ANOTHER Bush in the White House?!

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this morning that former President George HW Bush wants to see his other son, Jeb, in the White House.

This one just blows me away. The whole family and its elite, wealthy circle of friends must be in complete denial about the state that George and his son Georgie left this country in.

I guess that two Bushes weren't quite enough to ruin this country. A third would certainly complete the job! This is a political family that seems to liken themselves to the Kennedy's; but it just ain't gonna be remembered that way.

The Kennedy's are remembered with affection, a sense of something better that is now lost. I think the Bush family will be remembered as a power-hungry, deceptive, and ruinous clan whose sole wish was to do as much harm to the environment, economy, educational system, health care system, and foreign relations as any Presidents in history.

The only bright spots will be that they helped their wealthy friends and family members get wealthier, while the average American household ate less, paid more for gas and heating oil, paid far higher taxes, had less educated kids, and saw millions of jobs that used to be done here in the USA shipped out to places like India, Malaysia, Mexico, etc. Why? so the wealthy could get wealthier by paying less wages and less taxes for those wages; less healthcare costs, etc, etc, etc.

What a wonderful legacy...And now Daddy wants to see yet one more son in the White House. Gosh--I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait to see what would happen should one more Bush and all the disgusting Cronies that follow him actually get in the Presidency. (yeah, right...)

...Let us all hope and pray that this tragedy waiting to happen doesn't actually come to pass...

Why Fire Coaches?

Here we are the the end of yet another long (too, long) professional Football season. As is customary these days, the end of the season is very quickly followed by the firing of at least a few head coaches. Today, the Cleveland Browns, NY Jets AND the Denver Broncos all canned their head coaches for the poor performances of their respective teams.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of seeing professional sports coaches getting the axe for the performance of their players. Why is the fault always with the Head Coach?

True, to a large extent, the team follows the guidance of the head coach. Also true, the head coach is supposed to put together a coaching staff that will add more leadership and light more emotional fires under the feet of their players. The weekly team and coaching preparation must be thorough, and the play calling has to be spot on.

However, what everything comes down to is the actual efforts of the players.

THEY must be in the proper year-round physical condition; THEY must learn the plays; THEY must accept responsibility for all they do; THEY must execute the plays as designed; THEY must fulfill their assignments in every way; THEY must take the blame for a poorly executed game plan.

After all, aren't the players under contract to play for pay? Where is it written in any contract that once they have money, a player can miss a pass route; miss a crucial block; not make the passes; etc?

Aren't these PROFESSIONAL athletes we're talking about? Where is the professionalism when an entire team underperforms so much that the coach gets fired? Where is their integrity?

I would love for a whole team to stand up and tell sports fans that they just didn't get their jobs done. Their coaches are not to blame for the lack of execution on the field. "Heck, the coaches prepared great...WE blew it out there today."

But it'll never happen. Why? Because a coach is far more expendable than players under contract--and the players know it! I've never heard of a team firing its players, and we never will. There is too much money invested in the players. Sure, we'll see one or two jettisoned along the way, but we'll NEVER see players being fired from their teams en masse. Won't happen...Ever.

So, we arrive still at the same place--blaming coaches for the lack of positive results on the field. Remember, over-paid and under-performing players aren't to blame, just the head coach. After all, coaches are out there playing the games, running the wrong routes, missing the tackles, allowing defenses to sack the quarterback, not opening lanes for running backs, etc. Right?

But, when a team loses, I guess you gotta blame somebody. Might as well be the coach...even one that brought you a couple of Super Bowl wins.

How He HOPES He'll Be Remembered

Last week our lame, lame-duck President showed off his latest lame move--the unveiling of the Presidential Portrait. Traditionally this portrait shows the outgoing President looking distinguished, having an air of grace and authority.

Our lame[duck] President, GeeDubya Bush pulled another fast one and thumbed his nose (yet again) at the tradition of the Oval Office. The artist painting the portrait was a former classmate of Dubyas, and our lame [duck] Prez asked him to portray our nations most hated leader in a more casual, relaxed pose.

