Idaho Spud

"Tea Party" 2009

2009-04-15T18:53:00.002-06:00

Count me among those citizens who are deeply concerned about the total lack of fiscal responsibility by our "elected representatives," particularly those in Washington, DC.

People and organizations with a lick of common sense (and in the case of the State of Idaho, organizations that are constrained by the State Constitution) live within their means, and tighten their belt when the going gets tough. By stark contrast, the Fed spends money like never before, in some ill-conceived scheme of "spending our way to prosperity." It's never worked in the past... but by golly, let's try again! And our kids and grandkids can pay all that money back, anyway. No worry!

I was delighted that a grassroots "Tea Party" materialized in Boise (along with hundreds of other places across the Fruited Plain). I was there. I met the marchers enroute and joined in, marching down Capitol Boulevard to the State House.

Are these fringe radicals? Are they anti-government? Maybe a few are. I believe the vast majority are patriotic American citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction we're headed. (And I don't mean the direction starting last January... we've been headed in a bad direction for quite some time. Unfortunately, some people have come to expect that the government should take care of every citizen's every need. And unfortunately, it's not sustainable.)

Is anybody paying attention?

(One comment/criticism... this should have been strictly about deficit spending and fiscal matters. But inevitably there were fringe issues that attached themselves. There was the "Bibles in school" crowd. And the "Pro Life" crowd. And the "Get us out of the U.N." crowd. And I saw one lady with a sign that said, "Show us your birth certificate, Obama." I suppose one view is that the issue we have in common today is government spending. But I can't help but feel that they were a distraction on Tea Party Day.)

Change We Can Believe In?

2009-01-21T12:21:00.002-07:00

My daughter, who's in high school and will be old enough to vote in less than a year, came home yesterday and said, "We had to watch that inaguration stuff in all my classes! It was so boring!!"

Her momma replied something like, "You should be interested in government, because you're almost an adult and you'll get to vote soon."

"But Mom, it just doesn't matter, no matter who gets elected!"

Although I have admiration for the "Obama Youth" who energetically supported his campaign, as a firm believer that "small government is good government," I can certainly appreciate my daughter's sentiments. And I can understand why so many of my fellow citizens are apathetic and cynical about government.

The size and scope of government grew exponentially during the 8 George W. Bush years. And I'm not seeing much to give me hope that it will soon change.

President Obama gave a stirring inaguration speech. I listened to his every word, and was truly moved by some of the things he said.

To our enemies, he said, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Fantastic. But he also cited "... the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint" as part of our arsenal in the war on terror. Some people, unfortunately, don't recognize such ideological weapons; in fact they perceive them as weakness.

But... back to fiscal policy and the size/scope of government.

More of President Obama:

"Greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey ... has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work..."

"Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

"As much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate."

All of that sounds great.

But my small-government mind sounds the alarm when I hear something like, "We have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship."

Is that a new and difficult government task he's referring to, that we should all be loyal to as good Americans?

"... there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."

Is that "purpose" defined by new government mandates?

48 years ago (!), on January 20, 1961, another newly-elected president said, "Ask not what your country can do for you."

How times have changed!

Unfortunately, there seems to be a huge group of citizens and voters who are asking precisely, "What can our government do for us??" And I didn't hear much in President Obama's eloquent speech to refute it.

Obama: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."

To be replaced by different programs and initiatives? Most likely.

We have evolved to the point where many feel entitled to cradle-to-grave financial security, free health care, free prescription drugs, free internet. If a bank fails due to incompetence or greed... bail it out! (Give 'em more taxpayer money.) If a company is failing because its customers have abandoned its obsolete product... bail it out! If unwise consumers move in to a house that is way more expensive than they can afford, and fill it with installment-plan furnishings that they can't make payments on... no problem! The taxpayers will pick up the tab! (It'll help the economy!)

Back in JFK's day, government spending was measured, and debated, in the millions. Nowadays they can spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS without batting an eye! And if there is no positive result, the answer is "We didn't spend enough - let's spend hundreds of billions more!"

What would George Washington, or Ben Franklin, or Alexander Hamilton, say about how government is conducted in the 21st Century?

And why, oh why, didn't they put something in the Constitution about spending all those billions that haven't been collected yet? That's a heavy burden to put on our kids and grandkids, along with Social Security, Medicare, and all the other ongoing programs. President Bush obviously has tremendous confidence in his daughter's earning power and ability to pay the installments. I suspect Obama will have the same confidence in his two beautiful little daughters.

President Obama's critics say he's a socialist at heart, who will grow government even more than his predecessor. He insists he's a moderate. And the thing about his speech is... it was quite ambiguous, albeit eloquent. And a speech can be delivered by anybody, once it's in the teleprompter. That speech could've been delivered, perhaps without Obama's considerable delivery skills, by Nancy Pelosi or Ron Paul... know what I mean?

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, by nature I'm cautiously optimistic... tempered by a large dose of learned cynicism. "Small government" seems as old-fashioned and quaint as JFK's speech, nowadays.

Let Them Eat Asphalt!

2009-01-14T15:25:00.002-07:00

In his 2009 State of the State speech, Governor Butch Otter discussed at length the economic conditions that will surely force a pullback in government services this year.

There's no getting around it. Aside from raising taxes, or spending money we don't have (which is prohibited by the State Constitution... THANK GOODNESS!), the only alternative is some significant belt tightening.

Otter continues to push for more money for roads. This an ongoing theme; he claims we need $240/million more per year, just to maintain the existing infrastructure. (He wants to raise the money with a combination of gas tax and increased registration fees. I've commented previously on that topic, HERE.)

Of course, the "loyal opposition" jumped all over Otter's plan to scale back the budget.

Women, children, and the poor, will be hardest hit! (Same old story.)

"My senator" (Werk) even came up with a catch sound-bite, condemning Otter's "Pavement over People" priorities.

Criminy! You'd think only the aristocrats were allowed to drive on the roads! (And if that were the case, I bet maintenance costs would go WAY down!)

Here's some Harsh Reality... at least as I see it.

Reality: We've had a string of decent years, economy-wise, and we've seen government budgets at every level (federal, state, county, city) grow faster than inflation, or population, or any other indicator. New programs have been added, and old programs have been shored up with increased funding. But alas... the party is over. The Feds can continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, and even add new programs, bailouts, incentives, with impunity. (Our grandkids will have to pay it back.) But everybody else is facing some uncomfortable budgeting decisions. (Kinda like responsible families and businesses, when funds are cut back.)

Reality: This is NOT a good time to ask taxpayers to dig a little deeper. A significant number have joined the unemployment lines, for cryin' out loud! (Of course, a more astute economic genius might be able to explain to me, "We are giving you a $1000 stimulus payment... paid by you the taxpayer sometime in the future... why can't you give $500 back to the government?")

Reality: It makes sense that those who will suffer most from significant budget cuts are... the people who use the most government services. (You don't have to be Einstein or that wheelchair guy to understand that!)

Reality: There are people who truly have heavy burdens to bear. But there are also people whose main focus in life seems to be finding every government program they can take advantage of, to lighten their personal load. I know both kinds of people; I bet you do, too. Perhaps Roger Miller said it best - they "know every handout in every town, and every lock that ain't locked when no one's around." Not only that - they quickly develop a sense of entitlement - taxpayers OWE those services to them from that point forward, for some reason.

Reality: It is WAY easier to add a new government program, than to eliminate one. In fact, it's almost impossible to eliminate a program, because it will negatively impact some constituency. I guess we'll find out this year if programs can be scaled back, or maybe even eliminated.

These statements from Otter resonated with THIS taxpayer/citizen:

"... those of us in state government are facing the same kinds of painful, gutwrenching choices that individuals and families all over Idaho are making with their personal finances. And the decisions you and I make will bear on the ability of every Idahoan to fulfill their own responsibilities."

"The question that you and I must honestly answer on every occasion is whether meeting those [real peoples'] real needs falls within the sphere of the necessary and proper role of taxpayer-funded government services."

Frankly, those questions should be asked in the "feast" years as well as the "famine" years, seems to me.

Who's funnier - Liberals or Conservatives?

2009-01-02T12:01:00.002-07:00

If you're a News Junkie, like me, you probably saw the recent flap about a parody song called "Barak, the Magic Negro."

I have never heard the song; from what I understand it's sung to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon," by a guy who's impersonating the Reverend Al Sharpton. And the jist of the song is apparently about how President-elect Obama has succeeded because he doesn't have a "ghetto" background (as perceived by other African-Americans).

Defenders of the song say it's a sarcastic indictment of the mainstream media and their unwavering embrace of Obama throughout the recent campaign and election. Detractors say it is racist.

I doubt most of those detractors know any more about the song than I do. But since it has the word "negro" in it, it's obviously racist.

(The song has been out there in the public for quite some time; evidently Rush Limbaugh used it regularly, much to the delight of his loyal fan base. The reason it recently was thrust back into the news is because a guy who wants to be Chairman of the Republican Party sent out CDs to Republican colleagues, that contained the "Magic Negro" song.)

The whole episode causes me to ask myself, who's funnier, the liberals or the conservatives?

The liberals confidently declare that they are MUCH funnier than those stuffed-shirt conservatives. And they point to their celebrity champions, like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. And of course, since they see themselves as much more tolerant than the conservatives, they dismiss the feeble comedic efforts by various conservative voices as being driven by racism, or hatred, or some other form of bigotry.

