What is a Mini Delegate and why this Label is needed.

2008 Election Results

and I have been in a give and take the past week or so. I come up with a hypothesis, their site updates the relevant stats, then I check if my hypothesis is on target. Excellent synergy, thank you!

So far in this years elections ( thru March 26, 2008), the primary states have averaged 11,009 votes for each delegate that has been selected. In the caucus states it only takes 1,304 voters for each delegate that has been selected. Besides the huge reduction in numbers that a caucus state requires to select each delegate, caucuses are very limited as to when one can vote, lack of privacy when voting vote, and inevitably those who are the loudest and most passionate can either manipulate, overpower, or simply scare off others who don't believe in this method of "voting". Entire demographic groups can be alienated or at the very least shunted in a caucus setting.

Since the term Super Delegates has already come into play, I think it is appropriate that the term Mini-Delegate be used in all states that use caucuses to select their delegates. A mini delegate is not a derogatory term, it is an accurate term that puts in focus the fact that 88% LESS voters have been required for each delegate that has been selected.

The significance of the term mini-delegate better helps analyze delegate statistics. The term mini delegate can now have its own header on statistical charts and thereby allow everybody to better understand the true breakdown in how the delegate votes have been selected. This data becomes critical when it comes to evaluating how each presidential candidate is doing.

When Voters get all day to Vote, Hillary Clinton wins every which way the votes are counted.

When Voters get all day to Vote, Hillary Clinton wins every which way the votes are counted.

Caucuses have been underscrutinized in this years democratic political process. It's pretty obvious that bullying and other tactics that favored the younger crowd went on in many if not all of the caucuses. The News Media's failure to investigate and expose this travesty of the voting process has just been one more hurdle Hillary Clinton has had to unfairly face.

The biggest problem with the caucuses is that they require voters to be at a certain place and time to have their voice possibly heard, assuming the voter isn't being harrassed or misinformed by someone "in charge". This voting method, called caucusing, (or caca cussing), is not used in November to elect our president, and therein lies my concern.

In the actual presidential election, a voter has all day to vote, a full 12 hour period if I am not mistaken. When I tabulate the delegate counts in all states that allowed their citizens a full day to vote, aka primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton has 1,325 delegates, Barrack Obama has 1,305.

This is not counting MICHIGAN or FLORIDA!

The lead in the electoral college vote among states that actually allow their constituents all day to vote is close to a hundred Electoral College votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, 219 to 128, and this again is without counting Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania! This is a landslide of epic porportions that NOBODY in the media will address.

If Hillary Clinton makes this fact known, that she is clobbering Barrack Obama when a state's constituents actually get all day to vote, the media will once again accuse Hillary Clinton of trying to change how the votes are counted even though this is the exact method that will be used in November to elect our president! So how come the media can't do a better job of analyzing what really matters? How come the news media has done next to nothing reporting about the inequities that go along with caca cussing? Chris Matthews, care to address this?

I'm proud of americans that caucus and wear their political beliefs on their shoulders for everyone to see, and bump into. But at some point, what I really value MORE is the vote that happens in the privacy of the voting booth and in the comfort zone of a full days chance to exercise that vote. In that scenario, Hillary wins every which way the numbers are counted, and that's the exact same way the votes get counted in November, no caca cussing allowed.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

Something about Barrack Obama's lead against Hillary Clinton is not adding up. After a bit of research, I think I found the rather weak foundation on which Obama's numbers are based on, and it surprises me that virtually no one other than myself has brought it up.

Based on the amount of electoral college votes that a win in each state brings, Hillary Clinton has 219 Electoral College Votes, Barack Obama has 202. But wait, this isn't counting Florida and Michigan. Some believe Barrack had a marginal chance in Michigan, but nobody thinks Barack would have won Florida.

Add in Florida's Electoral College votes and the numbers read Hillary 246, Barrack 202. Pennsylvania is right around the corner and Hillary is favored there as well. Hillary 267, Barrack 202. How can Hillary Clinton be "on the ropes" when she is dominating in the head to head electoral college vote against Barrack Obama?

I understand that a head to head electoral college competition isn't a perfect system since some of Hillary's wins probably won't happen again against a Republican candidate in the Presidential contest. Nonetheless, a 267 to 202 lead (and Hillary was favored in Michigan as well), is really a big, big difference.

If Barrack had Hillary's position his argument would be he has a huge lead in the electoral college between the two candidates and has also proven he can win in the big states, the decision maker states. Can't you see Barrack Obama using the phrase, "decision maker states", to drive home his point! But somehow, if Hillary makes the same claim, Hillary Clinton would get labeled as Hillary trying to change the voting landscape to give herself an unfair advantage.

That seems like media bias to me.

Among the top ten electoral college states, Hillary Clinton won CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, and most likely would have won Florida, Michigan and probably will win Pennsylvania. Barrack Obama's two wins in the top ten states would be Illinois, the state he was a senator in and spent a good portion of his life in, and Georgia. That's it!

Barrack Obama wins two of the ten largest electoral college states in the country and he's the democratic favorite? Has there ever been a democratic candidate who only won two of the top ten electoral college states yet was nominated to run for the presidency?

And lets talk about these "Caucuses". I'm sorry, but after listening to the pundits go on and on that the super delegates should not decide the democratic race, what about all of these caucuses in which a very small percentage of the voting population, votes! Barrack Obama has won something like 10 caucuses, Hillary has won 1. I want a candidate who wins in the big states AND who wins when all the voters come out to vote. Caucuses are wonderful for showing the passion of the people who care the most, but at the end of the day, everybodys vote counts equally and caucuses clearly do not reflect the will of all the voters in that state.