So, here we have the end result--good ole Georgie sitting on the floor in a casual shirt (sans tie), in a good old folksy-type pose.

To me this is yet another pathetic move by a less than pathetic President. This portrait screams "forget about all the problems I've caused this country...two wars; an environmental firesale to big business; $10T (that's TRILLION) dollars of debt; a weakened Congress; a demoralized military; suspicious allies; near depression-level economy, etc.

No...to me the lame ducker is trying to tell everyone (enemies and supporters (however few there may still be) that he's just Georgie--the down-home, next door neighbor guy who happened to live in the White House.

Well Shucks and tarnation...I forgot he was just like me!

Do you see my point? All throughout his Presidency, his now infamous Spin Machine of an Administration always portrayed Dubya (and Cronies) as if there really WERE acting in the best interest of this Country--and not in their own self-serving, money hungry selfishness that truly spewed out of the West Wing.
Now here he goes again, trying to convince everyone that the Domestic nightmare that was his Presidency was really not his fault--cuz he's just a regular guy like you and me...

Sorry you Lame-duck. Your spin machine is well past broken, and all your attempts to tell us you're really one of the good guys just ain't gonna happen. You will always be remembered as the worst President in the history of this once great nation.

CHRISTMAS vs Holiday

...we interrupt your Christmas music for the following news...

Headline.....Political Correctness runs amok....Atheists tell the vast majority of religious citizens that god and all religion are a myth perpetrated to enslave minds...political leaders, fearing for future votes, cave in to the demands of this "oppressed" minority...News at 11.......


...Extra! Extra! Read all about it!....Christmas is off! The yearly "Winter Holiday" is officially celebrated on December 25th!...Atheists now feel they are included in a society they claim was NOT founded on Christian principles...There is NO Christmas because Christ does NOT exist...Extra! Extra! Read all about it!...


...Dateline, Olympia, Washington...Governor Christine Gregoire, fearing that the Constitutional rights of a very small handful of people (most of whom aren't even in her constituency) are being denied, today allowed a Wisconsin Atheist group to place a sign next to a Nativity scene [in the Washington State Capital building] that did nothing but spit in the collective faces of all religious folks.
Predictably, the religious response was both swift and on the mark as they stated that Christmas was not just a religious holiday, but one of love, sharing, and giving as well; and anyone who opposed even these precepts had no right imposing their will on everyone else...

...Editorial...Since when does the Christmas Holiday offend anyone...I mean...really!? This reporter suspects that these so-called non-believers have celebrated Christmas for decades, and felt as much a part of society as they do every other day of the year.
In my humble opinion, if they want to enforce their will on 99.999999% of the population,let them try. In the last 10 years there has been a growing backlash against the supposed trampling of civil rights on a few who want to change both the Letter and the Spirit of the Constitution.
I say, boo hoo you poor wretches. No one makes you include religion in the annual holiday. Just share presents, eat good food, and let your friends warm your hearts with smiles and gifts.
Would that really be such a terrible thing? I think not...

...and now, back to more of everyone's favorite CHRISTMAS music...

Gross Advertising Misconduct: The Follow-Up

In my original post called "Gross Advertising Misconduct" I told you about a commercial from Arby's restaurants that was blantantly sexual in nature. There was absolutely no mistaking the message they were putting across.

Well, I'm writing this because I actually received a response from Arby's. The complete text follows:

"Dear Arby’s Friend,

We’re sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with our current advertising.

Many times we choose to use tongue-in-cheek humor and satire in our commercials in an effort to communicate information about the Arby’s menu in an engaging and entertaining manner.

Your opinion is very important to us, and we thank you for taking the time to provide feedback. The last thing we want to do is offend anyone. We have shared your comments with our marketing and advertising teams so they can be considered in the development of future advertising.

Very truly yours,

Arby’s Customer Relations"


Tongue in cheek humor? Satire? No way. My response to their letter:

"I'm sorry, but this commercial was NOT about humor or satire. It was about sex; plain and simple. If it was merely satirical, why insinuate a sexual encounter in exchange for your food, or simulate the man getting an erection? The explanation I received just doesn't cut it."

