It's time for the Left to join us in reallity

This theme is one of the most explored in conservative thought. Yet again examples come forth to explain why it is needed. The environmentalists talk about carbon offsets. This sounds a lot like the indulgences that the Catholics sold which caused Martin Luthor to write the 98 thesis.

Ok here it is as I understand it. You try to limit your carbon output, and whatever it is as long as you spend offsetting money on environmentally blessed causes you can bring down your carbon number. These are called carbon offsets. Problem is it doesn't pass the stink test. Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, and any number of other Hollywood and left wing zealots continually tell us that we must cut back. Those of us who are part of the great unwashed must sacrifice. The family that has to run kids all over the city must get a smaller car. The businessman that must fly all over to conduct business must not. The salesman who needs an SUV to stock his traveling office, well wouldn't a Honda Civic work better?

I would love to use the offsets in other areas. I am obese. If I invest in some health friendly companies, will that offset the ice cream I had last night? Probably not. If I don't cut down the intake in sugar, fats and trans fats, in the real world my diabetes and maybe other things will be worse. This will happen no matter how many fat friendly things I invest in. Likewise if a company turns in bad profit numbers, their stock in going to get hammered in the stock market. Until they show improvement, intentions don't matter.

The question I have is do we have a global warming crisis or not? Certainly different scientists believe different things. That is not the important fact. Mr. Gore and his ilk believe with every fiber of their being that we do have a crisis. If that is true shouldn't they be willing to make the same sacrifices they want us to? These politicians and celebrities can have as many big cars and big houses as they like and can afford. Just don't tell the rest of us we can't.

What this illustrates more than anything else is the overriding philosophy of the left. Good intentions trump good actions, as long as those intentions are theirs. Seems a bit childish to me.

Question, Do awards from the Academy have any Credibility?

Now the Oscars have shown that politics is at least as important as talent, or appeal. They have joined the Grammy's in that aspect. I don't think this is new, but I don't believe it has ever been as blatant.

We remember Michael Moore winning the documentary award for Fahrenheit 911. Of course Jimmy Carter wins any time has a spoken word album. The Dixie Chicks swept their category. Al Gore wins for his documentary. The inconvenient truth that the former VP doesn't tell us is that there are scores of well respect climatologists that disagree with his findings. Call me partisan, but I think they need to be listened to. This however is not an essay about Global Warming.

Before the ramblings of Natalie Maines there was no rush to give the 'Chicks any notoriety. Likewise Jimmy Carter. Before his constant carping of President Bush he was known as a failed President who liked to build houses for Habitat for Humanity (an excellent charity by the way). Michael Moore's documentaries are more fiction that documentary.

These of course are my opinions, and I don't consider myself a film or music expert. Here is my concern. The impression is out there by more than just me that politics is as important to Oscars or Grammy's as anything else. I fear what this does is taint every award they give to a person on the fringes. It also leads to questions as to artists who disagree with Hollywood orthodoxy who happen not to win.

This year Melissa Ethridge won for Best Original Song. I don't know the song and don't have an opinion of it, but since she is well established as an advocate for Gay rights, which is a number one OK cause by Hollywood standards, did she win for her song, or her gayness? I don't know the answer but certainly the actions of the Academy begs the question. She may have deserved it, she has a long successful career in music. Who knows though. Likewise if Mel Gibson creates a work of art in cinema, I believe is in disqualified from receiving an Oscar. I also submit that he was disqualified before his anti-Semitic rant. He dared to explore the Passion of the Christ. This enraged Hollywood. You don't do that.

What makes it difficult to answer is that art is subjective by nature. I can't think of two industries that have alienated their patrons more than the film and recording industries. By tainting their reputation with the likes of Al Gore and the Dixie Chicks, they thumb their noses once again at the people who buy their product. Apparently looking good at a cocktail party is more important than caring what your customers think. That's what I think anyway.

Politicians and speech

One of my favorite topics. Why do politicians get themselves in trouble by saying stupid things. For the most part, I believe it is because they spend so much effort trying to convince us they don't believe the things they believe.

Recent examples include George Allen and the 'Maccaca' moment, John Kerry and his badly delivered 'Joke' and now Barak Obama and the wasted lives remark.

I don't think anyone can interpret the mind of John Kerry. He is getting toward the Al Gore range of insanity. He is a good case in point. He is a radical left wing politician. There is nothing wrong with being left wing. Just be willing to tell people that is you. He is safe to run that way in his home state. He is comfortable with this persona. When he has to step out onto the national sage though, he has to put on his moderate, mainstream face. Add to that the fact that he does not seem to think well on his feet, and we have a gaffe a minute.

