Voting for a Third Party? Better Think Again.

Some say they cannot vote for Giuliani if he wins the GOP nomination. Instead, they will turn to 3rd parties. I believe this is a disasterous course of action. Michael Medved has heavily influenced my thinking on this issue. Below is a stinging indictment of 3^rd parties and as eloquent a support of pragmatic voting that I have read.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/31/the_third_party_temptation_discredits_its_candidates_and_their_ideas

The persistent American fascination with third parties and fringe candidates defies lesson of history, logic, human nature and common sense. No minor party candidate has ever won the presidency or, for that matter, even come close. For the most part, these ego-driven “independent” adventures in electoral narcissism push the political process further away from their professed goals, rather than advancing their agendas or ideas.

Nevertheless, a clear majority of Americans (58%) in September, 2007, told the Gallup Poll that the two major parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed”, while only 39% agree with a statement that the established parties “do an adequate job of representing the American people.” A Rasmussen Survey (May, 2007) produced similar results, with 58% agreeing with the statement that “it would be good for the United States if there were a truly competitive third party,” and only 23% disagreeing. Among religious conservatives, prominent leaders talk openly of backing a kamikaze candidate if Rudy Giuliani becomes the GOP nominee, and a Rasmussen telephone survey shows a striking 27% of Republicans willing to back a “Pro Life Third Party” in the event that the former New York Mayor heads the ticket. In his illiterate and all-but-unreadable new book “Independents Day,” CNN’s fatuous fraud Lou Dobbs expresses similar eagerness to abandon the traditional two-party system. “Now I don’t know about you,” he harrumphs, “but fundamentally I don’t see much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats…The creation of a third, independent choice, one that has the concerns of American working people as its basis, is the way we must proceed.”

This unquenchable enthusiasm for new parties and marginal, ego-driven candidacies rests on a foundation of profound ignorance and unassailable historical illiteracy. Even a nodding acquaintance with the American past reveals uncomfortable but incontrovertible facts about independent or minor party campaigns.

1. ON A NATIONAL BASIS, THIRD PARTIES ALWAYS LOSE – AND RUIN THE CAREERS OF THE LEADING PARTICIPANTS.

Consider the fate of the Bonkers Billionaire, Ross Perot, the most formidable minor party candidate of the last 95 years. In 1992, against Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, he invested millions of dollars from his personal fortune and drew an impressive 18.9% of the popular tally (though he failed to win even a single electoral vote). Four years later, he tried again but more than half of his former supporters abandoned him, and he polled a scant 8.4%. The “Reform Party” he had assembled as a personal vehicle for his quixotic quest quickly collapsed when Perot lost interest in it: in 2000, “Pitchfork Pat” Buchanan claimed the party’s nomination and drew a spectacularly pathetic 0.4% -- even fellow-fringie Ralph Nader topped his vote total by an astonishing ratio of six-to-one. If anyone today recalls Ross Perot and the Reform Party they do so only as a punch-line, or as a factor in allowing Bill Clinton to win the White House twice without ever winning a majority of the popular vote. Perot’s credibility as a political commentator all but evaporated in the wake of his campaigns --- and Buchanan’s stature also suffered major damage even after his return to the Republican fold to back Bush in 2004.

Other conservatives similarly destroyed once-promising careers with their third party obsessions. Howard Phillips, twice elected President of the Student Council at Harvard, qualified as a rising Republican star when he headed two federal agencies in the Nixon administration. In 1992, however, he succumbed to the temptation of running for President as candidate of the “US Taxpayers Party” (later re-branded as the “Constitution Party.”), and then ran again in ’96 and 2000. Each of these pompous and preachy campaigns drew less than 0.2% and made him an irrelevant (though incurably self-righteous) annoyance to the conservative movement.

Time and again, prominent leaders wasted their time and shattered their reputations with their third party misadventures. Henry A. Wallace, the supremely charismatic and widely admired Vice President of the United States (1941-45), ran as the standard bearer of the leftist “Progressive Party” in 1948, and won a surprisingly paltry 2.4% -- not nearly enough to damage the re-election drive of his arch-rival, Harry Truman. Former President Martin Van Buren drew a humiliating 10% as a “Free Soil” candidate in 1848 (eight years after leaving the White House), and in 1856 another former president, Millard Fillmore, drew 22% as the anointed champion of the anti-immigrant “Know Nothing” or “American Party”; as a result of their fringe-party escapades, both one-time chief executives ended their careers in embarrassment.

Even Theodore Roosevelt, a wildly popular ex-president and war hero, damaged his national standing when he launched his ill-fated “Bull Moose” campaign in 1912. Yes, TR managed the best showing for any third party candidate in American history—with 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes. But he still finished 15% behind the victorious Woodrow Wilson (a man he thoroughly despised), while falling a full 177 votes short of earning an electoral college majority. After his long, bitterly frustrating campaign to return to the White House (capped by receiving a bullet in the chest from a would-be assassin during a campaign speech in Milwaukee), TR dropped his association with the “Bull Moose” Progressives and scuttled back toward the Republican Party. Fuming with impatience during eight years of Wilsonian rule, he dreamed of making a last run for the White House – as a Republican—and might well have won his party’s nomination in 1920 except for his untimely death at age 60 in January, 1919.

While not even a larger than life, Mt. Rushmore figure like Teddy Roosevelt could shake the third party curse when it came to a presidential race, some prominent independent candidates have defied the odds and won state-wide elections from time to time. Professional wrestler Jesse Ventura came to power as Minnesota’s governor in 1998, winning a three-way race as the “Reform Party” (and later, “Independence Party” candidate), but his stalled, ineffectual governance (with no party colleagues in the legislature to support him) made him a one-term wonder. On a similar note, James Buckley (brother of the great conservative intellectual William Buckley) won a stunning electoral upset in 1970 as the Conservative Party candidate for US Senate against a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. Buckley, however, also lasted only one term: he lost his re-election bid (even though he ran this time as candidate of both the Conservative Party AND the GOP) in a crushing landslide to moderate Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Other minor party “success stories” in races for Governor, Senator, House of Representatives, or mayor, proved similarly short-lived – even among the surging Populists of the 1890’s. In 1896, they reached a high water mark with 21 seats in the House of Representatives (compared to 204 Republicans and 113 Democrats), but just two years later their representation plummeted to four. By 1902, just six years removed from their glory days, the Populists elected not a single member of Congress—and never again made serious races for federal office.

2. NO, THE REPUBLICANS NEVER CONSTITUED A THIRD PARTY

Whenever I take the time on the radio to discuss the obvious and inevitable futility of minor party campaigns, some smug caller will try to play “gotcha” by reminding me that my own beloved GOP began its political life as a minor party, and managed to elect an underdog nominee named Lincoln in the fateful election pf 1860. It makes for a good story, and I know it allows misled minions to feel better to believe that it’s true, but the Republicans never operated as a third party. By the time of the first Republican County Convention (in Ripon, Wisconsin, on March 20, 1854) the Whig Party had already collapsed and shattered, hopelessly divided between its Northern anti-slavery branch and the Southern “Cotton Whigs.” Refugees (including numerous Congresmen, Senators and others) from the Whig debacle determined to fill the vacuum and, joined by a few anti-slavery Democrats and former Free Soilers, they launched their new national organization.

The first time candidates ever appeared on ballots with the designation of the new Republican Party came with the Congressional elections of 1854 and the fresh organization won stunning success from the very beginning. That very first year the Republicans won the largest share of the House of Representatives (108 seats, compared to 83 for the Democrats, along with fifteen Senate seats (including the majority of those contested in that election). In other words, the Republicans began their existence not as a third party, or even a second party, but as the instantly dominant party on the ballot. The future “Grand Old Party” showed itself a Grand Young Party not only with its Congressional candidates, but with its first-ever Presidential nominee – John C. Fremont – in 1856. Rather than making the traditional, pointless and masturbatory third party gesture and winning 2% or 10%, Fremont made a real race of it against the Democrat James Buchanan: losing the popular vote 45% to 33%, and the electoral vote, 174 to 118. The real third party candidate was former President Fillmore, whose anti-immigrant Know Nothing campaign drew a few remnants of the Whigs and took just enough votes away from Fremont in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to give Buchanan narrow victories and the electoral majority. By the time they nominated Lincoln four years later, Republicans commanded clear majorities in nearly all the northern states and fully expected to sweep more than enough of those states (especially in light of Democratic divisions) to put him in the White House.

