Friday, October 31, 2008

Synchronized Presidential Debating

Why 3 debates when we really only needed 1? We need to change this and have real debates. I don't care if the networks don't want to carry true debates because they are too long and too boring. Let them tune out but we still need true debates not these sound bite infomercials.

The video uses footage from all 3 debates to show you the been-there-done-that spectacle that we call debates. Check out the video from


Li-ving in a Material World!

Since I'm posting '80s stuff, here's some music from the decade.

parts 2-6 after the bump...


Let's go to the Movies...'80s Style!

Another '80s trip this one to the movies!


A Trip to the '80s


Meet Joe the Vet

Dear Mr. Obama video


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Please Sir...May I Have Some More

Newt Gingrich gives a depressing look at "his view" of the near future if Obama wins the Presidency. "His view" is based on statements from Pelosi, Frank, and Obama but it is quite possible. A possible $1.45 in new spending within 6 months. I don't want this, I will vote against this but I fear it will be to no avail. But if the people of the US of A want a spend all(spend all-even-if-we-don't-have-it-and-have-to-borrow-it-so-future-generations-have-to-pay-for-it) then we deserve what we get don't we? Sometimes it takes a screw-up for a generation to see for themselves what doesn't work. Unfortunately the ramifications may not be felt immediately. Just like when you live off of a credit card you don't feel the problem immediately. You only feel the pain when you can no longer make the payment. If our government spends and spends by borrowing and borrowing...we may not feel the pain until the bills can't be paid any longer.

Check out the conservative "Human Events" blog and read Newts article.

A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future: Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session
by Newt Gingrich

We have a choice between two futures.

For the first, fast forward 23 days. It’s November 17. Congress convenes for a special session with a veto-proof Democratic majority Senate, an expanded Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House.

The sole item
on their agenda is to pass the $300 billion government spending package promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in October. There is no mistaking what is coming. Even before Democrats won sweeping, one-party control of Washington, they had made their intentions to increase taxes and spending clear.

Originally pegged at $150 billion, Pelosi’s spending package ballooned as time went on.

With 11 days to go before the election, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) fleshed out some details of the massive spending package. Frank called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending and conceded that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for new government spending. If they couldn’t get the votes in November, Frank was confident that they would have them in January.

And long before the election, President-elect Barack Obama had expressed his preference for wealth redistribution over wealth creation both on the campaign trail and in a startling radio interview in 2001, in which he claims the Warren Court was not radical enough. (Bill Whittle does an excellent job of dissecting this interview at National Review Online )

“You Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned”

The newly empowered Democratic majority passes the massive spending bill, confident that even a veto by President Bush can and will be overridden by their new Senate majority in January.

Before President-elect Barack Obama even takes office, government spending increases by $300 billion, bringing the grand total for the last six months of 2008 to $1.45 trillion.

And all center-right Americans can do is shake their heads and think, “You can’t say we weren’t warned.”

There is a Different Future: Make the Election About Big Spending Vs Big Economic Growth

For candidates, campaign managers, and consultants who are disturbed at this look at the very near future, there is another way.

But that way begins now. Today.

To avoid defeat on November 4 and avoid an out-of-control spending spree in the new Congress, the voters have to be given a real choice on Election Day.

• A choice between robust government spending and robust economic growth;
• A choice between higher spending and lower taxes;
• A choice between spreading the wealth around and increasing it through rapid economic recovery.

Because when Americans are asked to make these choices, our answers are clear and unequivocal.

We trust the private sector to grow the economy more than government. We favor keeping our money over giving it to Washington. We favor creating more wealth over redistributing the wealth we’ve worked for and saved.

We just have to be given the choice.

Three Times More Americans Believe In Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

Newly released polling data show just how out of touch with Americans the REPO Team (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) pre-Christmas spending spree is.

By 60%-20%, Americans believe lower taxes, not higher government spending, will best ensure economic recovery, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

By 86%-9%, Americans believe government should focus on jobs and economic growth over income redistribution, according to a New Models/Winston Group survey.

