The Trouble With A Lie

Human beings are funny creatures. 

We pull a "stupid." Just doing something that is incredibly wrong and dumb. Then, when the heat is on, we pull another stupid to try and cover it up. The thing is, when we decide to behave this way, eventually we're not just pulling a stupid anymore -- we've become one. 

Unfortunately for John Edwards, pulling a stupid is where he ultimately shines. (Well, that and his hair.) 

But John did something naughty. He had an affair. This is not naughtier than other people's affairs... this does not make him unelectable (look at Bill Clinton). He just went through a period in 2006 where he chose not to keep it in his pants when he was out and about. This is, of course, not showing the best of character, but the American people have overlooked this before in many a president. 

But when news came out about his affair (and the supposedly resulting "love child"), he denied it. In my opinion, this was pulling another stupid. I think it's always best to 'fess up immediately and at least maintain your future believability. This was, however, not the choice he made. He decided to lie about the affair and say that the child wasn't his... and then one of Edwards' employees, Andrew Young (also married, by the way), confessed to fathering the baby. 

The object of John Edwards' former affections was then whisked away to a three million dollar house in Santa Barbara, California. And Andrew Young was living as a kept man in a 5.4 million dollar house, also in Santa Barbara. 

Here's where it starts to get funny. John Edwards denies making any payments to cover up the affair, but told the press that others might have made payments on his behalf without his knowledge. Woo-hoo. Apparently all that conditioner has sunk in and affected his brain power. We're now expected to believe (from an admitted liar, no less) that the woman with whom he had an affair was also having an affair with his employee who happened to knock her up. They both ended up going to Santa Barbara, California - and moved into houses neither of them could possibly afford. But John Edwards knew nothing about any of this.

Of course, the story heated up when Edwards was seen meeting with the object of his former affections last month in a hotel room in Beverly Hills. Before this meeting, it had kind of died down, what with Andrew being the "Daddy" and all. But now that he was caught meeting with the beautiful blonde, he felt he needed to address the issue and let people know that he was meeting with her because he had wanted to try to keep her from revealing the affair. (This actually deserves a hearty guffaw.) Of course, we're supposed to believe this because he didn't know this was already taken care of with the Santa Barbara house and financial support. 

The press asked him how he could have cheated on his wife and good ol' John noted that his wife's cancer was in remission during the affair. I see. Well, that makes it all better.  The meeting last month? We can rest assured that nothing frisky happened in that hotel room because his wife's cancer is back? I don't know about you, but if I wanted to meet with someone attractive in an effort to encourage them NOT to let out that I find them attractive... I would probably not do it in a hotel room. But maybe that's just me. 

Edwards said in a statement to the press that he had denied the tabloid reports because "most of the details were not true." Then he said, "But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough." Methinks that if you deny having an affair with somebody with whom you had an affair, you cannot claim 99 percent honesty. But never fear -- the politician within John Edwards is not dead, even if his political career appears to be. In his interview with "Nightline," Edwards claimed to be ashamed of his conduct and then stated that "over the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic." It takes a true politician to stand up and eat a bit of humble pie with one true statement like this and then follow it with another pack of lies. 

The Wisdom of Barack

It's not fair to call Barack "empty headed" or "an empty suit" and then not back that up with anything. Therefore, I will attempt to illustrate his lack of wisdom with quotes from the man himself. (Of course, with some commentary by me.)

We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. -Barack Obama

I can only assume here that Mr. Obama is a wee bit confused. See, the BLUE states are the liberal leaning states. The RED states are the conservative states, most notably the south. Aside from Asheville, NC, I don't know of too many hotbeds of homosexual activity in the red states. People go to the blue states to be accepted for that kind of stuff. I would assume that there are Little League coaches in both red and blue states. I really thought that was a nationwide activity. I'm not about to judge the God of the blue states, but the red states were accused (in another Barack quote) of clinging to their guns and their religion. And I'm thinking it's a blue state thing to not want federal agents monitoring the internet usage in libraries... Obama has officially been on the trail too long.

When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism. But another kind of threat lurks beyond our shores, one from nature, not humans - an avian flu pandemic. - Barack Obama

Politics of fear, anyone? 

We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges. - Barack Obama

What a hoot. Obama is going to be looking for an 85 year old black lesbian in a wheelchair who was a single parent. That way, she'll be sure to empathize with all the "special" people in the United States.

