riverside warehouse, and the other half are national brand products.

Sounds great.

Fresh and Easy officials also vowed to be good neighbors by constructing and operating green stores like the Compton one, which uses 30 percent less energy because of its warehouse-like design with sky lighting and concrete floors, which are easier to keep clean.

Workers are paid an entry level wage of $10 per hour, and work no less than 20 hours per week. Uwins said this entitles them to full benefits, 75 percent of which are paid by the company.

They are also eligible to participate in the company’s 401(k) plan and can earn a bonus of up to 10 percent each quarter.

But beyond the pay, Uwins said the goal was to create an atmosphere where employees were happy.

Sounds great.

While this might sound good, a spokesman from the Alliance for Healthy and Responsible Grocery Stores wants Fresh and Easy to do more than just talk. They want the retailing giant to put the promises in writing in the form of a community benefits agreement, and during the grand opening hand-delivered letters to Prince Andrew and the head of Tesco, Timothy Mason, seeking the support of the prince and urging the CEO to negotiate an agreement.

According to Elliot Petty, a spokesman for the coalition, a signed community benefit agreement will commit Fresh and Easy to do what they say.

What a bunch of annoying, whiny, arrogant leeches.  A company brings Compton fresh food for sale, good jobs, and tax revenues, and this "Alliance" greets them with this?  Tesco has already dealt with various government agencies to open their store, complying with many different regulations. They have either bought or leased the property from the owner.  The “Alliance” is not producing anything themselves – only demanding that others do what they say.  It’s none of their business.  Exactly how many people are in the Alliance, anyway, and how is that determined?

“There is also the question of where they locate stores,” Petty added. While he said the company is touting its commitment to locating in underserved communities, of the more than 70 liquor licenses Fresh and Easy has applied for, less than 10 percent are in communities that would be considered underserved.

Less than 10 percent?  So what?  That means almost 10 percent.  That’s a whole lot better than NOTHING.  Businesses go where they can make a profit.  These “underserved” communities would have an easier time attracting and retaining businesses if crime and corruption were not as big of a problem, and if the locals wouldn’t burn down the businesses every 20 years.

In terms of employees, Petty said it is not about unionizing, but about making sure that the jobs are middle-income jobs that allow people a way to get promoted.

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!  Don’t like what they offer employees?  Don’t work there.  Don’t like how they run their business?  Don’t shop there.  Try opening your own store.

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, we get this Dear Margo.

RUNNING ON EMPTY IN MASSACHUSETTS writes in to explain that he’s been married for 28 years and has three children, and why he has very good reason to believe that his middle child is the result of his wife committing adultery.

Their youngest child is 14

My wife never had much of a sex drive; two to three times a year was more than enough for her.

Women should not use men this way.  No sex drive?  Don’t get married, unless you can find a man who also has no sex drive and you openly discuss this.

If my second son isn't mine, I want a divorce. While I may not have much self-confidence -- living with her for 28 years would do that to anyone -- I think I deserve some happiness. So what should I do? Try to perform a secret DNA test, or say to him, "Hey, kid, I think your mom was screwing around back in the day and you may not be my biological son"?

Margo responds:

While I understand the desire to determine whether one of your kids is another man's child, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to divorce for something that happened two decades ago. If you want to end the marriage for other reasons, that's another story.

It doesn’t make sense for women to keep bringing up something that happened two decades ago, but they still do it all of the time.  But she broke her vows to him in more than one way.  One of those ways becomes more apparent as time goes by, so "it was so long ago" will always be an accessible defense.  But just because he has stuck in there and taken care of the children does not mean he should have to continue to endure her breaking of her vows to him.  As soon as the youngest child is 18, he should be out of there.  He should make financial preparations now – like finding out if there is a state that won’t make him pay alimony for life, and moving the family there.

The self-confidence reference suggests your wife may be a ball-breaker.

Uh, it is probably the lack of sex that destroyed his confidence.

As for the son in question, in a very real sense you are his father, having raised him from birth.

He is legally, too.

What is to be gained by telling him he is, in essence, an outsider?

Nothing, and he shouldn’t.  He should simply tell the kids that the he had his reasons for the divorce are those reasons are none of their business.  The kid should not be punished any more for the wife's mistakes.

