Freshman Senator Barack Obama has named Senator Joe Biden as his running mate for the 2008 Presidential Election. This is assuming, of course, that Obama gets the nomination of his party during their convention this week in Denver:

Turns out Democratic primary loser Hillary Rodham Clinton will get time to shine at the party’s national convention after all — and quite a bit of it. Democrats officially will choose Barack Obama to run against Republican John McCain this fall.

But in an emblematic move meant to heal divisive primary wounds, the vanquished Clinton name also will be placed in nomination alongside his during the traditional state-by-state delegation roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

And, she gets her own plum speaking slot.

So does her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Now, I don’t think that there is any chance in hell that Hillary is going to unseat Obama as the party’s nominee. However, this certainly portrays the Democrat Party as less united behind their Messiah as they have portrayed themselves. I mean, other than showcasing the fact that Hillary had nearly 50% of the Democrat vote during the primaries, what does this do? Not much by itself, but add it to this:

The campaign of Republican rival John McCain wasted no time, immediately producing an ad featuring Biden’s previous praise for McCain and comments critical of Obama from an ABC News interview last year. Biden had said he stood by an earlier statement that Obama wasn’t yet ready to be president and “the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden,” McCain campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement. “Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

In addition to the comments above, Biden also said this:

“I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because the country would be better off.”

So, when you add all of these things together, what do you get? You get a picture of a political party which is:

• Trying to please (or appease) party leaders who didn’t get the nomination.
• Nominating someone for President with very little executive, economic, or foreign policy experience.
• Nominating someone for Vice President who stands by his statement that the Presidential candidate is “not ready” to be President, and that said the country would be better off if he were running with or against the other party’s nominee.

Does this sound very united to you?

I have never been a McCain supporter during this election. I feel most of his views are not only not conservative, but could very easily been seen as liberal. Even if McCain chooses a very conservative running mate, and this is a big if, I’m still not sure that I could come out and support him. However, chances are I will vote for him, if for no other reason than to keep Obama-Biden out of the White House.

Watch the Democrat convention this week and look for the signs of division and anger; they shouldn’t be hard to spot despite the press’ almost religious worship of all things Obama. This will give you all you need to realize that Obama’s election isn’t as inevitable as the Democrats would like you to believe.

What happens when you take a classroom full of children, add in a teacher, and then prevent that teacher from doing anything which has to do with teaching? You get the Dallas Independent School District:

Dallas public school students who flunk tests, blow off homework and miss assignment deadlines can make up the work without penalty, under new rules that have angered many teachers.

The new rules will be distributed when teachers return to their campuses next week. But many who have already seen the regulations say they are too lenient on slackers, and will come at the expense of kids who work hard.

For example, the new rules require teachers to accept late work and prevent them from penalizing students for missed deadlines. Homework grades that would drag down a student’s overall average will be thrown out.

Think about this for a second: no penalty for turning work in late, low grades which would affect grade point average thrown out, and no grade lower than a 50. Excuse me for asking, but if we’re not going to grade a student according to his work, just exactly what are we supposed to grade them on?

So, why is the DISD doing this? Well. listen to the dribble coming out of this educrat’s mouth:

School officials said the new guidelines are needed to ensure that all district teachers operate under the same rules and to create a “fair system” for grading students.

“The purpose behind it is to ensure fair and credible evaluation of learning – from grade to grade and school to school,” said Denise Collier, the district’s chief academic officer.

Ms. Collier jumped the shark when she started talking about credibility in relation to these new rules.

So, you say, where were the parents when this was happening? They likely didn’t even know it was happening:

The new guidelines were developed by district staff and did not require school board approval.

District records state that the changes are part of a switch to “effort-based” grading and are designed to give students multiple opportunities to demonstrate that they’ve mastered class material. Requiring teachers to contact parents instead of awarding zeros is designed to increase home-school communications, according to district materials presented recently to principals. Retests and deadline extensions are meant to motivate students to do better after initial failure.