. In the pre-Civil War election of 1860, the Republicans hardly represented an upstart third party effort: they won a clear majority of 59% of the electoral vote and a comfortable plurality (40%) of the popular vote. The real “third party” in this election involved the Southern Democrats who abandoned their national nominee, Stephen A. Douglas, and campaigned for Vice President (and future Confederate general) John C. Breckinridge, winning 18% of the popular vote and 72 electoral votes. Meanwhile, former Cotton Whigs and pro-union Democrats from border states launched a fourth party campaign, winning 13% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes for their man.

In other words, the one election in which the traditional two-party system broke down, and the Untied States most resembled a European multi-party system (with four different parties drawing substantial support and electoral votes) happened to be the one election that provoked the bloodiest war in US history.

In short, the election of 1860 hardly offers proof of the positive value of third (and fourth) parties, but rather illustrates their dangers. The four-way competition in the Presidential race contributed to the splitting of the union and the explosion of the national party consensus that had previously kept a divided assemblage of very different states from flying apart.

3. IT’S EASIER TO BUILD A MAJORITY WITHIN A SINGLE PARTY THAN TO WIN OVER THE WHOLE COUNTRY

The essence of political success – whether based in the real world of the electoral mainstream or even in the fantasy land of third party purists – involves persuading enough people to vote for you or your point of view so that you’re actually able to win elections.

In this context, it makes no sense whatever to believe that it’s somehow easier to reach and convince the large number of voters in a general election than to convince the relatively small number of voters in party primaries.

In general elections, any new party faces huge challenges getting on the ballot, raising money, earning press attention and competing with the established parties in terms of substance or credibility.

Primary elections, on the other hand, provide far more openings for challenging and orthodox candidates and ideas. In part, it’s a simple matter of arithmetic. Typically, primaries draw only about one fourth the voters as general elections. The self-identified partisans typically represent only about one-third of registered voters (with another third in the other party, and another third unaffiliated or independent). Meanwhile, general elections always draw much higher turnouts than primaries – so the same number of committed supporters who could bring victory in a primary will fall far short of a majority (or even a plurality) in the general election.

This simple but obvious logic obliterates the most frequent justification for third parties: the claim that we’re “shut out” of one (or both) of the established parties so we have no choice but to run an insurgent, independent campaign. But the question is if you don’t have enough support to win a party primary, how will you ever draw enough backing to beat the far more formidable competition (among a far larger group of voters) in the general election?

If you can’t mount a persuasive campaign for the Republican or Democratic nomination, how can any rational politico expect to conduct a successful campaign among the voters at large?

These questions count as particularly pertinent concerning presidential campaigns. Because of the disproportionate importance of small state contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate can conceivably assure himself the nomination with a tiny number of votes: in a split field, a combined total of 100,000 backers can easily carry the day in either major party. In 1992, Ross Perot almost certainly could have won the Democratic (or perhaps even the Republican) contest in independent-minded New Hampshire, and gone on to become the nominee of a major party and (heaven help us) President of the United States.

If you mean to mobilize an army of committed activists to advance your political prospects, it’s inarguably more plausible to do so in specific primary states than in general election contests in fifty separate states all across the continent.

Consider the baleful example of Pat Buchanan, who enjoyed some primary success as a protest candidate against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and then actually won the GOP New Hampshire primary (in a tight three way race with Bob Dole and Lamar Alexander) in 1996. As a Republican, Pitchfork Pat managed to mobilize “The Buchanan Brigades” and to draw literally hundreds of thousands of supporters (if not a majority). When he left the party in 2000, however, his appeal quickly disintegrated, and the hard-core of enthusiasts that had made him competitive in Republican primaries counted for nothing in the general election (and yes, 0.4% -- despite taking $12 million of federal campaign funds – counts as just about nothing).

4. RECENT CHANGES IN THE NOMINATION PROCESS HAVE MADE THIRD PARTY CHALLENGES LESS NECESSARY, NOT MORE SO

The classic justification for any candidate to walk out of his party and to launch an independent bid involves the charge that arrogant bosses have blocked his path to the nomination and thwarted the will of the people.

That claim clearly animated Theodore Roosevelt’s powerful Third Party challenge in 1912. The former president had become disillusioned with the conservative policies of his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, and battled him in all available primaries. TR won handily almost everywhere, with majorities in Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, California, Maryland and Pennsylvania. He even won a landslide victory in Taft’s home state of Ohio. Nevertheless, Taft loyalists controlled the credentials committee at the GOP convention in Chicago and seated just enough of their supporters to re-nominate the President. Furious at the transparent defiance of the clear popular preference for TR, the former president walked out of his party and summoned his own “Bull Moose” convention to seal his third party nomination some six weeks later, instantly assuring easy victory for Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Fifty-six years later another Chicago convention raised similar issues for Democrats at the height of the Vietnam era. Anti-war candidates Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy had won every primary between them; Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the loyalist choice of embattled president Lyndon Johnson, never bothered to contest a single one of the primary states. Nevertheless, after Kennedy’s assassination, Humphrey won the nomination (while bloody riots convulsed the streets of Chicago) because of his solid support from the party establishment.

After this nightmarish experience in 1968, the Democrats chartered “the McGovern Commission” to open up and reform the nomination process, and the Republicans soon followed suit. Never again could a candidate become his party’s standard bearer without competing in primaries; never again could a group of bosses in a “smoke filled room” (or even today in a politically correct fern-filled room) choose a nominee who hadn’t battled his way through dozens of well-publicized electoral battles in various corners of the country. The new openness of the primary process provided a number of bizarre surprises: like the 1976 nomination (and ultimate election) of an obscure, one-term Governor of Georgia named Jimmy Carter.

The new importance of primaries also facilitated the abrupt ideological shifts that third party advocates invariably demand. In 1964, for instance, the process had loosened up enough to allow conservative grass-roots activists in the GOP the throw out the “Eastern Republican Establishment” and nominate outspoken conservative Barry Goldwater. To signal the depth of the change he heralded, Goldwater’s acceptance speech explicitly rejected the party’s traditional centrism, with its ringing declaration: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Eight years later, the Democrats experienced a similar transformation, when the anti-war left took over the party with the nomination of George (“Come Home, America!”) McGovern and trumpeted its thoroughgoing contempt for the moderate establishment.

Finally, in 1976 conservative ideologues rallied behind Ronald Reagan and brought his challenge to incumbent President Gerald Ford within a few convention votes of success. Four years later, the Reaganites swept to victory, capturing the whole machinery of the Republican Party—and demonstrating that with today’s nomination process, true believers who disdain compromise and equivocation can not only nominate their candidates of choice but shift the ideological orientation of our great political parties.

The old argument that party bosses stymie insurgent or issues-driven campaigns no longer applies to political reality– not in an era when campaigns in both parties cater so obviously to enthusiastic activists who dominate the early primaries.

5. FRINGE PARTIES GENERALLY DISCREDIT RATHER THAN ADVANCE THE ISSUES THEY EMBRACE

Apologists for minor parties regularly defend their odd-ball activism with the claim that they’re gradually, inexorably building support for their unconventional ideas. The Libertarian Party in particular insists that it’s made steady progress for its philosophy of limited government with its thirty years of tireless campaigning.

In fact, the electoral record shows dramatic deterioration in the party’s electoral appeal rather than any discernable increase in influence, as the once trendy Libertarians have morphed into the goofy and sophomoric Losertarians. The Party reached its all-time peak of success with its second major Presidential campaign under Ed Clark in 1980. Running against Ronald Reagan, Clark drew 921,000 votes and a rousing 1.06% of the electorate. The next time out, the Libertarians did barely half as well and after that the party’s fortunes continued to slide. In 2000, Libertarian nominee Harry Browne won only 0.36% and in 2004, the hapless Michael Badnarik did even worse, with less than 0.33%.

