The Inaguration- Leftist Slant

So I'll post a few of my thoughts on the inauguration coverage on www.cnn.com/live

1. interviewing US troops in Afghanistan, the stateside reporter said "when Obama's face showed up on the big screen here there was a lot of cheering. Was there a similar reaction over there with the troops?" Answer: "not really"

2. arousing applause for Jimmy Carter- who accomplished...

3. arousing applause for Bill Clinton- the last president to be impeached. Solid

4. on a serious note, I have a 7 year old daughter. It must be so surreal for Obama's daughters to be essentially royalty. They really do look like great kids.

5. i respect that they muted the crowd noise for george bush's introduction as either it was not-rousing or possibly more like Philadelphia Eagles fans, but then they cranked it up for Biden so far and will undoubtedly do so for Obama- sort of like NASCAR "crank it up"

6. Barack "H" Obama. way to try to hide your heritage.

7. Lots of anti Rick Warren talk on Facebook- you know, the pastor that Barack Obama personally chose to give the invocation. I love how people love Obama but hate his choice here.








8. John Williams has proven that he is no more original than Puff Daddy

Obama and Gun Laws

I like guns. I'm not a freak about them. I just think that they are pretty cool items of technology. I inherited one from my dad who inherited it from his dad. It's a Smith & Wesson .38 police special- made around 1917 or so. I keep it in a gun bag. I keep the ammo elsewhere. Last time I shot it was about 1995. Last time I shot a gun was about that time too. If someone breaks into my house, they're probably not going to get shot... for now.

But many years ago, I really enjoyed going to the shooting range and trying out the 9MM semiautomatics- the Glock, the Sig, the Taurus, the Beretta, etc. It just felt practical. Sort of like playing a Playstation compared to an Atari 2600. Now I'm not saying that guns are toys, but my point is that one is more of a Playstation 3 and the other is an Atari 2600.

In our house, we have young kids so buying a more practical gun has not been an option for the past 7 years. And I've had no problem with it. But now that Barack Obama will be our next president, there has been a lot of buzz about buying guns and some of it has been coming from my own wife.

This year I went to Christmas parties where the talk was guns. I've been to coffee shops where people are talking guns. And believe it or not, households with anti-gun wives are softening to the idea. I live in Arizona where we're more of a Blue state (I think that's the one for Republicans) so guns are already everywhere, but the point is that a lot of the recent buzz has been caused by the election of Barack Obama and the fear that he will go straight for gun control as an early priority.

As if the war and the economy and gay marriage were not enough to tackle, will gun laws really be threatened? Couple the conversations that I spoke of with the flat out feeding frenzy at any local gun shops, and you'd think that the end of the world was near. Since my wife softened to the idea of a newer gun, I've started to research it a bit and then I decided to go to the local super big box outdoorsman store- Bass Pro Shop. Not sure if you're familiar with this store, but basically anything that you can do outdoors, they have- it's absolutely overwhelming- like Disneyland. But they have a firearms area that has rifles and pistols and I couldn't even reach the counter because there were so many people there. This was right around Thanksgiving, so sure there might be people gift shopping, but I felt embarrassed that I was surrounded by what felt like gun nuts and here I was, some dude who had basic questions and who wanted to feel what certain models felt like in my hand. It wasn't worth the wait so I left.

About 3 weeks later, I took my daughter to a similar but smaller store after a friend suggested it and found a similar scene. But with this store, the display was sparsely populated- And per the clerk, they couldn't keep the guns in stock and people were buying the displays. Because of the low stock there were only about 10 people there so I picked the brain of the clerk a bit. He told me that they are typically busier after an election and especially with Obama being elected the consensus was "get em while you can".

Then this past weekend, my family got away to the snow and we went to another enormous box retailer called Cabela's which is similar to Bass. While the wife and daughter were looking for snow clothes, I beelined with our son to the firearms section. And this time I got photos. This is the best one I could get because I felt like a spy- like someone was going to pull a gun on me and harass me about taking photos. It was like the deli counter where they called your number. There were no less than 10 clerks and about 30 customers. The reason you don't see so many is that many were hanging back in the ammo aisles at the time I took this shot.

So my question is: Is this gun hype justified? And based on that, are gun manufacturers Republicans or Democrats?