Subtract the "caucus states" and add in Florida and Michigan and Barrack Obama has won 17 states, Hillary 15. Factor in that Hillary has those 8 wins in 10 of the largest states and it points to Hillary being well ahead, especially if Hillary wins in Pennsylvania. Hillary has truly been victimized by the "no votes will be counted plan" for the states of Michigan and Florida to such a huge extent yet nobody in the media will come out and just say it. If Michigan and Florida's votes would count, combined with a win in Pennsylvania, it's Hillary by a very wide margin in the electoral college vote and the ten largest states.

That is a news story I have yet to see anywhere.

Downshifting the Economy.

Downshifting the Economy.

I am very confused. Before the subprime mortgage fiasco hit, the economy was apparently booming. So what changed? Higher Interest rates kicked in, monthly payments went up, and a chain reaction has begun in which many economic indicators seem to be going from bad too worse.

My question is, are the bankers and the financially elite so loathsome of the little people that rather than do the obvious thing, which is suspend interest payments for a while, they would rather see the whole world spin into economic turmoil?

Rather than have people walking away from their obligations, why not just extend their present favorable monthly payment situation for a few more years? If the economy was doing fine with people paying what they were paying, why upset the delicate balance that precariously existed?

Apparently a chain reaction is occuring, one that could have been avoided by the bankers simply agreeing that it is more important that people keep paying what they were paying versus standing strong on interest charges that couldn't be paid.

Factor in the increasing grip credit card interest rates are having on all consumers and it is clear that what ails the world's economy is the elites fascination with trying to extract too much profit from borrowed money. Either the people on top are evil, stupid, or just too afraid to say what I am saying.

I would pass a law that caps the toal credit card interest a consumer pays at 50% of what was borrowed, and this would be retroactive for all zombie debt and all borrowing since the year 2000. The affect would be instantaneous, people would suddenly see their debt begin to reduce to a more afforable level.

As for the subprime mortgage debacle that is currently going on, the solution there is just as simple. Extend the terms that allowed people to get into the home for the next few years. Have the homeowners sign a note that they agree to give the bank 10% to 20% of the home sales price whenever the home is sold. But in the meantime those that continue to pay get to stay where they are. Eventually, property values will go back up and at some point in the future the home will be sellable at both a profit for the homeowner and the bank that will get a percentage at the time of sale.

Geraldine Ferraro's Comments Explained...

Geraldine Ferraro's Comments Explained...

As heard on the John Gibson show. (Geraldine Ferraro speaks) Between me and you and your millions of visitors, er listeners, if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? (John interjects) You mean if Barack were John Edwards? (Geraldine continues) If he were a women of any color would he be in this position that he is in, absolutely not. (John) Geraldine are you playing the race card? (Geraldine) NO and that's the problem, everytime you speak the truth-I'm the first person John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say in 1984, If my name were Girard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked to be the vice presidential candidate.

The main thing that Geraldine Ferraro's comments revealed was how pretentious many in our society have become, and I'm not referring to Ms. Ferraro but everyone who reacted in a ridiculous manner to her comments.

Ms. Ferraro's comment had a basic truth to them.

Because Barack Obama was the only black person in the race, Obama DID have an advantage. If Alan Keyes had chosen to run for president again, Mr. Keyes would have dug into Obama's numbers just enough to possibly be lethal.

But here is where lack of a sense of humor harms everybody. If there had been another women in the race, that women would also have cut into Ms. Clinton's numbers just enough to potentially be lethal. The comedy about Ms. Ferraro's comments was that whatever Ms. Ferraro said about Obama basically applies to Hillary Clinton as well.

It wasn't until John Edwards left the race that Obama picked up his final momentum. Once again, Ms. Ferraro's analysis ring true. When it was two men against one women, the two men were splitting the vote to a certain degree and Hillary Clinton, as the only women, was benefiting. Just as Ms. Ferraro claimed Barack Obama benefited by being the only black, Hillary Clinton also benefited by being the only women in the race.

In the end, Geraldine Ferraro was right, the problem was nobody had enough of a sense of humor to point out that everything she attributed to Barack Obama as being "luck" could also have been attributed to Hillary Clinton being just as lucky by being the only woman in the race.

I think it is also true that if Barack Obama were white he would have lost a lot of the black vote to.... Hillary Clinton. Hillary's base would have been middle aged and older white women, blacks of all ages, and mexicans of all ages as well, and that would have been a powerful one, two, three punch.

The fact that everyone reacted so stiffly to Ms. Ferraro's comments is what concerns me most. Rather than take the time to really understand Geraldine Ferraro's comments, everyone went for the immediate gratification of a knockout punch that saw Ms. Ferraro resign from Hillary Clinton's finance committee team.

Should Hillary have defended Ms. Ferraro? Since Obama had just let go one of his own people for calling Hillary a name, Hillary's hands were tied and she basically had to accept Geraldine Ferraro's resignation.

The United States is Losing a Bigger War at Home than the One in Iraq

Here is a link to the end of the United States as we know it.

Home Depot to sell Supply Services Division to
make Wall Street "Happy"

News Story posted below with responding commentary by Alessandro Machi.

