Damning Himself With Not-So-Faint Praise

Obama's ACORN Connection, straight from the horse's mouth.

Paying Back a "Pay It Forward"

As some of my longtime readers (all 5 of them) may recall, back in 2005, I went down to Houston to help out in a post-Katrina Red Cross Shelter. While I was there, I stayed with one of my best friends and his wife, who live in Spring, a suburb of Houston. The hospitality they showed me was far more generous than anything I did by going down there. They fed and housed me, they entertained me, heck, his brother gave me my first taste of God's Own Food.

Well, they say that no good deed goes unpunished, and Gustav Ike has them in a bad way. They thought their house had come through undamaged, but they've discovered that the roof is leaking, and the drywall in the master bedroom is... well, not DRYwall anymore, and not WALL for much longer. They don't expect power back for another week (he called me from his cell phone, which they use the car to recharge). They can get some food in the local grocery stores, but the lines are long there's not much left by the time they get in some times, and they're running out of money -- today they had to go to FEMA for MRE's. To top it all off, his wife's temp job is up, so they're down a paycheck as of this week.

My friend is not one to beg, he prides himself on being self-reliant, but things are tough, and he has agreed to let me ask my readers for help. This is a chance to give direct aid -- it isn't tax-deductible, it's not giving to an overarching charitable organization, but it is taking the bull by the horns and doing somehting to help someone. Hell, he helped me do the same for others 3 years ago, I have no problem asking for help for him now.

He says the most useful way of sending aid directly is through gift cards and gas cards. If any of you are interested, contact me in the comments or via email, and we'll talk.

Musical Geography Trivia Question of the Day

Where does the southbound odyssey start, and where does it end?

Quote of the Week

A tip of the Toque to Patrick at Born Again Redneck.

"Lurking just below the surface of the second-guessing about Sarah
Palin's fitness to be president is the serious question of whether we still
believe in the American people's capacity for self-government, what we mean when
we affirm that all American citizens are equal, and whether we tacitly believe
there are distinct classes of citizens and that American government at the
highest levels is an elite occupation. "

-- Steven F. Hayward, commenting at The Weekly Standard

Just Keep Telling Yourself

There is no liberal media bias. There is no liberal media bias. There is no...

A tip of the toque to Ace of Spades.

90%

My granddad used to like to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure". It was his gruff way of reminding people that numbers and statistics, no matter how technically accurate, can be presented in such a way as to imply much more than they really say.

The point was also driven home to me in my college statistics class. I did ok -- Math is not my passion, and statistics really pushed my limits. I escaped it with a C -- and that was just introductory statistics. But what DID stick with me, no matter how much the actual mathematics started to swamp me, was the professor's constant reminder to us whenever we were presented with statistics to ask questions -- never accept uncritically the assertions made by those presenting the statistics. Ask about the methods used to gather the information. If, for instance, the statistics are from a survey, and the presenters claim that X% of people favor Y, ask questions -- how many people did you ask? How were they selected? How representative of the population in general was the sampling? What exactly did they ask the people surveyed? How were the questions worded? Was it a yes/no question? If not, how many responses were available? How were THOSE worded? As you can see, statistics involves more than just numbers.

I have been struck by the importance of this recently, given the fact that one of the Obama campaign's main points of attack against John McCain has been "John McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time".

Ninety Percent.

It's an interesting statistic to me, because it's the exact same number quoted by the Jeff Merkley campaign in attacking Gordon Smith -- "He voted with President Bush 90% of the time".

So let's start asking questions.

The first question that sprang to my mind was "How did you come up with that figure, 90%?" It seemed the obvious question to ask, but I soon realized that the answer to that question was dependent on another more fundamental question -- How do you define "Voted with President Bush"?

Obviously you can't mean "Voted the same way that Bush did", since Bush, not being a member of Congress, doesn't vote. So what DOES it mean? Voted in favor of 90% of the bills that Bush then signed into law, and against 90% of the bills that eventually passed but he vetoed? Voted 90% of the time the way Bush actively urged congress to vote? Voted the way the Republican Party leadership urged you to vote? Voted with the majority of your fellow Republicans? Please clarify.