Again, Obama's already got a lot on his plate- enough to take him out 8 years if he gets reelected. So I don't see him addressing gun control during his administration. But we're talking about the second amendment here. A basic unalienable right of Americans. Sort of a third rail of social issues. And when you consider that 44% of voting Americans didn't vote for him, it's the sort of issue that will quickly polarize the country. Thomas Jefferson that a little revolution is good now and then and perhaps it is. But when that revolution is the gun lovers fighting for their rights, then you're talking about a potentially serious revolution.

Now our economy sucks right now and we're seeing lots of companies going out of business and cutting jobs. But gun manufacturers have got to be loving all this hype. If you owned an umbrella company and it was a cloudy day, would you tell people that it was only going to be a sprinkle or that it would burn off by noon? You'd probably emphasize how cool your umbrellas are and how it would protect you from the elements. I seriously doubt that you will see Glock explaining how Obama won't restrict gun laws.

I'll probably get a new gun in 2009- I'll research it well, try a bunch of models and I'm the kind of guy who will get the absolutely best deal. Not sure which one but when the hype swings a certain way, then you've got to act on it. But mark my words- under Obama, the hype of gun contol is unjustified.

Protesting Rick Warren at the Inauguration?

Wow, am I a little behind on the latest controversy. And there's just too darn much to read. So rather than get educated, get ready for some hip shooting.

Barack Obama has chosen Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to give the invocation at his inauguration. And apparently, there's a lot of people who aren't too thrilled about this- particularly, gays and other JO liberals whom I adore so much. These folks want to march on the church, they're calling Warren names, blogging to no end, etc. That's fine. It's called free speech.

But Obama chose Warren personally for this honor. Obama made a decision. Barack Obama- the guy that 56% of American voters voted for this year, is the president elect of our country. He represents change. He represents fresh ideas. He represents something other than the good-ol-boys network (as he's clearly proven with his cabinet selection so far...). He's the chosen one isn't he?

So what is up with all these people questioning his judgement already. He's not even in office and he's managed to offend the whopping 5% of Americans (who are gay) and all the other hateful, spiteful liberal loudmouths who think it's an Obamanation to have Rick Warren even present at his inauguration.

I am appalled at this blatant intollerance and second guessing of our president-elect. I can understand conservatives calling Warren a traitor or sellout or whatever for supporting a liberal leader, but Obama's own people are complaining. And he's not even in office yet!

Wake up America! You made a mistake in selecting Obama. You made a mistake in selecting someone who is really trying to unify. You made a mistake in selecing someone who is reaching across the aisle (both in politics and ideology).

What exactly were you expecting? Were you expecting Obama to go nutso liberal and throw all Republicans in Guantanamo? Ban churches? Declare national gay day. Announce that God doesn't exist? Allow pornography on daytime tv? Confirm the conspiracy theory that was 9/11? Appoint Tim Robbins and Babs to his cabinet?

New York Winners?

I should be working. And when I'm done working I can bury a cable wire, hang the rest of the Christmas lights, take a shower, fix the pool, go Christmas shopping, help at my daughter's school, network, or plan dinner. But instead I'll write about the Yankees- to an audience of...

So the big news of the MLB winter meetings is that the New York teams came away as big winners. How spending a ton of money translates to being winners is a little beyond me as has been proven time and time again over the last decade. So the Yankees have committed $23MM a year for Bartolo Colon II. Yes that's right, the second coming of big fatty. For those with short term memories, you'll see that Colon was traded to the Expos at the trade deadline in 2002 when he was 29. With the Expos, he went 10-4. A year later, he parlayed his success into a lucrative deal with the Angels, a 4 year deal worth about $51MM. He had two solid years but his last two years with the halos he was 7-13. He was 33 and 34 during those crap seasons.

Sabathia just came off a kickass season highlighted with an 11-2 post trade performance. Perfect contract year action. So now he's signed for 7 years with the Yankees at $161MM. That's $23MM a year. He's 2 years younger than Colon was. So that will translate to 4-5 years of kickass performance followed by 2 years of crap. So in reality, his true worth will probably translate to $32MM per year. Now I know that we're talking about two separate pitchers here, but here's the big (key word "big") parallel. Both Colon and Sabathia are big fat dudes- both listed at two and half spins on www.baseballreference.com (which is where I retrieved all stats that I've used for analysis). And big fat dudes tend to break down- especially pitchers who must exert so much force on their bodies 100 pitches per game. And if you compare a guy like Roger Clemens in 1986 to Clemens in 2006, and the dude gained weight. It's a simple derivative of age. So if Colon is listed as 250 now, how much did he weigh 5 years ago?