----------------------------------------------------

Posted on Tue, Feb. 13, 2007

Home Depot to consider sale of division

HOME DEPOT SUPPLY SERVES CONTRACTORS, OTHERS; NEW CEO REVIEWING OPTIONS FOR CHAIN

By Harry R. Weber
Associated Press

ATLANTA - Home Depot, the world's largest home-improvement store chain, distanced itself further from the strategies advanced by former Chief Executive Bob Nardelli as it said Monday it will consider shedding its division serving contractors, home builders and other business customers.

The company's shares rose on the news.

-----------------------------------------------------

Home Depot's stock market "value" has risen because Wall Street has approved of a strategy that minimizes the value of American Citizens who do blue collar jobs such as carpentry, plumbing, landscaping and general home improvement for a living.
-A.M.
----------------------------------------------------


Some analysts said the decision to possibly sell Home Depot Supply could benefit the company by allowing it to focus on generating value for shareholders, while others suggested it could put the onus back on the company's retail side, where it faces tough competition from Lowe's.

----------------------------------------------------

How does one "generate value" for Wall Street stockholders? It appears that the Wall Street investment community sees the disenfranchising of Blue Collar American Workers who work in America for other American Citizens as having inferior "value" when compared to businesses such as WalMart that sell retail products imported from other countries.
-A.M.
---------------------------------------------------


The announcement followed a decision earlier this month by the Atlanta company to give a seat on its board to an investment group that wants Home Depot to consider, among other things, a leveraged buyout of the entire company as a way to generate shareholder value.

The group, Relational Investors, had threatened a proxy fight over the home-improvement company's strategic direction, part of an undercurrent that led to Nardelli's resignation in early January after six years at the helm of the company.

----------------------------------------------------

According to Wall Street "experts" it was unnacceptable for Home Depot to have a "supply division" that enabled skilled American Citizens who work with their hands to have a place to go to buy the products they need to do work for other Americans. Because Home Depot Supply Division could not create the kind of immediate profit that importing from other countries can create, Wall Street thinks the division should be sold off.
-A.M.
---------------------------------------------------

Frank Blake, who replaced Nardelli as CEO, said Monday's announcement regarding Home Depot Supply was part of a strategic review the company conducted in November.

---------------------------------------------------

What Mr. Blake calls a "strategic review" I call a sucide bomb placed directly into the heart and soul of the American Blue Collar worker. Wall Street supports the premise that it is not preferrable to sell supplies to American skilled labor because that will generate a smaller profit margin than selling product that is imported from other countries.
-A.M.
--------------------------------------------------


Nardelli had said repeatedly that he believed the company's strategy under his watch did not need changing.

---------------------------------------------------

Mr. Nardelli appears to be a controversial figure. While I wholeheartedly agree with his position that Home Depot should not shed it's Supply Division, Mr. Nardelli just received a huge, really huge severance package for his tenure at Home Depot. It appears that Mr. Nardelli understands that without a strong local economy which the Supply Division of Home Depot helps nurture; local community economies would stagnate. It just seems a shame Mr. Nardelli was paid so much darn money for that basic understanding. Home Depot Supply is the seed that bears fruit for local communities throughout the United States yet Wall Street seems to focus solely on quarterly profit margin reports and is unwilling to acknowledge that long term stability matters just as much.
-A.M.
---------------------------------------------------

Blake said the company wants to concentrate more on its retail business.

---------------------------------------------------

Retail business means the importing of product from other countries at the loss of local blue collar jobs, that's what is Good for Wall Street, but is that what is good for your local community?
-A.M.
----------------------------------------------------


The company said it would ''evaluate strategic alternatives'' that also could include an initial public offering of the supply business. Home Depot did not say how much it could fetch for HD Supply, but some analysts valued it at $5 billion to $7.5 billion.

------------------------------------------------

Strategic alternatives is a code word for outsourcing, for buying as much product from other countries as possible at the expense of the local communities ability to create skilled labor jobs.
-A.M.
-------------------------------------------------


Analysts had mixed reactions.

''While we had long been advocates of the Home Depot Supply business, the market never seemed to warm up to the strategy, viewing it more as a lower-margin, lower-return distraction from retail,'' David Strasser, an analyst with Banc of America Securities, said in a research note.

-------------------------------------------------

Lower profit margin does not mean the Home Depot Supply division was losing money, it just means that it was making less money than Home Depot could allegedly make if it were to simply focus on importing products from other countries.

Do you see a dangerous pattern emerging here? No new United States business can be created that uses United States Labor and United States resources and still score as high a rating with Wall Street as a U.S. business that imports products and/or services from other countries.

At some point, do we dare ask if Wall Street's institutional practices and objectives are violating the constitution of the United States by aggressively advocating the outsourcing of all goods and services to other countries over the blue collar citizens of the United States?
-A.M.
------------------------------------------------


Strasser said Home Depot's stock should react positively to the news.

''This tells us new CEO Frank Blake is focused on value, and taking a fresh look at every aspect of the business,'' Strasser wrote.

-------------------------------------------------

Increased value for whom? Perhaps increased value for those who are already worth millions and salivate for millions more from their Wall Street Stock holdings. How is this "fresh look" achieved, by focusing on the import retail business while downgrading the importance of the local blue collar worker.
-A.M.
--------------------------------------------------


But Mark Rowen, an analyst with Prudential Equity Group, said in a research note of his own that without HD Supply as a growth vehicle, investors soon could start to focus more intensely on Home Depot's core retail segment, which he believes is close to reaching store saturation in the United States.

