Is this heaven? No, it’s Iowa.

Wow, it’s been more than a month since my last blog post. Sorry for the delay, but I was busy…with…er…feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Really, take my word for it.

Well, Christmas is over, New Years has passed, and we are well into election season. That said, I think we, as friends, should spend a little time together analyzing the recent Iowa caucus and making a few predictions about New Hampshire and South Carolina. Let’s begin, shall we?

In the interest of full disclosure, let me first go on record as stating I am an avid Romney supporter. I like him a lot. I think he’s smart, successful, conservative, and utterly elect-able. I’m not unhappy with Romney’s finish in Iowa. Sure, he spent a lot of money and he came in second, but I don’t view this as a problem. It’s difficult (if not impossible) to say what would have happened if Romney hadn’t spent the money—perhaps he wouldn’t have even come in second—who knows?


I see his second place finish going into New Hampshire as a good thing because it lowers the media’s expectations a bit. He doesn’t even have to finish first in New Hampshire (though I believe he will) he just has to beat Huckabee. I’m wondering how he will fare against McCain and Giuliani, however. And, speaking of those guys…

Was it wise of Rudy to not campaign in Iowa? I don’t know—all the other guys got free press—absolutely invaluable. Rudy seems to have faded from the spotlight in recent weeks. In fact, has anyone seen him lately? Rudy? Oh, Rudy?

Of course, McCain ran as the renegade, the Dark Horse candidate—this in spite of the fact that he votes the party line about 90% of the time. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like the guy, but I’m not sure his message will resonate with primary voters. These are the party faithful—I think McCain should be running as more of a GOP loyalist—he should save the “wild, independent” card for the general election…if he makes it.

And then there’s the guy who won the Iowa GOP caucus—Mike Huckabee. I don’t dislike Huckabee…but I detest his name. It sounds too much like Huck Finn, Hick-abee, Shucks-abee, etc.—too many weird things you can do with it to make it sound as though he’s a hillbilly governor from a backwoods state. Oh…wait…

At any rate, I’m willing to bet his days as the front-runner are numbered. Sure, he was the flavor of the month on Iowa, but I seriously doubt his folksy humor will hold much appeal in New Hampshire—he’s all about quasi-Southern charm, they’re all about Northern efficiency.

I reckon the big story out of Iowa is Hillary’s third place finish among Democrats. Apparently NPR called this earlier in the day (according to a reliable source—I didn’t hear it myself) but CNN and the Big 3 all expected Clinton to jockey with Obama for first place.

In attempting to best Obama, she initially ran as the logical choice among women. Obama, on the other hand, ran as the candidate of hope and inspiration. According to entrance polls, Obama garnered a larger share of the female vote in Iowa. So where does this leave Hill? Clearly she has to evaluate and rework her message…but what that message should be is anyone’s guess—I mean, how do you do counter that? WOMEN+HOPE+INSPIRATION= the Democrat SuperTrifecta. Yikes! (I’m waiting her to offer kisses from her husband in exchange for votes. But hey, just another day at the office for ol’ Billy, huh?)


Edwards managed to edge out Hillary. (Could it have anything to do with the fact he has a better haircut? Who knows?) No doubt this represented a crushing blow to the Clinton campaign. However, I found it remarkably interesting that exit polls indicate Edwards was not victorious among his base—union members. Surprising, since he’s running as a champion of those that don the blue collar. Remember, according to him, he’s the one who’s been marching, picketing, etc. with his union brethren more than any other candidate. (Never mind that the closest this guy has come to union membership is the Trial Lawyers Association.) In spite of Edwards’ best “Norma Rae” impersonation, labor came out strong for Obama first, and Hillary second. Maybe Edwards should start looking for a new base…hair stylists, perhaps? (I’m sorry—that story is just TOO GOOD to let go!)

Finally, as a good, conservative Republican, I can’t decide whom I want to win the Democratic nomination. For me, it’s a question of who is most “defeatable.” Recent polls indicate Hillary is “the candidate most likely to be hated,” thus, in my GOP mind, that makes her somewhat appealing as a political adversary. However, I think when it comes down to it, a lot of fence-sitters will have a hard time with Obama for a host of reasons, not the least of which is his inexperience.



I know failed to mention Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and a few other guys we know won’t win, but I figured I’d leave that up to y’all. I’m interested to hear from you, my loyal readers (yes, BOTH of you.) I’d like your comments, thoughts, impressions, predictions, etc. on Iowa, NH, SC, the GOP, the Dems, campaigns, candidates, and elections in general, etc. By all means, don’t hold back—in fact, LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

Biscuits and Pork Chops...it's NOT what's for dinner

A friend had a great post today about a AAA baseball affiliate team in Allentown, PA. The team, the Iron Pigs, have as their mascot a large pig, affectionately named “Pork Chop.” Clever, right? Not so, say some local Hispanics, who apparently feel slighted by the mascot’s name, claiming it is (I'm not making this up) an ethnic slur. Under pressure from the group, the team changed the mascot's name to Ferrous. The name change, while actually quite clever, nevertheless, ticks me off.