We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. - Barack Obama

Sounds good, until you realize that he's probably not talking about terrorists. I'm thinking he might mean the Republicans instead.

Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction. - Barack Obama

Again, sounds good. Until you think about the fact that Barack Obama wants our moral compass to direct us away from the war on terror and focus on social spending here in the good old USA. Consider this:

We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible.... - Barack Obama

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. - Barack Obama

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. - Barack Obama

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. -Barack Obama

So this is the moral compass we need to follow in order to rid the world of terrorism? Hmmm... Not sure how that's all going to work, but I guess since it's CHANGE...

My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. - Barack Obama

Oh, where to start? Obama's parents shared an "improbable love?" My understanding would be that the love didn't last all that long. And that "abiding faith" that they shared in our nation must have withered and died, too -- considering that Obama's father moved to Africa. And since his folks didn't stick around to raise him, but left that pleasure to Obama's grandparents on his mother's side, I'm thinking that his folks didn't put a lot of patriotic thought into his name, either. Gimme a break.

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. - Barack Obama's take on the south

Issues are never simple. One thing I'm proud of is that very rarely will you hear me simplify the issues. - Barack Obama

No, you'll just generalize them to death until nobody can tell what you're all about. 

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? - Barack Obama

Ah, yes... vote for change. It shows HOPE. Never mind that no matter who you vote for this time around, you're going to get some change. Good grief!!

No one is pro-abortion. - Barack Obama

I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. - Barack Obama

This one's pretty loaded. If a person is teaching their child first of all about values and morals - wouldn't that normally include teaching them that killing their offspring isn't such a good idea? And, of course, if they decide to embark on some pre-marital intercourse and they end up pregnant... this is punishment? No... that's the natural order. It's the HAVING the baby that's the punishment according to Barack. 

Talk to some women who've had the experience. Abortion is actually a pretty hefty punishment to be receiving to escape the shame of being a single parent. It's a life-long knowing that there was a child you didn't allow to live. What greater punishment is there than that?

If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress. - Barack Obama

This illustrates Obama's highly developed understanding of the obvious. And, illustrating Obama's higher education as relates to American geography:

Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states. I think one left to go. - Barack Obama

I can't see how too many thinking people can look at this man and think he's the wonder they say he is. 

Seeing Racism Around Every Corner

A bit of hoopla recently regarding Barack Obama, John McCain, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Heard about it?

Apparently, McCain did something totally RACIST and compared Obama to Spears and Hilton. I'm still trying to find out how it's racist to compare a black man to two publicity-seeking, generally empty headed women, but HEY! What do I know?

Actually, I would be upset if somebody compared me to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. Truly, I would. But I have to think about this from all angles, right? We're not talking about me here, after all... so I have to think... What if I weren't me? What if I were, say... Britney Spears? And this ad came out?? Man, I'd be OFFENDED!! Comparing me to another sleazy politician??

No, seriously, though... I fail to see the racism here. Just as I failed to see the racism in the ads against Harold Ford in 2006 when he was running for a Senate seat in Tennessee. Both ads are casting a definitively negative light on a black man, I guess... but is that racist? Methinks not. Not unless the negative light is cast on the color of the man's skin. 

Back in 2006, the Republican party ran a completely tasteless ad against Harold Ford, portraying him as a man who frequents the Playboy mansion (which, I understand has been substantiated), is opposed to gun rights, and stands for higher taxes among other things. The ad was poorly done and if I were in Republican leadership circles, I would have had nothing to do with it. That doesn't make it racist, though. Just stupid. 

Now again, we have an ad -- and it's not even as poorly done as the ad against Harold Ford. Still perhaps not in the best of taste, but since we're grading on the curve here, it's not AS BAD. In this ad, the McCain campaign is claiming that Barack Obama is "the biggest celebrity in the world" while displaying brief images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. This is the only place in the ad where they are even shown, and never mentioned by name. The ad then asks, "But... is he ready to lead?" Then it goes on to say that Barack says no to offshore drilling and then says he'll raise taxes on electricity. "Higher taxes, more foreign oil. That's the real Obama."