----------------------------------------------------

Mark Rowen is a smart person. What Mr. Rowen is saying is the diversity of products and services Home Depot provides all over the United States fuels a huge amount of local economies by serving both the consumer with goods they can immediately use, and the blue collar worker with core products they require to do skilled labor, to have a job!

Home Depot is a company that has become an essential economic cog and valued member of local communities throughout the United States, whereas the same cannot be said of Walmart, which actually assisted in the rise and fall of a small town rubbermaid plant located in Wooster, Ohio several years ago. The rubbermaid plant was disassembled and the assembly line manufacturing components were sold to China, over a thousand workers in Wooster Ohio lost their jobs.

What Wall Street is saying to Home Depot is, "Be like Walmart and offer retail only products made from other countries or we will downgrade your Wall Street Value". What Mr. Rowen has intelligently pointed out is that companies that help the local community create and maintain jobs have an intrinsic value that cannot be easily measured by Wall Street. Ironically, it's smaller profit divisions within a company like Home Depot Supply that actually help stabilize a local communities economy and as a result help other Wall Street Stocks meet their bottom line because the local economy sustains more jobs, which results in more overall spendable income.
-A.M.
----------------------------------------------------


''We believe that Home Depot will continue to struggle with the effects of a difficult housing market in the near term, as well as intense competition from archrival Lowe's longer term,'' Rowen wrote.

----------------------------------------------------

Another excellent point by Mr. Rowen. Home Depot has a competitive edge because it offers a diversity of goods and services. Once Home Depot "cuts and runs", they may gain an instant increase in stockholder value for the investors who want to make a quick buck by selling their Home Depot stock. Afterwards Home Depot will simply blend in with their competition and most likely no longer hold any advantage. Meanwhile the blue collar workers who lose their jobs because of less supply availability won't be able to buy any product from Home Depot at all.
-A.M.
----------------------------------------------------


Overall, Home Depot currently operates 2,159 stores in the United States, Canada, Mexico and China.

----------------------------------------------------

Let us not forget, Home Depot not only sells products to consumers, but Home Depot Supply currently sells product to creators, innovators and blue collar people who use Home Depot Supply product in their own line of work. These jobs fuel the local economy so people have money to spend in their own community. Wall Street is insidiously proposing that it's always better to import product and services from other countries rather than creating the product in the United States. Wall Street is advocating an outsourcing paradigm because it will always create a larger profit margin than can be created with United States skilled labor. Wall Street is advocating this outsourcing motiff at the loss of blue collar jobs in the United States.

In a related scenario, since Wall Street has decided to completely embrace the importation industry over blue collar American Made Jobs, the War in Iraq takes on added significance. Having access to the worlds oil supply is imperative for any country intent on creating an import economy because it takes petroleum to fuel the huge number of ships that bring product from all over the world to our own ports. Yes, Wall Street, whether they realize it or not, appears to be a war mongering institution as well.

-Alessandro Machi

Iran 68, Iraq 26. Do You Know What I'm Talking About?

Iran has a population of 68 million, Iraq has a population of 26 million people. Does anyone really believe that once the United States leaves
Iraq that Iraq can defend itself from three warring factions within Iraq, and also deal with Iran?

Explain to me why it will be OK to have Iran run roughshod over Iraq once the United States leaves. Explain to me how getting rid of Saddam Hussein and HIS TWO SOCIOPATHIC RAPISTS SONS (both of whom would have carried onward the leadership of Iraq in an even more heinous and lethal manner than Saddam), while also protecting Iraq from Iran and a population 2.5 times greater than Iraq makes Mr. Bush one of the worlds most terrible people?

And if you respond to this editorial, please ADMIT as to whether or not you had researched the population of both countries and knew there was such a huge disparity in population between Iran and Iraq BEFORE you had formulated an opinion about the war in Iraq.

If Bush was wrong for invading Iraq, it was only because he did not have the ability to be as much of a menace as Saddam Hussein must have been to both keep three different religious sects in check within Iraq while also defending Iraq's border against Iran.

Warring Middle Eastern Countries to appear on Survivor.

Can Reality TV finally help solve an ongoing world conflict? Wouldn't you watch a Survivor Special featuring groups representing Hezballah, Hamas, Israel, and maybe even Al Queda?

You probably think I'm joking, yet I'm couldn't be more serious. Think of the benefits. Rather than simply hear about the everyday bombings and threats of violence that are always attached to the usual suspects, we get to really know these different factions on a level never witnessed before.

Survior has been known to depart from the first season formula that many other reality television shows have since emulated and with that in mind, I don't believe anyone would need to be sent off the show on a weekly basis, instead the point would be get to know all four groups over the course of a full season's worth of shows.

Isn't it time to get a different perspective on different groups of people that for the most part are only known to the industrialized world as being warriors?

Wouldn't it be great if a reality television show for once could actually help put a spotlight on a divisive situation and perhaps help heal an unending toxic situation?

The world awaits "Survivor and the Middle East".

Polar Ice Caps Dead Ahead!

The Coors "love train" television commercial tried to make us feel cool during one of the hottest summers ever recorded in the U.S. by drinking their beer. An animated Icy Coors train travels at a high rate of speed and smashes through somebody's overly hot party, instantly "cooling it down". Most trains don't go 300 miles an hour, nor are they icy cold, but if one did and it came crashing through my party I doubt I'd be celebrating. But maybe Coors is onto something and perhaps their somewhat implausible but pioneering commercial may have started the next big thing.

