A Week Out

With only a week to go before election day polling has gone from being unreliable to full on propaganda. This isn't unusual, polls typically tighten up and fluctuate the closer it gets to election day as pollster either try and produce polls to help a particular candidate or they try and get their polls more accurate so that in the end they will look legitimate. Normally these polls are a good way to track momentum (even if the numbers themselves are wrong) but there are two reasons why these polls may be less helpful than usual this year.

The first one is the increase in popularity of early voting. A late breaking trend in the polls doesn't really matter if most of the ballots have already been cast. I heard that 75% of Colorado voters would participate in some kind of early voting. If this is true, it would clearly help Senate candidate Ken Buck who has been trying to beat back withering personal attacks from Bennett and his supporters. he needs the vote to happen ASAP before the attacks diminish his profile with the voters. On the other hand, the early voting phenomenon would seem bad news for Tom Tancredo, who has been gaining late traction as a third party candidate for Governor. He needs more time to get people to abandon Republican corpse Dan Maes and not just vote for him because he's on the top line. I don't know if that 75% will turn out to be accurate but if it is, it could swing two races in opposite directions.

The second reason is how the polls are taken. Specifically the samples. Most of the polls I've seen recently that show Democratic momentum have confusing samples. Mid term elections have traditionally shown much lower turnout than Presidential years yet these polls are showing Democratic turnout not only matching 2006 mid term elections but also matching the 2008 Presidential election turnout. Given the participation of minorities and first time voters in the historic Obama election, I find it very hard to believe that that is possible. There is no way there will be so many first time voters who get caught up in a midterm election. The same polling companies that are predicting this liberal turnout also have polls showing a massive enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats with the GOP far more (60%-27% in one poll I saw) enthusiastic then the Dems. According to these polls, the youth army Obama relied on not only to vote but to work the campaigns seem to have packed up shop for this go around. One of the polls has to be wrong. If there is that wide an enthusiasm gap, then Democratic turnout can't possibly be as high the fervor in 2008 or even the turnout for the Foley/Pelosi elections in 2006.

Knowing the political leanings of the polling media, we can safely assume that the enthusiasm polls are right, making the sample sizes the culprit for fraudulent polls. Having said that, it's possible that the turnout does come in higher than anticipated. When Obama was elected, we were all told that he had motivated a new generation of young civic activists who would be involved in every election from here on out. If that's true and all the young, minority and first time voters come out to vote, then Obama can truly be called a transformational figure as the youth vote has been notoriously hard to keep motivated past any one election cycle. If the they don't come out though, that'll be the final proof needed to know that Obama the Transformational Liberal Icon is nothing but pure fantasy.

Truth In Advertising

It probably seems strange to people in the other 49 states that liberal politicians from Denver don't seem to do very well in statewide elections in Colorado. After all, Denver is by far the largest metro area in the state, with by far the most money, yet all that built in advantage hasn't added up to much success in Gubernatorial or Senate races.

Denver Mayor and wannabe CO Governor John Hickenlooper was nice enough to show us all why. In an interview, Hick was asked why the Matthew Shepard Foundation has chosen to set up offices in Denver, even though the Shepards had no connection to the area. Hick responded by saying that Denver was an open and accepting city whereas the rest of Colorado and all of rural Montana, Wyoming, Montana and New Mexico was full of backward thinking people.

You know, backward thinking like it would be a good idea to tie a man to a barb wired fence and beat him to death because he was gay.

Nice job of alienating an entire region of people Hick, many of whom you seem to need to get your next job. I'm sure all the people in Pueblo, Grand Junction, Colorado Springs, Durango, Ft. Collins, Greeley, Alamosa, etc. are just pleased as punch for you to have grouped them in to murderous hate crimes. Seems like as good an idea as a West Virginian politician comparing all his constituents to the black hats in Deliverance.