Allen I don't know much about, so can't comment on his troubles except that he let himself into a bad situation that probably has killed his political career.

Obama is an interesting case. Here is a guy that has risen to rock star status based on a very short paper trail. His votes in the Senate are very far to the left, and is admittedly anti-war. Many of the anti war movement truly believe that the lost lives are wasted. Does he believe that. He says no in his apology. Until we see other evidence we cannot truly make a determination. I think Senator Obama needs to answer a simple question that no one has been able to answer to my satisfaction. How can you support the troops without supporting their mission? These are not draftees. They are there by choice. If he believes they are not, (despite the fact that surveys continue to show that they support the mission by wide margins) then he needs to explain why he thinks they are there. This could be a John Kerry-ish statement so expect his not to go there.

John Edwards. Another so-called mainstream, moderate Democrat. Much has been written about the two bloggers he hired with a very vulgar, anti Christian paper trail. Mr. Edwards says he does not share their views and believes they had no intention to impugn any ones faith. Sounds good. The question has to be, did he read their work and just not think it was offensive, or did he not read their work? Either way it doesn't make him look good. Do we want a President who hires people for important jobs without fully vetting them? If he did read their work and not think much of it what should we think about that? It comes down to language. Sound bytes and language are not the same.

Certainly Democrats are not the only people guilty of stupid actions. Former Ohio Governor Bob Taft had a gaffe a minute also. It is a politician disease. It comes down to honesty and authenticity. Why do they feel like they can hide the things they believe. I can only come down to something I have written often, we let them. As long as they get away with these lame answers and explanations, they will find no reason to change. We don't get the leaders we expect, we get the leaders we inspect. That is a paraphrase of something a boss told me years ago about managing employees, but it fits here. The press will give them a two year anal exam about whether they smoked pot in 1967, but they fact that they say different things at different times as to how they will govern doesn't seem to pique the interest of the average reporter. Sad!!

24 Bauer Family Values

Daddy Bauer is not a nice guy!!! OK if you watch 24 this is no shock. Makes for good TV though.

After the two hour special this week I found myself thinking that Morris shouldn't have given in. Earth to my brain HE HAD A DRILL IN HIS BODY!!! In a real world anyone short of Jack Bauer would have given in and done the dirty deed.

Anyone get the idea the widow Bauer is planning a reconciliation with Jack? Sounds too weird. Women must love the guy who could die at literally any moment of the day. Every season he has another woman literally dying to be with him.

Daddy Bauer is threatening his own grand child to save something much more important to him, his butt and his business. Gosh I hope there aren't any grandpa's like that in real life.

Random Thoughts while reflecting on the Super Bowl

Phil Simms says the weather won't be a factor tonight, then spent the evening talking to Jim Nantz about the weather. It clearly was a factor and Phil didn't want to say he was wrong. That being said I generally like Phil Simms' commentary and last night was no exception.

Turnovers, Turnovers Turnovers.

Rex Grossman, if given enough time and stress will implode. Not so much a knock on Rex, as a state of his development. He is a qualified and talented quarterback, but at this point is not ready to dominate a game. Many young QB's have learned the hard way. Hopefully he will. Hopefully he has too much talent to not learn it.

I had no rooting interest in this game, although I was leaning in the direction of the Colts. I kind of like Payton Manning and I had both Joseph Addai and Dominick Rhodes on my fantasy team this year. That was enough to push me toward the Colts. Too bad they didn't throw to Addai this much during the year, maybe I would have won the league instead of finish fourth.

Tony Dungy mentioned God. I read some blogs today on Blogspot, and every one I read made some mention of the statement. Most of them mentioned it in a negative way. I wondered if that says something about us in the blog community. One blogger used the age old, and I believe misguided statement that God does not care who wins (fill in the activity here sporting event, political campaign etc). This makes the assumption that God works on a macro level. To think that way misses the entire message of the Bible. God wants a personal, individual relationship with each and every one of us. It is true that God does not care if the Colts or Bears won last night. God does care that Tony Dungy or Lovee Smith uses the talents and gifts that he bestowed on them to the best of their ability. Same goes for all the players and the people in the front office. The same goes for us. When I pray before a softball game I am not praying for God to let us win, I am in a church league. In theory we all have a relationship with God although I am not qualified to interpret others relationship with God. No I am praying that God will allow me to use whatever talent I have to the best of my ability and for his glory.

Jim Nantz mentioned what a classy and well disciplined person Tony Dungy is and how he never raises his voice or uses a curse word to the players. Talk radio in our area is always talking about needing a high energy coach who will show the players who is boss. I guess that shoots that theory down.

All in all a terrific Super Bowl in my opinion. Glad it was not a blowout and was fairly well played despite some trying weather conditions.