A really big chunk of the polar ice caps recently broke away from the Artic. Rather than be an alarmist and claim that Global Warming caused it, lets turn what the Al Gores of the world would call a calamitous event into a situation that actually creates jobs and economic prosperity. This recently departed Ice cap is pretty darn big and has me wondering, can we harness the magnificence of this Ice Cap for economic gain and prosperity?

That's right, I'm talking the Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour! Unlike any other amusement park ever created by humankind, this one would come to you as it floated past your city by the sea! The Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour would feature real life Eskimos, Penguins and Polar Bears in a light-hearted romp as they tell their tale of anguish and woe about living so far away from civilization, and malls. Disney could provide several ice-tastic rides for children of all ages! It will be refreshingly chilly on the Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour so furs could even make a one day comeback. Nagging issues like all the dead animals it takes to make one fur coat would be passe for the day. Ice Hockey and speed skating would do well with the men. In what might be considered the first ever "humane zoo", caged animals would be kept behind icycle bars instead of steel and the animals would have the luxury of seeing the coastline pass on by in the background as they refresh themselves with icicle lattes, what could be more humane than that, besides actually being free? Ice Capades would be another surefire (oops) way to bring families to "The Cap" by the thousands.

Yes, "A Cap is born", "Lets go to the Cap", the next big phrase.

In an effort to promote energy conservation, "people pooling" to the Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour would be the order of the day. Solar Powered Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour Speed Boats would pick up anxiously awaiting crowds for their day at the Cap. To stay true to the environment, only meltable foods would be served, and therein lies the ultimate beauty of this idea. Assuming the Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour eventually melts, nothing will be left behind because it will all have been returned to the sea in a non polluting form! Even Polar Bears, who don't swim very well anyways, will be returned to the sea as a new food source for what some are currently calling our "starving oceans".

However, as good an idea as this is, what makes it an idea that Wall Street would love is the instant economic gratification it will provide to investors. The seafaring Polar Ice cap is available right now! Investor start up costs would be minimal and infrastructure is already in place so research costs won't be necessary. An investment opportunity that can harvest an existing resource for maximum profits without spending a dollar on research and engineering, why it's the perfect Wall Street Investment! As all News programs remind us every day, hour upon hour, if it's good for Wall Street, than it HAS to be good for you!

But what about after the Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour melts away, then what?

There is hope. Alaska has some of the biggest oil reserves in the world. Quite possibly even as the first Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour is bringing happiness and economic prosperity to coastal cities around the globe a new polar ice cap could be created right where the old one used to dock. Sure it may take vast amounts of ice machines working around the clock to make enough ice for a second Polar Ice Cap, but that just means even more jobs and economic prosperity for the indigenous people living at the poles.

But how could a new Polar Ice Cap be made so quickly?

The answer my friend, is underneath the ground. Clearly, God put oil underneath the Polar Ice Caps so we could use the petroleum to power ice making machines. Rather than wasting fuel to power oil tankers that transport Arctic oil to other parts of the world, the oil can stay right where it is as fuel for all of the ice making machines required to generate new Polar Ice Caps! Reduced shipments of oil via oil tankers means less oil tanker accidents, another environmental benefit that can be added to this remarkable idea.

If Global Warming eventually becomes a far off possibility in the way too distant future, perhaps taking action now has it's advantages. The Polar Ice Cap Victory Tour will simply grow in popularity as the earth warms up even more. I don't know about you, but when it's a 120 degrees out, I think I know where I'll want to be, galvanting on the my favorite floating and very cool amusement park! Just another plus to this innovative idea that surely makes it a Wall Street Stock Market dream investment.

The Polar Ice Cap that recently broke away from the Artic and is currently floating along the oceans of the world is the little Polar Ice Cap that could, the one that thought it could break away, and now it has. This Brave Polar Ice Cap has sent out a Global polar flare and now it's time for us to take this Ice Cap's warning message and change it to one of good times and cheer, afterall, that is what our media and Wall Street does best. Hooray!

Alessandro Machi

The Hidden Message Behind the TB Media Scare.

Isn't it scandalous to suddenly make such a HUGE Media Publicity Scapegoat out of one person who flew to various places around the world when they had TB? Are we to believe that in the last 30 years and millions of airline flights that NOBODY has ever flown before who had TB?

Is it now evident that in the near future all airline passengers will have to be "tested" for communicable diseases just prior to boarding an airplane? If the Media TB Terror Alert didn't convince you that your rights to move around the United States and other countries as well have now been further compromised, just wait until terrorists simply annoint their own with communicable diseases and send them merrily around the world to contaminate a ton more people than a bomb can maim.

A whole new industry, one that "tests" people for communicable diseases right before boarding a plane may have just been born, and all it took was the Media's public outing and persecution of one American Citizen to do it. Has some business entity used the U.S. Media to ratchet up the demand for their own medical testing product?

Uh oh, maybe it is time to suppress the media. It truly looks like we're damned if we do suppress the media, and damned if we don't.

Britney Spears Shears the Day

How does a very young child react to momma coming home looking like a completely different person then when she left? The more Britney makes her life and her problems be about herself, the more she misses out on being a mommy, and the more she wreaks havoc on her children's very fragile psyche.

Put me in the category that thinks seeing momma go from one extreme look to another could be a traumatic experience to her still very young kids.

My Pay to Leave Migration Proposal.

I like the idea of choice when it comes to migration. I like the idea that America has a choice in how much migration it allows and I also like the idea that migrationists be given a choice as well.

