Media Curiosity Limited to Conservatives?

Ever notice that the media will probe in an area that has no known basis or proof when it comes to a conservative. Yet for liberals it takes a video and 100 witnesses before they will even consider probing. Fishing for dirt on conservatives is a daily exercise while deflecting dirt on the liberals is given equal effort. I don't have a link, but nobody seems to be pursuing the ACLU bigwig that was arrested for child pornography including videos of children being raped. The media response so far? Crickets chirping. That does not even take curiosity. Just a police report.

The probing question of curiosity that I have (which is admittedly fishing) has to do with the recent news that Bill Clinton's speech career since leaving office has brought in $40 million. Now I am all for legal ways of making money and speech making is usually honorable and above board. However, Bill has the distinction of having a wife who is a U.S. Senator. Where a bribe taking is illegal and there are limits to campaign contributions; there is no limit to the money a non-official can make giving speeches. So if there ever was an easy way to get money to Hillary in return for favors, it would be by hiring Bill to give a speech; paying his high fees without blinking. I have no evidence this is what is happening. However, isn't $40 Million enough to perk the curiosity of the media to investigate just who is booking and paying for these speeches? If he is speaking at a University, how many times is a school "donor" footing the bill? Is anyone asked why they are willing to pay so much for a simple speech? While Bill can give a charismatic interview or stump speech, I have never found his formal speeches to be all that inspiring or interesting.

It is always amazing how lucritive the careers of Senatorial spouses can be. Bill Clinton's success should peak some curiosity shouldn't it? So far all I am seeing is yawns.

Getting Into Shape

The one and only picture of myself I have posted on my blog shows I need to trim down a little in the abdominal region. My arms and upper torso have not lost all of my muscular days when I worked in the blue collar world. My wife tells me that my legs are still the envy of most men. The middle, however, is where it all has concentrated (unless you want to make a "fat head" wise-crack).

I have been on a very healthful reduced-fat diet for 3 years now. I eat very little outside of meals - nothing most days. I am fairly active for having a desk job. I have to walk about a half mile each day from and to my car. I use the stairs often. I am always walking to other buildings in my complex. I work around the house a lot. While I hope that will result in a healthier life, it has done nothing to reduce my "girth".

I must say that I really hate daily mundane exercise. It is not so much that I hate the exersion. Rather I hate the mindlessness of the time. When I go to the YMCA and work on the eliptical for 30-60 minutes I die 7 deaths of boredom. Well, too bad. I am stating here and now on this blog that I am committed to a massive reduction once and for all. My goal is to lose 40 lbs. and have abs like Chris Malott! So I am going to say here and now that I weigh 220 lbs. and have a waist measurement of 41.5. I know this is too much information for some of you, but bear with me as I use my blog to register my committment. Look for future postings as I make progress. I will only be posting when I lose either 10 lbs or an inch. I hope to have a significant change when I go to my son's Marine Graduation in May.

French About to Get Egg on Face Over Landis?

I was deeply embarrassed when the report came out that Tour de France winner Floyd Landis was accused of doping and may lose his title. Since there has not been much news, I have not though about it for some time. Today, however, a blockbuster news item has been released that the French lab that made the claims may have breached lab standards during the testing. This may be enough to toss out the positive doping result. According to AFP via Breitbart.com:

The the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that the French laboratory which found the positive results against Landis had two technicians involved in the original urinalysis and the confirming test, validating their own findings.

Such access to both samples violates anti-doping regulations and supports Landis's contention that numerous errors in the chain of care regarding the tests and samples should invalidate the doping positive.

[Bold mine] So two of the same individuals involved in the original test participated in the confirmation test. When the stakes are this high, it is simply common sense to have as many checks and balances as possible. Having seperate teams handling each phase makes perfect sense. I used to count money for the church I attended. They had a fantastic set of checks and balances. They had teams that only counted once per month and insisted that 3 team members always be there. While it is obvious not to have a single individual counting, the thinking was that it is much harder to get three individuals to be involved in stealing the money. The same idea was in these ignored regulations. Of course this was not the first offense from this lab:

A similar mistake made by the same lab in 2005 resulted in the dismissal of doping charges against Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluze in December, the Times reported.

So knowing that eyes all around the world would be focused on how the tests were conducted, and knowing the lab already had a black eye from the Spanish cyclist incident; this lab insisted on breaking regulations again. With a U.S. dominance of the French's event for nearly a decade, the dismissal of charges against Inigo and the hooplah over inconsistencies and lost samples in Lance Armstrong's testing you would think the French would want this testing to follow the letter of the law in regulations. Given that they didn't, the French open themselves up to the appearance of impropriety. They look desperate to dethrone the U.S. winners at any cost and the whole thing smacks of dirty tricks.