By 71%-25%, Americans believe that if you cut taxes on small business it will create new jobs, according to the New Models/Winston Group poll.

So What Are We Waiting For?

So what are we waiting for? To counter the Reid-Pelosi-Obama massive $300 billion government spending spree, Republicans should offer a $300 billion tax cut package.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has proposed a rapid economic recovery program that should be the centerpiece of the campaign going forward. Instead of marrying new deficit spending with liberal special interests like the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan does, the Boehner plan marries sound economics with the small government, free market values of the American people.

Here are some of the reforms in the Boehner rapid economic recovery plan:

• Energy Independence: Creating jobs and reducing energy and food costs by enacting an “all of the above” energy plan. For more information, watch my new movie “We Have the Power” (watch the new trailer here and buy the movie here ) and read my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less .
• Creating Jobs: Bringing American jobs back home by lowering the tax rate on profits that companies bring back to the United States.
• Restoring Home Values: Encouraging home purchases by easing capital gains rules for homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least five years.
• Spurring Economic Growth: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on individuals and businesses for equities purchased during the next two years.
• Encouraging American Companies to Assist in Recovery: Lower the tax rate on business income so American companies have an incentive to invest in distressed assets.
• Protecting Retirement: Suspend rules that require individuals at age 70½ to begin withdrawing from their Individual Retirement Accounts. This would spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks at just the time when the market is hurting the most.

I will have more to say about what we can do now to avert this impending massive government spending spree at an event this Friday at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Energy, the Economy, and the Special Session of Congress.” For more details, go to

In the meantime, there is no time to waste. Republicans and center-right independents and Democrats can give the voters a real choice in the election, or we can lose our choice in the congressional special session to come.

Either way, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. Healthcare reform is a monstrous undertaking, but if we break it down to metrics - not financial discussions - we can see progress. And the best example of what I am talking about comes straight from baseball. To learn more, check out my op-ed co-written with Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane and Senator John Kerry at

P.P.S. As I travel across the country, it has been encouraging to see more and more young people getting involved in politics and finding solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I met Ryan Minarovich this summer after a speech and he told me about his plans for a new blog called that will engage more young Americans to be more active. It launched recently so I encourage all young Americans to take a look.


Monday, October 27, 2008

Aaaaawwwwww....Puppy Cam

Live video by Ustream


Sunday, October 26, 2008

Uncle Sam, Can You Spare a Dime...or 700 Trillion of Them?

So the banks don't want to use the $700 billion to make more loans? Well that may be an exaggeration but there is an underlying rumbling. They don't want to make loans, at least not with all the money. Can you blame them? It's a shaky market out there! Actually they will make some loans but they also want to use the money to pay dividends, give raises and bonuses and...get distressed banks! So your bank has screwed up so much that you need to get a handout from the government and you want to use theses funds to buy banks who the government deemed were so bad that they didn't warrant a bailout. PNC Financial Services Group Inc is receiving $7.7 billion and is turning around and buying National City Corp. for $5.58 billion. This is, as predicted, becoming a mess. Instead of spurring more loans, the government, once again, is setting up a welfare program.

Do you remember how your Senators and Representatives you care?

Uses for $700 billion bailout money ever shifting


— First, the $700 billion rescue for the economy was about buying devalued mortgage-backed securities from tottering banks to unclog frozen credit markets.

Then it was about using $250 billion of it to buy stakes in banks. The idea was that banks would use the money to start making loans again.

But reports surfaced that bankers might instead use the money to buy other banks, pay dividends, give employees a raise and executives a bonus, or just sit on it. Insurance companies now want a piece; maybe automakers, too, even though Congress has approved $25 billion in low-interest loans for them.

Three weeks after becoming law, and with the first dollar of the $700 billion yet to go out, officials are just beginning to talk about helping a few strapped homeowners keep the foreclosure wolf from the door.

