There was a saying from my Army days:  “It’s just a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.”  For those unfamiliar with sucking chest wounds…they’re bad.  The chest wall is breached to the point that the body sucks air in through the wound, which doesn’t allow enough vital oxygen to enter the system.  The opening must be sealed to return the body to normal breathing and allow the victim any chance or survival.  Needless to say, a simple band-aid will not suffice in this case.

    The economy has suffered a sucking chest wound.  Congress is attempting to use a $700 billion band-aid to staunch the bleeding.  Unfortunately, without taking action to actually seal the wound, our economy is in serious trouble.  More drastic steps are required than simply dressing up this gash and calling it fixed.

    I’m not an economist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  (Sorry, but I couldn’t resist.)  Seriously, I have done a smidge of reading on basic economic principles, which is probably more than the average voter.  Still, even without that, it seems simple to me that if the elements that created this mess remain in place, we can pour money into it all day long.  The sucking chest wound is still not repaired.

    What’s the sucking chest wound?  In my estimation, it is the Community Reinvestment Act.  First enacted under Carter in 1977, and strengthened under Clinton, this law uses government influence to leverage lending institutions to grant loans to people who are otherwise unqualified.  On paper, it aims to ensure that lenders serve their communities equitably, by making loans available not just to people who can actually afford them, but to low-income applicants as well.  In practice, what has happened is that lenders approved loans to people who could not actually afford them.  They did this because of the legal pressures of the CRA and the implicit assurance that the now-infamous Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would either purchase or guarantee these shaky loans.

    Housing prices fell, and many mortgagees found themselves upside-down on loans, owing more that their house was worth.  As loan defaults rose, lenders, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac started running out of money.  Armageddon.  Free from the influence of the CRA, Freddie, and Fannie, many of these shaky loans would have never gotten off of the approval officer’s desk.  But the all-knowing government inserted itself and fixed that for us, right?

    And now they’re going to fix it again, with a $700 billion band-aid.  But the sucking chest wound remains.  Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and repeal the CRA.  Get government influence out of the decision-making process of private lending institutions, and let them succeed or fail based on the quality of their own business decisions.  Patch them up for the short term if we must, but seal the sucking chest wound.

    A man works at his desk in a small office, shuffling through some documents and pecking away at his computer keyboard as he answers some email.  Two men in plain-looking suits walk in unannounced.  The man at the desk looks up, and one of his visitors plops a packet of papers in front of him.  "You are being investigated," he says as he flashes a badge, "for suspicion of making public statements against the President.  You must come with us now.  We have questions for you."  The second visitor walks around behind the desk and takes the man by the arm as he stands, his eyes lowered, and they both walk him out the door.

    Where is this taking place?  Russia?  Nazi Germany?  No.  It is taking place in Barack Obama's America, in the not-too-distant future, should he win the election.  The threat of action just like this has already been implied, if not directly stated, in Missouri just days ago.

    Although the story seems to be gaining a little traction, it has largely been ignored by the larger media outlets.  At the very least, it has been given nowhere near the attention it should be receiving, considering the magnitude of the situation.  If you are unfamiliar with the story, the Barack Obama campaign has sought the help of Missouri law enforcement (prosecutors and sheriffs) in attempting to shut down political advertisers who speak against him.  Let me make this very plain:  a political candidate is attempting to use the police powers of the state to shut down his political opposition, by threatening criminal prosecution.

    So with help from local law enforcement, Barack Obama suppresses the speech of his opposition and wins the election, assuming the office of the President of the United States.  He now has the entire Department of Justice, including the F.B.I. and other Federal law enforcement under his direction.

Fast forward to the year 2012, and President Obama is running for re-election.  You are volunteering in the office of your local "Sarah Palin for President" campaign headquarters, working on flyers to distribute in your town, which point out some of President Obama's failures over the last four years.  You feel the chill wind as the door opens, and the two F.B.I. agents enter, to escort you to your questioning...

    It's pretty incredible the massive amounts of attention being paid to the recent Lindsey Lohan-John McCain dust-up.  I'm actually a bit embarrassed to even mention it here, and add anything more to what already seems way excessive.  But it brings to mind a favorite movie of mine, a little bit of 80's fluff called "Broadcast News."

    For those unfamiliar with the film, allow me to summarize (there is a point here).  William Hurt plays an attractive, up-and-coming network TV news anchor who, while being somewhat skilled at reading news from a teleprompter, is otherwise pretty shallow intellectually.  Early in the movie, he confesses that, "I don't get the news that I'm talking about!"  He is confessing this to Holly Hunter, who plays a brilliant young producer who still attempts to maintain high journalistic standards.  However, she finds herself infatuated with Hurt's character, and all sorts of complications ensue.