Needless to say, but I have not yet received a response to that. How can they? Their position is indefensible.
You see, advertisers generally stick to to a few basic premises to get their message across.
One is Sex.
Two is Humor.
Three is Relevancy [to everyday life].
Four is a combination of any of the first three.

All advertising seeks to manipulate the viewer in some way through visual, audio, or narrative enticement--or again, a combination of all three.

The Arby's ad in question was supposedly intended to be humorous or satirical, but was instead unmistakenly and overtly sexual. I've spoken with other people about this ad, and every one of them said they didn't see any humor; but instead were offended by the sexual nature of the ad.

Arby's is missing the boat. Their flat denial and suggestion of intent is just another manipulatory ploy to get a dissatisfied customer on their side and once again purchasing from their businesses.

My response clearly states the ridiculousness of their claim because I see it (the commercial AND the response) for what it truly is...an attempt to sell me on their product. A sales pitch. One for which I will NOT fall.

Gross Advertising Misconduct

I saw something on tv tonight that I was completely astounded at...and I don't mean that in any positive sense.

During tonights' 7 pm Family Hour a commercial for Arby's restaurants came on. It featured a man, sitting on a bed looking quite anxious. He asks an unseen person if she's ready. Flash to a view of a doorway and a voice calling out, "I'm only doing this because it's your birthday." Flash to the man who looks even more anxious.

Flash to the doorway through which a woman (presumably the man's wife) suddenly appears dressed in an Arby's uniform, holding a tray of food. She starts sauntering towards the bed [while sexually suggestive music plays in the background] in a highly sexually suggestive manner. Flash to the man who has a huge grin on his face. Above him is an Arby's logo with a definitely limp look to it. Suddenly the hat straightens right up in an unmistakable representation and overt reference to the man having an erection.

EXCUSE ME?!!!!! Are you kidding me?!!!!

I promptly went to my computer, looked up Arby's corporate, and wrote a very blunt and pointed letter informing them of how I feel about this commercial. Right afterwards, I got on my blog [here], and wrote this.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm no prude, and I am definitely not sheltered. I am well aware of how advertisers go about selling the products of their clients. This particular ad however, surprised even me. This blatant, overt, and uninhibited use of sex to sell fast food was disgusting at best. And to have it during the Family Hour is simply irresponsible.

This commercial, aimed at our kids, should never have been approved. In my letter to Arby's, I stated that the advertisers should be fired, and the corporate manager who approved it should be, too. Further, I went on to suggest that the company fine itself, and donate the money to an appropriate charity. Lastly, I told them that I would never eat at any Arby's again for this gross misconduct. I meant every word.

If we, the viewing public do nothing about this type of advertising, the ad industry will assume that all is well, and will grow bolder with each successive ad campaign.

Please, if you see inappropriate advertising, write the company, the FCC, the TV stations, etc. Let your voices be heard so these people who so strongly influence our kids are not allowed to flood their innocent eyes with increasingly graphic sexual references. I for one, will not allow myself to stand by while this happens. I will speak out. You should too.

After all, if we don't do everything we can to care for the physical health and mental well-being of our kids, we are failing them.

The PC of "Going Green"

I've never been one to bend the way of the populist movement. Too much like a sheep following a herd. I prefer to actually use my brain, and to decide on my own whether or not I will do this or that, or if I will choose one thing over the other.


The latest movement in America that we are being told we should do is to "Go Green." Simply put, the politico's and private sector agenda pushers want everyone in the USA to blindly and obediently follow the philosophy that we should all be working hard to reduce our so-called 'Carbon Footprint' which we theoretically leave everywhere we go, and in everything we do. Supposedly, our efforts will, cumulatively, help reduce the harmful greenhouse gases we are told are besetting our planet.