As the crisis worsens, the government's reaction keeps changing. Lawmakers in both parties are starting to gripe that the bailout is turning out to be far different from what the Bush administration sold to Congress.

In buying equity stakes in banks, the Treasury has "deviated significantly from its original course," says Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "We need to examine closely the reason for this change," said Shelby, who opposed the bailout.

The centerpiece of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is the "troubled asset relief program," or TARP for short. Critics note that tarps are used to cover things up. The money was to be devoted to buying "toxic" mortgage-backed securities whose value has fallen in lockstep with home prices.

But once European governments said they were going into the banking business, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson followed suit and diverted $250 billion to buy stock in healthy banks to spur lending.

Bank executives hinted they might instead use it for acquisitions. Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, said this development was "beyond troubling."

Sure enough, a day after Dodd, D-Conn., made the comment, the government confirmed that PNC Financial Services Group Inc. was approved to receive $7.7 billion in return for company stock. At the same time, PNC said it was acquiring National City Corp. for $5.58 billion.

"Although there will be some consolidation, that's not the driver behind this program," Paulson recently told PBS talk show host Charlie Rose. "The driver is to have our healthy banks be well-capitalized so that they can play the role they need to play for our country right now."

Other planned uses of the bailout money have lawmakers protesting, although it is only fair to note there is nothing in the law that they just wrote to prevent those uses.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock.

"There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders," he said.

Schumer, whose constituents include Wall Street bankers, said he also fears that they might stuff the money "under the proverbial mattress" rather than make loans.

Neel Kashkari, head of the Treasury's financial stability program, told Dodd's committee this past week that there are few strings attached to the capital-infusion program because too many rules would discourage financial institutions from participating.

As the bank plan has become a priority, the effort to buy troubled assets has receded from the headlines. Potential conflicts of interest pose all kinds of problems in finding qualified companies to manage that program.

"Firms with the relevant financial expertise may also hold assets that become eligible for sale into the TARP or represent clients who hold troubled assets," Kashkari said.

The challenge was made plain when the Treasury hired the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. as "custodian" of the troubled assets purchase program. The bank will conduct "reverse auctions" to buy the toxic securities on behalf of the Treasury. The lower the price they set, the better chance sellers have of getting rid of the devalued securities.

On the same day it hired Mellon, the Treasury also picked the company to receive a $3 billion investment as part of the capital-infusion program. The same bank hired to help manage part of the economic rescue plan became a beneficiary of it.

With the Nov. 4 election nearing, lawmakers decided it was important to remind the government officials running the bailout program about parts of the law aimed at helping distressed homeowners by offering federal guarantees to mortgages renegotiated down to lower monthly payments.

"The key to our nation's economic recovery is the recovery of the housing market," Dodd said. "And the key to recovery of the housing market is reducing foreclosures."

Sheila Bair, who heads the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., responded that her agency is working "closely and creatively" with Treasury officials to "realize the potential benefits of this authority."


Saturday, October 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Campaign...Dance-Off Style!

Remember, no wagering.

Where was Joe Biden?


Friday, October 24, 2008

Vote Obama...AAAAAAYYYYY!!

Looks like Andy Griffith, Opie, and The Fonz are voting for Obama. Well that changes my vote. I wonder how the Beav is voting?

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Bearish or Bullish? or Bullish on Bears?

Since many more people are tuning in to the ups and downs of the stock market, a lot may be wondering what do the terms "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" mean. It's simple...a "Bull Market" is one that is increasing or going up and a "Bear Market" is one that is in decline. To find out the origin of these terms check out "Hot for Words" on YouTube. If you've never seen her vlog before, give it a shot. She has a lot of interesting bits of knowledge. If you watch Fox News you'll probably recognize her since she pops up there often.


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

India to the Moon

The "race" to the moon widens with the entry of India. They have launched their first satellite on its way to orbit around the moon anf investigate the polar regions of the moon, something we have yet to do. It is the first step in their plan to eventually send a man to the moon.