This is what happens when governmental entities like school districts go unchecked by the citizens. And by the way, what exactly is “effort-based grading”? Does that mean regardless of how poor you did on your work, you get a good grade if you tried real hard? I wonder how that would work out in Medical school — “Oh, that’s OK doctor. I know you killed the patient but at least you tried real hard. Here’s your fee.”

More and more, local school districts are getting out of the business of teaching students and into the business of baby-sitting mobs of clueless kids between the ages of five and 18. The districts no longer care if the kids are or are not learning anything; they mearly have to appear to be trying to learn something. Regardless of the work done, all kids are guaranteed to pass and as long as that continues, the district officials crow about how great their policies are.

Just remember this: fifteen to twenty years down the line, these are the people who will be running our financial institutions, designing and building our homes and bridges, and in general running things. Having given them this type of education, how much faith do you have in the future?

Just got out of the hospital after contracting pneumonia. Not being able to breath isn’t a whole lot of fun. However, a couple days of respiratory therapy and antibiotics and I’m good as new.

There are a couple of things that I really want to write about, but I have to look into them before doing so.

Well, the time off was sorely needed and I feel better than ever. For the past couple of weeks, I have literally ignored the news and instead concentrated on music, family, and taking care of myself. Also, I took a business trip to Colorado and had a great time. Its the first time since my kidney failure four and a half years ago that I have left the city, and it has reinvigorated me both mentally and physically.

Well, while I was gone I see John Edwards was doing his best to become the next Bill Clinton. You know, it takes a special kind of douchebag to cheat on a spouse who is fighting cancer. Funny thing is, no one on the left side of the isle is talking about how this is going to end his political career. Things that make you go, “hmmmmmm?”

I see that the Obamessiah is taking another vacation in Hawaii this week. Have you noticed that you have not heard much from his wife lately? Think he finally figured out the American public doesn’t like to be talked down to by someone who doesn’t even like America?

Well, I’m going to catch up on the political scene during the next couple of days and get some more posts out.

In their never-ending quest to find  more ways to extract every single penny they can from your wallet, the Democrats have decided to make guaranteed healthcare the primary plank in their convention platform.

PITTSBURGH (AP) - Democrats shaped a set of principles Saturday that commits the party to guaranteed health care for all, heading off a potentially divisive debate and edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama’s defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The party’s platform committee moved smoothly through a range of issues for the fall campaign and approved a document that will go to the Democratic convention in Denver later this month for adoption.

There was little dissent - or room for it - in the day’s meeting and a compromise on health policy took one flash-point off the table.

You see, as is usually the case, the Democrats are not really concerned about whether or not this is something which is good for the American people; they’re more concerned about what will make the Democrats look united during their convention in Denver later this month. In fact, the Democrats, while “guaranteeing” healthcare for everyone, don’t even have a clue as to how they are going to actually implement this “guarantee”:

Advisers to Obama and Clinton both told the party’s platform meeting they were happy with the compromise, adopted without opposition or without explanation as to how health care would be guaranteed.

Once again, to the Democrats, it doesn’t matter whether or not they actually do what they are promising; it just matters what their intentions are. However, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Other ways the Democrats plan to look good and feel good about themselves:

The party also:

_Promises “tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration.”

_Favors restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and other “reasonable regulation” that recognizes the constitutional right to own and use firearms.

_Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as “public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate.”

_Promises to close the Guantanamo detention center.

_Promises to double the Peace Corps.

Conservatives will see that these ideas are nothing more than tired, old liberal talking points which have been rejected by the American public for the last thirty years. I mean, what good will it do the U.S. to double the Peace Corps? Absolutely no good at all; its just another way to reach into the taxpayers’ pockets and extract more money to make the Democrats feel good about themselves. Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center? One more step in the Democrats’ attempt to convince terrorists that they understand them and want to help them. Afterall, they had really good reasons for what they have been doing for the past few years, right?

If this is the future, I weep for it.

Results of the procedure are that there is no significant blockage in any of my arteries. Therefore, the doctor did not place a stent as was planned. Of the three possible outcomes, this was the least likely. I don’t know what I did to deserve it, but I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I will simply say “Thank you” to all of you who offered thoughts and prayers. I have no doubt that these offerings were the source of my good fortune, and so I am indebted to all of you.