    I told you that to tell you this:  there is a scene in that movie which almost perfectly mirrors my thoughts on Lindsay Lohan's political musings.  At one point Hurt's character, Tom, is called upon to anchor a breaking news piece about a Libyan jet which has attacked an American base.  Near the end, they run out of content but need to fill for a second to wrap the broadcast.  With no prompter to follow, Tom hesitates and then offers the commentary, "In other words I think we're all OK."  Upon hearing this, the salty bureau chief, played by Robert Prosky, grumbles from the control booth, "Who the hell cares what you think?"

    Exactly.  Who the hell cares what Lindsey Lohan thinks about presidential election politics?  Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that she is reasonably intelligent, who would assume that her opinion is any more well-reasoned than anyone else's, and thus worthy of any more attention than anyone else's?  She is absolutely entitled to her opinion, and to state it as publicly as she wants; I don't fault her at all for that.  But where I do have some concern is the fascination of the media with what she thinks, and through guilt by association, the media consumers who suck it all up.  I also find it a bit troublesome that the McCain campaign felt compelled to respond to it at all.

    So why the fuss?  Because she is a trashy little train wreck who runs around drunk with no underwear on and probably likes the attention of the paparazzi more than she admits.  Apparently, some people seem to think that this indicates she's more enlightened than the rest of us.  So there really is no good explanation for it, other than to bang the drum against what seems to be the increasing number of Americans who equate celebrity with gravitas...and indeed, the number of airhead celebrities who do the same.  Unfortunately that is not a very satisfying explanation, no matter how true it may be.  In the end, I suppose there's no accounting for tastes...  Like, totally..

     So now I hear that once upon a time, Barack Obama wanted to join the military.  Apparently Obama stated just that during his recent interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.  During the interview, Obama stated, "I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and you know, honorable option," suggesting that he had considered military service.  But alas, Obama's military service was not to be.  You see there was no war to fight, no epic struggle for him to lend his gifts.  He told Stephanopoulos, "I graduated in 1979.  The Vietnam War had come to an end.  We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point.  And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue."

     Call me overly sensitive, but I have always found it to be disingenuous at best, and offensive at worst when someone who never served in the military says, "I thought about joining," or "I always wanted to."  Short of those with medical disqualifiers, I often detect a bit of guilt in those making such comments.  It always comes up when they find themselves in the company of those who have served, and they are somewhat ashamed to realize that they could have but didn't.  But I understand that military life is not for everyone, and I would venture that most of us who have served wouldn't want everyone to put on a uniform.  Indeed, we have all likely served with someone who shouldn't have been there.  I find no fault with those who know that it's not for them and are honest about it.

     But attempting to relate yourself to those who have worn the uniform by talking about what you almost did rings very, very hollow.  Coming from the would-be commander-in-chief, it is worse.  Barack Obama has no real military experience or affiliation, but by spinning a tale of how he almost did it, he is trying to drape himself in the honor earned by those who actually did.  John McCain was there, and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden have sons in the service.  I think that in this statement, true or not, Barack Obama seeks some sort of equivalency by wishing.  He is attempting to take credit for something he never did, just by talking about how he thought about doing it.  (If this line of reasoning reasoning works, then I must tell you about the time I slept with Heidi Klum.)

     But even if we take him at his word...that sometime between lines of blow he did actually consider military service, his statement still is chock full of his trademark "audacity."  He would only consider joining the military if there was an active conflict?  Does he rate himself so highly that he thinks that in time of war, the military couldn't do without his particular brand of heroism?  There's a war on?  Sign me up, so I can save the world!  No war to fight?  Guess I'll take a pass on the military and go to law school and become a community organizer instead.  What I suspect though, is the subtle, backhanded insult of one who does not value the service of a peacetime military.  Barack Obama views service in a peacetime military as unworthy, and particularly unworthy to receive his sweat.

     That should be a cue to anyone who hasn't yet figured out what kind of commander-in-chief Barack Obama would be.  If he spoke the truth in the Stephanopoulos interview, the military and the people who make it up are not worth his while in time of peace.  He doesn't value the sailor who goes on six-month tours at sea, the soldier or marine out training in the field, or the airman fueling a fighter jet in Alaska during peacetime.  He certainly wouldn't consider lowering himself to become one.  There is a well-known verse, often paraphrased, which goes something like :

     Sarah Palin.  Who'd have thunk it?  Of course this now makes the topic of the day, "what do you make of it?"  Rather than whip out a quick, reactionary post right after the announcement, I've given this some thought over the last couple of days.  I've read and listened to some other opinions, and come to a conclusion about John McCain's Vice Presidential choice:  genius.  That doesn't necessarily mean that I think that he will win the election because of it, or that having Palin on the won't damage his campaign in the eyes of some.  But I think it is a genius move in many ways.