Don't Be Givin' Me No Jive Talkin'

Have you ever wished that you could talk to today's teenagers but have felt bewildered at the lack of English being used? For those not in the know, here is a crash course in Teen Talk from the mysignsoflife blog, thanks Monica!

Actually, I think these words have fallen by the wayside already but their still fun to know and ridiculous for adults to use, so talk them up!

More after the bump...


Sometimes It Can Feel This Way

How does the big financial bailout...buyout...wayout...whatever... make you feel? Forget about the merits for the moment just think how the basic premise makes you feel. Over at Sinfest comics they have done a wonderful job of putting a thousand words (or is it 800 billion words) into a picture.


Big League Little League Game

How would you like to of had a turnout like this for one of your Little League games?
Improv Everywhere made a bunch of kids' day with this one!!!


Monday, October 20, 2008

A Blogger Gives His 10 Reasons for Voting for Barack Obama

Brian Bailey in his blog "Leave It Behind" (very nice blog by the way...give it a read) lists his 10 reasons that he is voting for Barack Obama. Lets take a look at them.

10. The historical moment

When Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004, I said it was one of the best speeches I had ever heard. I also knew that I was hearing the first Democrat who I would ever consider voting for. When he decided to run for President 21 months ago, I was excited by the possibility, but knew like most that it was highly unlikely that an African-American with just two years experience as a senator could defeat the Clinton machine and be elected in a time of war. What he has accomplished already is historic, but it is nothing compared to what is to come. When my grandchildren ask me how I voted at this historic moment, I know what I want my answer to be.

Thank goodness this is only reason 10. It is just plain stupid. You don't vote for someone just to be a part of the moment, historic or not. It is weak. Sarah Palin would be the first woman Vice President...isn't that historic? Use your head and vote for who is best for the country not who is the IT for the moment. Part of our country's problem is that we live too much in the moments and don't think or vote with the longterm or the whole country in mind.

9. What it says about America

I want to live in a country where Barack Obama can be elected president. The entire world will look at the United States differently if he wins, yes partly due to his name and race, but also because of the clear contrast he presents to President Bush. We'd like to pretend that our popularity is not important, and obviously our national interest should always come first, but we as a nation are better off when the rest of the world sees us in a positive light and is willing to hear what we have to say.

I don't care what the world thinks. They don't run our country. The world is full of problems that they have gotten themselves into. I don't want to elect a President because they like a particular one. Remember...the world wasn't keen on the hick Governor from the backward state of Arkansas the first time he ran and then ended up loving him...well some of them did. The President, nor the US, up for popularity polls around the world. Europe hated Reagan as he brought an end to the cold war. The point is whether Democrat or Republican, how popular they are overseas should not concern us at all. That's not to say we shouldn't work with other countries its just that they too have short attention spans and are of "what have you done for me lately" attitudes.

8. The Republican Party

Political parties regularly rise and fall. Sometimes the best thing that can happen to a party is for it to be truly humbled, to be sent into the wilderness where it can rethink what it stands for and develop a new message for new times (see the Republican Party after Watergate or the current Conservative Party in Britain). The Republican Party deserves to be in the position it is in and could only benefit from starting over again. A quick aside: I don't think any Republican could have won this year and it is a testament to McCain's broad appeal that the race is as close as it is.

Ahhh...finally a good reason. I agree with this one. The Republicans have dropped the ball and if there was more of a conservative Democrat running, I myself could easily switch. I am not a fan of John McCain and I don't hate Barack Obama. The country is not going to hell in a hand basket with either of them. I just fear that we are slipping more and more in to a quasi-socialist state and need to reverse quickly. But the Republicans, Senate, Congress, and 8 years of Bush have shown that they have lost their way. They are no longer Republican but are a party afraid to fight the tough battles. They have become the party of big spenders and the party of pork. They differ from the Democrats not in their ultimate destination but in their slower pace to get their. Maybe the threat of becoming obsolete will show that they have to find their ideals and fight for them. I respect sticking to your principles regardless of whether I agree with the principle.