Just so you know, I didn’t get off scott-free. As of Friday, my diet has been highly modified. No more red meat, eggs, salt, butter, or anything else which tastes good. From now on only cardboard, twigs, and the occassional leaf will have to sustain me. I guess I’ll have to find another “favorite” book!

As I am sure you have noticed, this blog has not been updated regularly the past couple of weeks. I am going through some health problems right now, the most urgent of which is a possible artery blockage. Tomorrow I will undergo a procedure where the doctor will confirm if there is a blockage, and if so, how bad the blockage is. If practical, the doctor will place a stent into the artery to clear the blockage and I’ll come home on Saturday. If the blockage is worse than they suspect it is, I’ll be scheduled for heart bypass surgery as soon as possible.

In light of all this, I’m going to be taking some time off from blogging until I feel better. I don’t know how long it will be, but if all goes well I’m thinking about 2 weeks. Obviously if I need the bypass, it will be substantially longer. It just depends on what happens.

I appreciate the thoughts and prayers offered by all, and rest assured that I know that I need every one of them, I am grateful for your kindness and blessed to have family and friends who care this much.

In yet another 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has confirmed the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The above quotation is the last two paragraphs of the Court’s decision as written by Justice Antonin Scalia. If you read the entire decision, you’ll find that it is likewise brilliantly written with logic and reason which is unassailable. In contrast, read this portion of Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent:

The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy.

Hey, Stevens: The entire Constitution places limits on the tools elected officials possess to regulate and otherwise control the lives of the people. I find it hard to believe that this guy can say this and still be taken seriously as a judge on the Supreme Court. If he doesn’t understand what the Constitution is, how in the hell can he be charged with interpreting it?

As for the gun ban itself, it never accomplished what it was supposed to:

Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything the mayor and council of that era wanted it to.

Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.

…

In 1977, the first full year of the ban, the city recorded 192 homicides. The total rose to 223 in 1981, then fell to 147 in 1985 - the lowest annual homicide toll in the District since 1966. At the time, the rate for the country also was trending down.

Which turned out to be the calm before the slaughter.

The advent of the crack market and the unprecedented street violence it unleashed nationwide sent homicide rates soaring in the latter half of the 1980s. Not only did the number of killings surge in the District, the homicide rates here also far exceeded the rates in crack-ridden cities where handguns had not been banned.

In the peak year, 1991, the District reported 482 homicides.

Almost as sharply as violence in the District increased, it declined through the 1990s, a drop researchers attributed to the burning out and aging of a generation of crack dealers and users. Again, the shift reflected national trends.

Yet the gun culture on the city’s mean streets during the crack epidemic has not abated, police statistics show. Even as the homicide toll declined in D.C. after 1991, the percentage of killings committed with firearms remained far higher than it was when the ban was passed.

Guns were used in 63 percent of the city’s 188 slayings in 1976. Last year, out of 169 homicides, 81 percent were shootings.

Reading the above article you’ll find that the amount of gun-related crime was influenced by factors other than how many guns were available. In fact, it seems that the factor most responsible for the amount of violence was the number of crack dealers and users. Further proof that it is people who kill people, not inanimate objects.

As logic suggests, gun bans do not stop criminals from using guns, nor does it stop gun violence. All gun bans do is leave the law-abiding defenseless against a group of criminals who know that their prey will have no way to defend themselves. Until the gun-grabbers realize that people are responsible for violence and crime, not inanimate objects, they’ll probably never understand. I’ll bet a lot of these “brain surgeons” blame their pencil every time they misspell a word.

So, fellow citizens, it is time to rejoice. In a time of uncertainty and apprehension, one of your most basic freedoms and rights has been affirmed and protected, the right to protect yourself and your family from those who would do you harm.

Folks, if ever you had any doubt about liberals and their agenda with regards to the law and justice, today’s US Supreme Court decision should put those doubts to rest:

The Supreme Court declared Wednesday that executions are too severe a punishment for raping children, despite the “years of long anguish” for victims, in a ruling that restricts the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state.

The court’s 5-4 decision struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12. It spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime — two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.