Now, in my little opinion, this ad is worthless. Really, in the United States you have two groups of people. One group who sees Obama as a self-generated superstar... someone who is all glitz and no substance. Another group who thinks he's the next best thing to a new Messiah, one to heal our wounds, help the different races come together and perhaps even save the planet from a meltdown in less than nine years. An ad as described above is going to appeal to nobody, making it a complete waste of time, energy, and money. Sure, it's going to generate some publicity, but the people who already thought Barack to be the Messiah aren't going to think twice about it - and the people who didn't aren't going to think more highly of McCain or more negatively about Obama. 

But please tell me - where is the racism? I keep hearing all these calls of racism... beginning with the Messiah himself saying that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he "doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills." Garsh... I never got that from that ad (not to mention that all the faces on money aren't Presidents). McCain's campaign manager responded by saying that Obama is trying to play the race card from the bottom of the deck and that "it's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Critics of the ad (excluding myself, of course, even though I just criticized it) are trying to shame McCain for this comment because "It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack." Huh? Say wha-? Which racial attack was that, exactly? Can we be more grown up than to assume that anytime someone says something negative about a black person it's racially motivated? Because that's the only reason I can come up with for assuming this is a racial attack. 

What I would love to see is... well, a pipe dream really. I would love to see Barack Obama going toe to toe on policy issues with someone I liked. But since we can't always get what we want... I would love to see Barack Obama and John McCain in a live debate, not moderated by the press, where they actually have to espouse their own ideas to their own credit or detriment. Then let the American people decide. 

And, frankly, heaven help us either way.

Pro-Woman Polygamy????

John Stossel of ABC's news magazine "20/20," and libertarian extraordinaire, wrote a bone-headed column published on Wednesday, the 30th of July. Titled "How Many Wives Is Too Many," Stossel was addressing polygamy in a favorable way. The title of the article itself is hilarious... I'm sure that there are many men in the United States who would answer that question with one word - ONE. 

Stossel was making the case that the reporting on Warren Jeffs is a bad distortion of what polygamy is by stating that Jeffs was a "polygamist sect leader." Since Jeffs was criminally charged with felony sexual assault on a minor, according to Stossel's article, this should be the focus - not that he was a polygamist because they are two distinctly different things. 

Ooookay... I suppose that we could say that he has a point. But isn't that kind of like saying the coverage of Bill Clinton during his sex scandal was a bad distortion because they reported it as, "Bill Clinton, President of the United States, is charged with lying under oath in the case of his sexual conduct against Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?" Oh, no no!! You cannot say that he's the President of the United States... after all, being the President and being a liar are two very different things! So??

Mark Henkel, a polygamy activist, was outraged at the reporting on Jeffs... He said, "The media kept saying, 'Polygamist leader, polygamist leader, but the case actually involved incest and arranged marriage of a girl with her 19-year-old cousin. There wasn't anything that had to do with polygamy. Jeffs wasn't called an incest leader. He wasn't called an underage-marriage leadder. He was called a polygamist leader.'" Oy... Jeffs was the leader of a polygamist sect of the Fundamentalist Mormon church. While being the leader of these polygamists he did terrible things for which he has been criminally charged. If his crimes give further bad name to polygamy and that upsets Mr. Henkel, too bad!

Henkel has a complaint, too, that American laws are hypocritical... He says, "Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! And that's all OK, and he's making great money, and that's all fine and great entertainment. But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he's a criminal. That's insane!" 

Now, I'm not a fan of the Hugh Hefners of this world, either. So I'm probably not a good one to talk to about this. And I don't know about the "criminal" aspect of polygamy... it seems to me that it should just not be a legal marriage. No point in jailing people over it since we don't jail those who cohabit, either. Where in the country are we jailing practitioners of polygamy who aren't doing things to underage kids? Certainly not Utah! 

Stossel says in his article that he interviewed Jewish and evangelical Christian polygamists. I have to wonder where he found these folks... and what sort of "evangelical Christian" church those people attend. Mark Henkel purports to be an "evangelical Christian." His website, truthbearer.org, has as it's title: "Truthbearer: continuing the reformation... bringing Christian polygamy to the churches." He further claims that polygamy is a "pro-woman consenting-adult model of Biblical marriage." Whew!! Speaking strictly as a woman, let me just say I DON'T THINK SO.

Professor Patricia Dixon of the University of Georgia embarked on a study of polygamy and was "transformed by the experience." She said that her study found that "it's female-centered. The women are the ones who are benefiting... It's not about another notch on your belt or anything like that. It really is the women who really promote this idea." 