7. Personal identification

All of us like to identify with our leaders, but it is rare that average Americans can relate to a president. However, Obama's age, smart, beautiful, professional wife, adorable children, family finances (until recently), and love of writing are all things that make Obama the first candidate I have actually felt a connection with (as funny as that sounds).

Again...STUPID. I like him because he's like me!!! whine whine whine. Don't vote for who is for who I would like to hang out with. How moronic! If that was the case then who should the average Joe Six-pack vote for? Someone like themselves? Or how about we just break it down for everybody. Whites vote for whites, black for black, Hispanic for Hispanic, women for women, men for men, young for young, elderly for elderly, rich for rich, poor for poor, beautiful people for the beautiful, and the ugly for the ugly. And you people with the non adorable know what you have to do. As for being is Obama's background much different from Bill Clinton's. He came from modest means, worked hard and received a very good education on his own merits with very little outside help, and eventually became President for 8 years. It's not rare.

6. Eloquence

The ability to write an eloquent speech and deliver it is a critical skill for a leader. Do speeches make a candidate? Certainly not. As a president, though, the ability to make the case to the country and the world, to inspire, challenge and convince us, is profoundly important. When Obama delivers a State of the Union address, or speaks to the nation from the Oval Office, his skill and eloquence will demand our attention. Speeches are a huge part of who we are, and they are worth doing exceptionally well.

Valid point here. Obama doesn't just speak well but speaks with authority. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about. This is vital for the President. McCain,to me, falls short in this area. I have never cared for his oratory skills. He comes across as lacking an understanding in a subject. That may not be the case. He may have sound knowledge but the ability to communicate that knowledge or at least communicate the appearance of understanding is critical as the leader of the free world.

5. Being smart is a good thing

How strange that it's left to the Democratic Party to make the case for exceptionalism (see The Incredibles). Obama is a very smart man who has surrounded himself with accomplished advisors. He is open to ideas from different sources and has proven himself to be thoughtful and careful in his thinking, almost to a fault. His primary debate flaw was been his insistence on being careful in his word choices and exploring every nuance of an issue.

Intelligence is not the same as wisdom or good judgment, but nor is it the character flaw that the Republican Party seems to think it is. David Brooks wrote an, um, incredible piece on this exact subject.

I haven't come across any Republicans that think it is a flaw. But there is a difference between people thinking you are intelligent and people being told that you are intelligent...over and over again. Obviously intelligence is important, but how do we really know how intelligent someone is? And as stated wisdom is supreme. Who is more intelligent McCain or Obama? Or does Obama "sound" more intelligent? Remember, we are more likely to think someone is intelligent if they are saying things that we agree with. George W. Bush is laughed at as being on the verge of utter stupidity but is he really? He graduated from an ivy league college, got an MBA from Harvard University, learned to fly fighter jets and became a governor and the President. Yet people label him as stupid. I remember hearing Larry Hagman (whom I am a fan...go Dallas and I Dream of Jeannie) call Bush stupid and I thought...Larry, what have you done the was so intelligent? You dropped out of college after a couple of semesters...became an actor...became a drunk...and had to get a liver transplant.

I don't know who is more intelligent, Obama or McCain. But I can judge who I believe is wiser based upon their plans and ideas and I...well I'll take McCain...but just barely.

4. One America

From his initial speech in Boston four years ago to this endless race, Obama has reached out to all parts of the country. I believe he has great respect for our nation as a whole and all political persuasions within it (more so than many of his supporters actually). He has spoken about the role of faith in politics better than most Republicans and attended a Rick Warren forum long before he was a candidate for president. I believe he truly wants to unite us a country and has resisted endless opportunities in the campaign to exploit our differences. I'm not so naive to think a new political era is coming, but I believe we can and will do better.

