Well, I'm sold

Political ads are either very bad, or very good. This one is very good, odd outer-space imagery aside.



I am certain none of you are surprised that I am John McCain fan, but even if I weren't, his excellent use two of my favorite Dead White Guys would put this ad pretty high on my list.

Soundtracks

I've been watching the primaries on CNN tonight. And not drinking, which I think is an achievement deserving of praise.

I watched John McCain's victory speech, which was a fine speech. But the speech is not what I want to talk about.

What the hell is the deal with his "theme music?"

Johnny B. Goode?

[sigh]

The Senator is not, we are all aware, a young man. But for the love of God.

John McCain is a tough old wardog, so surely we can find something more fitting. I am partial to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, but that might be a little...well, old. Being the tough old bird he is, Alice in Chains' Rooster might be a nice fit. Or, given that he's our man for the killing of terrorists, Drowning Pool's Bodies might work nicely. (Links are to videos for my slow connection people).

Then I watched Hillary walk out to be excited about winning Ohio. And what was playing? The Rising, by Bruce Springsteen.

Left the house this morning
Bells ringing filled the air
Wearin' the cross of my calling
On wheels of fire I come rollin' down here

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight

Li,li, li,li,li,li, li,li,li

There's spirits above and behind me
Faces gone black, eyes burnin' bright
May their precious blood bind me
Lord, as I stand before your fiery light

Yeah. That's a song about the firefighters who went into the buildings and didn't come out on 9/11. It's one of my favorites, and the music is both moving and inspirational, but I really don't get it as a campaign song.

I don't have much in the way of ideas for Senator Clinton, but I would get a serious kick out of her entering and/or exiting her events to Gretchen Wilson's Here for the Party.

You know im here for the party
And i aint leavin til they throw me out
Gonna have a little fun gonna get me some
You know im here, im here for the party

Somehow I don't think that's going to happen, but it would be cool. And it might help with that blue collar union guy vote...

EDIT TO ADD: Obama is now the second candidate of the night to use Brooks and Dunn's Only in America. The first was Mike Huckabee. How creepy is that?

Free Money!

Today's BIG NEWS is El Presidente's announcement of a plan that is most likely going to lead to FREE MONEY FROM UNCLE SUGAR!!!

Well, "free" in the sense of first the guvmint took it, then they decided to give it back. 'Cause apparently, if they take our money, we can't spend it, and us not spending money leads to people not having jobs.

I'm no economist, but if the fate of our nation depends on all the taxpayers who make less than $85,000 a year buying consumer electronics in a brief frenzy, then we are in a world of shit.

This is, of course, all speculation. But it's a pretty hard-core speculation party. CNN's front page has two stories "above the fold" on the subject, the boys on The High Road are well into the new gun vs. crates of ammo debates...

Here in the Bad Dog household, we know that Uncle giveth, and Uncle taketh away, and he can promise almost anything, but until the check is signed and on the kitchen counter...we're not ordering $1,600 in squeaker toys just yet.

(although our canine financial advisors are telling us that prices on squeaker toys are going up, and we should buy 'em cheap and stack 'em deep while we can)



I dunno about all that. Other canine suggestions for surprise checks include $1,600 worth of vanilla pudding.



Ugh. That would be a lot of pudding.

So it begins

Well, gang, the actual counting part of Election '08 begins tonight in Iowa.

For some odd reason, after Iowans "caucus," and after...New Hampshirites? New Hamphshirians? New Hamsters? vote, several of the candidates will be judged "unelectable," and the rest of the nation will be offered a steadily dwindling slate of choices.

I cannot stand the primary system, can you tell?

Anyway, I'm a giant geek this way, so I'll be looking forward to watching the news this evening, which should be beyond hysterical in its coverage of what 36 people in a church basement outside of Waterloo think.

I don't know if we've got any Iowans who hang out here, but if so, please understand that I don't have anything against you - it just doesn't seem like a logical setup to me. But if you are an Iowan, particularly one who does this whole caucus thing, I'd love it if you dropped a comment to tell us a little about it.

