Friday, October 31, 2008


That is too long for anyone to have to endure in Yuma.

Well, I'm back home now, just in time to save mommy from going stark-raving-mad and to see how many lemmings are going to vote for Mr O. It should be highly entertaining.

Things I want to do now that I'm home, in no particular order:

(1) make salsa (experimenting with new item in it also) (DONE!)
(2) remove all the old hangars from closet and install all the new ones I bought (very exciting)
(3) catch up on Boston Legal from this season (one of only two shows I will watch)
(4) wrestle with Dylan (I still win, but he is getting closer) (DONE!)
(5) watch Faithy practice walking (DONE!)
(6) aggravate mommy (I do this by eating small bites out of whatever is lying around (very entertaining) (DONE!)
(7) avoid going to work as long as possible (thanks taxpayer!) (IN PROCESS)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008


Don’t know if you saw this from “Roger in Mass”. It’s brilliant: I love this short story;Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Monday, October 27, 2008


He has stated,written or done exactly everything you need to know about him.

His outlook on the Constitution and "redistribution of wealth" (also known as socialism or Marxism depending on how deep you want to get into it) -here is a quote for you...

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that…"

Apparently he doesn't realize that the Constitution was crafted in such a way so as to LIMIT government, via the states and individuals and believes it wrong that the Court didn't "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution." Never mind that the Courts are supposed to UPHOLD the Constitution, not "break free".

Also, as far as redistributing wealth, here is the part of the Joe the Plumber conversation that never made it onto the news - Joe the Plumber is in favor of the "flat tax" or "fair tax" and asked Mr Obama what he thought was a fair rate. Mr O's answer - 40%.

Voted repeatedly (4 times) against health care for babies born after an abortion failed. Just so you understand what that means - hospital staffs are not allowed to care for a baby after he/she has survived an abortion and is born, he/she must be left to die. This is happening NOW in his home state.

There is much, much more we could discuss here, but really, do we need to go any further than that?

I am not a big fan of McCain, but let my thoughts on Obama be clear - he is dangerous to the very ideas that this country was built on and made it great. Be prepared to start losing some of your liberties if this clown gets in.

Don't listen to what everyone else says or thinks about him. Just educate yourself on what HE has said, written and done. Turn off the TV and do your own homework.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008


Frequently seen zooming up and down Winchester Road. May be armed with chocolate and/or Starbucks. Known to carry camera and will not hesitate to crop you out if provoked.

Seriously though, what would we do without her? Physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, Cub Scouts, school volunteering, grocery shopping, laundry, taxi, homework tutor, assistant-video game-player (Dylan's job), cook, counselor, wife, mom, daughter.

Think you could do what she does?

Thank you for taking care of us, mommy.

Monday, October 13, 2008


The Cowboys lost another game they should have won AND our quarterback has a broken finger and could be out for as long as 4 weeks. My dreams of Superbowl #6 are fading away.

Somebody get me a drink.

Friday, October 10, 2008


After the Vice Presidential and Presidential debates, each television station ran their statistics as to who “won” the debate. While we know that these numbers mean next to nothing in the grand scheme, it is interesting to look at what each station reported.

CNN and MSNBC ran results showing that around 70-75% of their viewers believed that Biden and Obama “won” their respective debates.

At the same time, FOX, the “fair and balanced” station, announced that 75-80% of their viewers believed that Palin and McCain had “won” theirs.

Fascinating, don’t you think? How is it that millions of people can watch the exact same broadcasts and come to such opposite conclusions?

The answer, I believe, is that we see what we WANT to see. This phenomenon can be seen every day in our lives.

What this shows me is that the vast majority of people already have their minds made up and that we migrate towards those (people or TV stations) who share our beliefs. We do this because the #1 need for every living person is VALIDATION. We WANT to be right, and so we watch, read and listen to whatever reinforces whatever beliefs we ALREADY have.

If you had any question as to whether these TV stations had a bias one way or another, I believe this answers it for you.