I don't care for this whole One America thing. There's no such thing. On every issue the country is divided and the populous that makes up those divisions differs with each issue. There will never be One America. The notion that there needs to be One America is politics as usual in my opinion. It's campaign rhetoric. The important issues of our past come from a divided country electing a leader (or leaders) who have a strong opinion on an issue. It is through their wisdom or lack of that determines what succeeds and whether the country unites behind them (sometimes after the fact). Think Lincoln and slavery, Roosevelt and the US involvement in Europe (later WWII), Reagan and the Cold War, Clinton and the Budget, etc.

On political unity, Obama rarely reached across the aisle and McCain has a large history of doing so. McCain is known to vote how he believes even if it doesn't suit the Republican party.

I won't go to religion because I don't know either of their hearts. They both profess to being Christian and I haven't heard of anything that would bring doubt to mind. I also, don't get the feeling that either of them are manufacturing a faith for the campaign.

3. The campaign

Obama has run a phenomenal campaign and proven to be a truly impressive candidate. A campaign is no substitute for substantial political experience, but it reveals a lot about a person and his or her management style. Bill Clinton's chaotic campaign filled with emotional highs and lows, hints of scandal, and the relentless pursuit of every vote hinted at the early years of his presidency. Bush's campaign showed his tunnel focus and lack of openness. Hillary's campaign problems were traced back to her lack of decisiveness and tolerance of infighting. McCain's campaign has also been chaotic, constantly reaching for a new message or line of attack and lacking a consistent theme or underlying philosophy. His White House would likely be similar.

Obama's campaign, on the other hand, has been more impressive than any I've seen, especially during the primaries. It has been incredibly consistent, largely mistake free, and innovative in its fund raising and use of the web. Its success is one of the most remarkable achievements of modern politics and it speaks to what kind of leader Obama will be.

There may be some logic there...but earlier you were stating that no Republican could have won this race and it was to McCain's credit that he is doing as well as he is. There are two campaigns here. Obama's was his to lose and McCain was the underdog. You campaign differently with each. The underdog is continually trying to find something to work which may come off as being chaotic. Obama's on the other hand was trying to maintain which requires a steady campaign. To judge either of them by this basis is naive. You have to see how Obama would handle a campaign on the losing side to determine this. As for McCain...look at his successful Senate campaigns for how he would run a campaign that is ahead in the polls.

I will give you that McCain has tendency to fly off the handle too often but though his reactions may seem impulsive his decisions are usually much more thought out. This is not necessarily a bad thing. He is passionate and you know were you stand but he is also able to be reasoned with. Obama, you don't always know where he stands personally because he has a lack of a reaction. Because of this he can sometimes come off as complacent, lacking passion, and going where the political wind is blowing strongest.


The campaign has also shown Obama to be a steady force, driven and consistent. He speaks often of never getting too high or low based on polls or the state of the campaign and the past two years have proven that to be the case. He has generally avoided pandering to one group or another (except for a leftward turn during the primaries). Instead of Bill Clinton's somewhat desperate need for approval, Obama seems remarkably self-assured and comfortable with who he is. These are the characteristics I want in a president.

The campaign has shown no such thing. What he has been doing has worked so there has been no need to waiver. When has his polls ever been problematic? It's McCain that has had to adapt and even if McCain loses, he had a pretty good run at considering the polls for George W. Bush. The question is this...what would Obama have done if he was on the losing side of the campaign? Would he try a different tact or would he remain steady? And as for the leftward turn during the primaries you need to do a little research. There wasn't a leftward turn. He did make a rightward turn (though I would call it a moderate turn) after the primaries. He does pander to individual groups like most politicians...just look at the hundreds of billions of dollars he has proposed to all the different groups...that is pandering. McCain is not exempt but I don't think its to the same degree as Obama. This could also be because Republican crowds are usually OK hearing we need to spend less compared to Democrat crowds who want more spending.