There is no way they can take away Landis' title with such a cloud hanging over the botched procedures in testing. Or can they? Just how much egg are they willing to accumulate on their face to kick out Landis? The title will stay and the French will have to comfort themselves that they have sullied Landis' name even if he is innocent. The test lab is now irrevocably sullied and future test results will be in doubt. I highly recomment that the French get their testing "house" in order. They should consider sending a confirmation test to a 3rd party non-French lab. Until then, it is time to clear Landis and give him the honor due for his win.

Assyrian Christian From Iran Murders Family

FoxNews is reporting about a man that has killed several members of his family: his wife, sister-in-law and mother-in-law. I would call Fox to task that they did not point out in this story that the man was an Assyrian Christian from Iran, but I happened to catch the opening news broadcast on Fox last night after "24" and they mentioned it there. According to the story:

An enraged Iranian immigrant used a 3-pound hammer to beat his wife, sister-in-law and mother-in-law to death and then stabbed them repeatedly because he felt "disrespected," police said Monday.

Being a Christian, I am ashamed that this man takes the Christian label and has behaved in this egregious manner just for the sake of his honor. Christ did not teach us to look after our honor, but to humble ourselves and He would lift us up. Such murderous acts must always be loudly denounced, especially when the acts seem to be connected to one's faith as in this man - albeit a warped view.

Funniest Statement by Matt Lauer

Since I don't ever watch the "Today" show, I am not sure of the humor abilities of Matt Lauer. I do know that most quotes I read from him usually do not incite laughter. Today is an exception to that trend as his analogy on the recent vote for the non-binding resolution is hilarious. Per NewsBuster's Mark Finkelstein, Matt said:

Lauer: "The Democrats in the Senate failed to pass this vote so they could even debate this Iraq strategy and there's even some who are talking about possibly bringing up the idea of revoking the 2002 authorization to go to war. If they can't pass a kind of symbolic vote, how do they ever have the kind of strength to do something more serious?"

Russert agreed that "it's going to be very difficult."
Matt wasn't done: "Looking at what happened in the House . . . over the weekend, basically the House did pass this resolution saying they oppose the surge in troops, but put yourself in the position of Joe and Mary Smith, living somewhere across this country right now, and you've watched these politicians for more than a month talk about passing a symbolic vote. Does it amount to little more than them ringing someone's doorbell and running away?"

That is a perfect analogy. The funny thing is that I am sure this view is shared by the far left AND the far right. I have a hard time believing that many in between are impressed by this meaningless gesture.

By the way, how many readers out there have actually played what we called "Ding Dong Ditch"? I must admit I played it a few times. The most memorable is when we went to my Aunt's house in Cicero. My older brother, my two cousins and I played it on Thanksgiving. After our mischief, we came back into the house looking like angels. Mom, if you are reading this - I hate to break it to you but I wasn't ALWAYS an angel.

Pelosi Stumbles on National Security

Nancy "the Stumbler" Pelosi has made a gaffe of monumental proportions. She has decided to place William "cold cash" Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee. According to AP:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who yanked embattled Rep. William J. Jefferson off a powerful tax committee last year, has decided to put him on the Homeland Security panel, aides to the Louisiana Democrat confirmed yesterday.

The move infuriated some Republicans, who accuse him of being a potential security risk. Jefferson has been the subject of an ongoing federal bribery investigation related to a telecommunications deal in Africa. His Capitol Hill office and his homes in Washington and New Orleans have been raided by the FBI, and he was kicked off the Ways and Means Committee last June after affidavits and evidence seized in the raids became public.

It is nothing short of insanity to place someone suspected of taking bribes on a committee where national security secrets are presented and discussed. The story quotes what ranking GOP member of the committee thinks of it:

It sends a terrible message," said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the committee's ranking Republican. "They couldn't trust him to write tax policy, so why should he be given access to our nation's top secrets or making policy for national defense?

"Members of the committee have access to intelligence secrets, plots here in the country, overseas, and people under suspicion. This shows how unimportant the Democrats think homeland security is," King said.

Basically there are a lot of nasty people out there that know from the cash in freezer story that he likely can be bought. A man with national secrets that can be bought is suicidal. The House Dems must vote on this appointment. If they approve it will show how lightly they take our safety. How many puzzle pieces do the American people need to understand this fact? How embarrassed are those who put the Dems in power? Just wait, there are plenty more stumbles where this came from.

