REACT: Kansas judge overrules God.

As part of our continuing effort to understand why judges need armed protection, we have yet another example of our judiciary out of control. In this case, we are dealing with judicial malfeasance by virtue of stupidity.

Seems like an unnamed young Kansas woman wanted to be a mother, but was not interested in intimacy with someone of the necessary opposite sex. So, she finds a good male specimen among her friends and they informally agree (no written contract) to a bit of sperm bank virtual intercourse. The result is a set of twins.

Ms. Penisphobe says she never intended for the guy to have any daddy involvement. Sort of like fish. The male sprays the egg nest …then swims off into anonymity. Mr. Ricochetromance says he always wanted to be a real daddy to his kids.

Oh! Did is say “his” kids. Not so, according to a Kanas judge.

The court ruled that the sperm donor is in no way the father. He has no more relationship to the twins “than does the taxi driver who rushed their mother to the hospital …” Here we have some a judge overruling science … and God.

If, in a night of drunken abandon, the good lady had suspended her penis anxiety and allowed her equally drunken friend of moment of foolish romping, they still might have had twins, and the courts would be declaring visiting rights --- and hold the guy responsible for 18 years of support payments. Same people. Same egg and sperm. Same twins. The only difference was the proximity of the penis to the birthing chamber.

Hopefully, there remains some sanity at the appellate level, where this case is heading.

Farewell to my Chinese friend.

Time flies. It seems like only a short time ago that Xu Jinzhong was posted in Chicago as the new Chinese Consul General. Not so.

I recently had two occasions to say good-by to my dear friend. One was at a private dinner to which he invited me and a couple of my friends. The other was a more formal farewell reception attended by a larger number of well-deserved friends. He not only leaves Chicago, but his public duties. He is retiring from active duty, as they say.

Consul General Xu leaves behind a large number of true friends and a record of accomplishment in representing the diverse, and often complicated, issues between the United States and China.

More important than his professional accomplishments has been his great integrity, openness and warm friendly personality.

It has been a pleasure to have worked with him over the past few years. But I am confident that the friendship will endure, and we look forward to seeing citizen Xu and his family in Beijing on our frequent trips to the Middle Kingdom.

Jill and I wish him and his wife great happiness in the future years.

REACT: Good kid a felon for an essay?

Well, I certainly did not take long for the Gestapo in Cary, Illinois to make fools of themselves. Let me be clear, I am NOT associating them with the real Gestapo … more like the guys in Mel Brooks’ movies, like The Producers and To Be or Not To Be.

Base on the news stories, they have brought their sleepy little community to the fore of national attention – and none of it good. They managed to take a high school incident and give it more media attention than the debate between the Democrat presidential candidates. THAT is one hell of an accomplishment. They have added a new level of meaning to the word “overreaction.”

What’s the deal?

Well … seems like a young Asian student, Allen Lee, as part of a class assignment, wrote something violent. No argument there. The teacher freaked. With visions of Virginia Tech dancing through her head, she took what she deemed a dangerous document to her superior, and from there it went to the principal. He, in turn, sends Lee’s creative writing to Police. Of course, no one tells the kid’s dad about this.

Now here is the rub, as Shakespeare would say.

According to the LAW, they were not allowed to contact the parents. According to the LAW, they were REQUIRED to bring in the police. This is just the kind of thing that helps you to understand how liberal zealots, lawyers and legislators are screwing up America. But, that’s another issue.

In Cary, we have two fault points. Knowing the idiotic law, the teacher should never have done the equivalent of smashing the fire alarm glass. By all standards, this was a kid well within the range of normal. I think a little teacher-student conversation would have done the trick. By all reports, Lee is a reasonably popular student – not given to dark moody weirdness of past mass killers. He is an honor student. Good family. Okay, so he is a bit quiet.

However, the greater blame belongs to the police. They did not have to arrest the kid and charge him with multiple felonies. A little common sense and an informal visit with the dad and the school officials would have prevented the national outrage. And yes, the police can go to the parents.

Why DID the police arrest him? Because he committed a crime? Way no. They arrested him FOR THE PUBLICITY. Yeah! They, like the comic Gestapo, not only arrested the poor kid, they sent out a press release to make sure the world knew it. A press release, for God’s sake!!! I think this is where the Internet chatterers add … lmao.

Of course, all the officials involved did not seem to care about Lee at all. What will all this false accusation do to his career? What if he is actually convicted of a felony? Will his arrect record follow him through life? (And yes, arrest records are still public information even if you are not prosecuted or acquitted. But that's another issue, too.)

It is very likely that some of Lee’s career options have already dropped dramatically. No matter what happens next, there will always be a shadow over his reputation. They have damaged him significantly --- and undeservedly. It is possible his scheduled entrance into the Marines could be nixed. If that happens, the kid will be elevated to national hero status, and the folks in Cary will be the villans.

My question is: What are the leaders of Cary going to do about the police? Maybe suspension … public scolding and a bad mark in their permanent record?

Oh! Did I forget to mention the obvious racism? Would this have happened if Lee was not Asian – Chinese to be precise? I am betting not. Thanks to the Virginia Tech shooter, Asians are under special scrutiny.