The ruling also invalidates laws on the books in five other states that allowed executions for child rape that does not result in the death of the victim.

However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, “the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.” His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

Unbelievable! The liberals on the Supreme Court don’t think that the rape of a child is bad enough to warrant capital punishment. Therefore, a man who shoots and kills an intruder in his own home to protect his family can be sentenced to death in some states, but if a man intentionally breaks into a home and rapes the children, he’ll just spend some time in jail (on the taxpayer’s dime). How in the world does this make any sense at all?

Justice Samuel Alito puts this all in prespective in his dissent:

The Court’s final—and, it appears, principal—justification for its holding is that murder, the only crime for which defendants have been executed since this Court’s 1976 death penalty decisions, is unique in its moral depravity and in the severity of the injury that it inflicts on the victim and the public. But the Court makes little attempt to defend these conclusions. With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist? Consider the following two cases. In the first, a defendant robs a convenience store and watches as his accomplice shoots the store owner. The defendant acts recklessly, but was not the triggerman and did not intend the killing. In the second case, a previously convicted child rapist kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and tortures multiple child victims. Is it clear that the first defendant is more morally depraved than the second?

…

With respect to the question of the harm caused by the rape of child in relation to the harm caused by murder, it is certainly true that the loss of human life represents a unique harm, but that does not explain why other grievous harms are insufficient to permit a death sentence. And the Court does not take the position that no harm other than the loss of life is sufficient. The Court takes pains to limit its holding to “crimes against individual persons” and to exclude “offenses against the State,” a category that the Court stretches — without explanation — to include “drug kingpin activity.” But the Court makes no effort to explain why the harm caused by such crimes is necessarily greater than the harm caused by the rape of young children. This is puzzling in light of the Court’s acknowledgment that “[r]ape has a permanent psychological, emotional, and sometimes physical impact on thechild.” As the Court aptly recognizes, “[w]e cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape.”
All citations omitted.

As a result of this decision, you are now guaranteed to see more lawyers like this defending child rapists, all courtesy of the liberals on the court:

A Massachusetts politician and defense attorney has touched off a firestorm with his shocking public vow to torment and “rip apart” child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.

Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.

“I’m gonna rip them apart,” Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. “I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a “mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions.”

As if I needed to tell you, this guy is both a Democrat and a trial lawyer. Also, he is the Chairman of the Massachusetts State House Ethics Committee. Yes, that’s right; he is responsible for telling other lawmakers how to conduct themselves.

So, what have we learned today? Well, we’ve learned that liberals like child rapists more than they like the rapist’s victims, families, or the concept of justice. We’ve learned that liberals will bend and twist and mold the law into unrecognizable forms to achieve by judicial fiat what they cannot achieve in the legislatures or the ballot box (elimination of the death penalty, except for unborn children). Finally, we’ve learned that liberal trial lawyers will sink to the lowest forms of human behavior just to make a buck and get their picture in the media.

What do liberal bloggers think of the decision? Well. if this is any indication, they like it fine. I’ll leave you to come to your own conclusions.

Not to put too fine a point on all of this, but if the Obamessiah gets elected in November, you’re probably going to get two or three more justices on the Supreme Court who have the same low-regard for children who are raped and high-regard for child rapists as the 5 clowns who decided this case.

Sleep well.

The scam that is Global Warming is starting to drive the people who believe in it insane:

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Once again, we see the typical liberal reaction to people who have the gall to disagree with them. I wonder, is this guy also going to drag the over 31,000 scientists who disagree with him into court?

It is fairly obvious to anyone who is paying attention that, despite what the Goracle says, there is no scientific consensus on global warming or its causes. In fact, since when was scientific fact ever proven by a “consensus”? A fact is not a fact just because a group of people say it is. A fact is a fact because it can be proven repeatedly no matter who is conducting the inquiry.  In the case of global warming, you have more of an agenda-driven propaganda drive than anythng else. Environmental Wackos like Gore and Hansen hate the oil companies and the large profits they make, so they start telling everybody that if we continue to use oil and gasoline that the planet is going die and everybody will die with it. Then, the scams practically create themselves: carbon credits, ethanol, flouresent light bulbs, and on and on.