Passing a migration bill now will expose two huge weaknesses. One, the United States had no choice in accepting 12 million premature migrants, and two, that the migrants had no choice as to whether or not they stayed or went back to their home country.

Do the migrants have any choice in whether or not they stay? They are here, and to make them leave and start over seems really wrong. Yet Americans haven't benefited from the influx of migrants as some might lead you to believe because at the same time mass migration has been coming into the United States, job and manufacturing opportunities have been migrating OUT of the United States.

One primary factor propping up the United States economy is that many middle aged and older Americans have seen their property values rise three and four times over what they paid for their deed a couple of decades ago. Meanwhile, the youngest generation has less chance at owning property proving that migration is not in anyway helping our economy KEEP manufacturing jobs in the United States.

I believe monitoring and enforcing our border is something the United States Government has refused to do and there must be some nefarious, ill begotten reason for that. Perhaps our government is aware of illegal drug trafficking and doesn't want to thwart it by actually improving security at the border. Additionally, legalizing overmigration with a sweep of the legislative hand will just prove that the United States will never control its borders if it's done before true enforcement barriers and procedures are put in place.

Before any migration bill is passed, I propose that the border wall be finished and the proper security put in place. At that point, I think every migrationist should be offered $15,000 dollars to leave the United States and go back to their country of origin. Additionally, another $5,000 dollars would be placed in an American bank account that would go toward the necessary legal fees for becoming a United States citizen. This additional money could be accessed and the process for reinstatement could be initiated one year after a migrationist has gone back to their original country of departure.

Aren't you curious just how many of the alleged 10 million people waiting to be made citizens would go for this offer? I bet the predictions about what percentage would take the money and return to their prior home land would vary a wild amount.

If the United States cannot afford a "pay to leave" program, then how can the U.S. afford a "pay to stay" and receive government programs that would result from the influx of 10 million instant new citizens?

Does the government have the funds for a "pay to leave" program? The United States would have had the funds if when the "War on Terrorism" had been initiated an equal and just as aggressive strategy to implement alternative energies would have been started as well. Instead, we are squandering billions of dollars warring to maintain access to oil reserves outside of U.S. borders, and in essence, we are migrationists ourselves when it comes to oil and our dependence on it.

Perhaps you Miss Imus and don't even know it.

June 6th, 2007 and the Arizona Wildcats have just defeated the Tennessee Lady Volunteers in female mud wrestling, er, in the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Championship Game. When at least one member of the NCAA's Rutgers Womens basketball team claimed they were scarred for life by comments Don Imus made about their team, Mr. Imus was unceremoniously "retired" by the political correctness crowd. Fast forward a few months and there is no big bad Imus to bring some much needed attention to the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Championship game.

Now more than ever the NCAA Women's Sports Community needed the Imus Touch to help promote The NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Championship tournament games. ESPN did their part as they really went all out and interviewed all the young women athletes up close and personal. ESPN then created sound bites from each of their interviews and periodically played them throughout the games. ESPN did such a fine job interviewing these young women it kind of made me wish I was 20 years old again and a women's fast pitch softball groupie.

Now Imagine Don Imus still has his job on the radio and he mentions how much he really likes the Arizona's pitcher's ability to "bring it" to the plate. Perhaps Mr. Imus might have then pontificated about how he'd never look at swinging in quite the same light after seeing these ladies pull that bat handle until the ball exploded for a home run.

Whether it was salacious soliloquy, controversial curtness, or off the cuff inappropriate banter on his gone and perhaps forgotten radio/television show, Don Imus would have drawn the ire of the national association of political correctness groups, along with every feminists group on the planet, real and imagined. More importantly, a Don Imus on air inappropriate Spittle fest would have most probably brought some well deserved publicity for NCAA Women's fast pitch softball. Dare I ask, would that have been so bad?

But once again political correctness has reared it's unisex head and shunted Mr. Imus just when he was needed the most. The way I see it the Rutgers women's basketball team did not learn how to hand off the publicity football after they had already run for a touchdown and kicked the extra point. When it's all said and done, the outcry over Mr. Imus's diatribe about the Rutgers female basketball team allowed the Rutgers team to hog all of the "woe is me" attention for themselves while simultaneously incapacitating any future NCAA women's championship event from receiving the Imus Touch.

Did we see or hear about any of the Rutgers girls basketball team members taking their new found victimhood celebrity status and using it to help publicize other women's sports teams? Perhaps the Rutgers girls basketball team was too busy trying to recover from being scarred for life to try and shine any of their new found celebrityhood onto anyone else.

When it's all said and done, the real victims of Mr. Imus's diatribe from a few months ago may have finally been discovered, and it wasn't Rutgers college or it's female basketball team. The real victims of Mr. Imus's Rutgers on air imbroglio wear NCAA baseball caps, swing with all their might, dive for every ball, and run hard to first base each and everytime, but you probably don't care about any of that because nobody took these girls seriously enough to say anything derogatory about them.

Hopefully by now you realize how much you should miss Don Imus and his ability to draw attention to sporting events that otherwise would just melt into the night, making very little sound and no fury as they just fade away. Do you really believe you will see any more mention of the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Tournament baseball now that the event is over with? We have the political correctness crowd to thank for that.

I sincerely hope that all the advertisers who pulled out of the Don Imus radio and television talk show put their money where their mouths are and supported the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Tournament by purchasing commerical advertising time.

