From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
Whoopie cushions used to be the rage amongst pubescent boys. Older males fancy strippers. Cake is good. With or without gyrating dancers. As are gifts. Even gag gifts. In some circles, bringing your own pipe and getting bombed might be acceptable, but pipe bombs?
Ut uh.
And especially if the pipe bombs are in the trunk of a speeding car which is driven by two South Florida University students of Middle Eastern heritage. Even if they claim to have gotten "lost" (with one of those GPS thingies and a laptop computer in the car) miles and miles off their route to North Carolina (Fontana Dam, by any chance?) -- to find themselves speeding past a gas station eight miles from a South Carolina Naval base while supposedly looking for a gas station. With pipe bombs (fireworks?) in the trunk.
Ut uh.
Their attorneys said they were "scared young men."
They damn well better be.
And if they somehow weasel out of this mess, the rest of us should be as well.
Read it for yourself. Just don't try draw any correlation with the "praying imans" airport incident. That would be too simple.
Republicans had dominated politics ever since the Civil War. A Republican had been in the White House for 44 of the previous 52 years. They were the party of civil rights and, under the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican Party became the party of environmental conservation, antitrust laws, and consumer protection.
Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most popular presidents in history, the youngest too. He was 42 when he took office. He was the first president to ride in an automobile and in an airplane, and the first to visit a foreign country while in office. He was a naturalist. He was an author of history. He published almost 50 books (books by this author).
After he'd served two terms, he announced that he would not seek a third term. He handpicked his successor, William Howard Taft, and then went off on an African safari. But when he got back, Teddy Roosevelt found that Taft had moved away from progressive principles and aligned himself with the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft in the primaries, won the primary in Taft's home state of Ohio, but eventually it was party insiders who picked the nominee, and they gave it to Taft. And so Roosevelt called for the creation of a new progressive party and accepted its nomination on this day in 1912. It was nicknamed the Bull Moose Party because Roosevelt said, "I am as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit."
He was in a three-way race with Taft and Woodrow Wilson, campaigning on a platform that called for income taxes, inheritance taxes, the eight-hour workday, and voting rights for women. He drew huge crowds wherever he went. In Milwaukee, October 14, 1912, on the way to give his speech, he was shot by a man six feet away, the bullet deflected by the speech in his pocket, along with a metal eyeglasses case. Roosevelt went on to give the speech, but Woodrow Wilson won the election. Despite Roosevelt making the best showing of any third party candidate in American history. He came in second.
And one of the results of his Progressive Party campaign was splitting the Republican Party between conservatives and progressives, and the progressives have never been in charge since.
I'm not sure this is totally accurate on all accounts, but Garrison Keillor sure knows how to tell a story ....
I thought of N. not long ago -- reminiscing about the times we had snow sledding (especially when D hit that conduit and broke three ribs. He never believed that we honestly thought his gasps for air were from laughter) and those fun-filled Saturday nights at The Cave where we danced until they told us they were closing .... I should have called her every time I remembered those times, to tell her and D how much those memories and times we spent with M&B meant to me ... She died in an accident this morning -- enroute to do those things she had always done: serving others. She and D loved all children and literally spent their life working with youth while raising their own .... I especially remember the twinkle in her eye and the nudge she would give D when he (often) blushed -- at a comment or a joke. She was a good person. A caring soul. A teacher who taught well beyond the last bell. She was one of my best friends in a time when mortality was not an issue. We lost contact for a few years .... Today, my loss is compounded. I don't think I ever told her (or D) how much I appreciated them. Enjoyed the times we shared. That I cared for them.
Rest in peace, dear friend. Rest in peace with the memory that you were loved by everyone whom you touched.
It's unfair when a hidden agenda (especially when carried out after telling the interviewee that comments were "off the record") is perpetrated. It's even better when the interviewee exceeds expectations and shreds the interviewer and his agenda.
This is Mitt Romney unplugged.
Follow along as Mitt responds to an authoritative interviewer who interrupts him repeatedly, rather than allowing Mitt to complete answers .... Until -- that is -- Mitt effectively stops this arrogant idiot's ploy and turns an "off the record" discussion into a testament for why America needs Mitt Romney.
This "cut," which was posted on the radio station web site without Mitt's knowledge, may have been intended to embarrass him.
If that was the purpose, it backfired. And his shirt-sleeves weren't even rolled up.
Any question about why Mitt Romney is the most qualified and competent candidate for President of the United States?
Fred Thompson has stated that his campaign (when he decides to decide, that is) is to be unique, with a focus on the Internet.
What better time for ole Fred to announce than before September 17 -- allowing him to join the CNN/YouTube debate?
Go for it, Fred. Just your format ... You won't be able to cue the camera, however, but you'll likely get all the attention you can handle in one sitting .. errr .. standing.