I'm not so sure.

Maybe I'm wrong, but liberals seem WAY less likely to laugh at themselves. Sure, they guffaw it up when the fun is being poked at George W. Bush (who's certainly not a FISCAL conservative, but he's no liberal, either!) or Sarah Palin or Charlton Heston or Proposition 8 supporters. But you better not make fun of them or their champions, or you're a racist bigoted hate-monger!

There is a small segment of the population whose self-determined mission in life is to be offended by everything. Their ranks are made up of mostly liberals, seems to me.

Most of us fall somewhere in between. Although I don't perceive George W. Bush as being a bumbling idiot, I certainly laugh at some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth! (Funny that the people who make fun of Bush-the-moron also seem to think the same guy is somehow a scheming manipulative evil genius.) Bubba Clinton was (and is!) a laugh-a-minute! Tina Fey's Palin impression is pretty impressive... but there's not enough material there to bring it back, week after week after week. (Perhaps if she had been elected VP, it would be different.) But I'm also a little anxious. Will we all be walking on pins and needles for at least the next 4 years, because we don't want to be branded racists if we laugh at Obama?

As Obama takes office, it will be interesting to see how the "mainest" of mainstream media - Leno and Letterman - handle him. So far, they seem to be treading pretty lightly.

I'm not much of a "broadcast media" follower; when I think about it, most of my news comes through "reading" sources. But here are some (non-expert!) personal opinions and observations on some people in the limelight:

John Stewart - I don't have cable and only see him very occasionally, but his material seems to be directed toward an audience with a superficial, "drive-by" comprehension of current events. Some of it's pretty funny; some of it not so much.

Stephen Colbert - ditto on not being very familiar with him, but when I've seen him, I always get the impression he's mostly playing to himself. And he thinks he's hilarious! (Obviously people must agree, or he'd be off the air.)

Dennis Miller seems to fancy himself as a conservative counterpoint to those guys. The few times I've seen him (typically as a guest on one of the late-night network shows), he comes across as pretty funny.

Rush Limbaugh - I used to listen to Rush all the time. And I think the guy's a comic genius! Much of his stuff is serious, but first and foremost Rush is an entertainer and he's the first to declare that. A lot of his material is hilarious... either intentionally or otherwise.

(Most of those conservative-leaning talkers, like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, don't seem to be TRYING to be funny most the time, from what little I hear of them. People who listen to them regularly might have a totally different viewpoint.)

The funniest conservative stuff I'm personally aware of is the Iowahawk - click HERE to link. (The guy is a Comedic Genius! I urge EVERYBODY to "favorite" it and check back at least weekly.)

Another website that is consistently funny is the "Blame Bush!" website - click HERE. (I'm not sure if it has a future, with that specific content. I say that by 10 years from now, everything will no longer be Bush's fault!)

(BE ADVISED... as with everything on the WorldWide Web, it's a wasteland of freedom of expression out there. Pretty much EVERYBODY is offended by something; both liberals and conservatives have widely-varying tolerance levels. There's a good chance that both of those sites have some content intended for mature audiences.)

Shoe Control NOW!

2008-12-16T11:44:00.007-07:00

A few years back, we raised our collective eyebrows when the Shoe Bomber was apprehended onboard a plane, trying to light the fuse on his shoe bombs. (Oh - and we also started removing our collective shoes at the airport, so the Homeland Security Shoe Bomb Detection Experts could more easily distinguish between standard shoes, and bomb shoes.)

But now - shoe missiles have emerged! It always starts in the powder-keg Middle East, but quickly spreads across the globe. Sure - we all can laugh when a Lame Duck President is the target (and deftly ducks)... but tomorrow the target of a crazed shoe terrorist might be your neighbor... or your child!!

Something must be done! The time for talk is over!

DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

You can expect the powerful D.C. Shoe Lobby to resist.

You will notice that almost all 435 members of Congress wear shoes (with the possible exception of the distinguished gentlemen from Mississippi and Arkansas). They've sold out to Big Shoe.

But some common-sense laws must be passed, to keep dangerous shoes out of the hands of, and off the feet of, criminals.

A good start might be:
- Ban shoes in public schools and other public places (National Parks, maybe?)
- Nationwide shoe registration.
- Close the shoe-show loop. (Many shoe criminals confess that they got their shoes at shoe shows.)
- Perhaps a ban on sinister-looking black shoes. There is no legitimate use for high-capacity black shoes in our society, when benign brown shoes will adequately do the same job.

We can expect resistance, both from the NSA (National Shoe Association) and common ordinary ignorant rednecks... the ones with bumper sticker slogans like:
"The West wasn't won with registered boots."
"You can have my shoes when you pry them off my cold, dead toes."
"This Pickup Protected by Buster Brown."
But our fight is right! We must prevail!

Last of all - do NOT give your children shoes for Christmas! What a negative message that would send!

Wild-eyed Iraqi housewife displays the Shoe-Scud.

President Obama

2008-11-05T09:32:00.006-07:00

Some thoughts about our newly elected president.

I didn't vote for him. His "change we can believe in" seems to be one of expanded government, and I'm firmly in the "small government is good government" camp. But I can certainly understand his appeal, and frankly, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the prospect of a McCain presidency, either.

Did race play a factor in the election?

Absolutely!

Blacks voted 90% for Obama, and Hispanics even higher, apparently. Of course, that wouldn't have won the election for him. A majority of white Americans voted for him as well. I'm sure a percentage of those votes were specifically because Obama is African-American. (A parallel might be former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. I bet he got a lot of votes from people who voted for the "Mormon" just because he is a Mormon, and they're openly tolerant of that.)

Is it cool that we'll have a black man for president?

IMO, it's FANTASTIC! (I just wish he shared my "conservative" vision.)

It is a huge step toward the realization of the "dream" so eloquently voiced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., more than 40 years ago.

Rightly or wrongly, America moved up several notches in how the world views us, literally overnight.

Also - and I hope this doesn't sound racist but - IMO, young black men haven't had a huge selection of positive role models. Obama fills that bill nicely. A young, successful, smart, articulate, family-oriented black man. And now he's the leader of the Free World! (I don't think professional athletes, celebrities, musicians and gangsters are often good role models, no matter what color they are.)

Here's a question... why did Obama want to be president? Boy howdy, he sure inherited a mess! He's got his work cut out for him just fixing what's broken, let alone adding new services. There may be a heavy burden for the most wealthy 5% of Americans, and of course, Joe the Plumber. (Remember - Obama said out of his own mouth that 95% of us would NOT see a tax increase. I'm going to hold him to that.)

In his victory speech, Obama promised to be president for all Americans, not just those who share his vision and voted for him.

I hope he leads this country in a direction that's pleasing to God. (If you don't share my faith, this will seem like superstitious hokum, but I don't think we can expect God to watch out for us, if we turn our back on Him.)

I wish Obama total success, and will be praying for him.

Time will tell. Like the man said on the radio this morning, "America wanted to throw the bums out. But if Obama oversteps, he could be tomorrow's bum."

In the meantime, to all the naysayers and finger-waggers, I say, shut up and let the man work for awhile! I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Start yellin' if you don't like the way he's working.

I also say, God bless America and President Obama! Please!

$ for Idaho Roads

2008-10-16T15:16:00.009-06:00

(Hat tip to the Boise Guardian, for posting a condensed version of this for his large and smart audience. Thanks, Dave!)

Idaho's roads are in some serious need of serious road work.

The Idaho Transportation Department estimates that it would cost an additional $250 million per year, just to maintain the status quo. Of course, to bring things into "ship shape" would cost in the billions... we're almost talking CONGRESSIONAL dollar figures! (Boy howdy! Can those kids spend taxpayer dollars?!!)

Many of us are skeptical. We tend to have a myopic viewpoint. (For you non-library types, that's "nearsighted.") "Aw, c'mon! The roads aren't so bad! I drive on the Connecter and 13th Street every day, and there's hardly even a pothole!" To us, the roads look fine... until a bridge falls into the river, like happened back there in Minnesota.

Enter Governor C. L. "Butch" Otter.

(Remember Congressman Butch Otter? The fearless, libertarian-leaning advocate of the downtrodden taxpayer? Heir apparent to Steve "take a bite out of government" Symms? Amazingly, it's the very same guy. Only nowadays, he's busy at work trying to find more money for his beloved state government.)

Governor Otter wants $250 million more, per year, for roads. And when he looks at the hardworking, roadway-using citizens, he sees dollar signs and hears "ka-ching! ka-ching!"

Simply put, he's trying to figure out some way to get more dollars out of those taxpayers' bank accounts, and into the ITD bank account.

(Meanwhile, most of us are powerlessly watching those bank accounts dry up, as the fruits of our lives' work go swirling into the Wall Street sewer grate. But that's a whole 'nother subject.)

The first idea Governor Otter floated (during the '08 Legislative session) was of drastically increasing vehicle registration fees. The reception was lukewarm... about the temperature of liquid nitrogen, as I recall.

Now he's talking about a "mileage tax." It would be simple. Read the odometer each time the car is registered, and collect dollars based on miles-driven since last time.

He's obviously thinking anything is better than raising the fuel tax!

Let's take a look at the options.