No offense, but I've seen the women in the recent Texas case. I suppose I can believe that those women are promoting this idea of polygamy... but they didn't exactly look mentally well to me, either. Just because some women are raised with this concept and accept it doesn't mean that it's actually a beneficial arrangement. 

Stossel goes on to say, "The families we met wonder why what they do is illegal. Clearly it's wrong if an older man arranges marriages of young kids, but when adults choose to live this kind of life, why is that evil?" Hmmm... I guess we could just go one step further and ask why it's "clearly" wrong to arrange marriages of young kids, too. Why bother asking why anything is wrong or weird or gross? Better to be like NIKE and "just do it." 

Mark Henkel's argument? "If they're saying [polygamy is] immoral, they're calling the greatest heroes in the Bible... immoral! Saying that Abraham, with his three wives, was immoral. Jacob had four wives. David had seven known named wives before Bathseba." Seriously? THIS is Henkel's basis for saying polygamy is a biblical model of marriage? In that case, consider that the biblical model for dating involves sleeping with a married woman, having her husband murdered, and then bringing her into his harem-o-gals! Just because somebody in the Bible did it doesn't mean it's a good model for our behavior. Good gravy - imagine all the horrible things we could justify that way!

As for me and my house -- one's going to have to be enough. I'm not about to let another woman into my kitchen, much less my bed. No, polygamy is not for me. BUT as Prince Ben-Israel, who has four wives, would say, "We're not saying this is for everybody. Everybody don't like football and basketball or tennis. But those who do oughta be free to do this." 

Hooo---EE!

On Censorship and Decency

Censor:

to cut, delete parts of, make cuts in, edit, sanitize, clean up.

How did "censorship" become a bad word? Somehow, "liberal" thought has intruded on the meaning of this word to make it synonymous with "thought police." Supposedly, any censorship is unconstitutional - a violation of the first amendment rights of all Americans. Ooookay...

In the 2004 Super Bowl half time show, Janet Jackson had a "wardrobe malfunction" which exposed her breast to everybody watching (if only for a fleeting moment). The FCC fined CBS 550K for allowing this to be aired on national television. Frankly, I'm perfectly okay with this. Exposing one's bosom should probably NOT be allowed on television - especially not during a show that millions of children will also be watching. 

Of course, a federal appeals court threw the fine out last week, ruling that the FCC violated its own standards for what constitutes indecency. (HUH?) From what I've been able to gather, the FCC's rules have been challenged with language usage... and it has had a "decades-old policy of not imposing fines for isolated or fleeting material." Uh-huh. The FCC argued that the policy applied only to words, not to images - but the Court of Appeals rejected that reasoning and ruled that the FCC's fine to CBS was illegal because it "failed to provide a reasoned explanation, and appropriate notice, for its change in policy."

The New York Times has stated in an editorial piece, "It is a well-reasoned decision, and we hope that the Supreme Court, which will soon be taking up a similar case, will take as strong a stand for free speech."

Are you serious?? Janet Jackson's nipple constitutes free speech? What, exactly, was it trying to say? Perhaps a subconscious advertisement for breast feeding?

And, really, given the depravity of those creating "entertainment" for America, if it were seriously policy to allow exposed breasts on television I'm sure we'd be seeing them all over the place. As it is, far too much is exposed -- but a ruling like this, making it completely okay for the networks to show nudity as long as it's "fleeting" isn't going to make me want to watch TV. You never know what you're signing up for then!

The FCC has been fighting a losing battle, trying to keep television decent. In all reality, they're not fighting all indecency... they're just fighting some of the most flagrant violations. The use of foul language during certain hours (Bono at the awards?), a bare breast here and there... But the Court of Appeals also struck down the FCC's policy for "fleeting expletives." 

Thus, Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, is led to believe that the FCC's approach to indecency is "driven more by politics than logic." Fascinating!! Because the Court of Appeals makes a couple of really stupid rulings, suddenly trying to keep foul language and nudity off the air (unless you're paying specifically to get it) is not logical. Question for Andrew: How logical is it to assume that whatever the court decides is logical? Shouldn't we be thinking a bit here and imposing our own logic on issues?

