News and Opinions - Blog Chow

The media once again brought up the question of whether Sarah Palin was a liability when she stumped for Saxby Chambliss in his bid for the Georgia Senate. Just as she energized Conservatives during the Presidential election, she helped bring home the Senate for Chambliss and the GOP.

It is pure fear that the liberals in the media try to minimize Sarah Palin, but she has been the energizer to the party this past year. She was the one who energized the base and brought out the enthusiastic crowds in Georgia in the Senate race.

The good news is that Sarah Palin seems to understand the motives behind the attempts to turn her into a caricature. Whether or not she runs for President in 2012, she will be a major voice for REAL change in the coming years. Forward change, not backward.

“Thankfully, Saxby has built a record of real achievements in service to his state, and country, and that’s exactly the kind of man we need in Washington. We must send Saxby back to the U.S. Senate.“ — Sarah Palin campaigning for Saxby Chambliss

Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Larry Langford is a Democrat, in case you didn’t hear it from the mainstream media. Langford was accused of steering millions of dollars of bond work to a friend in exchange for help paying his debts for expensive clothes, jewelry and Rolex watches…

I was curious about what party he belonged to when I saw no mention of it in my scanning of headlines. I read an Associated Press story on it and it wasn’t mentioned that he was a Democrat until the 6th paragraph. I then checked another news site and it turned out to be the same AP story. The 2 sites headlines I clicked on and looked at were the USA Today and the Boston Herald. It only took me until reading the 2nd paragraph to know that the Birmingham Mayor wasn’t a Republican.

When a republican is hit with these kinds of scandals you usually don’t have to wonder what party they belong to. The story has a longer shelf life and you’ll more than likely know his party in the headline or the first paragraph - not the 6th. Certainly not within 24 hours of the story breaking. Just an example of how media bias takes place that you wouldn’t notice, unless you are paying attention to it.

They were saying that Obama’s often promised “change” had a very familiar look - looking a lot like the Bill Clinton cabinet. Now he has Hillary Clinton in there as Secretary of State, along will the ex President Bill Clinton by default. Strange got even stranger - especially considering the way he treated Hillary during  their battle for the White House and the way he shunned her for Joe Biden as Vice President.

I wrote a couple weeks ago about the likely reasons for such a pick as Secretary of State. The biggest reason may be to keep his biggest Democrat rival where you would expect she would not constantly criticize Obama when he runs into any tough going. It also would presumably lessen the chance of a Hillary run for President in 2012, unless she has a trick up her sleeve. It is a great feather in her cap, although I don’t think the consolation prize close to makes up for what she really wanted. She certainly never showed any indication that she wanted to be a Senator of New York State.

There is no way to really know what kind of a job she will do, other than her past words. You have to have a realistic view of terrorists and brutal dictators if you are going to contribute to making the world safer. So far I do not see any evidence that she will show the strength that America has always led the free world with. Hillary Clinton talks about “vigorous diplomacy” and “less adversaries.” In the real world those statements are at odds with each other. Who are our adversaries? Terrorists and brutal dictators. Diplomacy will melt the Grinch’s heart? Should that mindset make America feel safer?

What experience does she have for such an undertaking? I still don’t know anything she has done that would qualify her for the job, other than dodging imaginary gun fire at airports. I still don’t know of any major accomplishments she has had in the Senate whatsoever. I certainly doubt there is anything that would give her the kind of experience she will need for this undertaking.

Obama’s words and actions seem to be of someone walking the line between the extreme left wing promises he made during his campaign and a realization of the dangers that exist out there in the real world. I guess we can’t say for sure which kind of President he will be. While I most prefer if he is not the extreme left winger so many of us fear, it will be a big mistake if he tries to please all people. Can you say President Bush? Trying to appease your political rivals and the media did not work out too well for his popularity. Trying to appease your enemies and your political rivals is not the recipe or long term success. Not for Barack Obama and not for America.

LeBron James pretty much summed up Charles Barkley and the often inept sports media by calling Barkley stupid. Barkley, who seems unprepared at best when giving his opinions had complained about LeBron James mentioning 2010 free agency. Of course, in these situations it’s usually the media who tries to drag out these things in the first place.

It seems the problem with Barkley when he runs his mouth is that he is usually uninformed. The sports media in general falls into this category. Their opinions change faster than the weather. For Barkley to criticize James seems so ridiculous. There doesn’t seem to be a classier NBA player out there than LeBron James. Trying hard to pick and find something negative is so, well, stupid.

It’s good to see LeBron James didn’t play the sports media’s little game and just called it for what it is. This would be good advice for other players or politicians who are on the wrong side of media bias. If you are always on the defensive you become an easy target. When it comes to LeBron James vs Charles Barkley - this one was a “slam dunk.”

“He’s stupid. That’s all I’ve got to say about that.” –Lebron James reacting to criticism from Charles Barkley

India almost seemed to stand alone as they sunk a Somali pirate mother ship last week. Now they face a brutal coordinated attack that may have left over a 100 innocent people dead. Is this attack connected? It’s almost unthinkable to believe otherwise. Either way, while Americans are celebrating Thanksgiving, this looks like India’s 9/11.