Meanwhile, over at Dear Abby, AM I OR AM I NOT, COSHOCTON, OHIO asks:

When my mother became pregnant with me, she was married -- but not to the man who impregnated her. Does this make me a bast-rd?

Dear Abby’s response:

The answer to your question is no. Because you were born within the bonds of wedlock, you are as legitimate as the next person.

P.S.: The term "bast-rd" went out of style at least two decades ago. A better term would be "love child."

No, “love child” is not a better term.  It isn’t loving to commit adultery and cuckold a man.  It isn’t loving to do that to a child and then tell them about it.  It isn’t loving to conceive and birth a child out of wedlock, either.

Something like 1 in 10 children are NOT the biological child of the man who assumes he is the father.  Or maybe that figure is married men who think that they are the biological father, but aren’t.  Scary stuff.  Legally speaking, a child born in a marriage is the husband's.  That means his wife can cheat on him, get pregnant, give birth (and thanks to no-fault divorce) can divorce him without financial penalty, run off with her lover (who is really the biological father), take the kid, and get child support from her ex-husband.  If the marriage lasted ten years, then in states like California she can get alimony for life as long as she doesn't remarry.  And, if her ex-husband remarries, any income of his new wife's can be factored in to adjust the child support payments up.  So there are women out there right now paying child support for children they've never met who are in the custody of both of their biological parents – in addition to all of the men paying child support for children that are not biologically theirs.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Ladies, if you have a man in your life with whom you will be celebrating Valentine’s Day, he will probably never admit this to you, but chances are he hates Valentine’s Day.  He will never admit it to you because you seem to enjoy it and he doesn’t want to rain on your parade.

There are many reasons why most men do not enjoy Valentine’s Day.

Men tend to be practical when it comes to money.  You expect him to blow money on overpriced chocolates, flowers, jewelry, gifts, dinners in crowded restaurants, hotel rooms, etc.  Chocolates?  They’ll be gone soon, and frankly, many American women don’t need the extra calories.  Flowers?  They’ll be dried and withered soon.

Men stress out looking for the right cards, the right gifts (you know how men are about Christmas shopping, right?), making the right reservations, because some of you punish your man if he doesn’t magically read your mind and do exactly the right thing.

Sure, some women buy their man a gift, too.  But it he is the breadwinner, isn’t that really spending his money anyway?  And let’s be honest – Valentine’s Day is really about women, and there’s no equivalent for men.  Maybe Superbowl Sunday, but unless you make your man killer munchies that day, you’re not doing a lot of planning and buying gifts and cards for him, are you?

Then there’s… performing.  Male sexual function is complicated, not like a robot, and so pressure can be a problem.  One reason that men tend to be the initiators is this biological reality.

Now, shouldn’t your man enjoy bringing you the pleasure of being fussed over and reminding you that he loves you?  Yes.  But do you reciprocate?  If you point to sex as the reciprocation, this implies that you don’t also enjoy sex.  In which case something is very wrong.  Otherwise, sex is a mutual exchange.  (If you're not married, you shouldn't be fornicating anyway.)

Men show they love their woman year-round by paying the bills, by protecting her, and by doing many other things, often including lifting heavy objects, opening things, reaching for things, removing scary things, doing fix-its on the home and vehicles.  Do you show your love for him by respecting him, keeping yourself together, keeping his stomach full, making love to him as often as he wants it without dropping things he enjoys off of the menu, being a smart shopper, and doing domestic chores (if he is the breadwinner)?  These things may not be important to you, but they are likely important to him.

A happily married man can enjoy Valentine’s Day because his wife shows genuine appreciation for his efforts to celebrate their love, and he likes to see her happy.  However, statistics show that such men are outnumbered by either unmarried men (who don't have a girlfriend, or have one pressuring him for marriage when he isn't ready or doesn't want to every marry) or married men who are unhappy, and those men are lot less likely to enjoy Valentine’s Day, and even happily married men might not like the obligation to do this on February 14, when your love should be celebrated each and every day.

(As a side note - there are some single men who enjoy the day because they can find desperate women who are easy scores in the bars. )

So if he makes a big deal about Valentine’s Day, don’t make him regret it.  He’s doing it for you.