But ok, for the sake of argument, let's accept the 90% claim for now. My next question is, how many times did Obama vote "with President Bush", using the same standard to determine the percentage? 0%? I doubt that10%? 20%? 50%? And if Obama voted "with President Bush" say, 30% of the time (as an example, I'm not making the claim that he did), would it still be fair to criticize McCain or Smith for all 90% of their pro-Bush votes? This is important to ask because just saying "they voted with Bush 90% of the time" and presenting that as a criticism implies "They voted wrong 90% of the time". That's unfair to both the senators AND President Bush. NO matter HOW bad a president you believe Bush is, it would be unreasonable to argue that he's been wrong about everything.

Here's what I mean: If Obama and the Democracts and the Republicans and Bush could all manage to agree on, again, say 30% of all the laws passed, that means that the Dems and Bush disagreed 70%, and the Dems and McCain disagreed 60% of the time (90-30=60), with McCain and the Dems agreeing with each other and against Bush 10% of the time. So even from the Democratic POV, arguing that Bush was wrong 70% of the time, McCain was only wrong 60% of the time. Given the way that the country is so split down the middle on so many issues, do you really think that's a strong criticism of your oponent?

Is This "Hope", or "Change"?

A Tip of the Toque to NRO via Ace of Spades HQ.

Obama's latest criticism of McCain? He's so out of touch, he doesn't even know how to send an e-mail.

Well, it's a fair cop, to be honest. John McCain doesn't use e-mail. You got him there, Barack. He he... yep, nailed him to the wall.

One small problem. The reason he doesn't use e-mail? His war wounds prevent him from:

"combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. "

Nice, there, Barry. Way to keep it classy. What's next, questioning his patriotism for not saluting the flag?

Blogging Buddies

Yesterday, one of my favorite bloggers was in town, so we got together for a couple of beers. Ken's a great guy, as nice in person as he is on his blog. Thanks again, Ken, for the beer and the company. Next time I'm buying.

Gainfully Employed

A big thanks to all the well-wishers regarding my recent big news. So without further ado, here's the scoop on where I interviewed yesterday, how it went, and what I decided:

My working interview on Friday was at a local university other than U of O. The interview yesterday was at Marche'. The interview went ok, but the chef there has a poker face, so I don't know how well HE thinks it went. He informed me that if they decide to call me back for a second interview, it'll be a "stage" (French, pronounced "Stozh"), which means working one shift without pay (but I'd be fed) to see how I work out.

I've decided to go with the University job, unless Marche' offers me either A) a really good shift and higher pay (in which case I'll leave the university job); or B) a part time position (where I can moonlight after the other job).

I know it sounds crazy, giving up a job at a high end restaurant to work as a prep cook and steward at a college cafeteria, but there are several reasons I went with this decision:

1) The college job is M-F, 6:30-2:30, regular work hours, which allows me to actually have a family life, and also minimizes the amount of time The Lad has to be at daycare.

2) The pay is $10/hour, which is pretty good for a starting wage in this town.

3) Because the job revolves around the school year, I'll be getting Christmas and Spring breaks off with pay. The downside is that I'll be layed off every summer, but as I mentioned before, there are a couple of possibilities there: I can find seasonal work (perhaps at King Estate, I'm told they do hire seasonally), and I can also use that time to start and build my own business.

Today was my first day on the job. I'm sore and exhausted but also elated. It's good to finally be back at a steady, full-time, permanent job. I loved culinary school, but that was the longest stretch of unemployment/underemployment I've been through in my entire adult life, and I'm glad to have it behind me.

Palin the Destroyer

This is the movie quote that comes to mind whenever I think of the aneurisms being suffered by the likes of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, et al, regarding the turn of events in the presidential race.

Negotiating from a Position of Strength

Well, the "Working Interview" turned out to be an emergency fill-in for the person who just quit. I worked 2 hours, through the lunch rush, survived a minor catastrophe (not my fault), and have the job if I want.

I'm still going to the interview on Sunday, just to see how it goes. Actually, I'm looking forward to it a lot more now. There's a lot less pressure on me -- if I don't get it, I'm still employed. If I do, then I have to weigh my decision. But it's nice to have the "do or die" pressure off of me.

So here's the dilemma:

The interview Sunday is at probably the single best, and undoubtedly the best-KNOWN, restaurant in all of Eugene. The menu is exquisite, the owner AND the chef have stellar reputations. Working there for any amount of time would be a feather in my cap.