Cooling Saucer Slows Down Dem Hotheads

Maybe Chucky Schumer was right after all about the "cooling saucer" function of the Senate. While the hotheads in the House of Representatives wasted several days (Dems wasting time is a good thing) to complete their resolution against Bush's troop surge, the GOP in the Senate have once again spiked the ball back in Harry Reid's face. After all we can't have the Senate rushing into anything. Things must take a slow and deliberate course with many sessions of back and forth debate and several rounds of failure before moving the bar an inch or two.

The Dems should look on the bright side. While it is too late for the Dems in the house to keep from having egg on their face, the Dems in the Senate may very well be happy about this result. After all, it will not take a huge turn of events in Iraq. Any measurable improvement after the troop surge can be claimed by Bush as a step in the right direction and that the Dems were wrong. If the situation improves, Bush can say, "They criticized my comments on staying the course. They demanded we take a new direction in Iraq. After much consultation and a shakeup in leadership we proposed a new direction in Iraq and the Dems rejected their own demand. We stood up to them and now we are beginning to see the fruits of those decisions...".

The Dems now have themselves so boxed into a corner that John Murtha is suggesting sleight of hand gimmics to pull the rug out from under our campaign in Iraq. They are beginning to become frantic and realize the only option is to sabotage Iraq. A pullout before things get any better is their only hope of saving face. The Washington Post has slammed Murtha's idea in an editorial:

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

The article also points out that this disgusting approach does not stop with Murtha, but does represent the Dems viewpoint:

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

I am sure the reports of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki describing recent activities in Iraq as a "dazzling success" have given more than one Dem a Maalox moment. The closing of the Iranian and Syrian borders combined with al-Sadr taking a vacation in Iran is a sure recipe for an improvement. Yes, the cooling saucer may have saved Senate Dems a small measure of embarrassment. Their votes that did not take place cannot be held against them, but many know the real story and hopefull will remember. If not, there are a lot of bloggers that will be there to remind them.

Democrats Promote Thuggery

According to the New York Sun the Democrats are pushing an initiative that will remove the need for a secret ballot when voting to form a union. According to the story:

Congressional Democrats and labor unions are moving forward with legislation to replace secret-ballot votes on unionization with a petition-based system, despite misgivings from some labor leaders that the measure has virtually no chance of becoming law while President Bush is in office.

This is a raw attempt designed to create more unions whether they want a union or not. How is this the case and what is wrong with it? According to the story:

Republicans contend that the title of the bill is Orwellian because the measure would make workers subject to intimidation by union organizers who would know whether an individual worker signed the petition or refused to do so.

So a big thug comes up to you with two other big thugs standing behind him and shoves a petition under your nose. Do you think this is an environment that encourages you to act the way you want or the way they want? Many often sign the petition and then vote against forming the union when they can safely do so in secrecy. There are basically two choices here:

1) Allow unionization within an environment that is full of intimidation.
2) Keep unionization as it is where it is only formed from the results of secret ballots.

Of course which side are the Dems on? The thug side of course. What person in their right mind would look at these two choices and think that the first is best for the individual. Only a Democrat would look at this and pick #1 because it is better for Democrats. They sure do care about people, don't they. A labor group tries to spin the situation:

The director of the labor extension program at Rutgers University, Adrienne Eaton, said current labor laws favor employers and the new legislation would help reverse those advantages.

"It wouldn't cure them all, of course, but it would certainly make organizing substantially easier," she said. "The current system allows employers to mount coercive campaigns against unionization.

This last statement is laughable. It assumes that unions do not also engage in heavy handed campaigns in favor of unionization. The fact is that no matter how much coercion from either side, in the secrecy of the ballot box a worker will vote the way he/she wants to vote. The new rules would simply eliminate employer coercion while leaving AND increasing union coercion.

While many currently take the sign and vote against approach, it is likely that many will choose not to sign. This will no doubt result in violence. People will be injured and/or killed as a result of this change if it ever passes. Democrats don't care who gets hurt or killed. It is obvious that they are targeting Walmart. They want their prize and they want it now. If some have to die for that, it is their tough luck.

Boortz Profiles Muslim and Nails It

Tuesday radio hos Neil Boortz was commenting on the early reports of the shooting in Salt Lake City. He said:

We've all heard about the teenager who killed five people at a mall in Salt Lake City. On Fox News last night I heard the kid described as a Bosnian.