Perhaps you have wondered what the average Marine, soldier, airman, or sailor thinks about all this and who he or she would vote for. The following information is taken from the recent Military Times Election Poll 2008.

Across the board, regardless of branch of service, active duty or reserve, rank, gender, or age, between 63-76% (accounting for all those variables) would vote for McCain. The one variable that changed, drastically, was the black vote, coming in at 79% for Obama.

When asked what the most important issues are for deciding who to vote for, the top three broke down like this:

(1) character of the candidate
(2) economy
(3) Iraq

Again, the one variable was the black vote. The top three issues were the same, but in differing order of priority:

(1) economy
(2) Iraq
(3) character of the candidate

I don’t include the numbers about the black vote for any other reason than that they were overwhelmingly different. So much for voting for the best person regardless of color or gender. Can the same be said for the white vote? I don’t know. With Obama, I believe there is too much going on to be able to say that whites will not vote for a black president (after all, CNN and MSNBC have a few white viewers don’t they?). I think there is more to it than that. Or maybe I am just too white and don’t get it.

So, what does all this about the TV stations and the military vote tell us? Well, nothing we didn’t already know really. But isn’t it fascinating that hours upon hours of screen time will be devoted to explaining it all? In the end, it is my estimation that the vast majority of the voters already know who they will vote for, and they will watch and read whatever will validate their choice, and debate endlessly about the “best” candidate.

I am still looking for the best candidate. I haven’t heard or seen anything in either McCain or Obama’s records that indicate to me that either will be anything but a continuation of business as usual.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008


“A federal grand jury is investigating whether San Francisco's policy of offering sanctuary to undocumented immigrants violates U.S. laws against harboring people who are in the country illegally.”

Is it just me, or does that statement pretty much answer itself?

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, like the LA mayor, Antonio Villaregrossa, should both be in jail.


And of course this…

The Annals of Public Research magazine honored Professor Deborah Anderson of Boston University’s School of Medicine with an Ig Nobel prize for proving that Coca-Cola could be used for contraception, the Associated Press reported. The ceremony was held at Harvard.
Considering that Coca-Cola has an acidity level just lower than battery acid, I am not sure this was much of a breakthrough. Maybe it’s just me. Good to know our finest universities are pumping out this kind of research, though. I’d hate for them to be wasting their time and money on ACTUAL educations.


Saturday, October 4, 2008


Here are some quotes from your Democratic Congress -

During the House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.):

I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .

During the House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision). I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises) ever missed their housing goals?


Bear Stearns financing
$29 billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization
$200 billion
AIG loan and nationalization
$85 billion
Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill
$300 billion
Mortgage community grants
$4 billion
JPMorgan Chase repayments
$87 billion
Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility
$200 billion+
Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund
$50 billion
Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
$144 billion
$1.8 trillion+


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at a press conference after passage of the bailout:

“Under the leadership of our chairman, Barney Frank, as I called him on the floor, a maestro, we were able to make improvements, working in a bipartisan way, making improvements in the legislation, and then make more improvements in the legislation before it came back to the floor today”.
“The eye now is to the future. To shine the bright light of accountability on what is happening in our financial markets so that it doesn't happen again. That accountability will tell us how we got to this place and ferret out the abuses. That accountability will honor our trust to the American people”.


The first bailout bill didn’t pass. And what do you do when you need a bill to pass? Add some stuff that will convince the "no" voters to go your way. The actual bailout portion of the bill did not change substantively; lots of little things were added. This is known in the Senate and House as “Christmas-treeing” – we all know it as bribery and usually go to jail for it.

Here are some things to think about:

(1) NO REAL REFORM: The plan attempts to mask, rather than reform, imbalances in credit markets and in U.S. economic public policy. The plan props up reckless and failed banks by buying "troubled assets" instead of focusing on real reforms that go after those culprits responsible for this mess. But why would we want to do that?