So the Yankees being defined as big winners sounds very similar to when they signed Carl Pavano. Pavano earned $5MM per win for the Yankees.

Moving on to the Mets and in particular Omar Minaya. Another Expos connection here. Minaya's the J-hole who actually traded for the Bartolo Colon rental- and he only had to give up Grady Sizemore (4 time MVP candidate and 3 time all star) and Cliff Lee (2008 Cy Young Winner, previous CY candidate and 1 time all star). Oh yeah and Brandon Phillips- the starting 2b for the Reds for the last 3 years. So Minaya is a genius if you ask any Expos fan. So now he's the GM of the big money Mets and he has been labeled a winner since he signed K-Rod and Putz. Really?

K-Rod has the new record for saves in a season but he didn't win any awards for that. Oh, I assume he won the Prilosec Relief award or whatever they call it. But anyone who knows closers knows that their lifespan is typically very short. Besides guys like Trevor and Mariano and Billy, closers typically flame out pretty quickly. Look at guys like Keith Foulke or Gagne. Those guys just puttered out after rising so quickly. In fact it's always a risk with any pitcher. It's a big risk to sign a closer- hence K-Rod smartly "only" got a 3 year deal at about $12MM per- which he was smart to take. And going back to Minaya's genius, what else was he supposed to do? The bullpen killed the Mets last year, there are very few top tier closers on the market this year, the Mets have money, so they signed K-Rod. Hell, I could have done that if I were in Minaya's position (ok, I don't speak spanish, so perhaps it would have been a more difficult conversation) So now the Mets have 2 closers of which Wagner is still servicable. So is their bullpen bolstered? Absolutely. Add to that the trade for JJ Putz who was the Mariner's closer in 2007 and you now have 3 closers.

But how many winter meetings end up with the Yankees, Mets or other big market team being declared the "winner"? Don't get me wrong, you can officially name some teams like the Padres, Nationals, Royals, Blue Jays, etc. "losers" and I don't dislike these teams, but they simply didn't make any moves that look like they'll improve their teams. But to name some teams "winners" is absolutely ridiculous. How bout we simply say that these teams spent the most money this winter meeting. Winners are determined in October (ok November) so lets save that label for the appropriate time because at the end of the year, either the Yankees or Mets or both will definately be losers.

The Gift of Obama

So since the election has ended, my passions have dwindled a bit. But through the process I wanted to really learn about the candidates. So I signed up for both Obama and McCain's campaign email newsletters from about July forward.

It was pretty cool to keep up on things and hear what each candidate was focussing on, and once the election was over I received a nice thank you note from John McCain's campaign (via email). I received an email of a different tone from the Obama campaign as well. More of a "rah rah", thanks and we'll do a good job sort of email. Very cool- even though I didn't vote for Obama.

But I never unsubscribed from either list... and since then, I've not received anything from McCain- which makes perfect sense. But I've received a handful of emails from the Obama campaign. About four were actually pretty cool- non-editorialized announcement of his staff, innauguration stuff. No big deal. But I've received no less than 3 emails asking me to donate more money for which I will receive in return- either a t-shirt, mug, or calendar. Seriously? And for the purpose of replenishing the DNC war chest? They want individuals who are most affected by our economy to shell out more money to buy some licensed merchandise?

I guess if you want a Billy the Kid Knife

or the Baby Princess Diana Doll

































then you can always go to the Franklin Mint. But Obama is now trying to angle into this market?

A Holiday mug (which looks sort of like a coffee mug) for $15

Or a calendar for $35





















Or a T Shirt for $30

Maybe I'm not part of that culture that needs to commemorate things like this. I have a few T-shirts from places I've worked, a set of fraternity letters, an Expos baseball jersey, a Star Tours coffee mug. And yeah i guess I paid for some of those things. But now as a business owner I have coffee mugs, notepads and pens with my company logo. But I don't go selling those things to my clients. That would sort of set a crappy image with them. Would I want to hit them up for "donations" to help my business out? Isn't the real end result of the Obama presidency supposed to be a better America with more prosperity for the little guy? So how does making them (ok, us) pay a large amount of money for these trinkets help accomplish that end result? Plus, isn't there a whole industry in these sort of "licensed" merchandise already? Is he trying to put them out of business as well?