In other words, after a quarter of century or propaganda and party-building, the Libertarians succeeded in alienating two thirds of their never significant support – looking back on their 1% showing of twenty-seven years ago as a matchless achievement that’s never even come close to replication.

The traditional definition of insanity involves repeating the same self-destructive actions again and again but somehow expecting a more beneficial result. After twenty-four years of frustration, futility, and consistent public rejection, on what basis do Losertarians suddenly expect a brighter future?

Among the faceless cavalcade of Libertarian losers, one of their Presidential candidates manages to stand out – not because of his strong showing (he drew only 0.47% of the vote) but because he drew the right message from his embarrassing experience. Texas obstetrician Ron Paul carried the fringe-party’s banner in 1988 but soon thereafter returned to the Republican Party, won election to Congress, and conducted a dynamic and much publicized campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. Dr. Paul garnered vastly more attention for his ideals and proposals as a contender for the Republican nomination than he ever did as the Libertarian nominee—a living demonstration of the ill-considered idiocy of fringe party campaigns.

Rather than advancing unconventional ideas, fringe parties most often discredit them through association with quirky political organizations far outside the political mainstream. The Prohibition Party, for instance, took opponents of alcohol out of the major parties and concentrated them in a marginal political organization which, during 134 years of fielding candidates, elected one Congressman from California (1914) and one Governor of Florida (1916) but almost nothing else. In terms of Presidential politics, the party managed its best showing ever in 1892 (2.25%), some 27 years before temperance advocates finally succeeded in achieving Prohibition through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Predictably, Republicans – rather than members of the Prohibition Party actually were the effective leaders in bringing about this historic change. The Prohibition platform succeeded, in other words, only when true-believers entered one of the established parties, leaving the fringe party and watching its electoral support decline.

By the same token, Populists saw meaningful progress for their national agenda only after the party largely collapsed and its most gifted members migrated into the Democratic Party beginning in 1896. Somehow, even crack-pot ideas (like the bizarre Populist obsession with “Free Silver”) look less menacing when they’re advocated by leaders of a well-established political organization rather than by a turbulent fringe group.

6. YOU CAN’T INFLUENCE A PARTY BY LEAVING IT

One of the most bizarre arguments for third parties involves the suggestion that walking out of one of the established parties will force it to move in your direction.

This reasoning constitutes sheer madness, of course: what sort of maniac honestly believes that he’ll exert greater impact on a political organization after he’s abandoned his membership?

In 2000, when Pat Buchanan abandoned the Republicans for his disastrous “Reform Party” race (in which he selected an LA teacher with his history of mental disability as his running mate), he took with him some of his fellow GOP advocates of a more protectionist trade policy. The result, predictably enough, was a Republican Party more unanimous than ever in support of free trade. Why should Republicans take protectionist arguments more seriously when the few supporters of such arguments have already left the party?

Party walk-outs don’t produce some sudden desire for reconciliation any more than marital walk-outs serve to strengthen a fraying relationship. When a faction abandons its major party home, it’s rarely welcomed back into the fold – especially when the party disloyalty has produced a major defeat. Take the case of Ralph Nader, for instance, with his incontestably destructive impact on Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential bid: even if the gadfly wanted to re-enter the Democratic Party, the deep resentment of his role in the election of George W. Bush would make it impossible for him to assume a position of respect or influence.

7. LOSING CAMPAIGNS DON’T SHAPE GOVERNANCE OR POLICY

For third party purists, rejection by the general public confirms their sense of moral superiority and martyrdom: winning 0.03% with uncompromising principles feels somehow nobler than winning an election through the normal compromises and actually changing the direction of politics. In this sense, fringe party activism represents the ultimate in masturbatory politics: giving intense pleasure and passing thrills to the individual participants but exerting no impact whatever on anyone else.

On those rare occasions when third parties play some decisive role in close elections, they almost always damage the candidates who more closely resemble the independent contenders. Former Republican Ross Perot, for example, destroyed Republican President George H.W. Bush, leftist Ralph Nader damaged Al Gore, and “limited government” Libertarian Senate candidates in Montana, Washington, Georgia and other states recently swung elections to big government Democrats (and in 2006 tilted at least three close elections to give Harry Reid his one-vote Senate majority).

By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them.

Most Americans have come to understand this cruel and dangerous game, so that even the most ballyhooed fringe candidates fail to live up to their promising poll numbers. In 1980, moderate Republican John Anderson believed the surveys and pundits who said he could establish himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to the outspoken conservative Ronald Reagan and the failed liberal standard-bearer, Jimmy Carter. In the end, Anderson drew only 6.6%, fading fast in the last days before the election as the American people began to focus on the true stakes in the choice before them.

This pattern repeats itself in almost every election: even the most intriguing third-party flirtations abruptly turn sour in the “getting serious” phase that precedes a final decision. With an evenly divided electorate providing see-saw victories for Democrats and Republicans, an individual can change history far more readily by voting for one of the major candidates than by giving his support to a laughably irrelevant fringy. A shift of 0.5% can alter the outcome of many elections, but it changes nothing if a Constitution Party candidate gets 0.7% vs. 0.2%.

In this context, the American people remain too sensible to accept the fulminations of brain-dead blowhards like Lou Dobbs. “All that seems to remain of the Republican and Democratic parties is their partisanship, their labels, and their records of intransigence and ineffectiveness over the past forty years.” Over the past forty years, Mr. Dobbs? Since 1967? The Reagan Revolution, which won the Cold War and slashed top tax rates from 70% to 28%, represented only “intransigence and ineffectiveness”? Welfare reform and balanced budgets, achieved by the Gingrich Congress in collaboration with the administration of Bill Clinton, amounted to nothing more than “partisanship”?

Third party purists say they refuse to accept a choice between “the lesser of two evils” – a wretchedly misleading line that suggests that any public servant with whom we disagree is, indeed, evil and not merely wrong. In truth, very few working politicians, Republican or Democrat, honestly qualify as “evil”: the need for winning and retaining office won’t eliminate all mediocrities, but almost always rids us of any truly malevolent individuals. The notion that electoral opponents constitute “evil” of any kind – either the lesser or greater variety – serves only to poison our politics, and to prevent mature choices between major party candidates who, while invariably flawed, give us a chance to serve our country by selecting the better of two imperfects.

I am back! Johann is for Huckabee

Here is a post for the faithful who still check this site sent via Johann. As you know, I am a Romney man. However, I would be happy to vote for Giuliani, and I have softened considerably on Mr. McCain lately. Someone who has been on the rise as of late is Mike Huckabee. In this post, Johann expresses why he is a Huckabee man. I would be very happy with Huckabee, but I will confess the reason I have not been enthusiastic is because I didn't think he had a chance. Admittedly, this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. I do still have some concerns about his foreign policy skill, but we could do much worse than Mike Huckabee. Here is Johann's post:

I know many of you are on the bandwagon of the same candidate that the host of this blog is on, and I am convinced you are on that bandwagon because of well thought out policy examination. As far as who has the very best policy, goes I will be forced to acquiesce and say probably the man from Massachusetts (or Detroit?... or is it Utah?) But as a member of the much maligned "Value Voters" Block, I just don't think he is the best representative of my views (and no it's not because he is Mormon). Not a single candidate for the Republican nomination, save one, really has the credentials of a conservative, especially when your definition of conservative is formed by the base of the Republican Party, the so called "value voters". Governor Romney is a man I could vote for, most assuredly, and if he is given the Republican nomination, he has my vote. But in my opinion, (granted I am not an expert political strategist), Gov. Romney will be unable to draw out the main Republican base out to the polls. That is especially important when your opponent will be someone who will drive you base out to the polls to vote against (provided they have someone they feel they can vote for). I do not think Giuliani fulfills this either, nor does McCain, Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul. The one man that in my opinion can and will do this is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Yes, that's right, Johann Hearts Huckabee.

Post #100! It Goes to Uncle John.

I'm going to be singularly circumspect from now on when I enter a public men's room. You never know when a US senator may be in a stall. You never know when one of our protectors and servers may be in a stall. And if there is some catchy tune rambling in my head I will resist any urge to tap my foot. And if I happen to drop a piece of toilet paper on the floor, that's where it will stay.