While offensive, Hick's comments proved again that behind his aw-shucks, moron persona, he's just another hyper elitist at home in Denver and Boulder and nowhere else. I'm glad he finally got a little exposure, it seemed as if he would go through the whole election without any scrutiny as the Republicans just cannibalized themselves. Aside from that embarrassing environmentalist flip flopping incident, Hick has been invisible. Now all the voters have is one nasty stereotyping message from a man who wants the state house. Just in time for the elections! Nice timing.

In a related story, Magellan released a poll that showed Tancredo within 1 point of Hick, 44%-43%, with Maes falling to 8%. That poll was taken before Hicks comments hit the press.

You think they'll make a difference?

Then They Came For The Children

Liberalism attacked both me and my kids during our nightly storytime this week, striking unprovoked, without warning or pretense, like lightning from a cloudless sky.

For our nightly story, we picked a new book that they found at the library. Everything proceeded smoothly as normal until one of the main characters got himself an idea.

And sweet Jesus what appeared over the little piggies head but a godforsaken compact fluorescent light bulb.

A COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULB!!!

They've removed the universally known incandescent light bulb as the idea symbol. Before I continue, I must applaud the authors for authenticity, it took a full 10 pages before the idea was fully lit.

It's bad enough that we're going to have to put these stupid, ill-fitting lights in all our fixtures soon but now they are trying to convert kids to these pieces of crap. And what are they trying so hard to brainwash our kids into? A light bulb that takes a massive amount of energy to even construct? Yep. A light bulb chock full of mercury? Yep. (Apparently mercury is only a bad thing when fish absorb it. Having little grenades full of it all over your house is A-Ok.) A light bulb that is so toxic it needs special disposal so as to not pollute the soil? Yep. A light bulb that produces a massive amount of electromagnetic radiation? Yep. A light bulb that has resulted in the loss of American jobs as regular incandescent bulb plants are being shut down? You betcha. All for light bulbs that don't really use as little energy as they say? Of course.

This is exactly the reason liberals try and get kids into public schools as soon as possible, so that the NEA and their army of leftists "teachers" can start spreading ideological nonsense like this while the kids are young and influential. This particular book was for ages 2-5. If Republicans do in fact run the House and/or Senate soon, they need to stop the EPA from enforcing this nonsensical ban. The incandescent light bulb is one of histories greatest inventions, providing cheap, strong light to the masses. The CFL is a step back technologically, it's simply being pushed by a bunch of radical environmentalists that have weaseled their way into the bureaucracy and now that they're there, all they want to do is control you to whatever limit they can force down the people's throats. What better way for a new Congress to give the people a sign of good will than to allow them to maintain the quality of life they've come to enjoy in this small area?

Jefferson Shrugged

Stupidity seems to share many of the same qualities as herpes in that they are both painful, irritating and worst of all, contagious. Oh yeah, there isn't a pill you can take for either one as well.

We see that in full effect these days regarding the separation of church and state principles as discussed by such luminaries as Chris Coons and Harry Reid who have been making good sport on the campaign trail about Christine O'Donnell's assertion that there is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution. Of course she's right, anybody with a cursory knowledge of American history knows that phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to some Baptists in 1802 concerning the need for the government to leave them alone. Liberals seem to insist that it somehow is born in the First Amendment so I suppose we should analyze the possibility. Here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supposedly this short passage creates an impenetrable wall that prevents any religion from entering public administration and vice versa. One way to examine this to examine all the rights in the amendment as a whole. They are:

Religion
Speech
Press
Assembly
Petition of Grievances

Now, no special language was used in the amendment signalling out religion as somehow being held to a different/higher standard than all the other rights. Therefore logic dictates that whatever wall of separation was created between State and Church must have also been created between State and the other rights.

This is of course, a ridiculous notion. The Government, fully supported by liberals, constantly interfere with free speech by restricting certain kinds of speech (campaign finance, fairness doctrine) while propping up others (NEA grants). Same goes for the press as government regularly tries to pressure media outlets to either kill stories or play up stories, depending on the desired outcome. If you think the government doesn't interfere with the freedom of assembly, try and stage a rally or protest and see the avalanche of red tape you have to maneuver just to be told no. Taking the government to court for a grievance results in the Justice Department unleashing its unlimited resources in an attempt to destroy your chances of a favorable outcome. If the State observes no wall of separation between themselves and Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition, then there isn't one between State and Religion either.