The other job is working in an educational setting. It's not nearly as prestigious, though it isn't exactly mere cafeteria work. It won't look AS good on a resume. But what it WOULD afford me is saummers off to pursue my OWN business -- I hope to save up and buy a concessions trailer and start doing fairs and festivals, selling my barbecue. I would have winter and spring breaks off, with pay, which would allow for vacations AND for moonlighting.

But the big draw is the annual summer layoff. That's three months free to try my hand at self-employment, as well as the possibility of working seasonally in some of the more tourist-driven businesses around (like King Estate). I've reached the conclusion that the likelihood of me, at this late stage in the game (I'm 40), working my way up through hte ranks from prep to line to chef de parti to sous to Chef are pretty slim. My best shot at self-employment will be to start soon, start small, and grow my business at the same TIME as gaining experience.

In terms of pay, I doubt either place will be offering a wage significantly higher than the other, but we'll see. That's DEFINITELY a consideration, but it would have to be in the neighborhood of $1.00/hour difference at LEAST for that to be enough to decide one way or another on its own.

Hope

No, not the Obama kind. Real hope, right now, and a request for prayers and good thoughts.

Most of you know I quit my job two weeks ago. The job hunting has been pretty discouraging since then.

But that's just changed. A couple of days ago, I got a call from one of the best restaurants in Eugene, I have an interview with them on Sunday. And less than an hour ago, I got a call from a former culinary classmate, and now have an interview in less than an hour at another location.

Both jobs have different strengths and weaknesses. At this point I'd be happy with either, but if I get offered both I want to make the right choice. I'll explain more after the interview, wish me luck.

Dems Giggle While Nola Drowns

A tip of the Toque to Dave in Texas from Ace of Spades HQ.

So glad to know that the suffering of of the people of the Gulf States is worth it to the Left if that means winning this election.

Because, you know, they're for the little guy.

"Light" Blogging

A little break from politics...

I took The Lad to the park down the street from our house today. It was gorgeous outside today, but there was a bit of coolness in the breeze, even when the sun was high overhead. It definitely had that late summer/early fall feel to it, when the sun feels like it's farther away than you've been used to all summer, and it feels like twilight even when the sun is high overhead. I wonder if the angle of the suns rays striking the earth affects our perception of its light in the same way it affects the amount of warmth we receive from it.

I've been doing a lot of reflecting on the qualities of sunlight this summer, and how things like time of year and time of day and ones surroundings affect sunlight, and how that sunlight in turn affects how we perceive our surroundings. And like today, most of that reflection has occurred while taking The Lad to the park -- though unlike today, it has mostly been at Skinner Butte Park in Eugene. Usually, I've taken him there near the end of the day while waiting to pick TFR up after work. Even with the late sunset of summer, it's been late enough in the day most times that the sun, while not on the horizon, was low enough to be below the park's treeline.

But Skinner Butte Park, as its name implies, is located at a butte. Not just on top of the butte, but also extending next to it, between Skinner Butte and the Willamette river. The playground to which I take The Lad is located on the lower land between the river and the butte. So while it was in shadows by the time we would leave, the butte itself was high enough that it was still bathed in light. And what strick me was the way the light striking the butte while we were in shadow made the features of the trees on the butte stand out -- it was as if I could see each branch, each leaf and needle in greater detail and clarity. The light often had a warm, golden quality to it that enhanced the effect. It was glorious -- relaxing, warm, and distinctly summerish.

After I'd enjoyed the sensation for a while, I found myself pondering what the cause of this effect was -- was it the fact that my eyes, accustomed to the shadow, was more sensitive to the light coming off the butte? Was it psychological, in that the dimness of the lower altitude enabled the brain to ignore it, and focus on the butte? Or was it the angle of the sun's rays, coming in under the leaves and highlighting them, instead of coming down more directly from above and washing everything into one mass of green? Or was it, as I suspect, some combination of all these causes?

I'll have to ponder this further -- next time I'm at the park.

Obama will Palin Comparison

A Tip of the Toque to Redstate:

A Tale of the Tape, Palin Vs. Obama.

The Noble Left

A Tip of the Toque to NewsBusters.