Perhaps I'll wait til January 1st rolls around and the calendars will be half off at the mall kiosk.

----------------
Now playing: New Order - Touched by the Hand of God (Biff & Memphis remix)
via FoxyTunes

Where to Vacation when you Never Vacation

We're pretty lame about traveling. We've been married for ten years and Nadine and I have vacationed to Mazatlan once. Our honeymoon was a drive up the coast from Orange County to Carmel and back. Since we had our daughter, we've flown up to Seattle and Vancouver once- that was pretty cool. Cole is now 3 and our kids have been on perhaps a combined 6 airplane flights. Our normal "vacation" is a week in California visiting Sea World, Disneyland or the beach. Pretty cool destinations if you live in Iowa or Katmandu, but considering that I grew up 20 minutes from Disneyland and lived in San Diego for 5 years, it's pretty boring.

When I was a kid, it was quite the opposite. My dad was a career Army officer so we as a family visited a lot of the places he had been in his youth. You know, stuff that all kids get to see- like France and Germany and Austria and Guatemala. My mom's Korean so I've done the 16+ hour flight across the Pacific. We went to Tahitii, Hawaii, Washington DC, St. Louis, New York City, Atlanta, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon. Didn't you go on extravagant vacations as a youth? And didn't your parents pull you out of school in February to go on such trips?

So unfortunately, my own family is the complete opposite of the one of my youth.

Well, we are officially planning a vacation for early 2009. A family vacation, and we're on a budget. So when I do my internet research, of course the hot destinations are Hawaii, Florida, or Cruises. But why is it that there are no guides for vacation destinations by month or by budget? Or am I simply looking in the wrong places? I get my mind set on a destination and then some yokel tells me that the best month to go there is August, or some other month besides the month we're planning on going. The bottom line is that there is ALWAYS somewhere cool to go for each month of the year and for each budget and for each climate desired. So why can't I find it?

Here's what I'd like to see: a website where you put these criteria

• your home location
  
• your family size
• your budget
• the month you want to travel
• the number of days you want to vacation
  

Then, when you hit "submit", the results will show a few domestic and a few foreign destinations that are appropriate for that month. The results will show the various general costs associated with getting there (flight, train, boat), the reasons why those locations were selected. And if it turns out that you can't take 4 people to Kenya for 14 days on a $3000 budget, then it should show what you can get for that amount of money.

The most important criteria should be the desirability of that location for that month- period. Or heck, if my own opinion is not what everyone else wants, then perhaps you rank your search criteria based on level of importance.

Wouldn't that be cool? Where can I find this?

Gay Marriage should NOT be Legal.

I live in Arizona and two things were noteworthy and related. John McCain won here and the anti gay marriage measure on our proposition ballot passed. I voted for both and since they are conservative issues, it's logical that the state as a whole voted for McCain AND this proposition (proposition 102)

But so many Americans are claiming that this election was a vote against conservatism. A vote for change. A statement that America is sick of the bible thumping gun toting regressive conservatives. Was it? Was Obama being elected a statement against conservatism or was it more of the perfect storm that allowed him to be elected by a landslide.

The biggest hot button today is the backlash of the heavily Mormon-backed prop 8 on the California ballot. Yes, liberal, Shwarzenegger/Hollywood California where the media is so dominant and where so much of our national MTV generation was founded, they voted for the anti gay marriage proposition. Shocking isn't it?

So a "majority" of California is happy that their candidate was elected. Down with racism! I'm all for that. Yet there are tons of protests and boycotts and general civil disobedience that such a hateful proposition passed- passed in an election- not by a vote of the California Supreme Court. A vote by the people. Well, we know that a ton more blacks voted. After all, they actually had a reason to vote this time- instead of the standard two old white rich guy ticket that we've had for so many years. And we're proud to have a black president elect. The right decision was made. But just a minute, a wrong decision was made on prop 8. And guess whose fault it is? Those ignorant hateful blacks. And those ignorant hateful Koreans. And those ignorant hateful Mexicans. And of course those ignorant hateful mormons. And who is aiming so much hate towards those people? Many of the same jackasses- that's right jackasses who so strongly supported Obama. You think McCain supporters are unhappy with the prop 8 outcome? Sure there's such a thing as gay republicans, but let's be serious.