     First of all, adding Sarah Palin to the ticket provides the most striking counterpoint to Joe Biden that one could possibly hope for.  While Barack Obama endlessly rhetorificates (I just made that word up) about "change" and getting away from old-school, business-as-usual, Beltway-insider politics, Joe Biden will be standing next to him as a monument to exactly that.  Standing next to John McCain will be Sarah Palin, who is anything but a part of the good ol' boy political landscape.

     I also think that this actually defuses some of the Obama campaign's openings to attack the McCain ticket on issues of age.  OK, McCain is a little old, but his VP is in her prime.  If Obama wants to point out her youth and inexperience on the national stage, he brings up one of his own vulnerabilities, which he probably wishes everyone would forget about.  If he spins his youth and inexperience as an advantage, he provides the same defense to Palin.

     The most obvious advantage Sarah Palin brings is a solid set of conservative values.  McCain long ago alienated many, many members of the conservative base (including myself) with his stands on such things as McCain-Feingold and illegal immigration.  However, Sarah Palin not only talks conservative, she walks conservative.  She favors a strong national defense, and she has a son in the military.  She is pro-life, and refused to abort her youngest son even after he was discovered to have Down Syndrome while still in the womb.  She supports the 2nd Amendment, and hunts, fishes, and is a life member of the NRA.  She supports energy independence through domestic oil production, and favors drilling for oil in her own state (ANWR).

     At any rate, there has been much analysis already done, but it appears that Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket will both provide a counter-balance to many of McCain's liberal leanings, and will provide a sharp contrast to the demi-Marxist Obama/Biden offering.  As is the American way, I think Sarah Palin will sink or swim on her own merit.  But if her personal and political history is any indication, I'm betting on swim.

     I thought I was too jaded, too cynical about the state of sports these days to care about the Olympics.  Fortunately, I was wrong.  As the 2008 Olympics began, I found myself drawn in even though I fully expected to be bored.  Part of the time I was even in an "undisclosed location," with a 5" black and white TV, no cable, and a lousy signal.  But I watched.  I watched, and I cheered, and I thrilled at the performance of America's athletes.

     Win or lose, I am immensely proud to see these (mostly) young people representing the United States so very well.  I was captivated by Michael Phelps, whose easygoing manner and humility was betrayed only by his intensity in the pool, where he decimated all comers.  Diminutive gymnasts Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson were giants to any who competed against them, but were consummate good sports when their performances were topped by others.  What else will we see in the last few days of the games?

     Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh beat everyone in beach volleyball, just as they have for 107 straight matches now.  You'd think they would take it in stride, maybe being a little jaded themselves.  But when they defeated the Chinese team to clinch the gold medal, you would have thought it was the very first time they won a tournament.  Completely ecstatic, they could hardly contain themselves even through the medal ceremony, fidgeting, grinning and bouncing like little girls.  Could it be that this win was different for them?  After going something like 415-16, what's one more win?  Could it be that winning in the Olympics, under the colors of the United States of America is something special?  I'd like to think so.

     But Kobe Bryant was probably the most pleasant surprise of the games, and he probably said it best.  During an interview with Chris Collinsworth, Bryant admitted that he felt that playing in the Olympics for the U.S.A. was "the ultimate."  After Bryant went on to say that he felt "our country is the best," Collinsworth asked if he thought that maybe in this day and age it wasn't "cool" to say those sorts of things.  I watched the interview, and Kobe didn't even have to think about his answer.  Without missing a beat, he replied, "No, it's a cool thing for me to say.  I feel great about it, and I'm not ashamed to say it.  I mean, this is a tremendous honor."

     If only Barack Obama could find it in himself to be that proud of his country, and to brag unashamedly that he believes it to be the best in the world.  It appears that for now, I will find my hope in America's young Olympic athletes.  They are all winners in my book. They train for years, in heat or cold, rain or shine, just to get to this day.  They proudly don the red, white, and blue, and take the field with the letters "USA" on their chests.    They are gracious in victory and defeat, and they tear up if they get to hear the "Star-Spangled Banner" from the victors' podium.  So do I.  Because I know that as long as our country can produce such champions, there is hope.  Real hope.