The reason liberals are so quick to mock Christine O'Donnell and others is found in two paths of reasoning. The first one is the nature of the Constitution. The First Amendment, like all the others, is not designed to limit the amount of interaction and influence the people can have on the government but is designed to limit the ability of the government to influence the people in certain areas deemed inalienable rights. Plainly put, Religions, the Press, the Courts, individuals Speaking Freely and Assembling can try and insert themselves into the affairs of the State as they wish, the State cannot do the same in return. Liberals despise being constrained in this manner. They would much rather have a founding document that forces them to do things to/for the people. Faced with these restrictions, they lash out as a child would denied access to its hearts desires. The second avenue of contention is that to liberals, government is a religion and the State is their God. Much like any other fundamentalists, liberals react angrily when any other religion/institution competes for supremacy in peoples hearts and minds. Liberals want the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses not because the Constitution commands it (it doesn't) but because they don't want any evidence that their might be an entity more supreme than themselves.

The ramifications of this mind set are appalling. The entire foundation of the United States is that humans are born with rights that are simply a birthright of existence and lie beyond the control of man or government. These are the Endowed By Our Creator rights. If liberals can succeed in removing this notion from public discourse, than the State becomes the Supreme right granting entity in existence, free to grant and remove them for whatever reasons they see fit. This the behavior that is seen in communist regimes and old feudal societies. Neither one of those entities recognizes any inherent rights of the individual. Because of that, you always see the monarch or politburo constantly changing what rights the people have based on personal relationships, monetary concerns or vendettas. No matter how these scenarios play out, they invariable lead to the terrible oppression of the people. By specifically enumerating rights that are beyond the control of government, the founding fathers attempted to prevent tyrannical government policies from being implemented. How could they imagine that the same government they created would reverse their reasoning for the First Amendment in an attempt to exclude a massive segment of society from the public arena.

If there is any doubt left, just imagine how absurd the argument would be in favor of an absolute Wall of Separation between the State and Press. If applied the same as the Church and State wall, the media would not be allowed to cover government functions, question government officials or provide any other watchdog service. The media and public in general would correctly be outraged, no doubt protesting about secrecy, police states and the nature of the representative republic. It is equally offensive the attempt to remove religion from the public sector. There is a wall of separation between Church and State but it's only one way. The government gets restricted, the religions (and the people that comprise them) get the freedom. Simple as that.

A Thousand Days Late, A Trillion Dollars Short

German Chancellor Merkel came out recently and declared that the German effort to force a multicultural society have "utterly failed".

I can only imagine the pain this admission caused the German leader along with all the other leftists who pray at the I'm Ok, You're Ok Cathedral. All these disappointed Utopians can take some measure of comfort in the fact that it's causing people on the other side pain as well, mostly from the trauma of beating our heads into the wall for all these years.

After all, any fool, but precious few Europeans, can see that offering unlimited immigration to various Muslims, Africans and Eastern Europeans who know nothing of Western European cultural values let alone the tangled mess of Germanic history is a recipe for disaster. The assumption seemed to be that once offered the full bounty of the massive EU welfare state, these immigrants would become productive European citizens, if not full blown German citizens. As is the case when governments just give out enough handouts to get by without asking for anything in return, you get poverty, isolation and unrest. You effectively import a massive new lower class that can't help to become disaffected isolationists voluntarily (sometimes not voluntarily, depending on the country) becoming segregated into ghettos that embody the worst characteristics of whatever country they were trying to escape. France's troubles with the Muslim/Algerian ghetto's are evidence of that. In addition, the natural born citizenry becomes agitated because they are forced to foot the massive welfare bill for all these new arrivals who really have no business being there in the first place.

The idea that German actually tried this nonsense is the most perplexing given the fact that they tried something similar before.