One can only hope that some level of sanity will descend on the little town of Cary, and Lee will be set free, get profuse apologies and be the guest of honor at a school assembly. In a funny sort of way, Lee is a hero for making us aware of how ineptly dangerous are our new laws regarding parental notification and how overzealous school officials can do their own version of damage. It is an example of zero tolerance and mandatory action run amok.

REACT: Guiliani is right about a Dem in White House

Have you ever had one of those situations were the truth should never be said out loud? Former New York Mayor and now presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani recently said that the election of a Democrat president is more likely to result in a terrorist attack on the United States that the election of a Republican. Sounds pretty self-serving (which it is), and pretty outrageous (which it is not). Despite the whining of the Donkey presidential wannabes, Rudy-pa-tootie is right.

Before the last election, this blog offered a similar version – that the pending success of the congressional Dems would increase terrorist violence all around the world, but especially in the war torn countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. That prediction has come to pass, although I don’t see any of the new leaders of the Senate and House taking responsibility for it.

The logic is simple, and persuasive. Anything that suggests the United States lacks full resolve and commitment to the defeat of terrorism aids and abets the enemy. In the appeasement and surrender mentality of the liberal Democrat, the terrorists find hope, confidence and renewed determination. Perceiving America as a “house divided,” they naturally fight harder.

It is common sense that they will test the new and weaker America with provocative attacks. They we test the limits with increased carnage. They will find propaganda benefits from the public pronouncement by Senate Leader Harry Reid that the war is “lost.” He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but as the leader of the Senate, he has used his position to betray our fighting men and women. The recruitment efforts of the maniacal mass murders will benenfit from the belief in a possible victory– hence more young men and women volunteering for martyrdom through death and destruction as human bombs.

The election of a surrender at all cost Dem president will be celebrated in terrorist-ville with more bullets and bombs – and the United States will NOT be spared. That is just a fact.

OBSERVATION: Of course crime pays.

David Radler, former Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Sunk-Times (Ooops, that should be SUN-Times) is living proof that crime pays. He has just reached a settlement with the SEC to pay more than $28 million to avoid further prosecution. He buys himself a “Get of Jail Free” card.

Not so “free,” you say? Just think of it this way. He is paying his “fine” with a portion of the money he stole. It is like getting caught robbing the bank, and being let go after paying some of the money back. Just think how much the guy stole to be able to pay a fine of $28 million … geez.

Couple this "buy out" and his plea bargain on the other charges, and Radler still winds up a very rich and free man for all his misdeeds. That is not justice.

REACT: In Defense of the Penny ... or boo to you Neil Steinberg

Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Neil Steinberg, has come out against the preservation of the penny. He employs the usual arguments. It’s worth less than the cost of production. It is not used in commerce—at least not necessary. No vending machines use it any more. They just wind up collecting in jars.

True, it costs more than a penny to make one. No longer used in commerce? Why do I always wind up with pennies in my change from the store? And, there ARE still penny gumball machines here and about. One major grocery chain features a penny mechanical horse ride near the check out counter.

All this aside, our buddy Neil misses the true value of the penny.

First of all, it is the only coin with the image of the most revered President, Abraham Lincoln. As the 16th Chief Executive might say, “it is altogether fitting and proper” that his image should be on the most humble of coins, to symbolize his own humble nature. It was the first U.S. coin to feature a President.



Northerners complained that such a great President should be honored with a coin of greater value. Southerners complained that such tributes were for tyrants -- which they viewed Lincoln to be. Still, when introduced in 1909, the Lincoln penny was so popular that long lines formed at the mint, and citizens were limited to one dollars’ worth. People were immediately selling them on the street – three pennies for a nickel. Compare that to the recent releases of the highly touted dollar coins. The face of the penny is said to be “the most reproduced piece of art in the history of the world.” Originally minted in pure copper, it was the most unique U.S. coin.

Should we do away with the penny, what do we do with Lincoln? The absence of a Lincoln on our coinage would be a disgrace. So who goes? Washington booted oft the newly designed quarter? Jefferson off the nickel? Roosevelt off the dime? No larger coin would do. Any Lincoln coin must be in widespread use. Perhaps the most appropriate option would be to replace slave-owning Jefferson with the Great Emancipator. Jefferson still has the two dollar bill. To completely remove Lincoln from coinage of common circulation is unthinkable.

It is true. The penny does wind up in the family coin jar more often than any other coins. In our case, all pennies are put into a coffee tin in my son’s room. Pennies add up. For my son, the can is usually worth up to $10 by the time the copper coins are redeemed at the bank. Alex can then buy something special, or save up for a more expensive item. So, try convincing kids like Alex that pennies are worthless.

And pennies do not add up just for Alex. Did you ever notice all those pennies in the charity jars at the Seven-Eleven counters? If Neil has his way, the needy will have to do without the benefit of a ton (literally) of pennies.

Think about all those kids who start their coin collecting careers with a penny book. They meticulously look through hundreds of pennies to find a 1943 “steel” or those old “wheat” backs. Many kids cannot afford to set aside nickels and dimes for their collections.

I have been told that in some parts of America, “pitching pennies” is still a pastime. And what about all those machines at amusement parks that let you elongate a penny, or “stamp” it into a new inscription of one sort or another. These “elongated” pennies (pictured) are a big business and sought after by avid collectors. (Check out http://www.pressapenny.com/ or http://www.squashedpenny.com/).