     Almost two months ago to the day, I wrote "What She Didn't Say," and predicted that Hillary Clinton had not truly withdrawn from the Democrat Party primary.  Now, like an un-dead, brain-eating zombie (not that much of a stretch, is it?) she is beginning to stretch an arm from the grave in one last grab for the nomination.  As it turns out, in his desire to be the magnanimous, all-inclusive savior (and to try to swing two key electoral states his way), Barack Obama has agreed to allow delegates from Michigan and Florida full votes at the nominating convention in Denver.

     But as I understand it, this cuts his lead in delegates over Clinton dangerously thin, and opens up the possibility that if a relatively small number of superdelegates simply sit out the first nominating ballot...all bets are off.  This would then require a second nominating ballot be cast, at which point delegates are then free from their prior commitment to a specific candidate and are permitted to vote as they see fit.  This is the crack that Hillary Clinton is looking for.  With Barack Obama no longer looking quite so invincible, Clinton operatives are surely heating up the phone lines, working to convince delegates that she is the last best hope the Democrats have of winning the White House.

     One way or another, Denver promises to be quite entertaining.  That is, if you like "Night Of The Living Dead"...

Not since the rock classic from The Who have we seen so much stuttering and stammering...not since Miss Teen South Carolina have we seen a more twisted and tortured explanation...

Barack Obama, master speechifier...

Miss Teen South Carolina, future presidential candidate?

Roger Daltrey, the only one who can make it seem cool... (and your reward for making it through the previous clips)

Separated at birth?

OK, I have about had it with our Democrat "leadership."  You know, the ones who keep repeating the "fact" that even if we open up new areas to oil drilling and exploration that it will not result in any additional supplies (and thus lower prices) for 7-10 years.  I don't happen to believe that, since President Bush just illustrated that even the suggestion that the United States is willing to produce more domestic oil caused the price of oil to drop.

But here's the thing...would any of these Democrat "leaders" confess to only being concerned with issues the country will face within the next 7-10 years?  Would they stand on the campaign stump and say, "I will not support any legislation that helps America more than 10 years in the future"?  How would they respond to a political opponent who accused them of failing to look at long term solutions?  I suspect that none of them would relish the thought of appearing to be short-sighted and unwilling to plan more than 10 years in the future. Do they think that lower oil prices will be unwelcome in 2018?

But here goes...I will stick my neck out and make a bold prediction.  Despite all the fairly-tale wishful thinking of "alternative" energy sources, the United States' economy will still be dependent on oil 10 years from now.  Remember, you heard it here first.  We will not have airliners that run on leftover french-fry oil, and we will not have tractor trailers that run on goat dung.  The only thing that will run exclusively in wind power in 2018 will be Congress.  As a result, oil prices will still be a factor in that distant future (sarcasm warning: only a child sees 10 years as the distant future).  So even if it were true that new drilling would not help today, it will help at some future point.  Leadership is about vision...and oil drilling naysayers have none beyond the ends of their noses.

     If you are a listener of conservative talk radio, as I am, you will by now have noticed that Laura Ingraham has been absent from her show for about three weeks now.  After a bit of internet searching, I have discovered why she has been MIA (Ingraham friend David Frum posted about it here.)

     It's a good news/bad news thing, however.  The good news is that it is not a resurgence of her cancer, or a problem with her new adopted daughter, or any other personal issue.  The bad news is that her syndication agency, Talk Radio Network, has basically locked her out of her studio due to an ongoing contract dispute.  I am speculating here, but it appears that this is obviously a heavy-handed attempt by Laura's syndicator to force her to accept some contractual scenario which she deems unacceptable.

     Now I understand that business is business, and I don't begrudge a company the right to pay only as much as it thinks an individual's labor is worth.  But I see no reason that TRN cannot allow Ingraham to continue her work while negotiations are in progress.  It comes across as very juvenile, at the least...much as a child would stomp his foot and threaten to take his toys and go home if he doesn't get his way.  At worst, the listening public is being denied a passionate, principled, and intelligent conservative voice during the height of the political season.  I am no conspiracy theorist, but I find it curious that the 5th-rated host in talk radio nationwide is taken off the air during the ramp-up to the general election.

     As such, I am standing with Laura Ingraham while TRN plays their games.  I have drafted an email to TRN management and to management of my local affiliate to inform them that my radio will be off any time a TRN host is on air until Laura Ingraham is allowed to return to her show, and I intend to follow through.  I encourage you to do the same.

OK, I just can't resist this one:  a link on the Drudge Report today heralding a new drug which claims to cure shyness.  (The actual story is here.)  But really, that drug has been around for hundreds of years!  It's called tequila...