Its funny, but a lot of liberals spend a lot of their time calling conservatives fascist, but I have yet to see a conservative advocate the prosecution of someone just because they didn’t agree with him.

Yet another example of why this country would be in even more trouble if the Democrats are left in charge:

With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.

…

“This is not something that’s going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular,” said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a “cynical campaign ploy” that won’t help lower energy prices.

“Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem,” Reid said. “The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world’s oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil.”

For the past several years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining that this country is far too dependant on foreign sources of energy. So, how can we reduce this dependence? Simple: we produce more energy domestically. What is one way we can start doing that now? We can start allowing the oil companies to conduct oil exploration on the Continental Shelf and in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Also, we can allow the oil companies to build more refineries to use this oil to produce gasoline and other products.

There is, of course, one problem with this: The Democrats and thier Environmental-Wacko special interests won’t allow the oil companies to build new refineries or explore for more domestic oil. Why? Because they think exploring ANWR is going to kill all of the Caribu and exploring offshore areas will destroy the beaches. Finally, there is one big reason the Democrats do not want to allow drilling in these areas: they want to keep gasoline prices high until after the 2008 Presidential Election so that they can use this issue to show that Republicans haven’t done anything about it. Yes, they think that their political agenda is more important than actually doing something to solve the problem. I guess that this is supposed to be the big “change” that Obama is all about.

ANWR consists of well over 19 million acres of land. Underneath this land it is estimated that there are billions and billions of barrels of recoverable oil. This is oil we could use, if only Congressional Democrats would look beyond their own self-interest. Instead, Democrats just complain about how the big oil companies are only pushing this to get even more rich than they already are. This country needs energy, and all the Democrats care about is that someone will make some money out of the deal for going and getting it. How much sense does that make? Are they supposed to do it for free? Do Democrats know that this country is based upon capitalism?

If you ask a Democrat what they would suggest to relieve the problem, they tell you that we need to develop new sources of energy and that we should conserve more. Let’s take a look at these ideas:

• Developing New Sources of Energy:  Well, this certainly would be nice. However, it would take at least 10 to 12 years before any newly developed source of energy would be able to replace fossil fuels. First, this new source of energy would have to be discovered and developed into something which is at least as efficient and plentiful as gasoline. Next, the infrastructure of the country would have to be modified to use this new energy source. Do you know how many peices of infrastructure currently use gasoline and petrolium products? Do you know how much it would cost, and how long it would take, to either replace or modify all of these infrastructure components to use this new energy source? This is impractical at best.
• Conserve More Energy: Again, this is a good idea, but it will hardly resolve this crisis. Look at this example: California is the state which conserves the most energy each year. I mean, they’ve got people recycling everything, they have water restrictions, energy restrictions, you name it, they conserve it. So, what does all of this conservation amount to? Every summer for the past few years California has rolling brownouts due to lack of available energy. In fact, one year it got so bad they recalled the Governor. There is absolutely no way the US can conserve its way out of an energy shortage.

So, would opening up AMWR and the Continental Shelf for oil exploration and drilling put an immediate end to our problems? Of course not. It would take a few years before the infrastructure was in place so that we could start pumping the oil out of the ground. However, even if we had this oil now, it is likely we couldn’t do much with it because Congress refuses to allow oil companies to build more refineries. Remember, you not only have to get the oil, you have to make it into something we can use. The refineries in the US are almost always running at full capacity. Remember when Katrina hit and a couple of refineries in the Gulf were put out of commission? Prices skyrocketed because production of gasoline was greatly impaired for a short period of time. Needless to say, if the US had more refinery capacity, we could produce more energy. However, Democrats and their Environmentalist-Wacko friends don’t want that because oil companies will make money by increasing their refining capacity, and they’re (oil companies) just too evil to allow that.

Even the Obamessiah thinks like this. I thought he was well-educated? Hasn’t he heard of the Law of Supply and Demand as it applies to prices? I’ve never taken a single economics class, but even I know that if you want the price of a certain commodity to fall, you increase the amount of that commodity which is available on the market. In this light, how can they sit there and say “we can’t drill our way out of this?”