When I read things like this I'm infuriated. It kind of makes me want to scream,"HEY! They're slaughtering Christians in the Sudan, yet somehow THIS PIG'S NAME has become your personal front burner issue. I can't believe THIS is the hill you want to die on!" I daresay silly, symbolic gestures such as this must constitute an insult for people of Hispanic origin who are reasonable, productive members of society.

First of all, I seriously doubt naming the mascot "Pork Chop" was intended to be any sort of an ethnic slur. Let's face it, the name made more sense than "Chicken Little," right? And, according to industry insiders, pork is officially "the other white meat." (NOW, who's the focus of the "racial slur"?)

Second, I find wisdom in these words: "He who takes offense when none was intended is a fool. He who take offense when offense WAS intended, is a BIGGER fool." (Emphasis added) If, indeed, the name of the mascot was chosen solely in hopes of offending Hispanics, then mission accomplished...thanks to the small cadre of complaining Hispanics.

You know, sometimes it's best to just embrace the "tag" you're given. I'm originally from Alabama and occasionally (and by "occasionally" I mean "unceasingly") people across the US think people from the South are, well, less than bright. In fact, sometimes, in referring to an idiot, they will call that person a "Bama." My response? It was likely meant as a compliment! Ain't no shame in 'Bama, baby!

You know, sometimes non-Southerners refer to Southerners as "biscuits." Again, I say, "Ain't no shame in biscuits!" Apparently lots of people agree with me because when the capital city of Montgomery held a contest in order to decide the name for it's new AA baseball affiliate team, the "Montgomery Biscuits" got the winning vote.

And I tell you what, those loyal fans in Montgomery LOVE their Biscuits! When the opposing team is up to bat, the chatter begins and all over Riverwalk Stadium you hear, "Hey, Butter, Butter...Hey Butter, Butter...SWING Butter!" And during the games they actually use air cannons to shoot biscuits into the crowd! Um, um, um! Nothin' beats fresh biscuits...except, maybe, fresh biscuits and a cold Coke-Cola! (Don't you just love the pat of butter in the little cartoon biscuit's mouth?)

At any rate, the point is it's not necessary to take offense over every little issue. Reserve indignant responses for stuff that really matters. In the mean time, put a biscuit in it.

Headline: That Which Doesn't Kill You May Not Make You Stronger...Though It's Probably Safe To Ingest

Tonight my friend/classmate Rich launched his new blog. (Can I get a “Whoop!”) His topic of choice was nutrition, toxins, pesticides, organic foods, etc. It was a great post, as evidenced by the fact it 1) made me think, and 2) compelled me to comment. Once I formulated my thoughts, I figured as long as I was actually typing more than a paragraph, I’d slap it on here and call it a post. (See below.)

I’ve added Rich’s blog to my list of favorites (Deep Thoughts By Rich) and I invite all my loyal readers (and again, by “all” I mean “both”) to visit. He’s a smart fellow and, were I a betting woman, I’d wager I'll be asking him for a job or voting him into public office one day in the not-too-distant future. Good luck, Rich!

------------------------------------

I was recently reading about "intuitive toxicology"—the mental shortcut ordinary people use to think about the risks associated with chemicals. One of the beliefs that underlie intuitive toxicology is that nature is benevolent—that human products and activities are more likely to be dangerous than the products of natural process.

As Rich pointed out, EVERYTHING is made of chemicals and, thus, EVERYTHING can be poisonous. What frightens me (typically on a daily basis) is the ability of alarmists to force broad policy change simply by playing on the fears and ignorance of members of society.

Anybody remember Alar? No? Well, I do. It was a pesticide used on apples—until the National Resources Defense Council released a study asserting that about 1 in every 4000 children exposed to Alar would develop cancer. Then, like clockwork, the media latched on and the real chaos ensued. The CBS "news" (and I use the term loosely) show 60 Minutes implied Alar was outright poison—I mean the kind Snow White's wicked stepmother/queen would use, you know? People were in a state of panic. Grocery stores refused to sell Alar apples and eventually the EPA declared it a human carcinogen—but only after Uniroyal (the maker of Alar) had already voluntarily halted all US sales of the stuff.

But here's the rub: NRDC's research was crap. They extrapolated from research conducted on mice in order to make their determinations. In order for their assertions to be true, all children consuming apples would have had to eat something like a "truckload" of apples or several thousand gallons of apple juice EVERY DAY. And even at that rate of consumption we could only expect 1 in 4000 of those children to develop cancer.