I suspect that the inventor of the penny-stretching machine was a kid, like me, who occasionally placed a penny on the railroad track in anticipation of the train that would turn it into a misshaped piece of copper. Not a pastime of which my parents would have approved, although I suspect they knew from whence came those pancaked pennies in my dresser drawer.

Without the penny, compulsive gambling would escalate. I am satisfied playing our nation’s favorite card game, penny-ante poker. Suddenly buying into the game would increase more than two-fold, a minimum nickel replacing the traditional two-penny ante. This is the beginning of serious gaming. And don’t try to sell me on the idea of chips. No friendly poker game is worth a bust hand without real money on the table. That “clink” of the coin hitting the Formica is music. And speaking of gambling. In many bingo halls, the penny is still the preferred card marker --- over plastic chips, corn kernels and ink blotches.

Think of the loss to the language. How can one demand to get back “every penny you owe me?” And what can you do with the money when it is paid back? Why, invest it in “penny stocks.” Some things “won’t cost you a penny.” When I buy something, I want it to be worth “every penny I spent.” What is a better word for a miser than a “penny pincher?” We refer to financial subjects simply as “a matter of dollars and cents.” Lost would be Ben Franklin’s sage advice that “a penny saved is a penny earned.” Borrowing from the Brits, you may think of some people as “penny wise, pound foolish.” What is the compliment to be if not telling that little girl she is as “pretty as a penny?” Or course, some desired item could cost a “pretty penny.” How will the gentle lady announce going to the bathroom if not by say she is going to”spend a penny?” If we are nosey, would be no longer able to “stick in our two cents?” Gone is the relevance of Gene Kelly swirling around a lamp post singing, “every time it rains, it rains … pennies from heaven.”




What well dressed man would be without at least one pair of penny loafers, althoughI rarely see the penny imbedded in the front flap any more. Tons of women’s jewelry has been made from pennies.


How about all those penny websites? Want to know how many pennies to re-create the Empire State building? Check out the mega penny project at http://www2.blogger.com/at%20http:/www.kokogiak.com/megapenny.

The penny is the good luck coin. Sacks of pennies have been good luck gifts at graduations, religious holidays and birthdays. Even when I was 18, Grandma Bessie taped pennies to my card – no nickels or dimes, just 18 shiny pennies. Finding a penny on the street is traditionally followed by a self declaration of good luck. Devotion to the penny reaches theological proportions in the Penny Catechism, where the adoration of the Penny God is explained. (See http://nasw.org/users/twoharts/pennycatechism.html.)

And what about the endless practical uses for the penny?

If my screen door will not stay open with the sliding retainer, a wedged penny restores functionality. I have been known to level off bookcases and electronic devices with pennies. They are ideal for scratching off contest cards. They have served as “shims” behind a door lock plate that did not properly catch the bolt. Handicrafters have turned pennies into hot pads, paperweights. Pennies can even be used to make an AM radio. They can be used to replace a burnt our fuse (ok… bad idea. But they can.).

They are a safety tool. Experts tell us the simplest way to check the tread wear of your tire is to stick a penny in the groove, and if you can see the top of Lincoln’s head, you need to replace the tire.

Our friend Neil would cast a side one of retailers’ most honored traditions -- the “almost” price tag. You know $4.98 for this, or $9.99 for that. Of course prices would be rounded off to the next highest non-penny amount. Multiply this by the billions of penny-change purchases and the elimination of the cent adds millions, maybe billions, of real dollars to the cost of goods. Abolishing the penny is a step toward inflation.

Far from being useless, the penny is among the most useful of coins. It is also the only coin that has survived the degradation of the folks at the mint. It is still a real coin – not the “play money” mintings of recent years. It is our most charming coin. It is part of our American culture. So Neil. A penny for your thoughts?

OP ED: What are those congressional Dems thinking?

I tend to be a pretty go-along guy. Sure, I fully expected to be disappointed by the agenda of the new leadership in Congress. But ... that's part of life. Win some, lose some. What I was not prepared for was the utter abandonment of common sense, decency and good judgment.

In a funny sort of way, I could not be more pleased. At the rate they are going, I am looking forward to the self destruction of the liberal Democrats before the next round of elections. Who could have presaged the craziness coming from Capitol Hill these days?

Of course, the situation in Iraq is a major issue. So far, the Dems have waved the white flag of surrender to the murderous terrorists while declaring partisan political war on the Bush administration. Pelosi, Reid, Durbin et al slipped into leadership by promising to end the war that Bush botched. Now they are faced with the ugly reality or responsibility. Instead of advancing their oft promised "new direction, however, they are running around like Keystone Kops trying to find a political solution to the growing insurrection with the ranks of their own party. Peace at any cost is not sitting well with the public, and these vitriolic schemes to take over the duties of the Commander-in-Chief are down right dangerous. The proposed “delayed surrender” in 2008 is nothing short of insane. It tells the terrorist that time and the Democrat majority is on there side.

Maybe the collapse of the Democrats strategy has placed too much pressure on Speaker Pelosi. She seems to be losing it. First, she was on there verge of appointing a disgraced and impeached judge, now congressman, Alcee Hastings, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. That was so nutty, that she had to back down or face a vote of “no confidence” in the form of her candidate's rejection by the House membership.