If Obama gets elected, two years from now we’ll all be sitting around remembering the good ol’ days when gas was only $4.15 a gallon.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but this current presidential election cycle feels like it has been going on for the last four years or so. I am so sick and tired of all of it that I can’t even stand to watch the news for any more than five minutes before I turn the channel. I am finding it harder and harder to care about what is going on in politics and Washington, D.C., regardless of whether it is being done by Democrats or Republicans. I have absolutely no enthusiasm for the upcoming election, and as much as I want Obama to lose, I am finding it very hard to see the differences between him and McCain.

If I had to sum up what I’m feeling, I’d have to say that I feel abandoned by the Republican Party.

The conservative principals upon which the Regan Revolution and the Contract for America were built seem to have been abandoned by the party “leadership.” When these principals were used as the foundation of the party platform starting in 1980, the Republican party enjoyed great success with the electorate. When Bush The Elder deviated from these principals, the Republicans lost the White House. When Newt Gingrich brought the party back to these principals in the 1994 mid-term elections, the electorate once again rewarded the Republicans with their first Congressional Majority in decades. Now, Bush The Younger has once again deviated from these principals and the Republicans will pay for it come election time.

Of course, McCain didn’t do himself any favors by adopting almost all of the Democrat agenda into his campaign. It seems as though he is going out of his way to alienate himself from the people he needs to get elected. Unfortunately for him, he’s doing an excellent job.

None of this is a secret to the Republican Party “leadership.” It’s been hard to look at a conservative blog or other publication over the last year or so without seeing somebody comment on all of this. So, the question becomes: Is the Republican base being ignored by those in the GOP who think that they know better?

Of course they are. Which leads to this question: Will it take a landslide loss in the 2008 Election on all levels for the GOP to realize the need for new and responsive leadership? Probably, but as I’ve noticed for the last year or so, the current “leadership” is heavily in denial and is refusing to see the obvious. A landslide loss may not be enough of a disaster to remove them.

So, thanks to the total abandonment of conservative principals by the GOP “leadership,” we’re all looking at having a President who associates with known racists, associates with known terrorists, associates with known anti-Semites, and has no clue regarding foreign policy, the economy, or healthcare. In fact, without a teleprompter, he can’t even speak as well as the current President.

Change isn’t always a good thing, especially when it’s made for it’s own sake.

You know, sometimes you can set your watches by what these liberals do. Once again, the liberals are telling people that if the Republican candidate gets elected, they will leave the country:

Her financial and vocal support for Barack Obama has not endeared her to some fellow Democrats.

“I’ve got a lot of flak from feminists who feel that I should be supporting Hillary Clinton, but I thought the whole point of feminism is that you’re not supposed to be defined by gender,” she says.

“I don’t understand the reasoning behind that, because I wouldn’t vote for Condoleezza Rice and I hated Margaret Thatcher.”

…

Always busy, Sarandon is about to start work on the romantic period drama The Colossus, but with the presidential election campaign being heatedly contested, she also has bigger things to consider.

“If McCain gets in, it’s going to be very, very dangerous,” she says.

“It’s a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I’ll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don’t know. We’re at an abyss.”

Do you remember all of those celebrities who promised they would leave America if Bush was either elected in 2000 or re-elected in 2004? Well, here we are at the next Presidential election, and here go the liberals “threatening” to leave if their candidate doesn’t get elected. It reminds me of my little sister when she was about three years old. She used to tell me that if I didn’t give her what she wanted, she would hold her breath until she turned blue. Of course, just like the liberals, she never carried out her “threat.”

At least this year there is some unity between the Democrat candidates and their supporters: The candidates are making empty promises and the supporters are making empty threats.

This is the second in a series of posts which will explain my positions on various social and political issues. These posts will appear infrequently.

Almost everyone knows the statistics concerning organ donations for transplants, and if you don’t know the numbers, you more than likely at least know that the demand for transplant organs vastly outnumbers the supply. Health professionals have been trying for years to get more people to donate organs to those in need with dismal results. As this is going on, nearly 6,000 people a year (17 each day) die in the US while waiting for an organ transplant. 6,000. Understandably, that number scares the hell out of me.