Now you're sayin', "What do you know? You're a bikeboy!"

Granted, most of my local transportation is atop my trusty 2-wheeler. But consider... perhaps that gives me a more objective viepoint than Citizen Motorist, or even Butch! (Obviously, I expect somebody to poke holes in my observations. I'm just throwin' 'em out for people to chew on.)

REGISTRATION FEE

A substantially-increased, revenue-enhancing registration fee sounds fair, doesn't it? (A variation would be a fee based on the weight of the vehicle - after all, a 6000-pound Hummer is gonna bust up the roads way more than that 1900-pound Geo Metro. My Senator - Werk - likes that idea.)

But wait! Not so fast!

If that 1900-pound Geo Metro is driven 20,000 miles a year on Idaho roads, and the Hummer is driven 200 ... who's bustin' up the roads now?

Here's a more commonplace scenario.

Beavis has a 1992 Ford F-150. He drives it back and forth between his house in Kuna and his job in east Boise - puts 20,000 miles on it in a year.

Next door lives - you guessed it - Butthead. He has a pickup just like his neighbor's, only with some sweet rims he got at Les Schwab. And, he puts 2000 miles a year on it, doing a couple dump-runs and a few fishing and hunting trips. (He's got a more "sensible" vehicle that he drives to work in... and pays registration on.)

Just to make the math easy, let's say Butch charges 'em $200/year to register that truck.

Turns out Beavis would be paying one cent per mile, and Butthead ten cents, for the privilege of being registered. (Butthead isn't gonna like this!)

Also, it should be noted that the "foreigners" who visit Idaho from California and other places, are not sharing in the registration-fee revenue scenario.

ODOMETER

This seems a little more fair for Beavis and Butthead, huh? If Butch collects five cents per mile, Beavis pays $1000 (ouch!) and Butthead pays $100. (Beavis isn't gonna like this!)

On the surface, it seems more fair than the flat-registration fee. At least it's kinda sorta based on the amount of wear-and-tear the taxpayer is inflicting on the roads.

But... how about the guy who lives in Post Falls but does 90% of his driving in Washington? Should he pay the five cents, too?

Can of worms!

A variation that's being tested next door in Oregon is a GPS-based scheme. A GPS receiver installed in the car keeps track of miles driven.

[If you're asking, "What's GPS"? Here's a quick primer. GPS stands for "global positioning system." There are satellites up there in space, beaming signals back to the earth. A receiver that's mounted in a vehicle, or boat, or missile, or even hand-held, can receive those signals and calculate the exact spot where you're standing, or driving, or flying, what direction you're going and how fast, etc.]

Shades of "Big Brother," huh? That's why most people don't like it - in these parts, we don't like the government keeping such close track of us.

But get used to the notion... long-term, I bet we'll see more of this. If you wanted to get sophisticated, you could keep track of the miles driven in Idaho, and outside the state boundaries. You could even get fancier. For example, you might charge people 10 cents per mile if they're contributing to the I-84 rush-hour traffic jam, but only 5 cents per mile in the off-hours, or if they're driving down Franklin Road. Heck! You could even penalize people who are exceeding the speed limit, by taxing them more! (I'm not saying any of this is good or bad... just describing possible scenarios.)

A mileage-based tax would encourage an underground industry that specializes in odometer tweakage, GPS file hacking, etc. I'm just sayin'. And like the registration fee, a per-mile tax would exclude the despised Californians. And the tolerated Oregonians, Utahns, etc. (Tourism is a growing and desirable industry. I don't know what share of the roadbuilding and upkeep fees should be shared with our tourists... but it should be part of the discussion.)

FUEL TAX

Nobody (except maybe for the followers of Pope Algore) wants to see higher gas prices. It would be a brave politician indeed, who would advocate for 20 cents more per gallon, when gas is already four bucks.

But compared with the plans that Butch has proposed so far, it seems more equitable.
- The guy in the Hummer will pay more per mile, than the guy in the Geo Metro.
- The guy who drives 20,000 miles will pay more than the guy who drives 2000 miles.
- We also include the tourists, at least the tourists who are driving (and thus putting wear and tear on our roads).

Plus, it's easily collected.

Opponents point out that as people drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, revenues will drop.

What's the alternative? Should gas misers be punished, or taxed at a higher rate than gas guzzlers? As a general rule, the better fuel mileage a car gets, the less wear-and-tear it's likely to put on the road, because of lighter weight. (There are exceptions, and will be more if we evolve towards non-internal-combustion vehicles, etc. And maybe a new revenue method needs to be implemented for non-traditional vehicles... I don't know.)

Another consideration is border areas. Gas merchants who are just barely in Idaho could suffer, if the guys two blocks away in Oregon or Washington are selling gas for 20 cents less. (But those Oregon and Washington guys are more likely to raise their prices by 15 cents, and pad their own pockets a little more.)

There is not, and never will be, a revenue-collecting method that's fair for everybody. There are disadvantages to any of 'em. But if we need a big influx of cash... from this observer's viewpoint, as unpalatable as it may be, the gas tax seems like the most fair and easy way to collect from the actual roadway users. Substantially more so than either a registration tax or an odometer tax. And the Libertarians should take Butch's membership card away for even suggesting those other ideas!

Vote: NONE OF THE ABOVE!

2008-10-15T10:40:00.003-06:00

1964 was the first election that I can remember much about. '64 was the year when Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson went up against Republican Barry Goldwater. I remember it mostly because my parents were strongly in favor of Goldwater. (Johnson won handily, of course, and the rest is history. Or "Great Society," as Johnson liked to call it.)

(I remember earlier presidents. Eisenhower came to Boise and I saw him as a young kid, at a rally at the "BJC Gymnasium," which was the biggest venue in town at the time. And of course I remember Kennedy - I remember the "Cuban Missile Crisis," and vividly recall the fateful day that ended his presidency.)

Back in '64, the line between the two parties was more clearly drawn, IMO.

The Democrats were proponents of social (government) programs to attack society's woes, like poverty, illiteracy, etc. The Republicans were more of the philosophy of "keep government out of the way, and let people govern themselves."

When I was an idealistic youth, the notion of the government taking care of society's problems had a lot of appeal. But as I have matured - maybe it was parental influence, or maybe just pragmatism - my viewpoint has evolved to become solidly "small government is good government."

I've spent a lifetime observing that government "solutions" are almost always at best inefficient, and at worst colossal disasters.

Look at Social Security, for example. What a great notion! A government program that will provide a lifetime of income to its retired citizens, paid for by the next generation. I've got a huge stake in Social Security. Between myself and my employers, we've contributed over $130,000, that would otherwise have been in my paychecks. (And maybe in my self-managed private retirement account, along with interest.) So... it's in a government account instead... right? Heck NO! It's gone into the giant government bucket and gets spent as quickly as it goes in. Along with billions that are borrowed. The other shoe just hasn't dropped yet.

So you'd think I'd be solidly Republican, huh?

Not necessarily so.

The parties have evolved, too. Or at least the politicians of those parties. The lines have been blurred.

Look at 2008.

In this corner, we have Democrat Barack Obama. He's making a lot of promises - "change we can believe in." His whole life seems to have been evolving toward a philosophy that government can - and should - be addressing most of the problems we're having, or might have.

Of course, social programs cost money. Obama doesn't talk much about money in his awesome, eloquent speeches. But when he does, he talks about taking more from those in the highest income brackets, and from corporations, etc. (Which should appeal to us poor folks, huh? We'll get more from government, while not paying any more.)

That's pretty much the Democratic Party Line.

How about the other guy?

Republican John McCain has always fancied himself the "maverick." The guy who will cross over the blurred party lines when it suits him. The man who isn't afraid to align himself with the Democrats, to get things done.

What's John McCain's philosophy? I really don't know. All I know is, it's not necessarily the "Republican platform," or the "Democrat platform."

Although he's been a career politician, he isn't distinguished as a fiscal conservative. He's voted for plenty of new social programs and increased spending over the years. He loves pork as much as the next guy. And he's currently advocating additional government solutions to the current-events problems we're facing, more regulations (more government oversight), etc., etc.

And how will McCain pay for it?

He doesn't talk much about money, either. But when he does... he promises a tax CUT! (In theory, that would stimulate the economy, resulting in more revenue for government, in the long run. In the meantime, we'll just borrow more money!)

The Hallowed Halls of Government are packed with politicians - both Democrat and Republican - who love Big Government, and are doing everything they can to expand it.

No matter who we vote for - McCain or Obama - Happy Days are Here Again! (If we believe what they're telling us.)

How about the "social issues"?

I think we can all agree the two "biggies" are abortion and guns.

There seems to be some space between the two candidates. Although oddly, neither seems eager to discuss their differences. (And they haven't come up in the debates, at least so far.) Perhaps they are afraid that if they come across as ideologues on those issues, it will turn off some of their voters.

Obama seems to lean pro-abortion, anti-gun. McCain seems to lean anti-abortion, pro-gun.

And maybe that's enough. But I wish they had the courage to declare forcefully their beliefs.

Are these the best two guys we've got? Frankly, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence. I pray for this great country, no matter who is our next president. And it will be one of these two guys.

Why can't we vote NONE OF THE ABOVE, and have a do-over?

I'm seriously leaning toward voting "none of the above" by voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.