Now she taps Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) for a place on the cloak-and-dagger Home Security Committee. You may recall him as the fellow arrested by the FBI with $90,000 in marked bills wrapped in tinfoil in his freezer -- the proceeds from a bribery sting operation. When they legally raided his office to find more evidence, Pelosi screamed foul, essentially admitting what we all suspected -- that congress is a rule-of-law free-zone. Corruption is officially protected by congressional privilege, implies Pelosi.

Now under the leadership of the liberal left, Congress has tossed out one of the most important and fundamental concepts of a free society -- the secret ballot. In this case it applies to Union elections. In the name of protecting workers, unions will not be able to hold elections with each working having to publicly declare his or her voice. This is such a hideous piece of legislation that I think every member who voted in favor should be impeached and lynched. Ooops. Sorry, we don't lynch any more. Pity. (<-- Now for all you uptight hyper lefties. I was not serious about lynching the Democrat leadership. This was just a joke ... a bit of exaggeration. I find this disclaimer necessary so you do not go around saying conservatives want to kill everyone.) Lighten up, for God sake.)

What the Congress is doing these days under the new leadership is about as extreme as you can get. Oh no. I am not talking extreme liberalism. I am referring to extreme stupidity. I am confident, however, in the (almost) unfailing good judgment of the American people to correct the mistakes of their elected officials. Perhaps 2008 is a better time to defeat both the terrorists and the appeasement-minded Democrat leadership in Congress.

REACT: Senator Kerry gives up yet another piece of his mind

Not long ago, presidential wishful-thinker John Kerry made a widely reported bad joke – suggesting that only the dregs of our society wind up in the military.

More recently, Kerry make it clear that he IS a bad joke.

Finally discovering what everyone in America already new, Kerry came to his own belated conclusion that any continued effort to secure the White House was delusional. Rather than saying he is honestly disappointed by his failure to attain his highest ambition (if that indeed was his highest ambition), Kerry referred to his withdrawal from the race as “liberating.” That is akin to not being invited to your school pals birthday party and saying “I didn’t want to go anyway.”

As if that was not enough, Kerry went on to enthusiastically tell the world that he can now speak his mind and say what he really thinks. WHAT? Is he blurting out an inconvenient truth? Were the constraints of ambition keeping him from honest expression?

Well … as if THAT was not bad enough, Kerry, suddenly realizing his faux pax, made an inept attempt to recover by spinning that he would, of course, say the same things, but they would be heard differently? Now what in Hell does that mean?

Like a fish on dry land, Kerry was flopping in vain hope of somehow landing back in the water, but to no avail.

The next time Kerry offers up what is on his mind, we should recognize that he apparently has already given more than he has retained.

REACT: Bidding Biden bye bye

Some say a slip of the tongue has ended the presidential bid of Senator Joseph Biden. I have to admit that I totally enjoyed seeing Biden getting bit by the bias of the boys in the media, and then called out by the racial Gestapo. I am referring to the totally silly, unreasonable and unfair response to his calling Obama a “clean” candidate.

For the likes of Jesse Jackson, it was a racist remark. The senator foolishly apologized. That’s what liberals do best, because their philosophy is based on atonement.

Referring to a candidate as “clean” is standard jargon in politics. A candidate without scandal, legal problems, criminal record, school expulsions, and unacceptable sexual practices is considered a “clean” candidate. We might call him “Mr. Clean” or some such thing.

(I am only speaking in male gender terms because in politics we always think woman candidates are “clean.” Maybe Hillary will break that tradition, too.)

Even as I delight in the irony of a liberal democrat getting the back of the hand from the media and those black “all-whites-are-racists” racists, I am compelled by my own code of honor to rise in defense of Biden.

Memo to Biden: Senator! You have been screwed. This is exactly the kind of unfair political correct nonsense that is routinely heaped upon conservatives and common sense Americans – those of us who live in what you guys call “fly-over” country. Sorry your presidential campaign has been cut short. Okay, I am not really sorry, and still giggling over the way you went down. It is, however, a pity. And next time, instead of flying over, drop in for a visit.

OBSERVATION: Will Obama’s campaign go up in smoke?

HELP ME BEFORE I DO IT AGAIN!!!

I find that I have joined the ranks of journalists who are obsessed with writing about Barak Obama. It is just that the more those “other” guys and gals write – the ones who get paid – the more I feel compelled to respond. Oh my God! Here I go again …

In the parlance of the culture, Obama is “smokin’.” In most cases, we mean that figuratively. In his case, it is literally. Among the things that distinguish his campaign from the rest is the fact that he is a smoker … literally … and by some measure a pretty dedicated one. Read that as meaning he has repeatedly failed to quite and he smokes a fair amount – not one of these “I only smoke when I drink” types.

(ASIDE: I tried the I-only-smoke-when-I-drink plan. I was still smoking two packs a day. ß That was a joke for those who would add “drinking problem” to explain my quirky opinions.)

How much Obama smokes is now elevated to national security secret.