Currently, the United network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is in charge of dispersing available transplant organs to waiting patients. If a person decides to become a living donor, there are many conditions they must agree to, including the following:

Disclosure that donors may not receive valuable consideration (including without limitation monetary or material gain) for agreeing to be a donor. In certain cases, donors may be reimbursed for limited travel expenses and may receive subsistence assistance.

This means, of course, that a donor may not donate his organ if he is being paid to do so, regardless of the circumstances. This strikes me as unfair, because every other person concerned with an organ transplant gets paid or receives valuable consideration. The doctors, nurses, clinic workers, dietitians, and counselors all receive payment, and the recipient receives the organ. However, apparently the donor is only allowed to donate if he is doing it out of the kindness of his heart. This doesn’t make any sense; why shouldn’t the donor get something for his efforts?

Lloyd Cohen is a law professor who agrees. He is featured in this week’s Newsweek in an article called Are Kidneys a Commodity?

Give Cohen credit; he’s thought through the unsettling implications of this idea in 21st-century America: the Internet auctions, the reality-TV shows (”American Kidney”? “Survivor: Dialysis”?), legal battles over custody of a kid on life support. That’s the price society would have to pay for the goal of getting more kidneys into people. As for the ethical objection that poor people shouldn’t be tempted into selling spare body parts for cash, running a small but measurable risk to their health, he suggests a comparison with other valued commodities that are dangerous to obtain, like tuna fish. People risk their lives on fishing boats because they’re paid for it. By the same token, says Sally Satel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who debated on Cohen’s team at the IQ2 U.S. event, “we don’t think firemen are any less heroic because they are paid to save us.”

Simply put, there is no relevant reason to prevent donors for receiving payment for their organ donation, and every reason to allow it. Obviously, if donors were paid there would be more organs available for transplant, which would save more lives. However, I don’t agree with Cohen completely. His vision is that a person willing to donate should be able to sell his organ to the highest bidder for whatever price the market will bear. I wouldn’t want to allow this; it is what would draw out all of the worst-case scenarios that the people against paid donation fear. Rather, I would have a board of transplant experts come up with a fee schedule which would authorize a specific amount for a particular organ. Also, to ensure that not only wealthy people could have access to these organs, the fee would be paid by insurance (including Medicare/Medicade). Setting a specific payment amount for each organ does a few things: it prevents bidding wars between those who need the organs, it prevents price gouging by those offering the organs, and having the insurance company handle the payment ensures that the donors will get paid after the transplant has been performed.

I am sure there are people out there who probably think I have fallen off the rocking chair on this one. How can you put a price on human organs? How can you tempt poor people like that? All I can say is that just because a person is poor doesn’t make them stupid. Also, the current regulations regarding donor health would continue to be enforced, which means if you aren’t healthy enough to donate, it doesn’t matter who you are, you can’t donate. Frankly, all I see with this proposal is the upside, which is more organs available for transplants and more recipients being given a new lease on life.

Some of you will say that I am unavoidably biased in this matter. YES I AM. I’ll be completing my fourth year on the transplant list, and according to the transplant hospital my name isn’t even popping up in the top 100 list when a suitable organ becomes available. I might start showing up in year or two, or maybe longer. It just depends on who else is in the computer whenever a particular organ becomes available. Something to remember about the transplant list is that it doesn’t really exist as a list. It is more like a database of people, blood types, organs, and amounts of time on the list. Whenever an organ becomes available, they put in the pertinent information and run it against the database to see who the best match is. Joe Blow might show up as number two for organ A, and then show up as number eight for organ B. Just because you show up as number 2 for a particular organ doesn’t mean that you’re next. This is why a lot of us try and forget about “the list” and just live our life. If you spend too much time trying to figure out where you are on the list you’re likely to go into a depression that you’ll never recover from.

Ladies and gentlemen, paid organ donation is an idea whose time has come.

Ever notice how much Keith Olbermann:

Looks like Robert Tilton?

They both command about the same amount of respect from their fellows (none) and the public trusts them just as much as they trust any other charlatan.