Watch out for those follow-up questions, though.
Meanwhile -- I'd like to see Brit Hume moderate an informal 2-hour interview with Mitt and Rudy from their respective campaign tours.
I ventured over to the NYT blog to find liberals berating (shock!) Mitt Romney's 3-legged stool analogy: strong economy, strong military, strong family.
My assessment: Those unable to grasp the concept of three pillars of national strength are destined to post barricades.
Is it just me, or is every criticism of Fred Thompson's un-campaign now being rebuffed as a "fear" tactic?
Fear of Fred I ...II ... III .... Fear of Fred: Return to Earth ...
And when the Roman numerals become unintelligible to the average voter (which is what this is all about, after all), maybe ole Fred can package his un-campaign as "The Fred Follies" or maybe the "Fred and Jeri Show" ....
But I digress.
I can't think of a candidate who has literally no successful or even notable legislative or executive experience ever being elected to anything -- unless we count that wrestler-guy who became governor of MN .... I suspect that if anyone could make a legitimate claim to being a "fear factor" in real life (sorry, Ahhhnold), Jesse Ventura would be the unanimous winner!
OOps. I digressed again.
This "fear factor" knee jerk is wearing a bit thin. Face it, folks. No one fears Fred Thompson. No one. If the concept of fear is to be used as his mantra -- maybe ole Fred should consider one of these references:
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear is not the natural state of civilized people. Nothing in life is to be feared.
And my personal favorite:
Fear gives a small thing a big shadow.
On that note -- let me say this about the Fear of Fred retort being used by several of my respected online associates with whom I share many causes and perspectives:
No matter how FredHeads want to portray those who don't fear Fred -- aligning support for Fred Thompson with support for key conservative issues is a divisive tactic.
Prime example: Ron Paul supporters want to draw a correlation between his candidacy (deliver us, please) and opposition to the North American Union concept. The reality that the NAU concept is a product of the Council on Foreign Relations (of which Fred Thompson is a member) does NOT make everyone who asks questions about that powerful policy-making body a "Truther" (such as the young woman who asked ole Fred a legitimate question about his stand on the SuperHighway, the Texas Corridor or the SPP -- before she interjected an aside about the fall of Tower 7. Duh.).
Ole Fred will have to answer those legitimate questions sooner or later. You don't have to be a "Truther" to suspect that there is more than a passing correlation between the current immigration reform bill and the SSP accords.
Identifying with core conservative principles has nothing to do with my personal assessment that a once-quasi-effective senator from the great state of Tennessee may be toying (conservatives) with a run for the Presidency. The guy has the demeanor of someone who is unhealthy and demonstrably inept when asked specific questions. Politically, he has offered nothing to demonstrate that his campaign (assuming it will materialize) would be based on much beyond bumbling generic sound-bytes, evasive retorts and a pleasant voice. His staff is leaving disgruntled; his new campaign manager is of questionable background, his grassroots "campaign" has generated approximately $3 million -- far short of expectations, and rumors of his wife's control of his non-candidacy abound. Shades of Shrillary? Please -- no!
Meanwhile, watch the video below. Fred needs to brush up on his candid interview techniques. Hear his nervous laughter? He "uses" the woman's inexperience in fielding questions to re-direct the focus of his answer -- which he never gave, by the way -- by feigning ignorance about the SuperHighway. It appears obvious that her question caught Fred off-guard. Her follow-up statement/question was her down-fall , IMO -- which made her, not Fred, the focus. Too bad.
Bring it on, Fred. Not all questions will be asked by "Truthers" and will strive to draw the literal truth of who and what you represent. You'll soon learn that the media and serious contenders wear Nike. You know, the No Fear gear.
One Simple Solution to Curbing Illegal Immigration
Where do we find leaders who "think" like Mike Krauss? They are few and far between, I fear --- caught up, not in red tape, but in corporate schemes to get something for nothing.
From 1999 through 2005 I was a senior executive of a North American railroad based in Mexico City, responsible chiefly for intermodal traffic between locations in Mexico, the United States and Canada. For some years prior to that, and until only recently, I lived in a still predominantly rural area outside Mexico City, traveled widely in the country and worked often on the border. I have had both professional and personal contact with illegal immigration into the U.S.
Railroads that come out of Mexico must deal routinely with the "sleepers," as those who try to hitch a ride on the northbound trains are called. And in the small town outside of Mexico City where I lived, I knew any number of people who had tried and failed or tried and succeeded to make the more common journey on foot across the border which, I observed first-hand, is porous.
In order to resolve the crisis of illegal immigration into the U.S., it is important to understand who these people are and what they want. Overwhelmingly, they are young and healthy. It is not a journey for the old or frail. They are not all poor or uneducated. Many educated young Mexicans have no work. For every entry-level and mid-level managerial position my company advertised there were hundreds of qualified applicants. What drives them to make an always arduous, often perilous and sometimes fatal journey is the search for opportunity and more specifically, work.