Not since the press “protected” Franklin Roosevelt by not revealing that he was wheel chair bound, and that John Kennedy was a Casanova, has the press failed to bring out the story. Nowadays, however, such secrets cannot be kept from the salacious gossipy appetite of the public – and the bloggers preclude the past prerogatives of a fawning press. So it is, we know of Bob Doles erectile dysfunction and Bill Clinton’s lack thereof.

Now cometh the revelation of Obama. The “clean” image described by his presidential competitor, Senator Joseph Biden, has been a bit tarnished. One has to wonder how great an impact it may have been on Obama’s rise if he was frequently seen with a cig hanging from his lips, or wedged between his fingers. How sanctimonious would be that boyish face if it was surrounded by a perpetual blue haze. I think it would have hurt a lot.

In fact, I have decided to engage in “creative truth” to see what that would look like. You be the judge, but keep in mind George Bush overcame a serious drinking problem.

REACT: Yep! The liberals are at it again

The success of the Democrats to take control of the Congress was due to the election of a lot of moderate candidates. How-some-ever, this empowered a left-of-center leadership. Consequently, we are seeing the passage of a bunch of liberal lunacy.

Sometimes the eloquence of a point is made by modest observations. In this case, the point is on the end of a toothpick.

In order to save themselves from their own propensity to be corrupt, the new Democrat majority has passed a reform measure that would prevent those god-awful lobbyists from buying a meal for a member of the Congress.

This significantly lowers the bar on the amount of anything a lobbyist can give to or spend on a legislator – not even two eggs over-easy for breakfast. Having been a Washington lobbyist way back when, I never saw a situation where a meal would “buy” a vote. In fact, I spent a LOT of money on meals for legislators who I was trying to educate, and very often, I failed to get their vote.

I can only assume that the Democrats must go cheap. They apparently have determined that their members will crumble for a few crumbs. I can assure them that buying a GOP vote is going to cost a lot more than a sirloin steak. For some reason the punch line of an old joke just popped into my mind. It goes something like this: “We already have determined what you are, we are no only haggling over the price.” I guess Dems get corrupted for a pittance. I mean, a lunch? To corrupt a Republican you need at least a ten-day “fact finding mission” on the Aegean Sea.

To get to the point – the point of the toothpick that is. What, you may wonder, does a toothpick have to do with lavishing béarnaise sauce on legislators? Let me explain.

According to the proposed reforms, a nasty lobbyist may not invite a sleazy member of Congress out for lunch, BUT it is okay to invite him or her to an exorbitantly expensive reception where food and “beverage” is served in old Roman proportions. You see the problem?

When does a morsel of food constitute a meal? Well, in classic liberal fashion, they came up with the “toothpick rule.” If you can pick it up with a toothpick, it is an hor’devour ___ -- and exempt from federal regulation. (I hate to tell them that I have a bruiser of a brother who, in pursuit of food, could pick up a side of beef with a toothpick – but that is another matter).

Let us consider one of my favorite foods, the lowly hotdog. I have been to many receptions where there is a bin full of cute little miniature wieners immersed in a sea of barbeque sauce. Along side is a shot glass full of toothpicks.

I have seen guests, including myself, skewer a regiment of those little devils. Throw in a few dozen Swedish meatballs and chicken livers wrapped in bacon and you can consume several dinners worth of food in no time.

This also raises the question of “pieces” of dinner foods. Let’s say that going out for a couple of hotdogs is verboten under the new regs. What if you cut up some full-size Vienna franks and serve them in little pieces – with toothpicks of course. Oh … what about chicken? No clucking over fried chicken dinner, sayeth the Dems, but what if it is chicken parts, like Buffalo wings? In that case, you can eat a barnyard full of our feather friends – on toothpicks, to be sure.

According to the proposed legislation, it would be a no-no to dine at a fine restaurant over a fruit salad, which you properly eat with a fork since eating with toothpicks at an upscale eatery would be a bit uncouth. Of course, you can gorge yourself on the very same diced up melons and berries at a reception, IF you convey them to your mouth by toothpick. You cannot provide whole fruit to a lawmaker since picking a cantaloupe with a toothpick is not easy. (Hmmm. I think determining how to pick up fruits at a congressional reception is begging for a joke, but I will constrain myself).

Okay, what about those reception foods you cannot eat with a toothpick. Little Jell-O squares. If you attempt to get them to your mouth on the tip of a toothpick, you tend to look like a gyrating contestant in some silly game show -- and regardless of your skill level, the damn things will more likely land on tongue of your shoe than the one in your mouth. And what about cookies. They shatter to crumbs when pierced by a toothpick.

Hey! What about liquids? At a reception, how many free drinks can a legislator have? Leave out Ted Kennedy since he skews the numbers.

I was going to suggest that foods eaten by hand should be exempt from the culinary gift provision. This would leave an egregious loophole that would allow those lobbyists to undermine the integrity of Congress by taking members to Burger King for lunch. Maybe only food eaten while standing? (They actually debated that provision. Honest, this is not from the Colbert Report. This is your new Congress in action).

Why don’t they just make it all simple? Limit the number of CALORIES that you can feed a legislator without creating a national ethical crisis. Like … you may not give a lawmaker more than 200 calories in free food a day. (We have to stay well under any “meal level” number of calories).