So which is it? And who has the final say? You don't like a supreme court decision so you put it on a ballot. You don't like the election results and you sue and take it to the supreme court. I know about checks and balances, but come on!

Sure, the mormons and evangelicals spent a lot of money to get prop 8 passed. You know why? Because they believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman (despite their history in the past). And so they spent a lot of money to get it passed. And they spread "misinformation" and false fear in getting their message across. But didn't Obama spend a lot of money to get elected? And didn't he spread "misinformation" and false fear about McCain and himself and his past? I don't remember seeing any McCain infomercials. I don't remember seeing McCain commercials on every channel for a week straight. Why the double standard? And what if the 55 million McCain supporters started marching for a recall? They'd be considered racists. They'd be considered whiners. But a bunch of homosexuals and "straights against hate" supporters march and if someone objects, then guess what, those objectors are intollerant and hateful.

Don't get me wrong. I am a hater. I hate a lot of things- just look at my blog. I hate people getting murdered, and criminals getting away with crime, and disease, and getting ripped off, and expensive gas, and high taxes, and seeing stores close, and seeing my home value drop 60%, and when i'm out of cookies, and the Yankees, and when my feet itch, and when my dog pees in the house, and when people do a bad job, and when i forget to take the trash to the curb. But I don't hate gay people. I don't hate black people. I don't hate democrats.

I believe in democracy. I believe in tolerance. I believe in acceptance. I believe that when the people have spoken, they have spoken. I DO believe that marriage is and should be defined as between a man and a woman. I DO believe that we have enough to teach our children including about homosexuality.

My 7 year old daughter and I just read a Curious George story and a bird was described as gay. My daughter asked what that meant and luckily I could stick with the contextual definition for now. But when I talk to her about homosexuality, then I'll be ready for it and she's ready for it or will be soon. But most kids learn about marriage when they are 3ish. And if they're lucky, with their parental example, they see that it's a man and a woman- and it really doesn't need any explanation- it's observed. After all, they themselves came from the union of a man and woman- whether it was in marriage or not. So kids can spend a few years knowing "marriage" without having it explained to them. But now they want us to explain the complexities of marriage to our kids earlier and I'm not cool with that. It sucked explaining divorce to my daughter. Now you want me to tell her that "oh yeah, and two dudes can be married too"

And sorry to be simplistic, but how is it hateful to not want gay marriage, and how is their fight the same as the black civil rights fight? Blacks couldn't ride on the bus, or go to school, or serve in the same platoon as whites, or drink from common drinking fountains. And now they can. Gays can already be gay with each other. Gays can live with each other. That's not against the law is it? Imagine if we put people in jail for sodomy. Gays can bequeath their estates to one another- if Leona Helmsley can leave 12MM to her dog, then by golly gays should be able to give their money freely. Gays can share medical insurance- and if they can't, then why not? Gays can be legally bound to one another- and if they can't then why not? And if you tell me that by allowing gay marriage, they'll be able to do all those things, then I say to you, really? Gays really need the term "marriage" to make their lives complete? And if some people don't want gays to use the term "marriage" (the majority of people if i didn't already mention that), then perhaps we, yes WE are holding, no wait grasping, at yet another value that we see slipping away.

It's a slippery slope. I won't go into the "oh yeah, well if you allow gay marriage, then what about marrying your sister, or a minor, or a duck, or a car" argument. It's too exhausting, so let's go back a bit. In 1960, Jack Parr couldn't say "WC" for "Water Closet". Now we've got people skanking around on Rock of Love, being able to see full on hardcore porn at the simple click of a mouse, kids telling their teachers to F off and their parents suing for kicking their kid out of school, 16 year old pop stars dating 20 year olds, open and glorified drug use discussion on the radio. The slope is already slid down 90%, and the voice of reason is trying to hold on to the definition of marriage. It is about our kids. It's all about our kids. They'll learn about certain things in time. They all do. And it should be discussed by parents with internet filters, and TV rules, and teaching manners, and values. But when you have to change the definition of one of the basic concepts of our society, you are cramming it down our throats. And when only 5-7% of the population falls in that category, they have no right to complain when the majority doesn't want it.