This is disgusting. The Kos-tic slime over at daily Kos started with a wild speculation, and ran with it. The allegation is that Sarah Palin's son, Trig, isn't really hers, but her teenage daughters, and that she faked her pregnancy to cover up her daughters.

It's bad enough that such a tabloidesque rumor could be given credence without any evidence to support it, and in fact, with some pretty compelling arguments against it (for starters, Downs Syndrome is much more common in children of older mothers). What's really disgusting is the depth of ugliness the posters at Kos have gone to, and the glee with which htey have done it. There's a references to Trig as a "Mongreloid", and much much worse.

You know how the other day I wrote that I believe that most people on the left are not truly evil, merely misguided? The scum over at Daily Kos are an exception to that.

Alaskan Gold

He did it! I had despaired of it happening, I had actually been foolish enough to listen to the MSM pundits discussing Romney and Pawlenty, but McCain did it! He nominated the running mate I've been hoping for some time that he would -- Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. What a ballsy choice, and I believe the right one. Palin's a staunch conservative, And her pro-life stance reinforces my growing belief that McCain is pro-life too. By tapping a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, fiscal conservative, McCain has effectively reached out to those in the party to the right of himself, while at the same time, by picking a strong, accomplished woman, he's effectively reached out to those in the center.

And let's be clear about this, Palin's gender is not, by any stretch of the imagination, her only asset. She is an accomplished, successful person we can all respect. She married her high school sweetheart, and together they built their own fishing business. She's the mother of 5 children, the eldest of whom is about to deploy to Iraq. She fought her way up through Alaskan politics, making a name for herself as a public servant, she fought corruption within the ranks of her own party, she faced down the backlash from that, and won the gubernatorial election without help from her party's state apparatus.

She is bright, articulate, passionate, and committed. She is a good person, and she'll make a great VP.

It was a brilliant move on McCain's part. Her choice blunts one of the main talking points of the Obama camp. He who spouts "Change" as his mantra selected a longtime DC insider as his running mate, while his opponent selects an outsider, a normal person who earned her place, and a reformer at that. Are you more likely to reform Washington with someone like Biden at your side, or someone like Palin?

And McCain's choice of when to announce was as politically canny as his choice of running mate. Talk about stealing Obama's thunder.

I had hoped for some time she would be his pick, and I'm absolutely thrilled. I was already resolved to voting for McCain, but now I won't be holding my nose when I do.

Waving the Eye-Holed Bedsheet

Oh, for crying out loud... A Tip of the Toque to Ken at It Comes in Pints.





So apparently, if you notice that Barack Obama is skinny, you're actually making veiled references to his ethnicity.





I don't recall if I actually stated this or not at any point in this blog's past, but one of the things about watching the Democratic primaries that filled me with a sense of dread was the knowledge that regardless of whether Obama or Clinton won, we were in for a general election campaign season in which the left's response to any criticism of their candidate would be to call the critic(s) prejudiced. If Hillary had won, it would have been "SEXISM!", but since Obama won, the cry we hear whenever anyone questions his fitness for command is "RACISM!"

I started writing this post back on August 7, but set it aside to deal with regular life stuff. Since then, a lot more has been said regarding this. But the penultimate example of that of which I speak was pointed out to me by Ace of Spades HQ earlier today (Yesterday by the clock): a writer at Slate has actually stated that "If Obama Loses Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."

Has it really come to this? Yes, yes it has. I foresaw it coming some time ago. And here's why I believe it has happened:

Set aside the cynical machinations of the political operatives, both sides employ those, and each side's operatives use slightly different tactics to acheive similar strategic goals. So why has the Obama camp been so successful in spreading this particular theme? In part because they're simply perpetuating what a lot of the people on the left actually believe. Not all, but the most adamant and died-in-the-wool leftists and liberals do. They really honestly believe that if you vote against Barack Obama, you must be a racist.