My guess is that in just a few days we'll find out that this kid was a Muslim.

Let's see just how wrong I am here.

Of course he was not wrong. Wednesday Boortz describes how he nailed his prediction:

Sulejmen Talovic was a Muslim immigrant from Bosnia. When he went into that shopping center yesterday he had a backpack that was loaded down with ammunition, a shotgun and a 38 caliber handgun. It seems clear to Salt Lake City law enforcement that he wanted to kill as many people as he could. Thankfully the police sent him to his eternal sand nap.

Basically these days when there are such crimes, you can bank on the terrorist being a Muslim. Sure the left has their one or two token non-Muslims that commit such crimes, but they are an anomoly. When there are other crimes of murder and sexual assault and the news is strangely silent about the details of the offender we often find later that it is an illegal immigrant from Mexico. It seems the media is strangely without curiosity when it comes to Muslims and illegals. Of course if there was a bombing at an abortion clinic you can be assured the first question asked would be if the bomber was fundamentalist Christian. Does anybody see a pattern here?

I am certainly seeing a pattern that so many of the Muslims around the world are an angry bunch. In the United States it seems that Muslim proselytizing targets those prone to anger. Why is this religion such a good fit for those types: prisoners, blacks who are angry at society, etc? There are also Christian groups that proselytize in prisons. I have seen those ministries close up and the converts are tamer than they were before. Muslim converts in prison are often angry. Then there is the Nation of Islam that uses their religion to foment hatred and anger among blacks. The media's treatment of Muslims defies the senses.

My comments are not anti-Muslim. They are pointing out that when those of the Muslim community are guilty of crimes the media treats them with kid gloves. When somebody of so called Christian background commits crimes, they cannot rub the Christianity in enough. The media still pushes the lie that atheist Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Number One Son Off to Camp Pendleton

It was quite a weekend as the family anxiously awaited the time when our oldest son would begin his journey in the US Marines. He joined a few months ago and we have had Feb. 12th on our minds ever since. That was the day he flew to Camp Pendleton for Boot Camp. As parents we have some mixed feelings. We will miss him and know this is a clear break from the home. We fear for what is in store for him: the things we know and the things we don't. Yet we are so proud of him for his decision. We believe the training will be good for him and the structure will help him in life. We are looking forward to his graduation day and will be there to see him.

The activities surrounding his departure are a part of the reason I have not been posting lately. The other is that I am so very busy at work. This happens every now and then as critical deadlines loom. I am not sure when I will begin posting regularly. Seems like when I go on haiatus things suddenly clear up and I am able to post again. For now, I will post as I am able.

Post Games Notes

Super Bowl XLI is over and the Bears lost. The AICS household is very disappointed. Here are some thoughts and notes on the result of the game:

- Congrats to the Colts. I was on the winning side 21 years ago and know how it feels.
- Congrats to my Indy blog friends, especially LA and Malott.
- Condi was right. Sigh.
- Unlike many Chicago critics, I think this was a team loss and not a Grossman loss. True he made a few blunders, but after the first great quarter the entire team was lackluster.
- I would urge the Bears to stick with Grossman. He will be a great QB. I have seen too many QB's get traded to other teams and become very good. One or two more years under his belt and Grossman will be a great QB. Hopefully for the Bears.
- That first punt return TD by Hester was a great moment. I nearly lost my voice on the first play.
- Congrats to the Bears for getting this far!

Condi Rice Finally Ticks Off AICS

While it does not usually take much for Condi Rice to upset those of liberal persuasion, it is not until now that she has said something that really burns me up. Condi has predicted a win by the Colts over the Bears in this year's Super Bowl. Adding salt into the wound she claims it would be "a good thing". According to Reuters she said:

"I really like both Chicago and Indianapolis but I think Indianapolis is going to win it and that would be a good thing," said Rice, a longtime Cleveland Browns fan, when asked by reporters to predict the winner.

Hmmm. Sounds like she is claiming "some of her best friends" are Chicago Bears fans. It seems the upcoming game could threaten some longstanding alliances. For me, two of my closest blog friends are from Indiana (LA Sunsett and Chris Malott). I would like to wish them the best of luck in the game, but I am torn by my desire for the Bears to win. I guess the best we can do is to promise not to gloat too much if our team wins. I for one promise not to drive to Indianapolis and shoot my gun in the air. I do have some big fireworks we've been saving for a special occasion. I hope I get to use them. Go Bears!