Germany had a unique position to view how hard integration is. The Berlin Wall created a divergent German culture from the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 to national reunification in 1990. People who shared the same cultural background, language, societal values split into two camps and took a 37 year hiatus from each other. During this hiatus, the principle changes were economic, changing from free market economics to a centrally planned economy. There were a number of cultural changes that went with that but East Germany still was filled with Germans. It wasn't colonized by Soviets and Cubans looking for more room to stretch their legs. Reintegrating two groups of people that shared a common heritage and culture should be pretty easy after a relatively short 37 year break from each other. We know in hindsight that the reintegration of East and West Germany has been a nightmare. East Germany had so little to offer in terms of jobs or education that they essentially became a massive welfare project for West Germany. This caused the exact same hostilities between the former East and West that is occurring between immigrants and natives today. Our historical example offers little hope for the future as the former East Germany still lags behind the former West in almost all areas of development. There is still a feel of two nations. How a country that can't successfully meld with a population of people who is exactly like them except for a 37 year split thought that they could just easily fuse with people with wildly different cultures, cultivated over thousands of years of history (which often includes a healthy distrust of Europe) is beyond all rational thought.

The only reasonable explanation is how liberals (European socialists) treat government like a religion. Religions tend to get murky and convoluted when you get down to the minute details and specifics of what the message is. The same thing happens in government. These massive socialist democracies operate under the principle that once people feel the warmth of the benevolent embrace of the State, everything will be okay. They always think that whatever problems arise will be hashed out by the proper bureaucratic institution. This ignores the fact that bureaucracies don't solve problems, the get rid of them. They are designed to address the needs of the majority of people. People who fall outside that mainstream need might get serviced through some appeal process but the system would just as easily eject them from the process. Done and done.

Once people who have been told that the system works for them realize that they've been scammed, the malaise/anger/depression sets in. They get the minimum from the State that they were promised such as crappy housing, bad health care, government cheese, etc. After that; nothing. The problem just festers and spreads until the population gets large enough to create violence on a level high enough to gain notice.

Germany didn't learn the lesson from reunification that it should have. Now that their attempt to welcome in the world has also failed, will they learn that lesson? Will the rest of Europe? Probably not. European dedication to multiculturalism is a devout as any religious fanatics is to his faith. German was always more pragmatic than the rest of Europe and they got sucked in all the way to the near collapse of the welfare state. It seems the rest of Europe will just keep going until they simply have nothing left to offer. The Dutch show signs that they might be trying to extricate themselves from this nightmare, the rest of the continent rolls along.

Ye of Little Faith

The NFL RedZone channel is starting to become a real double edged sword.

On one hand, my remote thumb is getting some well deserved rest, on the other hand, I get to see all the knuckle headed play calling near the end zone.

After 4 weeks of action I've come to the conclusion that the end zone fade is the worst play in football. it used to be called when you had a decent quarterback and a tall receiver. I'm pretty sure Randy Moss made is popular and every team tried to find a 6'4'' plus receiver just for redzone possessions.

Now it seems to be the only play coaches are comfortable calling inside the 10. It's the most predictable play in the game now and most teams suck at it! I can't even count the times I've the Broncos try a fade from the 3, just to have Orton throw it into the luxury boxes. I can't even remember the last time I saw a quick slant or TE delay. The only other play that gets as much redzone action is the abominable bubble screen.

I can only chalk this disturbing trend up to two things. First, maybe quarterbacks just suck so bad now that they can't be given the responsibility of finding the open man in close quarters. Either that or they just don't have the arm strength to do it. If it's not a physical/mental deficiency on the part of the QB's it has to be an ego trip by the coaches. I can totally believe that it gets called all the time just so the coach can dictate how, and to who, the ball will be thrown. Who do you think Josh McDaniel's trusts more, Kyle Orton or himself? Neither one should be trusted, truth be told.

No matter who's to blame, it's got to stop. It disrupts the flow of the game and makes for some seriously ugly football that leaves kickers kicking a lot of 19 yd. FG's. First coach who shows some cajones and fakes the fade and throws a hard in route gets e to officially carry the teams water for the rest of the year.