My own philosophy leans Libertarian (although certainly not "party line"), and I've voted for Libertarians several times in the past. Where it differs, it mostly aligns with Bob Barr. (And unless I'm running for President myself, I will NOT find somebody I'm in total agreement with.)

"Why would you throw away your vote?" you might ask.

Which is better, throwing a vote away, or voting for a guy you don't like, for the job? (Or casting a vote against the guy you don't like even more?)

The Demicans and Republocrats have had 232 years to get it right. Maybe it's time to look at an alternative.

Food Crisis?

2008-04-25T11:24:00.008-06:00

A "global food crisis" is upon us.

If you go to the grocery store - as my bride does frequently - you've no doubt noticed.

The cost of food is going up significantly faster than inflation. In fact, so much so that food is currently a sound investment, besides being one of life's necessities. An editorial was published in the April 21, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Author Brett Arends says, "I don't want to alarm anybody, but maybe it's time for Americans to start stockpiling food. ... Reality: Food prices are already rising here much faster than the returns you are likely to get from keeping your money in a bank or money-market fund." (The editorial can be read HERE.)

Stockpiling food? Who ever heard of such a thing?!

Will the increases in food prices be sustained? Hard to say... a lot of factors are contributing to it, including: 1) diversion of what would otherwise be food for bio-fuel, 2) escalating transportation expenses, 3) prosperity in countries that have traditionally been poverty-stricken, resulting in worldwide demand for good food. (Ya can't blame those Chinese people for wanting something to go with their rice!)

Combine those factors with the climate that seems to be growing increasingly unstable, and indeed it seems very prudent to have at least some food stored away.

Is all of this surprising?

It may be if you haven't been paying attention.

In my case, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm not surprised at all.

My church leaders have been encouraging me and my fellow saints to "store in your own basements and in your own private storehouses and granaries sufficient for a year’s supply." That advice was given in 1937 - more than 70 years ago - and has been repeated regularly since then. (More info HERE.)

Of course, thousands of years earlier, Christians were told by the Apostle Timothy, "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

My parents set a good example for me as a child. They took our prophet's advice very seriously. We had a "fruit room" in that basement, its shelves stocked with canned goods. Mom joined the effort - she dutifully canned fruit. Dad also had some long-term freeze-dried food, etc. - the stuff that you don't need to rotate because it has a 20-year shelf life, but would sure be nice to have as an alternative to starvation.

(My childhood coincided with the "Cold War," when there was a movement afoot to prepare, at least in a small way, for a nuclear strike. Dad added onto our basement, specifying concrete walls that were several feet thick.)

We are trying to do the year's supply thing. (It's still a goal... not a reality. But we've made progress lately.)

It's not easy.

One of the main challenges is storage space. I bought 500 pounds of flour a few months back... do you know how much space it takes? A 5-gallon plastic bucket holds about 25 pounds of flour... so figure 20 of those buckets. And you can't just store it anywhere. Attics and garages are TERRIBLE! Food that is stored in temperatures much above "room" temperature will lose their nutritional quality, and spoil, much more quickly.

Another challenge is that of rotating. Most non-canned food has a shelf life anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. (And canned food doesn't last forever, either.) Somehow it's easier to just grab a bag of flour or sugar at the store, than to pop open that storage bucket and then replace its contents when it's empty.

I'm trying to catalog our food storage inventory in an Excel spreadsheet, so we can pay attention and get stuff used up as the expiration date approaches.

(We've also enjoyed some success in growing food in a garden. There's a good deal of satisfaction to be had in taking a crop of tomatoes and beets and cucumbers and peppers from bare ground in the springtime, to bottles on the pantry shelf a few months later.)

As far as I can tell, there's really no "down side" to having some food in storage. Unless it spoils and you have to throw it out. But that can be easily avoided with a little effort.

Ask yourself: "If the shelves at the grocery store were empty for whatever reason, and if transportation were cut off for whatever reason, how long would my current food supply last?"

One of life's lessons is... you need to prepare for a crisis BEFORE it happens. Once you are mid-crisis, it's too late to prepare. "Be prepared." (Golly - somebody oughtta use that for a motto, or something.)

For anyone interested, much more information about storing a supply of food can be found HERE.

Political Elton

2008-04-10T15:43:00.003-06:00

So, who looks better in a fashionable black pantsuit, Hillary or Sir Elton?

Also... you may remember that back in '92, Fleetwood Mac played at Bubba's Inaugural Ball, making "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" the de-facto theme song of the first Clinton administration.

Is there any truth to the rumor that if Hillary is elected, Elton will perform at the next Inaugural Ball, and play his little ditty, "The B*tch is Back"???

(nudge-nudge, wink-wink)

Tabloid "Journalism"?

2008-03-20T09:10:00.004-06:00

If you're like me, you lamented the demise of Weekly World News, which ceased publication a few months ago. "WWN" "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper" - claimed to print the stories that everybody else was afraid to print. It could be found in the grocery store checkout line - usually with a story about Bat Boy (half-boy, half-bat), or about aliens visiting the White House.

We even got a subscription for a year. (We dropped it - the news was just too scary! I always enjoyed Ed Anger's column. Ed is one ANGRY guy!)

Maybe I was premature... looks like they may be continuing with their online version - click HERE to link to it. (Or maybe they're just recycling old stories.)

Current stories:
- Democrats Plant Sexy Intern to Seduce Bush
- Alien Bible Translated (Apparently Oprah is somehow involved...)
- Study Shows Republicans Are Ketchup Freaks
- The Man in the Moon is a Peeping Tom!
- Secret Fat Farms Discovered By Feds

But even if the WWN was gone forever, Fox News (online) is a pretty adequate replacement.

You know Fox News... "Fair and Balanced." "We report, you decide."

Being a current events junkie, I check FoxNews.com 2 or 3 times a day for "real" news, and I feel that indeed, they try to be fair and balanced.

But mixed in with significant news, they seem to have a LARGE amount of "tabloid" type news. They're probably just responding to what their audience wants.

Here are some headlines - not at the "weird news" page or anything, just at the main news page - that I've accumulated over the last 2 or 3 weeks. You decide:
- Cops: Man Kills Motorcyclist Following Daughters
- 'Devil-Worship' Rapist Attacks Fiancee on Prison Leave
- Confession From the Grave May Solve 1970 Murder
- Blind Man Sees After Son's Tooth Implanted in His Eye
- Newborn Falls Through Train Toilet Onto Tracks
- Twin Gay Porn Actors Suspected in Burglaries
- Boy, 10, Suffering From Deadly Childhood Alzheimer's
- Millionaire Tried to Kill Unborn Baby With Abortion Pills
- New Baby Nearly Same Size as Mother
- Chef Accused of Putting Hair in Steak After Complaint
- Nurse's Aide Accused of Abusing, Urinating on Patients
- Deadly Poison Found at Sin City Motel
- Mom Arrested After Baby Born With Pot in System
- Teacher Allegedly Sends Boy Topless Pictures
- Grocery Stocker Found Guilty in Cannibalistic Plot Case
- Teen Crawls for Help After Train Cuts Off Leg
- Son: I Killed Dad for MySpace Time
- Syrian Man Decapitates Child in Market
- 'Death Star' Gamma-Ray Gun Pointed Straight at Earth
- 'Danny Boy' Banned in New York Pub for Month of March
- Dad Who Burned Kids in Dryer Wanted a 'Good Time'
- Woman Pried Off Toilet Seat She Sat on for 2 Years
- Woman Kills Husband Who Turned Off Her Springsteen
- Mystery: Woman's Body Kept on Ice at Hotel for a Year?
- Judge Allows Wife to Annul Marriage Over Female Hubby
- Girl Born with Two Faces in Northern India
- Woman Goes for Leg Operation, Gets New Anus Instead
- Man Gunned Down in Driveway by Killer Robot

Or... maybe the world has just gone crazy, and has finally caught up to Weekly World News!

Smog Police - Making a Difference?

2008-03-06T13:22:00.006-07:00

The State Legislature is grappling with House Bill 586. What it would do is authorize the State Air Quality people to require vehicle emission testing anywhere in the state that has at-risk air quality.

The real agenda is to require Canyon County to test their vehicles, just like Ada County.

At first glance, it seems like a no-brainer. Especially if you listen to the road reports as the Canyon County hoardes descend into Boise in the morning, and return home in the evening. After all, they, too, are contributing in a meaningful way to Boise's significant air pollution problem.

Glory be! Clear sunny days are just around the corner!

But wait.

Let's look at Ada County's vehicle emissions inspection program, before we foist it on our neighbors in Canyon County. (Even if they deserve to share in the misery.)

First of all - well over 90% of Ada County cars pass the first time. So, for those people, the inspection and fee are nothing but another hassle and another expense, with absolutely no other benefit. (Unless you consider the testing/bureaucracy "industry" a benefit. It would be nice to see those folks doing something productive, though... wouldn't it?)

For the few percent of cars that don't pass the first time...

The inspectors know lots of tricks that'll make the car pass the test. Like setting the idle screw faster, or taking off the air cleaner. They do their temporary tweaks. They redo the test - the car passes. They undo the tweaks, making the car once again non-compliant. And everybody goes away happy. (Is that somehow improving our air quality?)