1. When I turn on the television on January 20, 2009 to watch the inauguration, who do I want to see?

Even when I was closest to voting for Senator McCain, this question made me think twice because I knew in my heart what the answer was.

I want Senator Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.

That's it? Your whole 10 reasons are based on appearance and how it makes you feel! That's your reasoning? Nothing about their plans for the country? Their vision? Their goals? What they would do? How they would handle the budget, the debt? How they will handle education, health care, our infrastructure, defense, retirement? In other words...nothing of substance...and we wonder why our country has so many problems! We don't look at the issues...we don't care how good the President will be but whether he looks good doing it!! Using your criteria above, you wouldn't have voted for fact slavery wouldn't have even been considered since issues don't even matter...maybe they were number 11 on your list.


The Yo Betcha Rap Lyrics

And here are the lyrics to Sarah's Rap

one two three

my name is sarah palin you all know me
vice president nominee of the gop
gonna need your vote in the next election
can i get a ‘what what’ from the senior section
mccain got experience, mccain got style
but don’t let him freak you out when he tries to smile
cause that smile be creepy
but when i be vp
all the leaders in the world gonna finally meet me

how’s it go eskimo
tell me what you know eskimo
how you feel eskimo
ice cold
tell me tell me what you feel eskimo
super cold

i’m jeremiah wright cause tonight i’m the preacher
i got a bookish look and you’re all hot for teacher
todd lookin fine on his snow machine
so hot boy gonna need a go between
in wasilla we just chill baby chilla
but when i see oil lets drill baby drill

my country tis of thee
from my porch i can see
russia and such

all the mavericks in the house put your hands up
all the mavericks in the house put your hands up
all the plumbers in the house pull your pants up
all the plumbers in the house pull your pants up

when i say ‘obama’ you say ‘ayers’
obama. ayers. obama. ayers.
i built me a bridge - it ain’t goin’ nowhere.

mccain, palin, gonna put the nail in the coffin
of the media elite
she likes red meat
shoot a mother humpin moose, eight days of the week

[three gunshots]
now ya dead, now ya dead,
cause i’m an animal, and i’m bigger than you
holdin a shotgun walk in the pub
everybody party, we’re goin on a hunt
la la la la la la la la
[six gunshots]

yo palin, i’m out


Sarah Palin on SNL....You betcha!!!

Very funny skits by Sarah Palin on SNL. Apparently they wanted her to do the rap orignially but she declined stating "it wouldn't be good for the campaign." I don't know if I agree. Check it out ya'll. Ha...Caribou Barbie!!!


Friday, October 17, 2008

A Very Simple Financial Planning a big price!

If everyone would heed this advice we wouldn't be in this mess. Everyone includes us, businesses and the big ol' government!


Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Economy Bailout Song: AIG, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros


Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Hey Uncle Sam! Can you make that bailout $85,000,440,000?

You are an executive at AIG and you have royally messed up your company. Of course you don't blame yourself there are plenty of others who are at fault. But lets not play the blame game; let's work together with the government to fix this. $85 billion should do the job. And when the government says sure, why not; you roll up your sleeves and get to work right? Nope, you and a few other execs spend a week at a spa at a cost of $440,000! Maybe Las Vegas for the next bailout! It's a sign of the times...stupidity. Did they really think that this would'nt leak? Did they not know how this would look? It doesn't matter. The company will still get its $85 billion and the execs will still get their salaries or parachutes. There are consequences to AIG and to Congress for this debacle. And there are consequences to our inaction in taking responsibility for our own futures.

Check out the ABC article for more on the story.

Less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant AIG insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, Congressional investigators revealed today.
Two AIG CEOs testify to Congress about their use of taxpayer bailout money.

"Rooms at this resort can cost over $1,000 a night," Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said this morning as his committee continued its investigation of Wall Street and its CEOs.

AIG documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges.