Over the past decade we see story after story about how perilous our atmoshere is becoming--and hence, our safety. The news is regulary filled with stories relating the terrifying consequences to us all should our protective UV sheild [over the earth] fail. The polar ice caps are melting; the ozone layer is disintegrating; forests are dying; weather patterns are becoming unpredictable, etc. We are being fed fear en masse as to our fate should the global warming "predicament" go unchecked.


My point here, is that it seems to me that someone, or some group is pushing us all towards this frenzy of Going Green. Cities across this country are bowing to political pressure to reduce carbon emissions. Some counties are requiring new home building to incorporate reduce carbon off-gassing materials so as to further the cause of Green. Whole communities are being built (or rebuilt) to reflect this trend.


Hollywood actors are constantly pushing this agenda either privately, in interviews, or even as spokespersons for the effort. Media and advertisers immerse us with images and illustrations meant to convince everyone that the "Green Cause" is one we should all be actively concerned about, and working towards.


Study after study is released telling us what a trecherous position our home is in, and that we "must act right now to avert the impending environmental disaster." I have even seen an ad which stated that "you are un-American" if you don't do everything possible to reduce your 'Footprint.' (What the #@&%?!!)


Yet, there is another, viable side of this story; one that is quietly, and very quickly brushed under the proverbial rug; one that doesn't fit the push to "Go Green."


Over the past 5-6 years, there infrequently appear stories that relate a different view; a less doom & gloom outlook. A small (but growing) number of scientists are speaking up with serious doubts regarding the tenuous position of our planet. They are citing individual research (in other words, non-corporate interest, corporate subsidized research) which disputes the bandwagon of Greenies.


[Though I don't have the specific articles] The reasearch comes from several scientific disciplines. First, one scientist who studies oceanic currents has stated many times that the oceans are NOT heating up. The temperatures of the major ocean currents have not varied by more than (I believe) a half degree in the last 40 years. Since the ocean currents produce the weather patterns, this information tells us plainly that the supposed changes in the world-wide weather patterns are NOT happening. Instead, the weather is going through its normal patterns.


Secondly, a few years ago a leading researcher who studies the growth patterns of our forests published findings which state that the health of our trees has not changed in the last two hundred years. He reached this conclusion by studying the tree ring record. This is done by cutting down a tree, and examining the rings; looking for the number, color, and width of the rings, and so on.


What is seen tells a trained scientist about the health of a tree, years of drought, years of healthy rainfall, etc. It's a very complicated science. Anyway, this researcher stated publicly that the weather over the last 20 years is no more severe than in the previous 200. According to the tree ring record, there is no catostrophic weather event that has taken place. The ring evidence shows that the growth patterns are going through a normal cycle. Just like the weather, there are years of abundance, and years of lean [ecologically speaking, of course].

Lastly, I have read several different articles which collectively state that the earth itself puts out nearly as much pollution into our air as man does. How? Forest fires, red tide blooms, volcanic activity, etc. True, the influence man has on the environment is unmistakably obvious; but the overall condition is no solely the fault of industry and cars, etc. The earth has been polluting its air, and scrubbing it clean again for millions of years. Why does anyone think this has changed in the last 20 years?

My question or point to this entire article is who is behind this message of the dire straits the earth is in? Why is this whole green movement or agenda moving forward with such rapidity? Who benefits financially from the sudden fear and paranoia about the environment?

Over the course of history there has always been some mover behind the great changes that have ocurred--Democracy spread by the conquests of Alexander of Macedon; the consolidation of Catholocism by a relative handful of scholars culminating in the Nicean Creed; the exploration and colonization of the New World by greedy, self-serving nations whose two interests were domination and wealth; etc.

I suspect that such motivators are in play regarding the call to save our environment. Corporations are already lined up to provide the goods and services to help us all do our part; our monies doled out thoughtlessly to powers which have no real interest beyond the almighty dollar, but which profess to care about us and our world leading us to give again, and again, and again--all the while increasing the coffers of whatever corporations are the ultimate benefactors of our good will to help the environment.