Now that Don Imus has been minused did anyone else step up to the plate and properly indoctrinate the world of NCAA fast pitch softball to the public? Did the political correctness crowd ultimately damage the baseball tournament's visibility by vanquishing the one person who would have helped the sport become more noticed? When Don Imus takes the time to care enough to say something ill-conceived and in bad taste, people listen.

Once the political correctness crowd minused Imus, did they do enough to promote the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Tournament to the public? If the answer is no, then you should be missing Don Imus right about now.

Minus Imus

How many here know that years ago Al Sharpton was directly involved in public demonstrations which included provocative chanting that led to the killing of an innocent person? It's sad to see the mainstream media rely on Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson to evoke change when both men have on occasion behaved inappropriately. To me that just means nothing has really changed, the torch of inappropriateness has simply been passed from Mr. Imus to Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson.

Snoop Dog's recent explanation about why it was ok for himself but not outsiders to call women in his own neighborhood derogatory names left out one undeniable truth. Snoop Dog profited by calling women from his neighborhood derogatory names, which makes him at the very least no different from those he insulted, and probably worse. After profiting by condemning women for being gold diggers (to put it in a nicer vernacular), how much of that profit has Snoop put back into the very neighborhoods and people he publically criticized?

Kudos to the Rutgers collegiate women's basketball team, a basketball team comprised of many nationalities that lost an early season game against Duke by 40 points, but kept improving all season long until they made it to the NCAA Women's championship game. That is one of the real stories regarding the Rutgers Women's NCAA basketball team, yet it didn't get much publicity before, during or after Imus said what he said.

I don't understand why it is ok for every, and I mean EVERY radio and television news broadcaster to repeat verbatium, and rerepeat many times thereafter, the exact same comment that Mr. Imus said just once? Assuming the Imus comment was bad the first time Mr. Imus said it, isn't it just as bad the second, and far worse once we have all heard the comment repeated well over a dozen times by the news media? I wish the FCC would fine every "news" station that unnecessarily repeated and rerepeated the unrepeatable Imus phrase under the guise of "breaking news". I don't feel it necessary for newscasters to broadcast over and over a phrase that if I ever were to repeat just once would rightfully land me in trouble.

Defining Freedom

The one word that President Bush has uttered the most during his presidential tenure is the word freedom. I can recall several speeches where every few sentences the word freedom was used relentlessly by President Bush. It was as if President Bush could not escape from using the word Freedom, ironic as that may seem.

But is the word freedom secret wordspeak for something else? Is Freedom a code word for another word that is rarely used in Presidential speeches? Is it also possible that it is not just President Bush that overuses the word freedom? Does our whole society habitually overuse the word freedom when another word is actually meant?

Is it possible that whenever we talk about how free we are as a nation, how we are free to follow our dreams, how others have the right to be as free as we are, that we are really talking about something different? Have you been trying to figure out what the mystery word is that we have cast aside and replaced with the word freedom?

Is freedom, prosperity?

How many times has George Bush used the word freedom when he was really talking about prosperity? How many times do tax protestors talk about freedom from the tyranny of taxation without acknowledging that their desire for freedom is caused by the prosperity generated by law abiding businesses? How often do feminists use the phrase "free to choose" rather than "free to prosper" when they speak about terminating a pregnancy? If you haven't noticed, I am asserting that EVERY political and social group across the entire spectrum of our society prefers to use the word freedom rather than prosperity.

Yet is it possible that freedom only exists because prosperity exists?

If freedom really existed outside of prosperity, would I not have the right to do a job well done, even if I lost money doing it, for my entire life? If I was truly free to do the publicly acknowledged "right thing", and it caused me to not make a profit and instead lose money, would the government acknowledge my noble goal and waive my taxes? What behavior or act would I be free to continue to do on a regular basis if I was not prosperous, other than be homeless and hungry?

If Freedom is a code word for prosperity, then why do we continue to use the word freedom when we really mean prosperity? Could it be that deep down we are ashamed to say we are a prosperous country, nation, people, person? Just what is it that we are ashamed of? Maybe we are not ashamed to use the word prosperity and there is another reason.

Is it possible that it would be more difficult to manipulate and convince others if we talked about prosperity rather than freedom?

Dare I say that the word freedom is a more manipulative word than the word prosperity? If the word freedom is a word that is used to peacefully manipulate minds, than the word freedom may only exist as an oxymoron. Manipulating others by using the word freedom is an action taken by someone who is not free, but rather driven to be prosperous.

When George Bush states that the people of Iraq have the right to be as free as the people of the United States, would that statement carry an equal mandate if he had stated "The people of Iraq have the right to be as prosperous as the people of the United States". Does Iraq have the right to be as prosperous as the United States, or is equal prosperity an immeasurable myth that would never gain public acceptance? Is the word "freedom" the great pacifier that clouds the thinking person from contemplating about prosperity so they instead just go along with the plan at hand? Did George Bush use the word freedom to convince us to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because his speech writers probably knew that the word prosperity would not be as convincing, or manipulative?

If George Bush states that, "Terrorism is threatening your freedom", it becomes easier to then agree that we must defend ourselves against terrorism by going to war. But if George Bush states that "Terrorism is threatening your prosperity", doesn't that make you think for a moment, to ponder why do the terrorists want to stop our prosperity, there must be a reason they don't want us to be prosperous, no???

Our government is not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, and that may be why we are not supposed to question the government when they say our "freedom" is endangered and we must fight to protect it. The problem as I see it is that if we fight a war with the stated goal that that war will help keep us "free", but to win the war we must rely on resources from the very region where the terrorists reside, then that seems to be a contradiction that cannot allow us to either prosper or be free.