This is a perfect liberal solution. We would have to hire an army of overpaid civil servants to attend receptions to monitor the caloric intake of individual legislators. Of course, each lobbyist and legislator would have to file separate federal reports to the Department of Agriculture to report the number of calories given/received, and the Ag Dept would be responsible for setting the standard of calories in each tidbit of food. Violation of the Federal Legislator Caloric Intake Act would result in a fine and 10 to 30 days on a 1000-a-day diet. Hmmmm. For speaker Hastert that could be considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” And in the case of Ted Kennedy, it could trigger withdrawal symptoms.

Well, you can see why we need to send the best and the brightest to Washington. While we spend our days thinking about such piddlely stuff as job layoffs, lack of health insurance, terrorist attacks, and crappy education for our kids, our men and women in Washington have to contend with the pressing concerns of our times.

To them I say, “Bon Appetite”

P.S. I wonder if Pelosi & Co. is running the risk of a tree hugger backlash? I am thinking of all those billions of newly needed toothpicks. There goes another forest.

WARNING: You are about to be nationalized … again

Periodically, our federal bureaucrats think of reasons that Americans should have a national identification card. Of course, they proffer many good reasons. It is for our own good.

That is the mantra of unrelenting autocrats, who are motivated more by consolidation of power than concern for people.

Each time Washington invents a new rationale for the “big brother” ID card, the eternally vigilant forces rise to smite the idea. (Love that word, “smite”). However, never underestimate the ability of the bureaucrats (nee autocrats) to think of innovative means to the same end.

The most current manifestation of the old national ID is the so-called national drivers’ license. The feds say it will make driving standards uniform throughout the nation. It will also help track the bad guys of one sort or another. That is the scary word … “track.” The problem is, once the government can “track” bad guys, the definition of “bad guys” will be ever expanding. (“Bad guys” includes women, too. Once in a while I see the need for political correctness). You and I may not be in the crosshairs of federal surveillance yet, but the guns are pointed in your and my general direction.

We have to understand that there is no reason to make the standards uniform. We have to leave lots of room for local decisions in a free society. Not only is local decision-making better policy, it is enormously less expensive. If those “they”s had THEIR way, D.C. would make every regulation uniform by simply stomping all over your local standards and culture. What makes America great, and a democracy, is the right of citizens to control their own lives … and diversity is part of it. We should encourage local control (where we actually have more control).

Fortunately, local legislatures are as power crazed as the folks behind the beltway, so they are resisting the idea. They are not about to let Washington take their power away. That is the beauty of our federal system so carefully crafted by a bunch of unusually enlightened men. Let’s hope they succeed. Nay, let’s help them succeed.

Give your U.S. congressman and senator a shot (figuratively), and demonstrate your opposition to this latest scam from Washington.

REACT: Obama is in.

Illinois Senator Barak Obama has made it official. He is a candidate for President of the United States. If he runs the course, he will be the first half African-American nominee of a major party, and the first almost black Commander-in-Chief.

You have to excuse me if I am not buying into the silly notion that he is a black, or African- American, public official. He is half white and totally raised in a privileged white environment. Bill Clinton was called the "first black president" because his life experience was similar to the black experience in American. If a guy as white as Clinton can be hailed as black by upbringing, then Obama is as white as John Kerry -- the Irish Catholic senator who, in the throws of a presidential campaign, discovered he was also Jewish.

(ASIDE: In Chicago, a lot of Eastern Europeans, whose names have no syllables, are changing to ballot-friendly Irish names to get elected to judicial offices. I think there is a trend here. This "pick a nationality" could be very useful in breaking down ethnic prejudices. But, back to Barak).

Taking things slowly is always good advice. So a half black candidate is probably a better idea -- obviously more acceptable to the democrat voters who did not put much wind in the sails of the presidential campaigns of blacker candidates, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Shirley Chisholm.

So, why is Obama so popular?

First I would contend that despite the pander of politicians and the prodding of the press, America is not nearly as racially prejudice as we are led to believe. Had he responded favorably, it is very possible former Secretary of State Colin Powell would have secured the Republican nomination in 1988 -- and, based on apparent public popularity, would have had a real shot at the presidency. The GOP blew that opportunity.

Unlike Powell, Obama comes to his popularity without the substantial resume. In fact, any white guy with his record would be out of the running. In my judgment, Obama is such a hot candidate because (1) he is not really black -- and certainly not scary to whites, (2) he has a terrrrrrrific smile (I think this is a serious positive. Think Dwight Eisenhower, for those whose thinking goes back that far), and (3) he is arguably the best communicator in America today (Bingo! There it is.).

On this latter point, I am speaking style, not substance. He is at the opposite end of the oratorical continuum from George Bush -- who was not spared the family mutated gene for oral ineffectiveness. In my life time, only two presidents have had that evangelical quality of inspiring, motivating and moving an audence by oratory skill. They are John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. In neither case was content critical. Their greatest quotes were those that inspired, not informed.

This is the reason why Obama is so powerful. He inspires. He is easy on the ears. Devoid of substance, there is little with which to disagree in his well offered platitudes. Instead of troop levels, welfare costs or failing education, Obama can talk of hope and healing. He challenges us to rise to our sense of national greatness (a la Kennedy and Reagan) instead of dragging us through explanations and excuses for our social malaise (a la Carter, Clinton and Bush).