If the car still doesn't pass, the owner is required to spend up to $200, to make the car compliant. And I love this part... if the car still doesn't pass after the $200 is spent, "you may qualify for a waiver of this year’s requirement to pass the test." (http://www.emissiontest.org) Smogmobile drives in... smogmobile drives out, for another year.

So... explain to me again how the vehicle testing program, as currently administered, improves air quality. Or how expanding it to Canyon County will improve air quality.

Let's say there are 250,000 vehicles motoring about in Treasure Valley, on a given day. Furthermore, just to make the math easy, let's say 25,000 of them (10%) are spewing out too much smog... but would still be spewing it after the test. (Based on the real-world scenarios I described previously.)

Our air quality problem is largely being caused by all 250,000 vehicles! The cars that pass, still contribute to the total! As do the cars that don't pass, but drive on anyway! Just because you've paid your $20 at the testing station hasn't changed the air in any way! Hello!

I say NO to House Bill 586. Not because I'm not concerned about air quality - the opposite is true! (I live in Boise and I ride a bicycle, all year 'round, even on the yellow and orange days.) I say NO because HB586 is nothing more than Window Dressing, and expansion of the bureaucracy. I'm amazed that somebody has to explain this to the Legislature.

Help Larry Fight Back!

2008-02-29T10:04:00.005-07:00

The Esteemed Gentleman from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, has had his reputation besmirched by publicity-hungry cops at the Minneapolis Airport, that homophobic Dan Popkey guy, and by a string of homosexuals, going back 20 or 30 years.

Larry Craig is not gay! Fer cryin' out loud! He's from Midvale, Idaho! A guy from Midvale likes huntin', and fishin', and cuttin' down big trees! Larry drives a pick-up truck... not a Mazda Miata! Gays come from places like San Francisco and Miami!

It's time to help Larry right the wrong!

If you live in Idaho or Washington, D.C., or if you visit mens' restrooms in airports in between, PLEASE help us put up these informative posters, to set the record straight.

(Click HERE to download the PDF poster.)

PRINT IT OFF! PUT IT UP! DO IT FOR AMERICA!

Agreement

2008-02-06T09:27:00.000-07:00

Us Idaho folks are an independent lot. We rarely agree on anything. Especially when it comes to stuff like politics and religion... we bicker like schoolyard kids.

So, a recent development is especially refreshing.

The Republicans don't like Hillary. (For those of you who don't follow politics too closely, that's Mrs. Bill Clinton. Remember Bubba?)

I've heard it said she's a "polarizing" figure... love her or hate her.

Personally, I feel she might be a charming, nice person in a one-on-one setting. I've not seen any evidence of that, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. If offered a chance to go to lunch with her - even at Bubba's favorite place, McDonald's - I'd politely decline. I KNOW I don't care for her politics.

But, I digress... back to the refreshing development.

Apparently Idaho's Democrats don't like Hillary, either.

In yesterday's Democratic Caucus, Obama got 80% of the votes; Hillary got 17%.

I've got renewed respect for Idaho's Democrats! (That, plus my disdain for Idaho Republicans in general, makes me solidly independent, I s'pose. But I agree with ALL of them on Hillary!)

Hillary, watching the Idaho Caucus results coming in...

The Perfect Valentine's Day Gift

2008-02-05T22:34:00.000-07:00

There's an outfit called the International Star Registry (website here) that runs ads on the radio. They tell you that for $54 or so, they'll name a star after you or whoever.

That's all fine and dandy... but they don't tell you a couple details:
1) Nobody recognizes their names, except for you and them, and
2) Real astronomers have already named pretty much every star you can see.

Well, I've got a BETTER option!

Introducing...
INTERGALACTIC STAR REGISTRY!

For $44 (less than the other guys), I will name a star after whoever you want me to. But it won't be some obscure, lame star in the Milky Way.

We're starting with M31 - the Andromeda Galaxy. It's about 200,000 light years away, and invisible to the naked eye. But, believe me, it's an AWESOME galaxy!

And check it out - only two stars have been named so far. If you hurry, you could get that blue one, in the upper right-hand corner. Or, for $100, we'll name that really bright part, right in the middle, after YOUR loved one! You'll even get a certificate saying so!

Don't delay - if somebody else gets here first, you'd hate to spend the rest of your life kicking yourself, huh?

Satellite Panic!

2008-01-30T14:36:00.000-07:00

Just in case you've been in your Tora-Bora cave for the last few weeks, or hibernating... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we're doomed! In a month or so, a satellite will crash back to the Earth's surface. Be afraid. Be very afraid! I know I am...

According to an online article, it's a spy satellite known only as "US 193." "It was launched in December 2006 but almost immediately lost power and cannot be controlled. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor but the satellite's central computer failed shortly after launch."

It's pretty big - and could hit North America in late February or early March!

Oh, the humanity!

Since I don't know much about satellites and stuff, I thought I'd get some advice from an "insider." My friend - my rocket-scientist friend - works for an aerospace company in the Bay Area. He does "sensitive" satellite-guidance stuff; that's all I know. (Besides, if I told you more, he'd have to kill me.) I'll call him "Billy."

I sent an email to "Billy":

Hi, Billy.

Is "US 193," the satellite that will hurtle back to earth in a month or so, one of YOUR babies?

Let me tell you this, my friend. I just did some work on my furnace and it is working perfectly! So if your satellite hits my house, I'm gonna be PLENTY ticked-off!!!

Since you're an expert, I'm asking... should I buy the supplemental satellite-collision insurance rider for my homeowners?

(If it crashes into my house, OR if it crashes at the park across the street and I'm the first one to get to it... eBay!!!)

He sent me this reply; I share it with you for the good of mankind:

Hi (name withheld)!

I know "US 193," but I can not talk about "US 193". They are predicting impact in North America. As time gets closer, they will be able to better predict re-entry. This far out, time wise, it is tough to model. It is large enough that some parts will make it to the ground.

Here is what you will need to do. For the next month, you and your family should be wearing hard-hats 24/7. Please remove all seat cushions from your couch and pillows from your beds. Attach these to the top of your automobiles. While riding your bike, do not listen to your Ipod. You need to listen for the whistle of 'incoming' objects.

As far as your house goes... it will be like shooting out your light switch with a .44mag (as you have done) times 100. Good luck with that insurance rider. That furnance will come in handy in heating your home with no roof.

The parts would fetch a good price on eBay....just don't sell them to foreign nationals. That would violate ITAR regulations!

I hope I was able to help you with your satellite survival guide ... keep watch on the sky.

I wrote back:

If I recover it, maybe I'll just hang onto it.

Could you Xerox me a copy of the repair manual? And are the parts available at Radio Shack?

"Billy" replied:

Radio Shack??? We get our parts from the electronic flea market in downtown Sunnyvale.

On a serious side note, a vendor of ours maintains some special test equipment that I need to test a box I am responsible for. The harddrive controller went bad and the only replacement that would work was a controller taken out of an Atari purchased at a pawn shop for $30. Now that is pure rocket science and should give you every confidence in our space program. Do you have the pillows on your car yet?

I wrote back:

That's pretty good! Any computer-type engineer worth his salt has to have a little "hacker" in his blood.

I'm still working on my tinfoil hat! (Don't want to get "radiated," you know.) When I get done with that, duct-tape and sofa cushions!!

Yeah, I'm worried. But at least this is a distraction from doing my income taxes. I'm gonna wait 'til after the satellite hits ground; if it lands on me, FORGET THE FORM 1040 THIS YEAR!

Baby Mac

2008-01-04T16:36:00.000-07:00

My granddaughter, Mackenzie, is 1 year old today.

(Photo was taken on Thanksgiving Day.)

I can hardly wait 'til tomorrow, because she gets cuter every day!

(Click on the photo for a larger size - printable, and suitable for framing!)
(-;

"Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays"

2007-12-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

It's become a holiday tradition. Every year it surfaces - the outrage when either greeting is chosen.

The "separation of church and state" crowd reacts indignantly when "Merry Christmas" is used. How offensive! How insensitive to the non-Christians in our society!

And the "Christmas celebration purists" are outraged when people, fearing the indignant reaction of the separation faction, choose to use "Happy Holidays" instead.

I s'pose everybody needs something to get all worked up over. In the immortal words of 20th-century statesman and philosopher Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Let's study for a moment, these sources of such offense, and the people who get so offended.

First we've got the Church/State Gatekeepers. They, of course are the ones who make sure we're all protected from offensive manger scenes on public property, singing of Christmas carols in our public schools, etc. I even heard that Santa Claus was banned from one school district this year. After all, argued a patron of the district, Santa is "Saint Nick," and therefore might conjure up offensive religious sentiments.

Can Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph be far behind?

But - how about the other side in this divisive issue?

You put up your decorations - and they by-golly have to be superior to the Joneses, up the street. You don't want people to think they are more religious than you are!

You gather the wish-lists from your people - at least, the cooperative ones.

My bride is not cooperative. She said she just wants "peace in all the earth." Yeah, right! Who would want something like that for Christmas?!!

Then you endure the nonstop barrage of "Christmas" oriented TV commercials, newspaper advertising, etc., etc.

Disgusting! Christmas, indeed! Surely "Happy Holidays" is much more appropriate, since associating any of the merchandising with the birth of Christ is a huge stretch... no?

(My least favorite are the jewelry ads with the little "Christmas morning dramas" depicting clever ways of giving jewelry, and how speechlessly delighted the Missus will be when she is presented with the spendy little box.)