    A few journalists have picked up on it, but it seems one detail of Hillary's "concession" speech last week has escaped many.  In her announcement, she stated that she was "suspending" her campaign.  She did not say she was ending it.  She did not say that she would now release her delegates to Barack Obama.  We may or may not see a Hillary resurrection before this campaign, but don't discount the possibility just yet.  Some scenarios that I guarantee she's analyzing: 

    Plan A:  Hillary waits, delegates still in hand, for Obama to slip up and weaken his candidacy relative to John McCain's.  (Variation:  her crew drops some "dirt" on him and actively undermines his campaign.)  With Obama in danger of losing the White House to a Republican, Hillary steps in to save the Dems from themselves.  Our hero...

    Plan B:  Hillary judges McCain and Obama both weak enough to be vulnerable to her as an independent candidate, and she reinserts herself in the race as such.  This is probably a very long shot, since this would completely burn any bridge to the Democrat Party establishment, and she would forever be an outcast.  This is pretty much a scorched-earth option, but she's never been above a little self-destructive behavior.

    Plan C:  She tries to lay low publicly and angle for the VP invitation from Obama.  This is delusional on her part, because it just ain't gonna happen.  Barack may be dumb, but he's not that dumb.  But delusions of grandeur are a core value to in the Clinton camp.

    And the fourth possibility:  Hillary sits back with her delegates and waits.  Witholding the delegates underscores Obama's inability to unify the party and makes him appear weak.  She maybe (probably) sends the dirt squad out to wage a clandestine operation to torpedo the Obama campaign.  She does everything in her power to weaken Obama to the point she can execute Plan A.  Failing that, she can hope to do enough damage that he ultimately loses to McCain.  Then she launches Plan D...see you in 2012, running on the "Told Ya So" platform.

    Gee,doesn't the Mayan calendar predict Armageddon in 2012?  Bottom line...we have not seen the last of Hillary Clinton.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

    As an endnote, I would add a last "nightmare" scenario, which I have only seen one pundit float.  (Mike Gallagher suggests it here.)  This one has John McCain adding Hillary to his ticket as VP.  Crazy?  McCain is certainly not afraid to do it.  I personally think it would guarantee his victory in November.  I don't even want to think about this one any longer...

    As if you didn't already know, Barack Obama is a hypocrite who will say and do anything to be President.  When questioned by an ABC reporter last October why he wore no American flag pin on his lapel, he said, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."  This was part of a rather convoluted explanation, but I think the important part was that he stated that it was a conscious decision not to wear "that pin," saying he would prefer to show his patriotism through his ideas.

    Now, apparently he has made another conscious decision to wear a flag pin on his lapel.  Does he no longer trust his ideas to communicate his patriotism?

    It's an age-old principle:  he who holds the purse strings is in control of the action.  Perhaps your wise old grandpa shared that nugget with you, or maybe some other seasoned citizen.  America's seniors would do well to recall that principle when casting a ballot this year.  With both Democratic candidates promoting some form of "universal" coverage, and a Democrat controlled Congress, there is at least a decent chance that some form of federally funded "universal" medical insurance is in our future.  (note:  I put "universal" in quotes because this is simply code for a government-run health care system)

    But be careful what you ask for.  No sane person will argue that government issued medical insurance means that every person will be permitted to have any and every medical procedure at taxpayer expense.  It is a fact that if the government is picking up your medical tab (and everyone else's), there will be rationing of medical services.  There are not enough dollars in the Treasury to guarantee every citizen any and all medical services they desire, at any time they desire it...and there never will be.  It is a utopian fantasy to think that the government can provide everything to everyone.  It will become a necessity to have a decision maker somewhere in some government office, whose purpose in life it will be to review paperwork (probably mounds of it) and stamp it "approved" or "denied."  As more and more Americans submit requests to their benevolent government for medical services, more and more of them will be stamped "denied" as the realities of budgeting and accounting impose themselves on the dream world that is "free medical insurance."

    This begs the question:  "On what basis will the decision be made?"  How indeed will the government select those worthy of receiving medical care, and those who are not?  Here's a scenario for you.  The government employee sits at his desk with two sets of paperwork in front of him.  Both are requests from individuals for a liver transplant, necessary to save their lives.  There is only enough money in the budget for one.  The medical profiles are identical, save one difference.  One is a 45-year old male who still has at least another 20 years in the work force as a taxpayer.  The other is a 65-year old male who is retired and receiving Social Security benefits.  Who gets the procedure?  One is a 22-year old female college student with a lifetime of taxpaying ahead of her.  The other is a 22-year old female who is severely handicapped and will need to be cared for the rest of her life, and will never pay a dime in taxes.  Who gets the procedure?

    If you find these questions rather dark and uncomfortable, then you should also find the prospects of a government funded and administered health care system equally dark and uncomfortable.  Be careful what you ask for...