As a person who has careered in the world of word-smithery -- as speech writer, coach, and, occasionally, the person at the podium -- I marvel at the Obama's deliver. His talent goes beyond speechifying. In response to questions, he is a master of response. It is difficult to find any potential improvement in his choice of words, their assemblage and their nuances. He is as flawless as humanly possible.

He is not Chauncy Gardner, the movie character who, without any substantive knowledge became an adviser to world leaders on the basis of misunderstood homilies and botanical platitudes. Obama will face questions of substance, but is disarming manner will smooth the abrasive edge of even the most divisive issue.

I do not suggest that the style-over-substance school of public speaking is to be decried. No! No! No! I think it is great asset to leadership -- especially at the presidential level. Those who prefer policy wonks as presidents forget that the office does not lend itself to micro managers, like Nixon and Carter. Presidents, such as Reagan, who successfully sell great visions, and leave implementation to component and philosophically loyal appointees, are the great presidents.

It is my feeling that despite his too-far-left leaning (which will be pushed right by the demands of a campaign and the constraints of the office, should he get there), Obama has the potential of being a great president. He may get derailed by the competitors in his own party, or defeated in the general election, but should he make it to the Oval Office, I am predicting one very popular president.

REACT: The plane truth about Speaker Pelosi

Seems like our glass ceiling shattering populist House Speaker Nancy Pelosi follows the tradition of so many limousine liberals. Fresh from increasing the minimum wage for unskilled workers, Madam Speaker was off ordering and new and bigger plane for her personal use, courtesy of the taxpayers. Seems the current plane is not large enough to suit her needs. (It is mind-boggling to think that the petit Pelosi needs a plane bigger than Nast-ish Denny Hastert).

According to the requisition, Her Eminence needs more room for colleagues (junkets?), friends (cronyism?) and family (nepotism?). She also needs a plane that can make the trip to her safe haven of California without having to touch down for refueling in what her ilk disparagingly refer to as “fly over” America – you know, that part of America between the east and west coast where the true American culture resides. For Pelosi, the term, “fly over America,” is literal.

I hope she remembers to request one men’s toilet and two ladies’ toilets. Would not want to have her standing in line.

LMAO: Here is why we need science experts.

You may have read the story of the fossilized “lovers.” No, I am not referring to your grandparents. These were a man and woman (presumably) that are locked in eternal embrace. While not a lot is know about their age and cause of death (or even their gender), an unnamed anthropologist offered his expert opinion that the couple were “probably buried at the same time.” Well… there’s some real insight. Was he concerned that any of us might have thought some necrophiliac crawled into a 300-year-old grave to cuddle up to his boney amorata – and died there, too? For his insightful observation, I present our unnamed anthropologist with the first ever Larry’s Wire’s Super “DUH!” Award.

OP ED: Passports and borders

Apart from a war raging in the Middle East, and millions of Americans dying without healthcare, the question of who can get in and out of the United States is a key issue.

In the constant tug-of-war between safety and freedom, safety dominates short-term thinking, and freedom is for long term pondering. That is why we become less free each day. Seems like the natural aging process of a democracy is government’s subtle and unrelenting acquisition of authority over the populace.

This week we saw another erosion as the first phase of the new rules for international travel have become effective. No longer will you be able to assume that just because you are an American traveling abroad that you have a simple right to come home. Now, you have to be passport-ed back into the country.

Now that may not seem like a big deal, but as surely as Paris Hilton will appear in Star Magazine, there will be a great number of terrible outcomes. Students stranded in Sri Lanka, missing a semester or two, because of some inevitable bureaucratic foul-up.

There was a movie called The Terminal in which Tom Hanks became a permanent resident of an airport because he did not have the right papers to go forward or backward. We may well see life imitate fiction over and over, with one exception. Those trapped in State Department limbo are more likely to be housed in detaining centers not as commodious as a nice airport.

Then we have the question of the Canadian and Mexican border. Oh, how fondly I recall my trips to Canada by boat, crossing the Algonac River upstream from Detroit. No bridge, tunnel or sentry booth. Nope. Just a leisurely sail across the waterway from the United States to Canada. A little shopping, nice dining and maybe some fishing in “Canadian waters.” No hassle. Now, no one will be allowed to cross without a passport. I do have one question. How in Hell is our government going to stop this? This is the longest unprotected border in the world. It is not a porous barrier; it is not a barrier at all. Only in cities and major “crossings” are there guard posts, with agents who act more like Wal-Mart greeters than security personnel. Frankly, I see no way that any law can enforce strict border crossing rules.

Mexico poses a completely different problem. It is a one way flow of illegal aliens eager enjoy the American experience. Mostly, they come here for the promise of jobs, to be united with family, or to simply enjoy a better standard of living. Of course, some come for the welfare and educational benefits. Others come because it is smarter to be where they can rob rich people instead of poor people. The lure of drugs and the glamour of gangs are another incentive.

Since almost all of the Illegals find ways to bypass the passport office already, the new law will not have much effect. For Mexico, the United States plan to enter the “famous wall” category. The long gone Berlin wall, the wall of Jericho and the Great Wall of China were massive public works projects that ultimately failed.

Securing our borders sounds good on the campaign trail, but let’s stop fooling the public. If we are to intercept terrorists effectively, intelligence (in both meanings) is our best hope. Border security is our false hope.