"They're getting their pedicures and their manicures and the American people are paying for that," said Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD).

"This unbridled greed," said Cong. Mark Souder (R-IN), "it's an insensitivity to how people are spending our dollars."

Appearing before the committee, Martin Sullivan, the AIG CEO until June, said the company was overwhelmed by a "financial global tsunami," and that "no simple or single cause" was to blame.


Saturday, October 04, 2008

Hurry up and Wait

In President Bush's radio address today he said that this bailout (you remember that little $800 billion package that had to be approved the day Secretary Paulson requested it...oops, well how about by the end of the weekend at the latest...oops, well how about by the end of the next week for sure) will take time to implement. So if that's true then why was it so important for this huge bill to be passed with very little discussion, discretion, or scruples? He also stated that, "The Federal government will undertake this rescue plan at a careful and deliberate pace to ensure that your tax dollars are spent wisely." I wish that tact was used for passing this bill as well. But I guess the government has our money now so what can we do? about we REMEMBER THIS! I am not, nor do I advocate a one issue decision when choosing who I vote for, but we now need to look beyond our pet issues and look at how these politicians will safeguard us for the long term and whether they have the character and strength to follow through. We don't need wussies in government anymore. We need people with backbones! So remember this when we vote. Who got us to the ramrodded this bill through...who kowtowed to pressure? Then ask yourself, who allowed them to?


Friday, October 03, 2008

mmmm...Pork....does a body good!

Looks like the $700 billion financial rescue bill (along with over $100 billion in nothing-to-do-with-the-bailout items) has passed the Senate (and the House (263-171)and will shortly be signed into law by the President. Let's see how some of our Florida Congressmen voted:

Sen. Bill Nelson (D) no
Sen. Mel Martinez (R) yes
Rep. Cliff Sterns (R) no
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R) yes

and of course both McCain and Obama voted for it.
Thanks guys!


Thursday, October 02, 2008

Christmas in October! Pork as Usual from OUR Representatives?

Politicians can't help but be politicians and if you don't believe that look at the latest bill from the Senate. A $700 billion bail out...that's $700,000,000,000...bailout that they claim is need in this time of emergency to save America is a perfect opportunity to sneak in some good ol'fashioned pork. And with over $100 billion...that's $100,000,000,000...they can buy a lot of pork. Now to be fair, I don't know if all these items are really pork or just wanted to add a little hyperbole. The point is...the Senate is pushing a huge spending bill of $700 billion through with very little discussion. A 451 page document was created and in less than a day Senators were supposed to read it, analyze it, and vote on it. Needless to say, most would not read the whole thing. In a time of "emergency" such as this why would you throw in over $100 billion in spending that has nothing to do with the bailout? Of course you want to seize an opportunity to get your agenda passed with out having an honest discussion on the issue. It's like asking a drowning man "Do you want me to get you a life jacket and take $100 bucks from your wallet?" What is the drowning man going to say? That is why they are politicians. That is why they lack character. But do we really care? Do Americans really care? Will we remember this when it comes time for reelection. I don't care if what they were asking for would benefit me or my state directly or not; it was cheap, sleazy, backroom politics and they need to be held accountable. Unfortunately both Obama and McCain vote for it and Bush likes it. Here is a list of some of them:

* $223M for Alaskan Fisherman
* $192M for Rum Producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
* $128M for Auto Racing
* $33M for companies operating in American Samoa
* $10M for film & TV production
* $6M for producers of Wooden Arrows
* Tax credit for employees in Hurricane Katrina disaster area
* Tax incentives for investments in poor neighborhoods in D.C.
* Increased rehabilitation credit for buildings in Gulf area
* Reduction of import duties on some imported wool fabrics, transfers other duties to Wool Trust Fund to promote competitiveness of American wool

Here's an interesting bit...the Bush bill was 3 pages long, the House's bill was 100 pages but the Senate not wanting to be outdone decided to add 350 more pages!