A podiatrist has been charged for fraud against Medicare. All the alleged frauds involve trimming of toenails. Mind you, not all toe nail trims are covered. If the MD submits that the trim is necessary to alleviate pain from walking, then Medicare is happy. However, this MD was saying that the toenail trims were due to a fungus condition and Medicare is not about to cover that. I know that medical care is very expensive and I know there are many indigent folk. That's why God invented Medicaid. As far as Medicare is concerned, perhaps we should all agree that some procedures should be done by the individual or at least paid for by the individual. I submit that toe nail trimming may be a good place to start.

A 70 pound tortoise managed to escape his pen in a local pet shop. He has been missing for three days now. The caption in the paper read, "He can hide but he cannot run."

I see the Indiana State Fair is very proud of itself for eliminating trans fats from their deep fry vats for deep frying Snickers, Mars bars, and you name it. I think someone may be missing the larger point of the dietary alarm about deep fried candy bars. Anyway, when I was reading about the Indiana State Fair, I was thinking if I were living where the Wilds or Casey or Kristin live, I'd jump on my bike and ride the Monon to the State Fair Grounds. Very slick.

A man in Texas was serving a life sentence for murder. He had steadfastly said he never knew and had never seen the victim. After many years, another convict had an epiphany, was born again in jail, and confessed to some crimes he had not been charged with. One confession was for the murder of the victim in the aforementioned case. The Texas authorities did not necessarily take him at his word. But they did follow up. With DNA testing, they concluded that the original man serving the life sentence was innocent. Now I want to know just what DNA test they ran that cleared the innocent man that could not have been run earlier, much earlier.

Nifong, the prosecuting attorney in the Duke Lacrosse case was found guilty of lying to the judge about having turned over exculpatory DNA evidence to the appropriate defense attorneys. The judge handed down a sentence of one day in jail. That will be a lesson Mr. Nifong will not soon forget.

Well, well, well. I see Waukesha is in the news. I got no reply from there or anywhere else about flood problems, so I guess "southern Wisconsin" didn't include Waukesha. So, the story goes that a Mark Stahnke woke up in his neighbors yard without his pants. Normally one would not run to the police to report this, but he did. It seems he had several hundred in cash and a check for $41,000 in his pockets. The article says the police were skeptical. I can understand that. But it turns out. The pants were found by a dog at an intersection and the pants and money were turned into the police and then returned to Stahnke. Some people are born under a lucky star. If I were the cops, he wouldn't have gotten the goods until he could tell how it was that he and his pants became separated.

From 1999 to 2005 the USDA paid $1.1 billion farm payments in names of deceased individuals. Of these, 40% had been dead for three or more years. One dead farmer got over $400,000 over 7 years. Thus reports the GAO. Congress reacted swiftly with a new 742 page farm bill.

US News and World Report ranked universities. Purdue ranked 6 places behind Ohio State. This is tragic. On the brighter side, it ranked 2 places above Iowa, 3 above Miami of Ohio (condolences to a host of kin from Ohio), 7 above Minnesota and 11 above IU. The judges were obviously too generous with IU. Good old Mizzou finished another 16 places down the list. Any questions asked about Harvard's rating are going to be ignored.

Asthma inhalers are being phased out because they damage the ozone layer. Give me a break. The new medicine happens to cost about 7 times more. Hmm.

When our President was asked if he would speak French when the delegation arrived from Paris he replied, "No, I can barely speak English."

In keeping with the current administration's tradition, our Attorney General utterly denied rumors of his departure over the weekend then released the announcement of same first thing Monday morning. This has happened with the last several Cabinet changes.

From last week's government report on the poor: The poor eat more meat than the rich. Their protein intake is over 100% above recommended level. The poor in the US have more floor space per person than median wealth families in Paris, London, Brussels, etc. Some 97% have TV, 62% have cable or satellite, 78% have VCR or DVD, 75% have at least one car, 80% have air conditioning, 6% are over crowded by government criteria, 2% say they don't get enough to eat. We have over 35 million in "poverty" in the US but this poverty probably isn't what much of the world would classify as poverty.

The last lyrics challenge was from Chicago's "Saturday in the Park." The new lyrics challenge is: "Well I'm runnin' down the road,/ Tryin' to loosen my load,/ I've got seven women on my mind./ Four that wanna own me,/ Two that wanna stone me,/ One says she's a friend of mine."

Aging Populations and Perverted Senators

Lets start light. Well, relatively light. As you should well know, the population of the developing world is rapidly dwindling. This is the story of the 21st century, but most don't realize it yet. Luckily, America will hold up much better than its rivals. Afraid of rising China? They are already experiencing labor shortages due to an aging population. Read this article to get a glimpse of the future and the United States' position in it.

Now on to Senator Craig. Everything he is getting is well deserved. Here is a common criticism. Like this article, the criticisms often attack Craig for supporting family values and having a 100% "anti-gay" voting record. Trust me when I say I am no defender of Senator Craig, but I am surprised that people can not recognize the possibility that someone may truly be against the very behavior they engage in. "Do as I say, not as I do." Sure this is hypocritical, but it can also be genuine.

An Inconvenient Fact

Film star Leonardo DiCaprio has a new movie coming out regarding the impending doom of climate change. It seems that Leo wants us to use less tree products.

Read this stinging rebuttal from one of the co-founders of Greenpeace. He argues that what society needs is to use and grow more trees.

DiCaprio's film is another example of a mindless reaction to climate change. He is a good actor (see Blood Diamond), but he is certainly no scientist.

Worst Crop of Candidates Ever?

Many people have complained that this field of GOP presidential hopefuls is the worst ever. I happen to disagree and believe that there are several very impressive candidates. Michael Medved agrees with me. Read his column here putting in perspective the past fields of GOP candidates with this current crop. I think you will conclude that they stack up quite nicely.

Also read this column by Michael Gerson. Democrats are trying to win religious voters this cycle, but the governors race in Louisiana proves that the haven't quite found their voice yet.

Smoking is Good for your Health?

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I will say again and again that the hysteria against smoking tobacco is overblown and is better directed at more serious vices.

Read this story of the 100 year old woman who celebrated her birthday by smoking her 170,000th cirgaretter. Does anyone want to make the argument that she would have lived a longer life without smoking?

The Case for Staying the Course in Iraq

Last week President Bush gave a compelling speech to the VFW about the reasons to stay in Iraq. Interestingly, he used the parallells to Vietnam as reasons why we should stay.

Read Mark Steyn's article on Bush's speech and the idea the lesson of Vietnam is that we should stay in Iraq. In my opinion, very persuasive.

New from Uncle John

Elvis has been dead 30 years. That is hard to believe, even for those who actually believe he is dead. I count myself among those who hold that "Elvis has left the building" (as the PA announcer said after one of his concerts).

Our Governor is very concerned about our future. He has mailed a packet to all MO seniors explaining why we should all enroll in a long term care arrangement post haste and telling us just how to go about it. It is seldom you encounter a public servant so devoted to helping the citizens achieve a better life.

Another interpretation might be that he is planning to pull the plug on the state's obligations to the joint state - Medicare long term care support. Of course I am not nearly jaded enough to be suspecting that.

[My Daughter’s] boss is said to frequently invoke the _expression "Off like a prom dress" when he is hurriedly making an exit from a meeting or from the office. I thought I had heard most of these sorts of _expressions, but this is a new one me. It just goes to prove you are never too old to learn new tricks.

Gold was priced at 666 dollars an ounce on Friday. This is an ominous valuation. I just can't see anyone wanting to place an order at that particular price. Call me superstitious.

The Carman Trails school is now in the news. They have decided to teach the boys and the girls in separate rooms. It is said the boys learn better in a louder and less organized situation, whereas girls thrive on the quiet and orderly. So starting now, all Carman Trails graduates will be at the head of the class in Junior High. I think it may be a help to the self esteem of boys. It always seems like when the teacher asks a question in elementary school, primarily the hands that go up are girls' hands. The fellows surely suffer esteem setbacks. I would possibly take exception with the paper's characterization of this experiment as "pioneering." If I'm not mistaken, various parochial schools and certain private schools have done things this way since forever. The paper was also probably blameworthy in that they reported on a boys class studying mathematics while the girls class selected for coverage was writing essays on bad hair days.