OP ED: Arab factionalism

There are times it appears that the United States and all of western civilization are at odds with the Arab/Muslim world. Christians against religious terrorists. Muslims against infidels.

Well, the great Muslim world is a hodgepodge of conflicting interests. There are the good Muslims, the bury-the-head-in-the-sand Muslims, the two-faced Muslims and the out-and-out maniacal, mass-murdering Muslims. In the extreme, there does not appear to be any other group on earth with the ability to hold a grudge longer, and settle more grotesquely. For thousands of years, they have been a culture in a state of perma-violence.

Their war on us infidels is only one facet of their score-settling approach. As much as the Islamic terrorists hate westerners, Americans especially, they are equally rabid in their hatred for each other.

Recent peace talks between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah have broken off due to internecine warfare between the factions, including street killings, kidnappings and bombings. Pakistan is America’s ally against Afghanistan. The Kurds and the Muslims are killing each other still. Iran has had a long enmity with Iraq, even before the American presence. The relationship between Iran and virtually the rest of the Arab world is belligerent. Syria is engaged in a constantly simmering war with Lebanon.

Contrary to popular misconception, Muslim violence is not a religious-based concept. It is the first option in dispute settlement, and has been for centuries. There have been genocidal conflicts throughout history and in other parts of the world today. No example of tribal warfare can rival the level, consistency and duration of Muslim-on-Muslim violence.

One is not likely to find another example were religious tenets are so frequently and so effectively used to justify blood baths. While some have abused and distorted religious doctrine to perform hideous deeds (Hitler, the Crusades and the Ku Klux Klan come to mind), rarely is any such violence truly encouraged or justified by dogma.

The turbulence in the Middle East is not the product of religious differences. It is not about oil. It is not about ancient land rights. It is about a culture of violence and terrorism for its own sake. The events of the world only provide the pretext.

REACT: Racism by any other name

I hate racism. I really do. You may think that is a good thing. And it is. But it still gets me into a lot of trouble. You see, I hate ALL racism ... even black racism.

Unfortunately, if you point out examples of black racism, many deem you racists. We live under this huge double standard that racism is exclusively a white phenomenon, and we must view black racism as nothing more than ethnic pride.

Case in point.

Recently, Illinois Senate Presdient Emil Jones call for all blacks to support "brother" Barak Obama. (Someone should tell Emil, Barak is only is half brother). Jones' only criteria for his plea was the color of Obama's skin. He was railing against the many blacks who still like Hillary Clinton and others. If you take Emil's quotes and put them in the mouth of a white southern politician, you would think he was speaking for the KKK.

For the most part, Emil is affable and friendly ... a pretty nice guy. But you get that "black supremcy" language going, and he sounds a bit ... well ... racist.

We should heap more scorn on anyone playing the race card, black or white. Of course, that would pratically put my favorite black racists, Jesse Jackson, out of business completely. He is the David Duke of black racism. There is a lot of deserved media scorn on skinheads, white supremecists and neo-Nazis, but almost never much response to the outrageous and porvocative racist rhetoric of black hate groups or such prominent racists as Judge Eugene Pincham.

I personally think there would be a lot less racism if we dealt with the issue on a fair and equitable basis. Our civic and social referees should call "out of bounds" on both sides.

LMAO: The straight poop on Ted Haggard

Stop the presses!! Defrocked evangelist Ted Haggard, the married minister who had sexual encounters with a male prostitute (along with the purchase of a modicum of meth), has gone to counseling and “discovered” that he is straight – discovered, he says. Apparently this announcement came with a straight face (pardon the pun). I assume it also came with crossed fingers. It would have been more interesting to know when he “discovered” he was gay … or bi … non-straight.

MEMO TO TED HAGGARD: If you have sex with men without being threatened with a .45 automatic pistol, you are NOT straight. By definition, “straight” guys do not have sex with men. You may think you are a sinner. You may never have sex with a man again (I say 50/50 chance), but you are not now, and probably never have been and never will be, straight. But, thanks for the laugh.

Bush war politics and public relations.

I thought I would give it a little time for the aftermath to roll in before I express a view on President Bush’s State of the Union speech. See what the reaction was in various quarters. My patience in responding did not alter my initial impression. At this historic and crucial moment, Bush had an opportunity to stir the nation with one of those unforgettable speeches. Prior to his delivery, I heard that speech echoing in my mind. He was bold, reassuring, and confident. His words both informed and inspired.

As it turned out, my imaginary speech was far better than the one he delivered. He stood at-bat with bases loaded. Grand slam anticipation was in the air. Instead, he hit an infield single … man out at home plate … no score. It is not just a matter of his painfully obvious lack of orator skill. He apparently is incapable even delivering a well crafted-speech with some pizzazz – and he seems never to have even that well-crafted speech.

Where was the Kennedy quote regarding our determination as a nation? “… we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet and hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Those are the words that can rally a nation, and impose fear in any enemy.

Unfortunately, delivery carries content. Bush informed, but he did not persuade. He said, but he did not sell.

What saddened me most about his speech is that for all his forensic failure and public relations incompetence, I think the man is right. Unfortunately, the flame of truth was extinguished for lack of oratorical oxygen.