Then you go to the Wal-Mart (or to the Mall at 1am on "Black Friday" morning), and spend a couple hours getting jostled by frenzied shoppers, discovering the stuff you wanted is already sold out, and standing in long checkout lines.

At this point, you're really filled with that "peace on earth, good will toward men" spirit, right? And then a bedreggled clerk bursts the bubble by saying, "Happy holidays," instead of the requisite "Merry Christmas." And that is what ruins it for you? Oh, the humanity!

From an historical standpoint, "Happy Holidays" is probably more accurate. After all, there were various pagan holidays long before calendars, coinciding with the Winter Solstice. Even the most skeptical scientific mind recognizes that the days start getting longer following the Winter Solstice, promising a season of warming and renewal. The Christians decided to celebrate their most significant holiday in conjunction with everybody else's big day.

And besides, NOWHERE in scripture does it say that Jesus was born on December 25th. In fact, Jesus was born in April. That's the time of year when you could've found shepherds keeping their flocks in the fields - not mid-winter. And besides... Joseph went to Bethlehem to be taxed, and everybody knows that Tax Day is April 15th!
(-;

So - are you a "Merry Christmas" person, or a "Happy Holidays" person, or both?

There are interesting ways of dealing with the conflicting emotions and sentiments of the season.

Some folks try to ignore the whole thing.

The classic example is Frank Costanza, the genius behind the "Festivus" celebration.

In case you're not a Seinfeld fan, Festivus is the holiday "for the rest of us." Festivus is celebrated as follows:
1) Putting up the Festivus Pole. (It's a plain brushed aluminum tube, maybe 2 inches in diameter. No decorating!)
2) The Airing of Grievances
3) Feats of Strength

No fuss, no muss!

(Much more about Festivus, including greeting cards and an "Airing of Grievances Worksheet," can be found here. And Festivus was actually conceived by Dan O'Keefe, whose son was a writer on "Seinfeld," and incorporated it into that immortal script. More info here.)

Others try to meld "Happy Holidays" with "Merry Christmas."

Several years back, an acquaintance of ours found a little graven image of Santa, kneeling at the manger in which lay the baby Jesus. She was enthralled. She said, "Now, this is what Christmas is really all about!"

Yep - Santa visiting baby Jesus is one of my favorite New Testament stories, too! But I always get confused. I know the shepherds arrived first. But who was next, the Wise Men or Santa? (It's not in the most well-known telling, by Luke. But it must be in there someplace, huh?)

Here's what works for me. I try to detach my "Happy Holidays" from my "Merry Christmas" and enjoy them both separately, and not get offended when somebody else is trying to share theirs with me.

The "Happy Holidays" is the decorations, the tree, the holiday singing, the delicious treats, the party attire, the gift giving and getting. (I decorated by bike for Happy Holidays again this year - click here.) Nothing wrong with ANY of that, as long as you don't get carried away, and have to spend a year or more digging out of debt.

The "Christmas" is that simple but profound story of the Savior of Mankind, who was born into such humble circumstances in Bethlehem of Judea.

(I happened across this Christmas decoration, as I was bicycling a couple days back. It's a snow-covered bench along the Greenbelt, with a message someone had scrawled in the snow. Somehow, I thought it quite fitting for a Christmas celebration, as opposed to Happy Holidays. And nobody will have to put it away and store it for next year.)

(Click on the photo for a larger view.)

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE! AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Boise City Elections - Who to Vote For

2007-11-02T17:14:00.000-06:00

Vote for the candidates who have your confidence... those who will work to make our city what YOU want it to be.

I'll tell you who I'm voting for, and why.

---

MAYOR - Jim Tibbs

I once heard Jim Tibbs describe a philosophy held by the Native Americans - that decisions should be based on how they will affect people seven generations from now.

I wish he'd talk about that more. It's that kind of thoughtfulness that we need in our local leaders, who shape the future of our community.

Dave Bieter, like me, is a "native son." I voted for him four years ago. He gave me confidence that he would have the old-timer's perspective as he operated the mayor's office. That he would be very protective of what little "small town" feel this city still had. (And is quickly dwindling away, in this observer's opinion.)

Frankly, I've been very disappointed.

Does Boise have a "master plan"? You wouldn't think so, based on how a lot of the business is conducted. It seems like there's a revolving door for the developers to get their variances and permits and get to buildin'!

Granted - the mayor's influence is limited. But he should have a lot more influence than I do, and I have seen nothing - or at least very little - to suggest that Bieter's "vision" for Boise is similar to my own.

Is your vision of the perfect community one of sprawling growth? L.A. Junior? Some like to use the word "vibrancy." Unfortunately, every year that passes, Boise is a little less like the community I grew up in, and loved.

Perhaps a more fair and valid question is - is Boise a better place now, than it was four years ago when Bieter got the mayor gig? I can't think of one thing that I like better about Boise now, than four years ago. I can think of lots of things that seem to have gotten worse.

Maybe growth is inevitable. (I've got mixed emotions about development. On the one hand... property owners should be able to maximize the potential of their property. But on the other hand... there's no denying that there is "spill-over" from thousands of new houses, that affects every one of us. More traffic and pollution. More crime. More graffiti and vandalism. More demand for limited natural resources - power, water, etc. Because of that, we all should have a voice in how much growth there is, and what kind of growth. Is the current mayor your best "voice"?)

Jim Tibbs doesn't give me total confidence, unfortunately. He got an endorsement from the Building Contractors of Idaho. I doubt they envision his putting his thumb down on growth. But I've known Jim for 15 years - he's my neighbor. And I've always gotten the impression that he's thoughtful, and approachable, and doesn't think he has all the answers. He's also lived in Boise for 50 years, so he has that "old timer" perspective - I hope he wins, and that he decides things based on how those decisions will affect people seven generations from now. (If he wins, and nothing changes, and Boise has 20,000 more voters come 2011, I'll likely be voting for somebody else in 4 years!)

---

COUNCILMAN - Steve Kimball

He's running against Alan Shealy. That's reason enough for me to vote for Kimball.

(Yeah - I know a vote against somebody isn't as good as a vote for somebody. But that's kinda the way it is this time around.)

One could argue that Shealy has some impressive credentials. Accoring to the City website, he graduated from both Harvard and Oxford! He also touts the fact that he's a former Olympic rowing champion.

A glowing endorsement letter in the Statesman says he "... adds a global perspective to the council's consideration of Boise's present and future."

For me, that's the problem! I'd much rather benefit from the perspective of somebody who's lived in Boise for 40 years, and knows what it was like in 1960, than somebody who moved here about the time Hillary moved to New York. Or somebody who's "global perspective" is that Boise is fabulous... since it's not as bad as St. Petersburg, or Milan, or Newark!

Kimball is a largely-unproven entity. He's been a candidate for several positions, but isn't running with a track record. He's lived in Boise for 57 years, and seems to have the old-timer, taxpayer perspective (I hope!)

I get the impression Shealy thinks he's God's gift to our backward little burg, and he knows best, so if you disagree you better just shut up! If you're as convinced as Shealy is that he's a genius, by all means vote for him! I'll vote for the other guy.

---

I don't feel strongly enough about any of the other contests to voice an opinion... vote for who's best.

The Boise Weekly newspaper had the best candidate profile I've seen... since the words are those of the candidates themselves. Click here to link to it.

Whatever else you do on November 6, VOTE! They are predicting there will be historic-low turnout... so every vote will count. If you don't vote, you have no right to join me in whining about how bad things are!!!
(-;

Target Audience

2007-10-10T13:13:00.000-06:00

I doubt I'm in any TV-commercial target demographic groups. I can't remember the last time I bought something because I saw it on TV.

But lots of folks obviously do. In fact, if you go into a discount store, you can usually find - in the "cheap crap aisle" - a bunch of stuff with "As Seen on TV!" emblazoned across the packaging. As if that's a reason why you should buy it.

I'm probably too analytical when I'm watching the commercials. Usually I'm trying to figure out who they're aimed at.

There are a lot of disgusting commercials that are aimed at moms. Using "mom-guilt" as a selling tool.

If you don't make sure your kids eat lots of cheese and yogurt, you're not a very good mom.

Or Sunny-D. I'm not sure if Sunny-D is a fruit-flavored drink, or a formerly-fruit-flavored drink, or what. I can remember a few years back when there was a Sunny-D spill at the Sunny-D factory, and it killed a bunch of fish.

There's a cough syrup that calls itself "The Medicine of Motherhood." What kind of neglectful mom would not want to give her kids that stuff, by the spoons-ful?

My wife wants to buy all the new housekeeping gizmos she sees on TV... little mops that have custom-sized (buy refills!) cleaning surfaces, dusters that need refill cartridges, etc. What a racket! (I don't deny that housekeeping is hard work, and it's wonderful to have the best tools... I just question whether the "buy refills regularly!" tools do any better job than a traditional mop or rag.)

I just saw a commercial for cat litter that changes color when it's stinky. "If your cat litter doesn't change color, change cat litter!" is the clever tag-line. If you can't tell it's stinky without seeing what color it is... maybe it's not very stinky!

I have some ongoing befuddlement with the greasy fast-food fried chicken chain place. Several years ago, they adopted "Sweet Home Alabama" as the theme song for their chicken. And yet the chicken has "Kentucky" in the brand name.