I believe we can only win a war in Iraq and Afghanistan if we can abstain from their resources, yet remain prosperous while we abstain. If we cannot achieve that agenda, then we need to do much much more than "win" a war, we need to create alternate modes of prosperity that do not rely on the resources of the lands we are fighting wars in.

I would ask anyone who has read this editorial that from now on, whenever you hear someone utter the word free, or freedom, that you instantly substitute the word prosperity in it's place and see if that changes how you feel about their statement. At least then you will be listening to an honest accounting as you contemplate how the new found meaning of the message makes you feel.

Opposite Sides of the World Interpret Same Events, Oppositely.

When people in the United States assemble for a protest, they usually are much calmer than the crowds seen protesting on the "other side of the world".  In the United States there are both industrialized and white collar jobs that appear to be peaceful.  Whether one works on an assembly line piecing together gas guzzling, oil thirsty S.U.V.'s, or one works for a fortune 500 company orchestrating IPO's so that huge malls and corporate villages that straddle pristine forest land can be built, these jobs are considered to be "peaceful" in nature, especially when business is conducted in air conditioned, relatively comfortable surroundings (no disrespect to the miners out there is intended).

Ironically, an abundance of civilized jobs in america create a greater and greater need for oil and other resources that must be procured from outside of american borders.  Is that really a peaceful way to live?  

The types of jobs found in the opposite part of the world may not appear as appealing to america, but for the most part they may in fact be the peaceful type of jobs that we portend to have in the United States.  Do you begin to see an irony here?  We believe we have peaceful jobs, a peaceful economy that the world over wishes to emulate, that we even protest peacefully and civilly, and are a peaceful country at the core (no longer dare we say to the core).

Meanwhile those on the opposite side of the world probably have the real peaceful jobs in which they make one of a kind clothing by hand amidst swirling clouds of dust,  hand pick their food products rather than use tractors, and can carve out a living on the side of mountain without the need for foreign resources.

In the United States we plan or protests in air conditioned Star Bucks locales, then carry out the protest protected by sun tan lotion and bottled water as we make plans on our cell phones for that evenings social calender.

In the opposite side of the world, in places like the Middle East or South East Asia, protest appear  to be of a much more violent and hostile tone.  In America, we generally see americans protesting peacefully, lol, if we see them at all.

In the opposite side of the world, "Death to America" has become a common chant over the past few decades.  Maybe after a real hard day of work in a non air-conditioned, dust laden environment, perhaps I'd be really pissed off as well and would look angry If I then felt obligated to attend a protest.

I like to look for signs from the opposite side of the world that they can assemble in public in a peaceful, responsible manner without suicide bombers lying in wait, and without having to chant "Death to America".  However, I also no longer accept movies like "Transformers" in our own country as being peaceful when they have blatant tie ins to General Motors and their gas guzzling "muscle cars".

In the United States, we tend to not see the underlying violence in messages that are peacefully delivered.  If a message is peacefully delivered, it must be peaceful in nature, we mistakenly believe.  Our news media glamorizes movies like Transformers as General Motors hopes their marketing tie in to this movie will help create the next generation of customers who will purchase their big, loud, powerful gas guzzling anti-oil conservation vehicles.

If I could pass a law, it would be that no longer can an american news broadcaster put their own

comments over images from another country and tell us what we are seeing.  I'm not exactly sure whose voice or message should heard over the images that come from other countries, but how can we trust a news program that advertises and promotes a movie like Transformers as being a good thing in this day and age when we wage war over oil reserves located in other parts of the world?

When it comes to our animals, we love our dogs and cats, and eat cattle. In the opposite side of the world, they revere cattle as being sacred and eat dogs and cats, another example of how the opposite side of the world behaves oppositely to ourselves.

I'm left to wonder, do opposites attract?

Why you don't have the Right to Complain about Events that happened before you were born.

I remember watching a public speaker angrily rail about events and travesties that occured over a hundred years ago.  The speaker passionately railed against past social injustices and it was almost as if they were reliving the injustice themselves as they spoke.  "Ok, you are right", I said to myself, "that shouldn't have happened, but if it had not happened, YOU AND I WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY!"

Imagine Clint Eastwood with a gun to your temple and his fist clenching your soiled collar, asking you as only Clint can, "well punk, do you want to change the past so badly that it means you would have never been born?  Well, do ya, you self righteous punk".   I am not brave enough to answery yes to that scenario, how about you?

I consider it stealing to relive the distant past with present day anger and rage and using that rage to try and get ahead or profit.  If the moment in question had never happened,  the chain reaction of events would inevitably mean that you would never have been born.  Practically anything that happened up until the day you were conceived, if it had happened differently, might have resulted in a differently timed sequence of events that would have resulted in all of those delightful sperm being tumbled out of the starting gate in a different order and position.

As many as 500 million sperm cells are jockeying for position when they began their race to impregnate the female ovum.  The time, place, and displacement of the sperm along with how fertile the ovum was feeling at a specific moment in time create such a huge amount of variables that if a fellow sperm had won out, YOU WOULD NOT BE HERE.

So the next time you are either anger about the past, or wish you had been born differently than you were, the odds are pretty much stacked that you were destined to come out as you.  It's what you do afterwards that you can take some of the credit for.

(Original version written on Tuesday, January 16, 2007)