Logically speaking, their reasoning is valid, but not sound, because their premises are not true. Their argument, which I believe for most is almost subconscious, goes something like this: Barack Obama's idealogy is, almost to a T, their own idealogy. Politically AND philosophically, regarding matters of foreign and domestic policy, economics, Obama really does reflect and represent the beliefs and aspirations of the American Left. And these beliefs, this idealogy, is so dearly held, so firmly and completely believed, that they cannot fathom anyone in their right mind believing otherwise. Therefore, if someone is opposed to Obama, why, it CAN'T be because he simply disagrees with the man's politics, because those are impeccable! There must be some more nefarious reason, some personal vendetta! And once that conclusion is reached, it's a fairly short hop to note Obama's pigmentation and decide that the ulterior motive is racism. The person's real fault isn't that they're bigots, it's that they're not doctrinally sound. But since that doesn't compute, the Left falls back on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Which explains why everything John McCain says critical of Obama must be racism, whereas actual racist comments by Obama's running mate are excusable, even "Strengths".

To be fair, the same could be said of many of the beliefs held by those of us on the right -- some of those beliefs more commonly held by the right than others, but still, without much effort I'm sure I or my readers could come up with a quick list of things that most conservatives, both religious and non-religious, as well as quite a few libertarians, would argue are so blazingly apparent that they surely CAN'T be disputed with intelligence (The phrase "We hold these turths to be self-evident" comes to mind).

So why don't we all start claiming that everyone who supports Obama or opposes our candidates or positions is evil (or racist or whatever other variation of evil you want to pick)? Well, some of us do, and they embarrass most of the rest of us. And almost all of us are sure that SOME of our oponents ARE evil, or at the very least, self-interested and not concerned with upholding those truths we support. But we also acknowledge that not everyone who is on the left, particularly those who fall in the category of "Liberal" (in the modern, not classical sense) as opposed to outright socialist, has evil in their hearts or minds when they vote as they do. That's because we tend to filter our views of such people, to varying degrees, through Hanlon's Razor. It's possible that some of those on the left really do hate our system of government and/or way of life and want to replace it with somehting else, but except for the hard-core Marxists out there, it's more likely that people who vote opposite of the way I would truly mean well, they just haven't really thought through the logic of what they conclude they believe and support. It's like one of those cults where the congregations are true believers, and the "clergy" are the ones who know it's really a con game, and the deeper you get the less an innocent victim you become, and the more you join the ranks of the deceivers.

So let me spell it out for everyone out there who really believes that conservatives oppose Barack Obama because we're racist and he's black. No. We oppose him because we oppose his political views, just as we opposed Kerry and before him Gore and Clinton etcetera etcetera.... We don't like his ideas, we don't like the politics he and his party espouse, and we would rather not have someone who THINKS like him in the White House.

That's not to say there aren't racists who will oppose him, simply because of his color. Hell, he lost votes in the DEMOCRATIC primaries because of that, just as his opponents probably lost the votes of people who SUPPORTED him simply because they wanted a black president.

But really, for most of us, it truly is more about creed than color, more about policy than pigment. So when Obama says that we oppose him because he doesn't look like other presidents, my reply is that most of us oppose him because he reminds us TOO much of certain presidents.

The Trains Ran On TIme

Apparently, Obama thinks we should emulate China. I wonder if that extends only to the efficiency of their infrastructure. Give his upbringing in radical American Socialism, I kinda doubt it.

(A tip of the Toque to Rob at Say Anything BLog)

One of these things is not like the others....

SO I've been watching the latest round of political ads here in Oregon, where the only really truly contested race is Gordon Smith (R) vs. Jeff Merkley (D) for US Senate.

I'm not the biggest Gordon Smith fan, and BOTH sides' ads are particularly negative, but here's the part that has struck me as interesting:

Every pro-Smith ad, and all but ONE anti-Merkley ad, that I've seen, has been accompanied by the now cliche, "I'm Gordon Smith, and I approve of this ad". But EVERY ad I've seen promoting Merkley or attacking Smith has been the responsibility of, and sponsored by, one liberal PAC or another -- SEIU, the Oregon Democratic Party. Not ONCE have I heard from my TV, "I'm Jeff Merkley, and I approve of this ad".

Which is interesting, because the ads approve of HIM. Pity the man doesn't have the balls to speak for himself.

UPDATE 8/21:

It's about time. I finally saw one of the pro-Merkley ads today, one that was originally either a DSCC or SEIU-COPE ad, that is now ending with, "I'm Jeff Merkley, and I approve of this ad". I guess I'm not the only one who commented on this.