Minnesota had a bridge collapse then China had a bigger bridge collapse. Utah had a mine collapse then China had a bigger mine collapse. If those fellows are going to keep copying like this, we could lead them a merry little chase.

The illegal alien who allegedly shot the four students in NJ apparently has a very long rap sheet and is currently on bail from a vile predator arrest. Apparently the judge was aware of the history but still reduced the existing $150K bail down to $50K. There is much alarm about this and justifiably so. Even so, someone had to post some bail to get this cat back out on the street. I'm betting he nor his kith nor kin could muster even the reduced bail money. So I'm wondering why no one is asking who paid the money that put this cat back out on the street. I think that would be illuminating.

Speaking of this NJ shooting, it seems to be consistent with a crime wave in general in NJ. A local politician says this crime wave is attributable to our President since he has diverted money from crime fighting and sent it to Iraq. Sort of sounds like the bridge and hurricane stories. Hey, Bush is being unfairly blamed here. True, he spent billions in the Middle East but this did not cause him to curb spending elsewhere. He has handily outspent any President you can name on any general spending category you can name.

When Rove announced his plans to leave W's side, candidate Edwards said, "Good riddance." Now that's class.

McDonalds mistakenly provided a cheeseburger to a customer who ordered a hamburger. This may not seem like a big deal to you (and in fact some customers might even be pleased about the mistake) but it was a big deal to this customer. McDonalds is being sued for $10,000,000. The customer has a cheese allergy.

A local school district was slated to start August 13. What is the rush?

A new tougher poison ivy variety is taking hold. Someone speculated that it has evolved as a response to the richer CO2 environment on planet Earth since fossil fuel consumption has risen. Where do they find these guys? Oh yes, this same speculator reasoned that this new poison ivy scourge was Bush's fault.

The Cardinals played the Cubs yesterday. The Cardinals had twice as many hits, three times as many home runs, one half as many errors, three less struck out batters, one fewer walked batters, and two less wild pitches. The Cards lost by two runs. Some things are hard to figure.

The new challenge is "Set me free, why don't you baby?/ Get off my life, why don't you baby?/.../ Why do you keep comin' round,/ Playing with my heart?/ Why don't you get out of my life,/ And let me make a brand new start?/ Let me get over you,/ The way you've gotten over me."

One Issue Democratic Debate Tonight

Tonight Democrats will gather to debate only on the topic of gay issues. A few points. It is startling the amount of influence this subsegment of the population has has garnered. Though they make up only 3% of the population, they have enough sway to have a debate devoted only to them. It would make more sense to have the candidate get together to debate Polish-American, or Lefthanders issues.

What do you make of this pandering? Any group as small as 3% of the population that gets a debate solely focused on their "issues" can hardly claim to be discriminated against, or at any real disadvantage in our society.

Uncle John's Musings

A week ago I was witnessing the Brickyard 400 and having a great thrill.

It's tough to be a Cardinals fan. On Thursday they left 11 men on base and lost in the 11th inning. On Friday they stranded 12 runners and lost in the 12th. These losses were bracketed by 15 to 2 and 12 to 1 drubbings. I can't decide which is worse. The team has already broken the franchise record for the most losses by 10 or more runs in a season, and we have a long way to go. It is tough to be a Cardinals fan.

How important do you have to be in order to be assassinated rather than murdered? If one puts in his two cents worth and if one is offered a penny for his thoughts, what happens to the extra cent? Why does pizza come in a square container? Why is a performer IN a movie but ON a TV show? Why is bra singular and panties plural? Perhaps some new government funded studies are in order.

Speaking of government, the area real property assessment offices have installed record high valuation increases on our homes throughout the city and county, even though it is well known to all that property values have gone up very little (if any at all) since the last assessments. Our governments, being ever responsive to hardships on the voters, have instituted a sales tax reprieve for school supplies purchased this week end in area retail stores. Maybe next year they will greatly increase our sales tax and toss us a tiny property tax rebate.

I'm still trying to get vestiges of aluminized paint off of my fingernail cuticles. If that paint adheres near as tight to the roofs as it did to me, the paint job should be good for many years.

The real "race" in the Presidential contest seems to be among the various states as they position themselves to deliver earlier and earlier primaries than they had originally scheduled. It's going to make for a very long year for citizens who are not fond of political ads. I think the primary elections should be moved toward November, not toward January. Among the candidates, I think Edwards again earned a mention. He called upon all Democrat candidates to return any campaign money received from Rupert Murdoch or his minions. This fellow owns News Corp, which owns Fox and many other enterprises. Edwards revealed that he had received a few thousand dollars from a mid level manager and that he was in the process of returning it. Edwards did not mention that he had received about $800,000 from a Murdoch company on an advance for a book deal and has no plans of returning that. Can you say "hypocrisy?"

Someone reported that, all told, there are now over 300 congressional investigations on various administration activities or inactivities on the docket. I am assuming this is not true. I have an uneasy feeling it may be. Another reporter said that we have been no safer from terrorists since 9/11/01 than we were before then. I can think of two attacks on New York, one on a battleship, two on US embassies, and one on a US occupied complex in the earlier period. I recall none since. But I'm sure the "journalist" is an impartial, unimpeachable one.

It has been unbelievably hot here (St. Louis) since our return from cool, refreshing Indiana. Next week is supposed to be hotter yet. I haven't played tennis or been on the bike for quite a while now. I'm starting to become a believer in the global warming scenario.

Former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert has lost 85 pounds since resigning from the post. Who says he was a do nothing Speaker in a do nothing House. Looks to me like he was doing something. I wonder if Ms Pelosi will pack on 85 pounds in her stint as Speaker?

There were two serious wrecks in the Tour De France caused by two dogs that chose inopportune times to cross the road. France is an older country than the USA but apparently we have an edge on them when it comes to the concept dog leashes.

Car jackings were a problem in Indianapolis. The rate increase was sufficient to spark the formation of a task force to crack down on the problem. The rate has increased 145% since then. I think it may be time for Plan B.

[The lyric challenge] "The selfish, they're all standing in line,/ Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time./ Me, I figure, as each breath goes by,/ I only own my mind./ .../ I know I was born and I know that I'll die,/ The in between is mine."

Sinking to a New Low (Even for Him)

NT: Here is another contribution from Johann. He is pretty fired up about Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman's recent article about the 35W bridge collapse. Read and comment.

The collapse of the 35W bridge over the Mississippi is a terrible, tragic event. Even today, as I write this, many families who have been missing their loved ones since Wednesday, have no body to bring closure to their grief. Thursday, as the dust was still settling, the news media began to assign blame for the collapse; the national and local media blaming their respective pariahs, President George W. Bush and Governor Tim Pawlenty. One of the most vitriolic columns I have read in my entire life, (especially considering the timing) was written by Nick Coleman of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/coleman/story/1339911.html You can go ahead and read it for yourself but the long and short of it was that had Governor Pawlenty raised the Minnesota State gas tax 5 cents a gallon the bridge never would have collapsed. Can you imagine this picture. The session ends. The State Senators and State Representatives are victorious in their efforts to raise the gas tax and they march out to the 35W bridge chanting along the way, "Now the bridge won't fall." His argument is absolute lunacy. Had we raised the tax this year or not the bridge still would have fallen. Even more than the ridiculous, illogical argument of Nick Coleman, even if he was right, it is disgusting to read this the morning after the bridge collapsed. To take advantage of people's deaths, while their families are just beginning to mourn them (some without bodies even to mourn over), for the sake of taking a political jab is the most repugnant thing I have ever witnessed by a so called "journalist". Some might say to me, if the governor were a Democrat, you would blame him for this. The honest answer is, I might. But I hope to God that I would never write an article in the state's most widely read newspaper blaming him, while at the same time families were still weeping over their dead. It might be too late, but I encourage the readers to write to the Star Tribune if this man's article made you even slightly as upset as I have been since I read it.
- Johann

NT: I couldn't agree with Johann more. Coleman's article is despicable. Sadly, this event validates Coleman's entire ideology. There are no taxes that are too high. To Coleman, everything is political. That is a sad way to live. Some things are just accidents. I am glad I have come to a point in my life where I can look at an event like this and not have my first thought be who messed this up. Surely, the investigation will show that more maintenance should have been done on the bridge. Hind sight is 20/20. Let's pardon those who made misjudgments and instead focus on mourning the dead and pondering just how fragile our lives really are. Nothing can be taken for granted. Not even a commute home. Let us live with a greatfulness for each day we are spared and be ready for when our day comes.