The media almost glamorized the Somali pirates like they were likable characters from the Pirates of the Caribbean. You don’t hear a lot of mention of them being Muslim Somali pirates. Just because all terrorists don’t always play well with each other doesn’t mean they still aren’t terrorists. Seems these things are only serious to some people if they happen to them.

Are the coordinated attacks of both the terrorist attacks in India and the Somali Pirates state sponsored? How can they not be? These aren’t just a few ragtag suicide bombers here. These are highly coordinated attacks that take a lot of money and a lot of planning. This was done with the help of a technological state, in my opinion.

People often suspect Iran and Syria when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, but isn’t it time to start thinking bigger than that? Isn’t it time for the leaders of freedom loving nations to stop being afraid to make a mistake and go on the offensive? What happened to the war on terror?

Terrorists are like cockroaches. One raid will not stop them. Giving them lawyers and releasing them will not turn them into freedom lovers. Fighting with one hand tied behind the back will not end the threat. When the realization that they are getting help from those with a high military capability occurs, maybe at least some leaders will recognize that the war on terror is a real war. Hopefully it will not take too many 9/11 type attacks to realize the unthinkable horrific potential of such murderers.

NASA is working on this thing that is supposed to turn urine into drinking water. They have actually tried it out. I know there are practical applications for such a thing in the area of space travel, but if this is being considered the potential answer to the worlds water shortage(and it is), I think the money could be much better spent.

Seems to me if you are going to invest tons of money working on such a contraption that alternative ideas would be preferable. How about working on taking salt out of ocean water? There isn’t a microscope close to big enough to convince me that urine water is the equivalent to fresh water. They are trying to say it is cleaner. I don’t care if it wins taste tests and the Betty Crocker seal of approval. There has got to be a better way.

Even if it works and there are no harmful long term effects, it would not make life livable where clean water does not exist. You would need to recycle liquid from sweat and respiration, and that still would not provide clean water for baths, cooking and washing clothes. So it’s not really doable here on earth, yet even 3 years ago this was reported, not only as something NASA was pumping money into, but as a way to give clean water to people living in poor countries. If they can pull that off, no doubt they could have done something far more civilised, such as purifying other sources of water.

It’s getting scary some of the ideas the environmentalists and politicians are coming up with. Trying to do away with flushing toilets and recycling “waste” as well as other creepy ideas. If these things actually take off you can bet that someday they won’t be optional. All the money spent on ideas that seem almost barbaric could be better spent, that’s for sure.

The amount of money put into these kinds of research is mind boggling. How about inventing a machine that will store rainwater for the purposes of toilet flushing? Make a really efficient model and you could have drinking water with a little more yum potential than pee. It’s not a crazy idea in comparison to what is actually happening.

I can’t believe some of these things are even considered. Toilets that use little or no water and urine drinking water… The same people who try to save us from pollution would have us with unsanitary bathrooms and drinking our own urine. You may think I’m wandering in thought here, but I’m trying to make a broader point. These nuts try to outlaw bug sprays and the result is infestation and disease. Look at what they did with DDT. When they banned DDT malaria came roaring back and over a million people a year die of malaria worldwide. Ethanol was pushed on us, and food prices went up as a result. When they screw up, it is a tough road getting them to go back to square one.

All these nutty things seem to have the same kind of origins. Some do-gooder politician/environmentalist who are only trying to advance themselves at the expense of everyone else. They’ll tell you how you are saving the world, but the reality is that they spent the money and did the research on bizarre ideas, instead of in more thought out areas.

I really wonder sometimes if they just want to see how far they can push some of their demented ideas on the public. A lot of people don’t even question this stuff. If you’ll drink your own piss, and you’re not hallucinating in the desert, they have done a good job at taking away some of your sense of decency as a human being. After they have you drinking your own urine, I can only wonder if, in the future they will have some tasty treat in mind for dinner.

These hypocrites in Congress have no shame. Lecturing the executives of the “big 3″ automakers over traveling in corporate jets on their way to ask for a bailout? Sure, it wasn’t a smart thing to do traveling there like that. Then again, did anyone really think they would do otherwise? Did anybody think they were gonna show up on mopeds?

Members of Congress have no problem being wasteful in their travels all the while lecturing Americans on how to not burn fuel because we are supposedly heating up the planet. Remember when Barack Obama pointed out in the debates that the wasteful earmarks were just a small part of the money spent by the government? I would say the automaker executives spent a fraction of their company budget traveling to visit the Congressional hypocrites. Yet somehow the two-faced politicians have succeeded yet again of taking the light off of themselves and shining into someone else.

I don’t know if it is a good idea or not to bailout the automakers. I just see amazing hypocrisy in it all. If we will bail out the biggest thieves around such as the banks and insurance companies, how do you justify turning your backs on companies that made America great? I think I would prefer helping someone who held on to a failing business model too long over someone who gambles with the money they obtained from Americans, much of it in dishonorable ways.

Our politicians have been fleecing us for so long. Instead of finding out the facts of where the money is going to go, they prefer to ambush in order to score cheap political points. As usual, they score their biggest points in the hypocrisy department.