As it turns out, the real risk was something like 1 in 250,000—of course, those figures never got the same media exposure the NRDC study enjoyed. (Who cares about the truth, right?) In the mean time, Uniroyal and apple growers across America were...well, S.O.L. Their combined losses totaled somewhere in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And, in what can only be described as a cruel twist of fate, in the absence of Alar, some growers were forced to use substitute pesticides which were found to be less safe than Alar. Go figure!

The lesson here, children, is this: Resist the urge to heed the emotional call to arms on such matters. Do not add to the deintellectualization of America by buying in to any ol’ thing emitting from your television set. The world is full of people whose sole purpose is to foist off on you a load of kooky crap and all the while try to convince you it is science.

And that's all I have to say about the matter. For now.

The Myth Behind Women’s Lib OR Why I See Hillary Clinton’s Face and Think “Birth Control”

Personally, I think of Hillary Clinton the same way I think of the birth control pill—as something ostensibly representing the liberation of womanhood but which, in actuality, does just the opposite. Just bear with me for a moment, will you?



To begin, I’d like to employ the assistance of my friends Merriam and Webster:

Word: irony
Pronunciation: \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\
(1): the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning (2): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (3): an event or result marked by such incongruity


When The Pill was introduced, it was revolutionary and revered…I mean, there were country-western songs written about this thing. All of a sudden, women everywhere were like “Yea! FINALLY we don’t have to be pregnant any more!” True enough, but at what price? Look how many health problems (including weight gain, atherosclerosis, and possible links to cervical cancer) have now been associated with use of b/c pills. (After 12 years in pharmacy, I’ve heard all the sad tales.) So now, in this day and age when we demand hormone-free milk and free range chicken, we STILL have a bunch of hormone-infused women reveling in the false notion they are liberated and free from outside influence? Puh!

I guess I never understood why women didn’t demand more. Why, when the Pill was introduced, didn’t women say, “Ummm, no thanks. I’m not willing to shove chemicals down my throat on a daily basis, month after month, year after year. I’ll wait until you come up with some pharmaceutical concoction that renders men temporarily infertile, and THEN I’ll resume giving out the good stuff.” Had that indeed been the case (and had all women been serious and willing to hold out), you can bet your sweet you-know-what the pharmaceutical industry would have answered that demand!



Alas, women (thinking they were oh, so clever) single-handedly shouldered the entire medical responsibility for family planning, in fact, they acquiesced in droves. I’d argue the Pill did more to liberate men and make women more dependent. (Note to my fellow females: The only thing worse than going along with a bad idea like a bunch of sheep, is going along with a bad idea like a bunch of super-enthusiastic sheep, insisting the idea was yours!)

And in what way does Hillary Clinton resemble the Pill? I’ll tell ya’: Women (for whatever reason) look at her and think she is the picture of feminism. Newsflash, girlies: It ain’t the case.

First of all, she’s obviously suffering a serious identity crisis—what’s with the schizophrenic nomenclature? Senator Hillary Clinton was formerly known as Arkansas First Lady Hillary Rodham until husband Bill’s first national election, at which time she became Hillary Clinton. She remained Hillary Clinton until such time as husband Bill assumed the Presidency, when she became Hillary Rodham Clinton. Again, she stayed HRC until such time as she herself sought a Senate seat and, seeking to bank on her husband’s success, once again, re-monikered as Hillary Clinton. (I’m betting money that some time within the next year we will see Hillary Washington Lincoln Roosevelt Susan B. Anthony Sacagawea Jane Roe Rodham Clinton as the Democratic front runner. Anybody giving odds on that?)

Second, the Clinton formerly known as Rodham was also formerly known as a Republican…and not just “a” Republican—she was a Goldwater girl—a diehard right-winger. So what was the impetus for the big change? Opportunity knocked! That’s right, she met Bill (a Dem) and (to her credit) recognized he was going places generally considered off limits for a girl like her. (And by “like her” I mean “generally unimpressive and annoying to the nth degree.”)



No, no, Hillary Clinton is not a feminist—in fact, she is quite the opposite. She is a prime example of a woman who couldn’t succeed on her own merits, and instead rode her husband’s coattails and claimed it as her personal victory. She is what we in the biz call an “opportunist.”

So, there you have it, folks. THAT is why I see Hillary and I am instantly reminded of The Pill. They share several characteristics—both appeal to women, neither represent the true best interest of women, and most especially, they resemble one another in method, as they both employ the mechanism of farce.

Whew! NOW who feels liberated?

Feeling a little misunderstood

This post is dedicated to my good friend Aryn.