(2) TREASURY POWER GRAB: The plan raises Constitutional concerns by dramatically expanding the power of the current and future Treasury Secretaries, giving the government agency power to directly purchase assets from for-profit financial and non-financial firms. Not to mention the expanded power of the IRS to spy on you – but you didn’t hear about that did you? More on that later.

(3) PRICE TAG: The $700 billion bailout figure is as much money as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services.

(4) INCREASES NATIONAL DEBT: Instead of cutting spending elsewhere, Congress will borrow all $700 billion on global capital markets, and the bill raises the national debt ceiling to a staggering $11.3 trillion. But hey, really, what is the difference in 10 trillion and 11?

(5) GLOBAL BAILOUT: The plan includes taxpayer purchases of distressed assets from foreign banks. You are paying for foreign countries debts too. Bet you didn’t know that either.

(6) FLAWED PROCESS: Members of Congress and the public had less than 24 hours (for the new bill) and no hearings to discuss and understand the impact of this sweeping plan. This rush to pass a wildly unpopular plan without benefit of significant public debate and input will also undermine its legitimacy and effectiveness – sounds a lot like the Patriot Act, huh?

(7) WRITTEN BY WALL STREET, FOR WALL STREET: Treasury Secretary Paulson, the architect of the plan, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms responsible for the mess and a direct beneficiary of the bailout. Further, the advisers managing the bailout auctions and assets will be the same Wall Street firms and will receive billions of tax dollars in fees. That’s right – that 700 billion doesn’t take into account paying somebody to take of all this paperwork over the next few years.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Paulson will be the one to ensure “APPROPRIATE STANDARDS” when it comes to executive pay for the clowns running these banks – never mind that the bill places doesn’t place any real restrictions on companies going under from paying the top execs millions while their companies bled money. It has plenty of loopholes.

(8) WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THE GOVERNMENT MADE MONEY?: The idea that taxpayers will make money on the bailout is not credible. There are ready buyers for these "troubled assets" - Merrill Lynch sold its entire portfolio of mortgage backed securities in July- provided the price is low enough. If a profit was possible, private speculators would readily buy these troubled assets.

(9) NOT CONSTITUTIONAL: The plan violates basic principles of American capitalism and honest governance by creating a system of "private profits, socialized losses" that transfers money from taxpayers directly to Wall Street investment banks. Free market capitalism only functions if individuals and firms are held accountable and are allowed to both succeed and profit, and also to sustain losses and even fail.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

One Of My Marines Died This Week

It is difficult to explain the relationships we forge in the Marine Corps. It is really another family. And at this point in my 17 years, I am the “dad” to 20, 25, sometimes up to 45 or 50 young Marines.

Imagine having that many kids, mostly19-22 years old. They have all the typical dreams, aspirations, problems, and issues any young person of that age has. And, like any dad, I am privy to most of them.

And, like any dad, I want to see them do well and do what I can to ensure that happens.

I have had many experiences over the years with more kids than I can remember. Working with them, disciplining them, playing football and basketball with them, seeing them do well, and seeing them self-destruct. I have been around the world with them, promoted them, acted as their shield when they have been treated poorly, watched rockets explode around them, flown with them, and once had reason to put my loaded pistol to one.

Our jobs put us in strange places and strange situations. We face adversity together and that, more than anything, builds a relationship that anyone who hasn’t experienced it will never truly understand. These kids find friends like they will never have the rest of their lives. Most of them will go home on vacation and then come back saying how bored they were and how they couldn’t wait to get back.

Dad, tutor, leader, financial advisor, marriage counselor (now that should make you smile), expert in all things – that’s me.

Over the years, I have lost several kids, several friends, and many Marines that I knew only in passing. Killed while flying, both crashing in the ocean and shot down in Iraq. More were riding their motorcycles, driving their cars.

The feeling is the same, no matter how they died. The questions always come, no matter the circumstance.

In the end, all you can do is your best. You can train them, show them, and warn them. But you can’t protect them all the time.

Like any parent who loses a child, there is always a feeling of failure and loss.

This week we lost Lance Corporal Dean R. Muraco. May God bless his family and his soul.