According to the NYT, "The FCC rulings have had a serious impact on free expression. Because the agency's rules are so vague and the penalties so great, artists, writers and broadcasters have been censoring themselves." Oh NO!! Seriously? You mean that "vague" rules such as NO NUDITY and NO CUSSING are scary? And because of these "vague" rules and "great penalties," the artists and writers are choosing NOT to include these things in our television entertainment? For shame! Our founding fathers would certainly be kerflummoxed! That the constitution would be read in such a way!! May it never be... certainly "free speech" was intended to insure Janet Jackson against any repercussions for exposing herself on national television!

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the Bono ruling (yes, the one where the Court of Appeals decided against the FCC). The NYT is biting their collective fingernails, hoping that the Supreme Court won't backtrack on that "important blow for free speech." According to their editorial, they would like to see the Supreme Court join "these two appeals courts in reining in the FCC's misguided censorship campaign." 

So please... tell me this. (And, believe me, I'm just shooting for some logic here...) Why would the same people who argue that the FCC's decency regulations are based on politics instead of logic be all for the Fairness Doctrine? Hmmmm????

Hope For the Hopeless

It's good to know that I'm not alone in my emotional roller coaster concerning Barack Obama. William Kristol, too, has his ups and downs -- and, from what I read in his opinion column in the New York Times, they occur frequently throughout his days. Why my misery loves having this company, I do not know. But reading his column warmed me right up. And it warmed me right up so much that I just have to share pieces of it with you.

Mr. Kristol was irritated that Der Spiegel's Gerhard Sporl wrote, "Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin's Siegessaule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States." Kristol's response to this was, "It was just another journalist fawning over Obama." Ahh... yes, fawning. Too true. But then Kristol goes on to say:

Not so fast... Don't the American people get a chance to weigh in on this in November? Maybe they'll decide it's more important to have John McCain as commander in chief than Barack Obama as orator in chief. Maybe they'll further suspect that 200,000 Germans can't be right.

So, yes. I think this is funny. "Orator in chief." Ha!

But then Kristol goes the next morning, driving around the Washington suburbs and sees a couple really nice cars with the Obama campaign bumper sticker. "Got hope?" 

Got hope? Are my own neighbors' lives so bleak that they place their hopes in Barack Obama? Are they impressed by the cleverness of a political slogan that plays off a rather cheesy (sorry!) campaign to get people to drink milk? And what is it the bumper-sticker affixers are trying to say? Do they really believe their fellow citizens who happen to prefer McCain are hopeless? After all, just because you haven't swooned like Herr Sporl doesn't mean you don't hope for a better world. Don't McCain backers also have hope - for an America that wins its wars, protects its unborn children and allows its citizens to keep more of their hard-earned income?

Further despair came to Kristol when he read of a fund raising letter saying that the Democrats must have a "deadlock-proof Democratic majority." But hope came in the form of:

It occured to me that one man's "deadlock-proof" Democratic majority is another's unchecked Democratic majority... it will become increasingly obvious, as we approach November, that the Democrats will continue to control Congress for the next couple of years. But if the voters elect Obama as president, they'll be putting Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in untrammeled control of our future... and McCain will assert that if you don't like the Congress in which Senator Obama serves in the majority right now, you really should be alarmed about a President Obama rubber-stamping the deeds of a Democratic Congress next year. 

Reading that someone who closely follows the news is feeling very much the same way I am somehow helps me. I don't know how it helps me, but it does.

An Unflattering Political Landscape

Well, I had to do it. One unflattering presentation of Nancy Pelosi just wasn't enough for me... I needed unflattering pictures of our political landscape!! So... here we go -- just a touch of humor with no substance whatsoever. Very juvenile of me, I know...

JOHN MC CAIN

They always said he was angry... I just never knew HOW angry!

JIMMY CARTER

Carter is generally careful to have his picture taken only when he's looking "presidential" I think. But this one was a doozy...

BOB BARR

I still think this guy looks like a cartoon...

BARBARA BOXER

It's a good thing she's so well groomed... we can see up her nose and into her brain!

BARACK OBAMA

The semi-infamous turban photo

The less well-known "Barack as The Marlboro Man" photo

"Stop! In the name of love..."

How the press would like us all to see him...

HILLARY CLINTON

I gotta tell you, folks, it doesn't get any easier than this. Hillary photos abound!! I tried to get photos that people may not have seen all over the place.

I cannot figure out why the children in this photo aren't running away from the scary lady!

Everybody needs a hobby...

Hillary's "heil Hitler"