Recently she was in the grocery store where she was approached by someone asking for donations for a charitable organization. The girl asked, "Would you like to donate a dollar to breast cancer?" Aryn, being the funny, clever girl she is, responded, "No, thank you. I'm actually opposed to breast cancer." Funny, right? Apparently not to the volunteer. According to Aryn, "She sort of cocked her head, squinted her eyes and said, 'Well, aren't we all?!'"

Oh, the futility of wasted humor.....

I had a moment sort of similar to that a few years back--where I said something I thought was hilarious and the person to whom I directed my comment JUST DIDN'T get it.

I was ordering lunch at Sensuous Sandwich in Salt Lake. The guy taking my order subjected me to the usual battery of questions, given the circumstances:
HIM: Tomaoes, lettuce, pickles, onions?
ME: Yes, please.
HIM: Mayo, mustard?
ME: Yes.
HIM: Horsey?
ME: Neigh (whinnying and shaking my head slightly...like a horse refusing a bit of apple)
HIM: (.....silence.....)
ME: Hahahaha!
HIM: (...prolonged silence...)
ME: Ummm, no thank you.

It was weird...I felt as though I had to apologize for being funny....AND CLEVER!!!

It was wrong.

It's Law School Made Easy!

As some of you (more correctly speaking, BOTH of you) may know, I am currently looking for an institution of higher education from which I may purchase a law degree. I don't want to spend more time in a classroom, I don't want to take more tests, I never, EVER want to litigate. Heck, I don't even want to take the bar! I just want the J.D. after my name so I can command a better salary in my field. (Wow, clearly I'm so shallow you could fly fish in me, but hey...)

Anyhoo, I just went to PBS.org and found a great little game called Talking About My Constitution. I urge each of you (and again, by "each" I mean "both") to go to the PBS Website (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/constitution.html) and take the quiz. Be sure to come back and tell me how you did.

I scored highest in First Amendment Rights, but only got half the Civil Rights questions correct. Hmmm...maybe I should study more before I continue in my quest to purchase a law degree. Better yet, anyone know a scalper?

We live in a Diet Coke world

I vigorously urge everyone to read Mark Steyn's piece "General Stark's War" from the NY Sun yesterday. (http://www.nysun.com/article/65002 ) In it Steyn addresses Rep. Pete Stark's (D-CA) House floor speech last week in which he lobbed nonsensical, biting, personal attacks at Pres. Bush in an attempt to garner votes to override the SCHIP veto. (Really, can somebody PLEASE put a fork in this thing? It's DONE already!)

For those of you who don't have time to read the article in its entirety, I have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting two of the most relevant parts.

It all started when Rep. Stark adroitly (puh!) mumbled the following in his floor speech: "The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Okay, first of all, what the hell does that even mean? Was he sauced? Isn't being lit up during a Congressional debate against the law, Ted Kennedy notwithstanding?

Referencing the good congressman's slurred utterance, Mark Steyn noted: "Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words – "children", "illegal war", "$200 billion", "lies", etc – and these days they're pretty much like modular furniture: you can say 'em in any order and you'll still get a cheer from the crowd."

Aaaahahahahahaha!!! Modular furniture? 'Scuse me while I wet my pants! He then goes on to point out:

"A couple of weeks ago, the Democrats put up a 12-year old S-CHIP beneficiary from Baltimore called Graeme Frost to deliver their official response to the President's Saturday-morning radio address. And immediately afterwards Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and I jumped the sick kid in a dark alley and beat him to a pulp. Or so you'd have thought from the press coverage: The Washington Post called us "meanies". Well, no doubt it's true we hard-hearted conservatives can't muster the civilized level of discourse of Pete Stark. But we were trying to make a point – not about the kid, but about the family, and their relevance as a poster child for expanded government healthcare. Mr and Mrs Frost say their income's about $45,000 a year – she works "part-time" as a medical receptionist and he works "intermittently" as a self-employed woodworker. They have a 3,000 square foot home plus a second commercial property with a combined value of over $400,000, and three vehicles – a new Suburban, a Volvo SUV, and a Ford F250 pick-up....How they make that arithmetic add up is between them and their accountant. But here's the point: The Frosts are not emblematic of the health care needs of America so much as they are of the delusion of the broader western world. They expect to be able to work "part-time" and "intermittently" but own two properties and three premium vehicles and have the state pick up healthcare costs."

Exactly! Who are these people? How are they disadvantaged in any sense of the word? How many of us wish we could work "intermittently" and still be able to afford a Volvo SUV? As it is, most of us work full-time and we are perfectly grateful for the ability and opportunity to pay off our 2000 Nissan sedan! The Dems could have paraded around any number of children, but they chose THIS kid to be their poster boy, THIS kid to be the face of America's poor.

Steyn is right--we want all of the pleasure, and none of the guilt. We want all the benefits, but wish to bear none of the cost. In short, we are a society of expectations. We live in a Diet Coke world.