The other thing that must be understood is that there is presently no effective process in place to lawfully manage the numbers of Mexicans and, to a lesser extent, other Hispanics seeking to live or work in the U.S. Through inaction and inattention Congress has manufactured a crisis.
The legal process is to stand for hours, often more than once, in a line outside the U.S. embassy in Mexico City. It's the kind of line I recall from my youth outside the local movie theater when a new Walt Disney movie opened. It seems to go on forever, with people waiting in the cold or rain or heat to bring a raft of papers and documents before an INS officer and take their best shot. By all accounts, it is not a pleasant experience.
No one may accompany the supplicant, so it is all hearsay, but what a careful listener will hear is that the officer does not really want you in the U.S. Basically, the applicant is required to prove to the officer that he or she has sufficient motives to return to Mexico. The result is that employed professionals or the well-to-do get visas for business trips, family vacations or shopping excursions. The rest -- the vast majority -- don't bother to try.
The story of one young neighbor of mine in Mexico is instructive and not atypical. Jorge, let's call him, was an intelligent and outgoing seventeen year old. We hired him to do some odd jobs at the house and over time became close to his family -- other members had also worked for us. He got a degree in mathematics from the local university and hoped to teach. But there were no positions.
Teachers do not retire in Mexico: They can't afford to give up the job. All that was available was part-time work grading papers and otherwise taking the load off senior teachers. It was low paying even by Mexican standards. The U.S., however, has a real need for mathematics teachers, especially those who speak Spanish and English, as he does.
Jorge went through the legal process. He set up a bank account, which he, like many youths from the town, had never had before. His father pulled together his income records to demonstrate the family's means and went to considerable trouble to put a piece of land in his son's name. It was all to no avail.
His application was denied because, said the INS officer, his English was so very good that he had obviously been illegally to the States to learn it. He tried to explain that he had acquired his excellent, American English in an intensive language course: four hours a night, almost every Friday night of the year for five years, playing cards with American businessmen.
Yeah, right. Denied. Jorge took the other route to the United States.
Jorge had one other thing in common with most Mexican immigrants, apart from the "get-up-and-go" that Americans used to admire. Legal or otherwise, they are focused. They are not coming to wander aimlessly about. They are headed for a specific town or city where some family member or friend from their village is now or has been, and where they will be received by an extended family that provides initial shelter and will show them the ropes. Think of it as a combination social service and employment agency, provided tax free.
The point is, the overwhelming majority of these people come here looking for work. And it is clear the U.S. economy has a place for them. In several industries it has a critical need: meat packing and food processing, agriculture, hotel and restaurant services or bilingual mathematics instruction, for example.
What can be done? In the short term, first the security of the border with Mexico must be guaranteed to the satisfaction of anxious citizens, the overwhelming majority of whom believe, correctly, that it is not now sufficiently secured -- although it strikes me that a garrisoned wall is unnecessary and offensive.
Second, we need to reform the legal process and direct the flow through a series of modern-day Ellis Islands, preferably in the interior of Mexico, fully staffed and funded to serve as welcome centers that will identify the newcomers, find out where they are headed, and try to match them up with legal employers in the U.S. In the new process a determination can be made if these are temporary workers or people who want to become Americans. They can then be monitored and assisted appropriately. When these two steps are accomplished, it will then be possible to revisit the legalization process for those who are already established in the country.
Of course, as I think it over, perhaps these proposed processing centers ought not be called "welcome centers." We wouldn't want to give the wrong impression. How about, Immigration Identification, Security and Control Centers? That ought to push all the right buttons on the talk-radio dial.
But for the long term, only raising the living standards of the Mexican people will staunch the flow. The U.S. and Canada together, but chiefly the U.S., need to invest in Mexico on the scale of a Marshall Plan, or as West Germany invested in East Germany at the reunification, and for the same reason. Huge disparities in the living standards of societies living in close proximity inevitably invite migration to the more prosperous society. The wider the gap, the greater the flow.
This investment in Mexico will have two other benefits for the U.S. Like the Marshall Plan, it can be structured to create opportunities for American businesses and expand markets for U.S. goods and services. And it will give the Mexican government an incentive to fix a policy that effectively exports its unemployment to the U.S.
What are the chances? It is difficult to say, but I am not voting for anybody for president, U.S. Senate or Congress in the 2008 elections who does not advance some kind of similar plan.
I wholeheartedly concur, Mr. Krauss.
I would go one step further .... Issue work visas to businesses who feel their employee-needs are met only by using illegal immigrants. Let THEM (or their representative agency) recruit temporary employees at these "opportunity centers." If work visas are lost or stolen or are not accounted for -- penalize the business.