About six months ago I read a report which stated that for every pound of carbon we save (offset), there are approximately 2-3 pounds of additionally used carbon. In other words, our very efforts to offset the carbon emmissions are doubling or even tripling the problem. Does that make sense to anyone? I guess my infinitely inferior brain just can't grasp the nuances of this environmental "disaster."

For me there are too many questions...too much doubt as to the validity of this whole movement to "Save the Environment." Yes, I care for the environment, and am extremely concerned about the waste we pump into the atmosphere. But when we are told to be a good sheep and follow the leader because it's "the right thing to do," then I must take a step back and examine the how's, why's, where's, and what's of the issue.

I may not be PC for doing so, but I would be remiss if I blindly, sheepishly, and unquestioningly followed the proponents of Going Green.

Governor Schwarznegger--What Gives?

You know, one thing the voting public in this country really hate is an elected leader not following the will of the people. This happened with Lynden Johnson (ramping up the Vietnam War), George W. Bush ("read my lips...No New Taxes!"), and George H.W. Bush (lingering wars, horrible economic policies, etc), to name a few.

In California, the recent passage of Proposition 8 which [the State of California] Constitutionally defines marriage as between a man and a woman has created many eye-opening events. Homophobia (against backers of Prop 8), bigotry, and defacement of religious properties were the starting point. National Media outcry for homosexual equality quickly followed. Celebrities from Hollywood to MoTown jumped aboard the Frenzy Express to denounce all those who actually voted their conscience and favorably voted for Prop 8.

Politicians were no exception. California AG Jerry Brown, who first made news by re-writing the language of the Proposition after it was submitted, has encouraged the gay community to fight the election results in Court. From what I've read, all the major politicians in the State are either speaking out against the establishment of the law, or are saying nothing, which basically says that they support those who are in an uproar.

By a very FAT 4% margin, the voters of California chose to pass Proposition 8. Now, given that the victory was so wide politically, you'd think that a Governor would stand up and defend the will of the people. After all, a Governor is elected by the People, and should (ideologically at least) have the best interest of the people in mind.

In Sacramento, this thinking does not hold sway. Governor Arnold Schwarznegger, in breaking from the will of the people, has himself called on the California Supreme Court to overturn the newly established law that was, again, passed by a majority of the voters of the State of California. This simple definition has speared the very heart of California, and its Governor is failing in his responsibility to lead the people.

Not once has he raised his voice above the din of protest and ask for calm and reason. He has not denounced the hate crimes being perpetrated by the losing side of the election. He has stood idly by as mobs assailed places of worship; as they accosted backers of Prop 8 with verbal, emotional, and physical attacks; as businesses, whose owners contributed to the passage of 8, became targets of hate and retribution; as members of the gay community angrily did everything they could to harass and intimidate anyone, or any organization that backed or voted for the establishment of a simple definition.

I have to wonder who is in the Governor's back pocket; who is pulling his strings; who is garnering political favor by manipulating a Governor of the United States of America into allowing the trampling of civil rights by those who so forcefully advocate love and tolerance, yet are themselves participating in these heinous actions against their fellow citizens.

Governor Schwarznegger, you should be ashamed of yourself for allowing a small minority of your states' population to dictate hatred against those who think and feel differently. Those who perpetrate these acts are criminals by definition. Yet you, for whatever inexplicable reason, are allowing the bigorty and acts of hate and violence to commence unabated.

This inaction, by an elected official is just shameful at the very least. Your calls for a Court of Law to overturn the Will of the People is reprehensible. You have not risen to the challenge in this matter, and should face an impeachment by the citizenry of your State. Your stance to wilfully ignore the civil unrest and trampling of civil rights constitutes a negligence I have not seen since the days of former Mississippi Governor George Wallace.

I for one hope that even the liberal Supreme Court of California will recognize what is happening, and enforce the Will of the People and strike down the legal maneauverings of a small minority group. Upholding the law that is Proposition 8 is indeed the Will of the People. Anything less, and we have yet another example of a very small minority literally forcing their will upon the vast majority. Haven't we seen enough of this already?