Kentucky and Alabama aren't even adjacent states! Tennesee is squeezed in there.

Are there no decent songs about Kentucky? Was Colonel Sanders a huge Lynyrd Skynyrd fan? (I guess "Free Bird" wouldn't be a good theme song for "fried" chicken, huh?)

(Actually, there was an excellent song about Kentucky. I can remember as a child... we'd get box lunches of that same brand of chicken, and the boxes had Stephen Foster's awesome "My Old Kentucky Home" - lyrics AND music - printed on the end of the box. Perhaps too many people were offended; at one time, the lyrics were, "'Tis summer, the darkies are gay.")

The car and truck commercials are the most annoying - at least to me. They are MUCH more about the image of the drivers/passengers, than about the features the car or truck might have, or the real-life driving experience that will almost certainly be yours.

All trucks are super testosterone-macho. And by driving 'em, you, too, can be as macho as those hardhat wearing construction / farmer / cowboy / working-man types. Even if you're Clay Aiken with a handbag.

And all cars are driven by enthusiasts who relish the power, luxury, and performance of that particular model of car. All cars are driven right past gas stations, on roads that are totally devoid of other cars. ("Closed course - don't try this at home.") Of course, in real life, those cars will convene with the hunks-o-junk and broken-down sleds in the same traffic jams.

Okay... I've vented.

The True Story of Heidi, Idaho

2007-09-26T09:16:00.000-06:00

About a mile downstream from Banks, Idaho, on the Payette River is a spot with picnic tables and a beautiful little sandy beach. Although the sign doesn't say so, it's called Heidi, Idaho... and has been since the early '60s.

Dad loved to fish. But even more, he loved to be with his family.

As did Mom. I don't know about the fishing part... far as I know, she has never stepped foot in Cabela's, or had a fishing license. But she loved to spend time with her kids. Still does.

(I wasn't much of a fisherman, either. I tried a few times, but didn't have the patience for it. If a fish didn't bite my hook RIGHT NOW, I quickly lost interest. I preferred roaming up and down the shore, looking for discarded fish... so I could flip 'em over and look for creepy crawly maggots. Yeah... I was a sick kid. Still am.)

A favorite family outing involved driving in the forest and fishing in a beautiful lake or river.

Although Dad loved to fish, he didn't get much fishing in on these trips. He spent most of his time baiting hooks, clearing snags, untangling lines, rejoicing in the occasional kid-fish caught.

Mom was his assistant.

As I think back, I don't know if Mom EVER fished.

In the early 60s, Mom had six kids... at one point she had six kids aged seven or under. (And none of 'em twins. Think about that.) I was the oldest of the six; Heidi was the youngest.

At the time Heidi, Idaho got its name, I was eight pushing nine; Heidi was 1 1/2.

The day was a perfect spring day; we'd been on our forest drive in the old Plymouth station wagon (three seats - the rearmost seat faced backwards), and were headed back toward Boise, when that beach and that bend in the river beckoned in the mid-to-late afternoon.

We scrambled down to the beach and took our places. As I recall, we were the only ones there; it may be that it was still relatively early in the spring. But I also recall that it was a nice day.

As it was in the springtime; the water was running high and swift from the snow-melt. But we all knew to respect the river, and keep our distance.

Dad was making his rounds up and down the line, baiting hooks, helping the young'uns with their casting, untangling lines, etc. Mom was helping, and trying to keep inventory on her beloved babies.

As she made a head-count, she came up one short. And quickly determined Heidi - the baby - was missing. About the same time... here comes a tiny baby, a couple feet out in that swift-flowing river, floating face-down, drifting away from shore. HEIDI!!!

Dad started pulling off his shoes, removing his wallet, keys, etc., to effect a rescue.

He never got a chance.

Mom didn't have time for those formalities... she immediately waded out into the stream and plucked her tiny child by the arm, pulling her back to shore.

Heidi obviously hadn't been in the water long... she was gasping for breath, but mostly because of the coldness of that melted-snow water. A little wrapped-in-the-blanket time, and a new set of clothes, and she was good as new. We all felt grateful that she had gone in upstream, rather than downstream. Eight of us had left on the family outing... and eight returned home that evening. Mom was our hero. (Dad and Mom were always our heroes, but Mom shone particularly brightly on that day.)

Before we even got into the car and headed home, that beautiful little spot was named Heidi, Idaho.

It's got a nice ring to it.

(Click on either photo for larger viewing options. They were snapped on 21 Sept., 2007)

UPDATE: In my quest to make this story as "true" as possible, I'm adding some clarifications and corrections that my mother has supplied after reading it. (She was a little older than me at the time, and is qualified to make these corrections.)

- We had stopped for a family picnic, and all family members were gathered at the picnic tables up above the beach (minus Heidi... who was drawn to the beautiful water).

- Mom had to run down to the beach from the picnic area, and then swim out into the river to get to Heidi.

- Dad explained his hesitation later. He was mentally reviewing his Boy Scout rescue training... trying to remember if it's better to take shoes off or leave them on... wondering if he could throw his belt for Heidi to grab onto, etc. (Yeah... I can believe that.)

- Following her heroic and successful rescue, the rest of us wanted to eat our picnic, so we ate while Mom sat and shivered. (There was a change of clothes for Heidi, but none for Mom. Funny that she would remember that little "detail" better than me...)

Does religion create misery?

2007-09-12T09:40:00.000-06:00

There was a letter in the Idaho Statesman yesterday (September 11, 2007), that I feel compelled to respond to, even though the author of the letter will likely never see my response.

Here's the letter:

So much misery is the result of religion

Today, Sept. 11, marks the anniversary of one of the most perfidious attacks on American citizens.

This was the infamous 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, which has been described by historians as the worst Indian massacre in American history — except that it wasn't committed by Indians, it was committed by ordinary Euro-Americans in a frenzy of religious madness working under the orders of a deluded, self-styled man of faith.

Fast forward 144 years to 2001 and once again innocent Americans were murdered by religiously inspired zealots working under the orders of a deluded, self-styled man of faith.

How can so much misery be the result of religion?

First, one must realize that all religions require their adherents to turn off their minds. This makes them more easily susceptible to control by their power-hungry clergy. The Abrahamaic religions go one step further by commanding that there be no other gods.

From this commandment, as Thomas Jefferson so poignantly wrote, "Millions of innocent men, women, and children … have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned."

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg has concluded that all it takes for good people to do bad things is religion. Now you know why these atrocities occurred.

Gary Bennett, Emmett

Now, first of all, Gary Bennett writes letters regularly. Most are critical of religion or religious people, conservatism, patriotism, etc. He obviously has a burr under his saddle, and views "the root of all problems" far differently from me. Which is his prerogative.

How unfortunate to view religion as an impetus for carnage and misery. Bennett is definitely a "glass-half-empty" kind of guy. Maybe he had a bad personal experience with religion.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre of which he writes - perpetrated by Mormon settlers in southern Utah - has been debated for 150 years. Bennett describes it with authority, as though he is aware of facts that have escaped other historians for all that time. (I s'pose his "deluded, self-styled man of faith" is Brigham Young. Or it could be John D. Lee, a local Mormon who was tried and hanged for the incident.)

Incidentally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued this statement on the anniversary of that tragic occasion: "We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time." (Delivered by Apostle Henry Eyring at the site of the massacre, where the Church has also erected a monument honoring the victims.)

Indeed, much evil has been perpetrated over the course of history by people who claim to be motivated by their religion. But in almost every case, upon closer inspection those people could also be accused of personal greed, or ambition, or lust for power and influence, and their "religion" is a smokescreen. The radical Islamofacists come immediately to mind (particularly on September 11th). Richard Butler - former leader of the Aryan Nations in northern Idaho - painted himself as a "Christian." What could be farther from the truth? Is it fair to condemn a billion Muslims because of bin Laden? Or all of Christianity on account of Butler's twisted behavior and philosophy?

One could also get a negative view of religion by looking at "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his band of followers who call themselves the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. (How is it that he can call himself a Baptist? I'd think they'd disassociate themselves with the likes of Phelps.) In case you're not familiar, his group travels from place to place with brightly-colored signs reading "God hates Fags," and declares that anything bad that happens is God's punishment on society for our tolerance of homosexuals. They are well known for "demonstrating" at funerals for fallen soldiers, etc. (I s'pose he thinks we should round all the homosexuals up and gas 'em, like Hitler did to the Jews. Can you imagine Jesus Christ - the Prince of Peace - endorsing such a message?)

Yeah... people who claim to be religious don't always act religious.

Consider the good that has been done, and is currently being done, by people who are trying to be good Christians.

When disaster strikes, it's almost always religious organizations (and the Red Cross - a private organization), who are the first responders. They don't ask for anything in return. They're just trying to be good neighbors and citizens, and treat folks the way they would like to be treated.

Right here locally, religious people provide shelter for the homeless, clothes for the naked, food for the hungry, care for the needy. They visit people in prison. They create recreational and learning opportunities for children and youth. They seek out those who are hurting, or lonely. I heard about a group of folks - motivated by their religion - who visit the Intensive Care Unit at the hospital once a week to sing to the patients and lift their spirits. I know a group of women who devote every Monday morning to assembling essential supplies for disaster response - "humanitarian kits," they call them - for people they've never met, and will likely never meet.