I get by with a little help from my friends!

Clearly, I, NT, have taken a bit of a sabbatical lately. Well, it will continue for several more weeks. In the meantime, Johann has sent in this contribution. Hopefully he will become a regular contributor. Enjoy.
I noticed that the blog has not had an update in two weeks so I decided I will send you a story that sparked my interest. This morning I heard on Bill Bennett's radio show that the New York Times ran an Op/Ed piece today (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) by two well-esteemed Democratic military and foreign policy experts from the Brookings Institute who just recently returned from their most latest trip to Iraq, with the explicit purpose of examining the effects of the "troop surge." Immediately upon their arrival they found much greater morale amongst the troops, sectarian groups that were once allied to al-Qaeda, now securely in the American camp, neighborhoods that were ghost-towns now bustling hubs of commerce, as well as ethnic groups seemingly at least tolerating one another. This is an incredible development. Two experts, oft quoted by the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, saying that we could possibly win the war in Iraq. It is very likely that they might even be understating the facts. Just days ago for someone to say that we could win in Iraq, they would be labeled a right wing quack, an ideological die-hard who cannot accept the facts. Clearly the facts have changed course. The only question is what will the Democrats do with this. This isn't as if this is a Washington Times or National Review editorial; it comes straight from the main artery of American liberal thought. As Newt Gingrich poignantly stated, "The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat." If his statement is true, and I believe sadly that it is, that the Democratic Party's entire electoral strategy is invested in Iraq, what can they do when their fellows say that we can win? Do they ignore it? Does the news-media ignore it as well? Bill Bennett had remarked that President Bush should call a press conference and hold up this article for a photo op. ala "Dewey defeats Truman". What have you seen? Is this where this op-ed piece was first brought to your attention?

Weekend with Uncle John

Happy Birthday to me. Happy Birthday to Gerald Ford. Happy Bastille Day. All of these occur on the same fabled date of July 14.

Paris Hilton's dad should have an easier time paying for her next get out of jail party without putting the squeeze on Vegas hotels to subsidize it. Blackstone just purchased Hilton Hotels for 26 billion or such.

The winner ate 66 hot dogs, a new record. The runner up ate a mere 63. I bet they didn't chew as thoroughly as their mothers would have urged.

The most recent batch of terrorists in the UK are all medical doctors or medical professionals. I would have assumed these folk would have been happy campers there, and, if not, would have had the means to migrate back to their father lands.

I always knew farming was a dangerous vocation. Now I realize it is even more dangerous than I had thought. Five on a dairy farm in Virginia died because of inhalation of methane from a manure pit. Apparently it was in an enclosed area and the sump pump wasn't working right.

Dark chocolate lowers blood pressure. That's pretty good news I guess, but why couldn't it have been milk chocolate?

The pin head with the weird strain of TB that flew across the Atlantic and illegally reentered the US from Canada turns out to be a lawyer. I should have known.

The University of Missouri has found that students are less likely to drink heavily on Thursday nights when they have classes scheduled for Friday morning. Duh. I don't know how much money they spent on this research but I assume all the other colleges that have now benefited from this finding will send some remittance or at least some reciprocal gem from their own research.

It was the wettest Wimbledon since who knows when. It was the windiest too. It's another manifestation of global wetting and blowing. I think Wimbledon also set new records for grunting, moaning and shrieking by players hitting the ball and set records for fist pumps by players. The latter used to be reserved for very special shots or very key points. Now it seems almost all points warrant a fist pump. It's global shrieking and fist pumping I tell you. Federer beat Nadal yesterday but unless my eyes are mistaken I believe Nadal may now be the best player. The group of geniuses that seeded Venus Williams 23rd should be excused from any further seeding exercises for the duration of their lives.

Missouri lawmakers passed legislation saying it was alright for universities to require advanced degrees for applicants to teaching positions. There was one exception. The congressmen stipulated that the requirement did not apply if the applicant had served in the Missouri House or Senate. Give me strength.

A local school district administrator ordered all teachers to mark all students present for a prescribed period of days. It seems this bumped the district into a higher "performance" measure and thus a higher monetary incentive from some state kitty. I presumed the teachers ratted out this infraction and was accordingly relieved. Alas, no teacher disclosed the deed; it was revealed by a person who saw the order while visiting one of the schools. The administrator is going down. Seems to me that the teachers should be ashamed as well.

Hillary broke all time fund raising record for 2nd qtr of year before election. It didn't last long. Obama announced an even greater amount.

There are 22 school districts in our fair county. Among these 22, the total valuation of each district's residential properties increased by 10% to 28%. These assessments seem all the more peculiar in light of the fact that property values have generally been static or lower over the past few years. Over all, assessments were up 20%. We are fortunate enough to live in the district that escalated 28%. Now one might think that a journalist would dig into this with great gusto. It seems like there must be a story here. To wit, why are assessments so much higher while sales prices obviously are not? Of course, there was not one word of text delving into this mystery or even acknowledging the incongruity. Nice.

The last challenge word was besotted, meaning stupefied. The last trivia question wasn't answered by anyone. Venus is the only planet that rotates in the reverse of the direction of the orbit. The last lyrics challenge was from "Slip Sliding Away" by Paul Simon.

I think I will dispense with the vocabulary and trivia challenges. I just don't have the time to read through all the replies that pour in. I don't know how you all find the time. The new lyrics challenge is: "Get your motor running,/ Head out on the highway,/ Looking for adventure,/ And whatever comes our way."

A Mix of Links

Read this story about a nobel laureate who is calling for Bush's impeachment, also saying "Right now, I could kill George Bush." This was followed by the comment, "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." Now, this is of course appaling and extreme, but isn't it shockingly stupid. She would kill someone if it were non-violent? What a dope.

Did anyone watch Al Gore's Live Earth concert? I didn't, but Rod Stewart did, and he was appalled by all of the foul language. He has vowed to not use foul language at his concerts. Why is it that liberals tend to be much more vulgar than conservatives. That has been my experience at least. Why is this? Read about Stewart here.

Read this extensive Time piece about the Democrats finding religion. Very provocative.

For Minnesotans, a list of the top ice cream shops in town. Hit them up this Summer.

Finally, a shockingly honest story from the Daily Mail about a mother's struggle identifying with her mixed race baby.

Uncle John

From Uncle John:

Happy Independence Day.

The big news is that I am now a grandpa.

We have various municipalities in the area that are passing ordinances that all new residences must have at least some masonry facade. This seems to be very popular with the bricklayers union but is strenuously resisted by homebuilder associations. The most active antagonist is the NAACP. I don't know exactly why that is.

New Orleans now has an inspector general. They never had one before. Surprised? Someone thought that since the rest of the country was pumping billions into that city of questionable local management practices, it might salve the nations unease if New Orleans appointed a watch dog. They picked the cat that had been Massachusetts' watch dog during the "big dig" tunnel project in Boston. That project re-wrote the record books in terms of cost over runs. Oh well.

Someone did a study and concluded that one is more likely to get a warning rather than a ticket after a traffic stop if one is a young lady, if one is local, if the area recently voted to accept a property tax increase, or if the area is reliant on tourist commerce. This is interesting but I sure hope taxpayers didn't pay for these pearls of wisdom.

We were watching a Wimbledon match and the announcer explained that James Blake, who was losing to an adversary from Spain, had beaten this fellow the last time the two had played head to head. I think I have heard this expression so many times that I paid it no attention. But [my wife], who is more exacting than I, wanted to know the other ways the two would have played against each other in the past. The American men have one contestant left after week one (Andy Roddick). What happened to USA men's tennis? On the subject of tennis, you have to check out the sports bra that Serena Williams sort of incorporates into her tennis outfit. The back band is one of the biggest pieces of elastic I have seen. I fear that if the thing were to burst, several spectators would be killed.