Yeah... so much misery.

(As for religious adherents "turning off their minds" - that is an entirely different topic. But I can confidently declare that Mr. Bennett's view is distorted. Some of the smartest people I know are deeply religious. A thinking person has no problem reconciling scientific theory with religious belief. Exercising free will by participating in religion does not mean surrendering one's free will. It's difficult for skeptics and cynics to understand that concept.)

I take great satisfaction in being associated with people who are motivated by genuine religious charity, and can't help but feel a bit of pity for Mr. Bennett for his jaded viewpoint. (Although he may be the author of much good in his community; I hope he has such opportunities.)

Royalty returns to Boise

2007-08-31T09:50:00.000-06:00

As we grieve the passing of our beloved Princess Diana (can it be 10 years?!!?), Boise's royalty has returned.

I'm talking, of course, about our beloved BSU Bronco football team. They are on a lofty pedestal, and there is some serious Bronco Worship going on about town. (They better not lose, though, or the fickle fans will turn on 'em like a Michael Vick Pit-Bull. I've seen it before, and it's ugly.)

GAME DAY

Actually for a couple days leading up to Game Day, I've been seeing more cars with the tell-tale BSU flags a-fluttering, etc. "WOW! Those people must be BSU fans!" I always think to myself. "And they're serious fans - not just ho-hum fans with maybe a T-shirt, or a bumper sticker."

On Game Day, I decided just for kicks to ride my bicycle around the stadium and absorb some of the tailgate vibe. It was around 3:30pm.

My time wasn't wasted... there was a sea of blue and orange - vehicles, shade awnings, banners and flags. I was picking my way carefully through a sizeable crowd, motor homes, pickups, barbecue grills, souvenir vendors, etc. (Mid-afternoon on a Thursday! Awesome!) Off in the distance, I could hear a man's voice bellowing, "Boiiiiisssseeeeeeeee!" (The first half of the stereophonic Boiiiiseeee.... Staaaaaaateeee! chant that's so popular at the games.) I didn't hear the second half. At 3:30pm, it was probably still an hour or so too early.

THE BIG GAME

Season opener. BSU vs. the Weber State Wildcats.

Let me wax nostalgic for a moment.

Back in the Big Sky days, they played every year, BSU and Weber State. I can remember sitting in the student section. My brother John and I would start a special cheer, just for that game. "Cream o' Weber!!!" (That is a brand-name for a Utah dairy; Cream o' Weber milk could be purchased at the Smith's grocery stores.) At the beginning of the game, people would be lookin' at us funny-like. But by the end of the game, 500 or 1000 rowdy students would be shouting "Cream o' Weber!" in unison. Beautiful thing.

This time around, I watched on the teevee at home. Being there "in person" is way too rich for my blood these days. Bronco Nation will never again be a refuge for po' folk.

It was a lopsided victory for BSU. They looked powerful, and won handily. I believe the score was 56-7. (It was 49-0 going into the locker room at halftime... the fat lady hadn't showed up yet, though, so they came out and went through the motions for another 30 minutes. Everybody on the Bronco team got to play quarterback, for at least a couple downs.)

Ian Johnson is amazing to watch. He seems to be in a different time-dimension from the other 21 players out there. Einstein, and that wheelchair guy, could explain it but I wouldn't understand. When he has the ball, the other 21 go at it for 5 seconds, and then Ian seems to pick his way through the rest of them, as if they're all frozen in stop-motion. (I think his nickname should be "Magic" Johnson. Is that already taken?)

For me, perhaps the most amazing thing about the game was the "sports team" doing coverage for KTVB.

It was the regular guys doing the pressbox-talking - David Augusto and Scott Slant or whatever-his-name is. They do okay, although I think they make WAY too many comparisons with a play they remember from a preseason scrimmage, or a game that BSU played 5 years ago or whatever. Who cares? (They should save that talk for when they're in their rocking chairs on the front porch of the Old Sportscasters' Home, a few years out.)

Some people listen to the radio guy - Paul J. He's been "the voice of the Broncos" since the broncos were roaming among the mastodons and triceratops. But he's an "acquired taste" - a taste I've never acquired. (IMO, he should've taken his place in front of the Old Sportscasters' Home maybe 10 years ago.)

I was truly baffled that KTVB still has oafish-but-lovable second-string weatherman Larry Gebert prowling the sidelines, instead of their new SPORTS-BABE, Kerith. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING??!? She would be perfect for the sidelines - she seems to know her stuff, and I've gotta think the coaches, players, etc. - pretty much EVERYBODY, except possibly for Senator Larry Craig - would enjoy talking to her more than to Gebert.

(CREDITS: Football game photo stolen from the Idaho Statesman website; news-people photos stolen from the KTVB website.)

It's not easy being conservative

2007-08-28T19:15:00.000-06:00

Senator Larry Craig has been a "public servant" for the citizens of Idaho his entire professional career. As a general rule, his views have been what most people call "conservative," mirroring those of his consituency. (Much to the chagrin of the folks in Boise's North End, and in Blaine County, Idaho is a "conservative" state.)

Now Craig's career is on the line.

He has pleaded guilty to "disorderly conduct," following an encounter he had with an undercover cop in a restroom of the Minneapolis Air Terminal.

Everybody knows that. It's the lead story on every news/opinion website, every news broadcast, and every newspaper across the Fruited Plain.

What did Craig do?

According to the complaint, he:
- Tapped his foot in a stall of the restroom - a secret gay mating signal, apparently. (Who knew?)
- Played "footsie" with the undercover cop in the next stall (obviously unaware it was an undercover cop).
- Put his hand underneath the partition.

(The lurid details can be read HERE.)

Frankly, I'd ask... where's the crime?

But Craig told the judge he's guilty... a fact that's difficult for even his most ardent supporters to ignore.

(There have been rumors about Craig's sexual orientation for years. If Craig is not gay - and he vehemently denies being gay - I feel sorry for him, because it would be miserable to be deflecting the accusations. If he is gay, I feel equally sorry for him, because it would be miserable to live a double life, being the "conservative" in the public eye, and a whole different person in private.)

When the story broke, a firestorm of indignation followed.

For me, it's most interesting to observe who's indignant.

It's a no-brainer that Craig's liberal detractors would join in the beat-down. His fall from grace is a godsend for them.

They point out the apparent hypocrisy, since Craig has consistently voted against "equal rights" for gays, gay marriage, etc.

But - they are joined by a sustained chorus of conservative voices, who condemn Craig and call for his resignation.

Yep - it's not easy being conservative. Mess up, and both teams pile on!

Let's compare, for a moment, the sad story of Larry Craig with a champion of the liberals, Mr. Al Gore.

(I hope this is a valid comparison. If I'm being unfair, I invite dissenting viewpoints.)

Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore says all the right things. He preaches the gospel of Global Warming and conservation, and living a "small carbon-footprint" lifestyle.

But then - shockingly! - it comes to light that Gore's Tennesee mansion consumes $36,000 worth of energy per year!

(Not to mention the fossil fuel he burns as he private-jets from lecture to lecture, takes limousines from the airport, etc. Gore explains that he purchases "carbon credits," and that he's trying to cut down on his consumption. I have yet to hear an explanation that I could understand, of how that carbon-credits stuff works. But that's a different topic.)

Who criticizes Algore?

His "conservative" detractors lay it on thick. Like Craig's critics, they point out the hypocrisy of a guy who says one thing in public, while living a private lifestyle that's apparently contradictory to his Good Word.

But strangely, most of his supporters rush to his defense! They are more than happy to give him a pass. After all, he's saying all the right things. And he should be cut some slack because of all the good that he's doing, preaching the Good Word of Global Warming.

(Perhaps the Gore Faithful actually feel relieved that Gore doesn't practice what he preaches. After all, it assuages their guilt for doing the same thing... criticizing SUV drivers, corporations, etc., - the high-visibility offenders - while doing precious little themselves to reduce their Carbon Footprints.)

So, what's the difference?

Well, let's compare the alleged offenses.

Craig is accused of being secretly gay. Algore is accused of being a secret global warmer.

Which is worse? The liberals would say that being a Global Warmer is far worse than being gay! There's nothing wrong with being gay!

They say they're not outraged by Craig's gayness, but rather by his hypocrisy.

So what about Algore?

The difference, it seems, is that liberals don't like what Craig says, and they like what Gore says. It doesn't matter what they do, as long as they're saying the right thing (and Craig isn't). And darn it... conservatives expect you to do what you say!

It's not easy being conservative.

P.S. - I think Craig should step down, or at least declare he won't run for reelection in 2008. I've generally supported him over the years, but these ongoing allegations have become enough of a distraction that he's ineffective representing Idaho's interests in Congress. And if he's gay, he's a hypocrite. (By the way, we're all hypocrites to one degree or another. But when you choose to be in the Public Light, you have a higher duty, in my opinion.)

Public School Insanity

2007-08-23T08:39:00.000-06:00

In Mesa, Arizona, a 13-year-old was suspended for sketching a "gun" at school.

Dad went to Payne Junior High to talk about his son's delinquent ways... the public servants at the school cited the Columbine massacre. School district spokesman Terry Locke said the drawing was "absolutely considered a threat."

Click HERE to link to the FoxNews article.

The offending sketch:

(To me, it looks like something out of Napoleon Dynamite's notebook.)