Some shrink on the IL side of the river was busted for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. Many bills were submitted for treatments during periods when he was on vacation in other continents. Some days had 40 hours of treatments billed. I'm wondering if psychiatric care should be lumped in with other medical care. The opportunity for such mischief probably is too seductive. Anyway, this cat has the unusual name of Ajit Trikah. He set up a firm with a modest name of TRX. The President, secretary, and treasurer of TRX all happen to be Ajit Trikah. It must be quite a company.

My box of Wheaties has a prominent piece on the side panel that says "The NBA Cares," and went on to cite the countless things the NBA does to help kids. This message is bit incompatible with what I hear about the on court and off court antics of their basketball players. I suspect if they paid all their child supports it would be a good first step toward helping kids.

Texas A&M had a business ethics course in which 24 students were involved in a cheating scam. I wonder if they understood the concept of the course. Perhaps they did. Maybe it's one of those realism courses.

Michael Moore (one of the leading "do as I say, not as I do" crowd) says: "If a doctor says something is needed, then the government should guarantee it gets paid for." I'll bet you plenty that Michael Moore would side with the plaintiff in 99% of the malpractice suits against doctors for erroneous diagnosis, unnecessary treatments, bogus treatments, mistaken prescriptions, etc. So I'm confused.

The vote on the immigration bill never happened. The vote to continue it's consideration was defeated 53 to 46. The way I see it, The Democrats are the majority party and thus have over 50 votes. Several Republicans voted with the Democrats. Even so, they mustered only 46 votes. The Post Disgrace says the GOP killed the bill. By my reckoning, if a bill gets only 46 votes even with considerable help from the minority, one should more appropriately surmise that the majority party failed to deliver the bill.

STL tap water has been judged to be the best tap water in the country. How about that! Nonetheless, people here flock to convenience stores and groceries and vending machines in endless numbers in order to purchase expensive bottled water.

Scrushy, the ex CEO of Health South and formerly the only indicted CEO to beat the Justice Department, had a short lived victory. He has been sentenced to 10 years in the slammer for bribery and corruption. Gotcha.

I was looking at the back cover of [my wife's] most recent mag from her good friend Rush. He put forth some of the text of a Hillary address to an MIT crowd. It was an ongoing rant on how the governments must find ways to make selfish citizens more supportive of less well off citizens. At the end, Rush added "Karl Marx couldn't have said it better."

The challenge word was excoriate. It means to denounce harshly. The trivia answer from Mary Poppins was supercalifragilistiexpialidocious, or something in that vein. The lyrics challenge was from Joe Walsh's "Life's Been Good to Me So Far." That song has a great line that I did not include: "They say I'm lazy but it takes all my time."

The new challenge word is "besotted." The trivia question is which planet in our solar system rotates in a direction opposite to its orbit? The new lyric challenge is: "I knew a father who had a son;/ He longed to tell him all the reasons for the things he'd done./ He came a long way just to explain;/ He kissed his boy as he lay sleeping then turned around and headed home again./ God only knows; He alone has His plan./ The information's not available to the mortal man."

Musli . . er . . . Just Terrorists Actually

Another great piece from JB.

New Weapon in the War on terror: Semantics?

After the 3 failed bombings in London and Glasgow last week, the new Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) is implementing a new weapon in the war on terror: Semantics. Brown's administration has refrained from calling the bombings "acts of terror," preferring "acts of criminality" better. This must make the bombers responsible not "terr0rists" but [deep breath] "criminals."

The Brown and the London Mayor, within 24 hours of the attacks, came out publicly to announce that this had nothing to do with Islam. Ironically they made these comments after meting with Britain's Islamic leaders. What Brown is trying to do is employ a new "weapon" in the war on terror. By changing the hostile rhetoric Brown believes Britain can win over the hearts and minds of Muslims around the country and abroad. Then, once this is accomplished, it will be the Muslim community that puts pressure on extremists and take back their religion for Peace.

Will this approach work? Only time will tell. It seems that mainstream Muslims want the western world to view Islam as a religion of peace (and from personal experience I just want to say that all the Muslims I have know are indeed peace loving). They are content to hear political leaders describe extremists as highjackers of Islam. Maybe this is the case, but radical Islam seems to be a pervasive problem in the Middle East. And many of these extremists appear to draw their inspiration form the religion.

What will apply more pressure on peace-loving mainstream Muslims to reign in radical elements? Telling them that the world believes their religion is peaceful and that this violence is merely a law and order problem for governments to solve? Or, that this violence is (to some degree) inspired by Islam and it is an Ideological and Theological problem for Islamic Leaders to solve?

I want to give Gordon Brown, and the good people of Britain, a chance to approach this issue in a new way. But until the Islamic community accepts that there is a very big problem in their religion playing Semantics will yield little results.

Do you Agree with JB?

Here is a provocative article from JB. While his point is well made, I am not as bothered by the Minnesota law as he is. I suppose the reason is that I am not as giddy on free trade. Nonetheless, JB's article is definately worth the read. Please let JB know what you think in the comment section.

As some of you may have heard, the State Legislature has passed a law that mandates all US flags, sold in MN , must be made in the USA.

I appreciate the inherent sense of Patriotism in the new law, but I also think the law is uterly ridiculous. Why is America one of the greatest powers in the World? Because its also the greatest Economic power in the world. Free trade and open markets are cornerstones in the American economy. And it is also a conservative principle to let the market regulate itself.

I do agree that in specific cases governments must step in and regulate markets (after all I work for a big 4 CPA firm where existing and new US regulations create more work and revenue for my company). But let me reiterate that while regulation may be necessary for stability, and consumer confidence, over-regulation can do great damage to an economy. As an economic conservative, I think there should only be just enough regulation in any market to keep it safe and stable. After all this is what has made America the economic power that it is.

Now getting back to the flag issue, while the new law appears to be patriotic I think it goes against everything this country and this economy is about. If Sam's Hardware can make more profit by selling flags made in Korea then that is more profit that will be injected into the American economy. Now yes some American flag makers will benefit from this law, but think of all the flag sellers who operated on border towns with Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas. Minnesotans will be leaving the state to buy their flags across the a border. This harms the MN economy and MN based proprietors.

This law also demonstrate how increased regulation can cut short all the moral and humanitarian good that Capitalism accomplishes. Cheap flags from Mexico benefits Mexicans and Americans and thus raises both countries standard of living. This new law harms the economies of both countries.

So in an effort to look patriotic on the 4th of July, the democratic legislature in MN passed a law that will only harm its own economy. Further this law violates the economic principles that has made America one of the best places to do business.

In the last few months, several news periodicasl have reported that London (not New York) is now the Financial capital of the world. How did this happen? Well blame it partly on the increased regulation imposed on public companies, in 2004, in response to the flurry of high-profile corporate fraud cases.

My opinion: It is more intrinsically American to fly a flag made in Taiwan than in America on the 4th of July (If that flag can be purchased in America for less than the American manufactured flags).

I'm Alive

Read here about the active, and abbrasive I might add, role that the cancer stricken Elizabeth Edwards is taking in her husbands campaign.

Here is a story from the Chicago Sun-Times challenging Al Gore's science. Yet another opponent of the "consensus" on global warming.

New research claims that infants begin lying as eary as at 6 months. This often takes the form of fake crying. This seems only to confirm the biblical notion that humans are born with Original Sin. From our earliest days we are depraved little beings. St. Augustine also believed this, pointing out the extreme selfishness of newborns as evidence for their inherent sinfulness. I would say this answers the question of whether or not people are born basically good, or basically bad. Read the fascinating research on infant lying here.

Sources say tha Newt Gingrich will only run for President if Fred Thompson's campaign proves to be innefective. He will decide in September. Meanwhile, it looks as if Newt may be a little bitter at Thompson jumping in the race and filling the void that he hoped to fill. You can read about some critical words he had for Thompson here.

British policehave arrested a fifth suspect connected to the recent attempted and successful car bombing efforts. Read a bit about it here. It will surely be only a matter of time before this makes it to the U.S.

Marraige rates in the U.K. are at all time lows since they started keeping records 150 years ago. Only 50.3% of the adult population is married. Read more here.

New Uncle John

Here is another article from Uncle John. I may as well rename this the Uncle John blog the way thing have been going lately.

Hillary has chosen a theme song. What a load off my mind. She chose one performed by a Canadian. I wonder how politically savvy that is. Her hubby chose "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" by Fleetwood Mac. That is the only Fleetwood Mac song that Ginger hates.

I made fun of Indiana's seat belt laws after I learned that they exempted all pick up truck drivers. Well, in between that trip and the just finished trip, Indiana decided to go overboard the other way. Not only are pick up trucks now covered under the law, but now all passengers in a vehicle (yes, even rear seat passengers) will be in violation if they fail to buckle up.

I saw a bank called "Fifth Third Bank." I wondered if there was a "Third Fifth Bank." Why not just make it the "Fifteenth Bank?"

The Passport Office has announced a 17 month delay in their new rule since they were already hopelessly behind.

I read an article that kept referring to "Jones" or "Mr. Jones." After a while I began to think that that the name was bogus and the author was providing anonymity. But toward the end, the first name was revealed, and its absence theretofore was understandable. The name was "Tyqwiice."

Nifong, the Durham, NC prosecutor who botched the Duke Lacrosse team case whilst breaking most ethical and legal guidelines for a prosecutor, got beat up pretty good last weekend. To me, his most egregious misconduct was withholding the exculpatory DNA evidence from the defendants' counsels. His explanation for not having turned over the evidence clearing the accused was that he had become somewhat unfamiliar with the laws applying to criminal cases since he had been focusing on traffic violations during the past three years. Don't you just want to punch this idiot?

The Dems blasted the GOP, and rightly so, for all manner of "ear marking" abuses on pieces of legislation. This is the technique by which non-related spending initiatives are tacked onto various bills. The Dems naturally promised to end this nonsense when they swept to power. Just as naturally, "ear marks" are still ubiquitous in new legislation. Some reporter actually pointed this out to Speaker, San Fran Nan. She said the examples cited were not "ear marks" but rather were "directed legislative spending." There you go. Not surprisingly, the approval rating of Congress is now 14%. There is surprisingly little mention of this in the papers and network news.

I have learned indirectly via NT that our beloved announcer Mike Shannon is or was known as "moon man." I have no idea what the origins of that moniker were but somehow it seems so appropriate. I will repeat my favorite of the Mike Shannon pearls. As a switch hitter came to the plate, Mike said "You just can't imagine what an advantage it is to be able to bat from either side; I would have given my right arm to be ambidextrous."

Father's Day was special here. My children assembled and joined forces with their mom and they all collectively kicked my behind in a game called Crack Uno. I had a really good time. Well, if I'd have had crack, maybe I would have had a good time.

The last challenge word went unanswered. It is my first shut out. "Propitious" means favorable, favorably inclined. The states with capitols beginning with the same letters are Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, and Oklahoma. The lyrics were from American Girl by Tom Petty. I paid good money to take our gang to a Tom Petty concert last summer.

The new challenge word is "excoriate." The new trivia challenge is: According to Mary Poppins, what word, even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious, if you say it loud enough you''ll always sound precocious? The new lyrics challenge is: "I have a mansion, forget the price;/ Ain't never been there, they tell me it's nice./ I live in hotels, tear out the walls;/ I have accountants pay for it all./ They say I'm crazy, but I have good time;/ I'm just looking for clues at the scene of the crime."

Saturday with Uncle John

I am a little slow posting this, but here is another one from Uncle John.

Happy Father's Day to all fathers out there. Happy beginning of summer. Happy St. Jean Baptiste day to all you Quebecers.

I have a proposal. If your broadcast or article includes a feature on what Paris Hilton ate during each of her three daily meals in jail, then you should no longer be allowed to call your program a "news" show or to refer to yourself as a journalist. There, I think that would pretty much rid us off the whole lot. On that same lame subject, I see her dad is planning a huge getting out of jail party for her. He is allowing the big Vegas venues to fight over who gets the honor. He, being a bit short on cash I guess, is asking the site to put up $50,000 or more for the party. I think it's fair to say that any good father would have done the same for their daughter.

Roger Federer fans had to watch him struggle and fail against the irrepressible Nadal at the French Open. Late in the match, commentator Mary Carillo said, "Roger's break point numbers don't look impressive." Well, Mary is a master of understatement. At the time Federer had secured one break in 17 opportunities. I would wager that beyond not looking impressive, this was record shattering. All the American men contestants bowed out in the first round. That too is unbelievable.

After two series against American League teams, the Cardinals had given up 53 runs in 6 games. Mike Shannon said, "It hasn't been very enlightening to say the least." I think Mike may have invoked the wrong word there. It has been VERY enlightening, but it hasn't been very enjoyable. Those figures preceded the recent series against the Royals. Kent proclaimed that he would visit great bodily harm upon himself if we lost to the worst team in baseball. They beat us 8-1. The Redbirds won game 2. With the Cards scoring 8 runs in the rubber game, Kent would seemingly have escaped his own intemperate remark. Alas, our pitching surrendered 17 runs to the mighty Royal lineup in that game.

While on the subject a baseball, why is it that every time the camera shows fans behind the plate in a close up shot, a large number of them are using cell phones? When the close up is on other parts of the crowd, few if any are using their phones.

In previous episodes I have chronicle how the terminology applied to border jumpers who stayed here changed from "illegal aliens" to "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented immigrants" to "immigrants awaiting their paper work." Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has now taken it another step. He now refers to the illegal aliens as "undocumented Americans."

While on the subject of Harry Reid, he boasted that the Senate was going to give Antonio Gonzalez quite a comeuppance. I'm not sure who this Antonio Gonzalez is. I think he might be a striker on the Juarez soccer team. Meanwhile the loudmouthed obstructionist minority blocked an attempt to defame attorney general Alberto Gonzalez.

Mr. Hilton isn't the only one short on cash. John Edwards was speaking to an audience of mostly students and the event charged $17 for tickets to hear the fabulously rich malpractice lawyer speak. I hear him almost every day, but at least it's free.

Cardiovascular problems are still the number one killer, by far. Virtually everyone has a stake in advancements in this field. Relatively few are likely to be affected by HIV AIDS and most of these are folk who knowingly ignore the known preventions. Despite the fact that it affects vastly fewer people and despite the fact that means of it's prevention are known for the vast majority of its victims, more medical research money is spent on HIV AIDS than cardiovascular issues. Hmm.

Kris recently purchased an ATT/Singular service. She applied for the hefty rebate. She had to jump through quite a few hoops. She got a text mail message saying that her rebate had been mailed and that she should expect it within three weeks. I am wondering where they mailed it from (please excuse the grammar).

Apparently precious little of the billions allocated by Congress for border security measures has been applied to the task so far. Homeland Security Director Chernov does not seem to think he or his department share any culpability in this matter. He says if we want better border security, we must "give him the tools." I have to admit, I am very confused about all this. I would swear that every bureaucrat in the past has always used "give me the money" as the response.

The city of St. Louis, ever keeping its citizens in mind and looking for sources of revenue other than taxes, launched a suit against past manufacturers of lead based paint. Lead based paint was banned by the federal government in 1978. The suit was dismissed. Some court actually did something intelligent.

The last challenge word was "turpitude" meaning baseness or vileness. There have been several infamous instances in which the guest speaker was introduced or the official was characterized as a person of great moral turpitude. This is always intended to convey great praise it seems but actually is a grievous blow. In the case of politicians, the usage is accidentally correct. The lyrics challenge was from The Air That I Breathe. NT alone gave the Hollies as the artist. This song is currently being used in NAPA Auto Parts ads for air cleaners. This application seems somewhat less romantic than the original thrust of the song.

The new challenge word is "propitious." The trivia question: name the states that have a capitol beginning with the same letter as the state. The new lyrics are: "Well, it was kind of cold that night;/ She stood alone on the balcony./ Yeah, she could hear the cars roll by;/ Out on Four forty-one like/ Waves crashing on the beach./ And for one desperate moment there,/ He crept back in her memory./ God it's so painful when something that's so close,/ Is still so far out of reach./ Oh yeah,/ Alright./ Take it easy baby, ..."