I am grumpy, but intrigued.

Fair play

So. It comes to our attention that Mike Huckabee went hunting. It appears he may even have been successful.

Huckabee's team brought back three pheasants — one of which the candidate claimed he personally shot — and promised they'd be "cleaned and eaten."

This is all fine and good and pretty much par for the course. What caught my eye was the picture. It's a still from the beginning of the CNN video. Observe (the still, that is).



Now, there was a big brouhaha over an distinctly unflattering picture of the junior Senator from New York recently.



I found that whole shriekfest tacky in the extreme, and it one of the few times I've been tempted to shoot the bird to the whole Sexist World Intent on Oppressing the Sisterhood, and get behind Hillary.

However, I think I shall simply call for justice and equal time. The Huckabee hunting photo makes a fairly handsome man look like...well, the punchlines write themselves. But I think we must, in the interest of the all important fairness, make fun of it.



In this picture, Mr. Huckabee looks like a gap-toothed, double-negative employing, stained-tanktop-wearing yahoo.

So there.

Flagrant Social Errors

You don't watch the news for a couple days, and suddenly, it's Flag Mania when you finally tune in.

We've got a guy out in Nevada, old Army man, who apparently finally got a serious case of the red-ass about a Mexican-run business that was in the habit of flying both the Mexican and American flags, but with the Mexican flag on top.

So he cut 'em down, took the American flag home with him and left the Mexican flag lying in the road.

"I was immediately infuriated and felt a duty to do something about it," Broussard said. "I feel there's a lot of this turning-our-heads-on-things in concern with the Hispanic community and the things they do. They seem impervious to our laws in a lot of situations."

We're going to just leave the whole immigration issue out of our discussion. Let's focus on the flag part.

We've got an ethnic business that chooses to fly the flags of both its country and the U.S. That's cool. If they'd chosen to fly only the Mexican flag, that would even be cool. I have no problem with Britsh pubs that fly only the Union Jack, either.

But...if your business is not an embassy, don't hang out in this country and fly our flag in the subordinate position. You're making a statement by doing that, and to a lot of us, it's a statement of fightin' words.

I am myself prone to the occasional action in anger, and have uttered some less-than-well-considered words. I like to think I'd have been a more or collected woman in that position, but...well, sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.

Note to our foreign friends hanging out in the U.S. - quite a few of us who are otherwise happy to have you here will get quite cranky if you choose to take a metaphorical shit on our iconography. So don't do it.

Okay. Next flag-related issue. Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin

Before we go any further, I must make a confession. I have an American flag pin, and I've worn it exactly twice in the past 18 months.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That's actually a pretty interesting idea. I don't know about the word "substitute," because I really haven't heard anyone say something like:
I was going to join the Marines as an 0311 but I decided it might just be simpler to wear this flag pin; or
I was going to run for office to try to make this country what I think it should be, but I decided I'd rather just keep working at the bank and wear this flag pin instead; or
I was going to volunteer at the VA one weekend a month but I decided I look better in this pin than in candystripes.

But the idea is interesting. Why is the flag pin de rigueur for every political man in a suit and political women in dark jackets? It's one of those things that everyone just did after 9/11 and now it's kinda awkward to stop.

There's no really socially acceptable way to say Yes, I love my country, but my granddaughter gave me the nicest pin for Father's Day, and I thought I'd really rather wear that once in a while.

So let's not wrap around the axle about this silly flag pin thing. Let's not allow that to stand in for really measuring a candidate, politician, or anyone else.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," [Obama] said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

Honestly, I can work with that.

On Thursday, his campaign issued a statement: "We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It's about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war."

We know more or less where the Senator stands. I don't agree with him about the War. But, the same part of me that looks at Mr. Broussard tearing down badly-flown flags in Nevada and says, "well, the man's gotta do what the man's gotta do," with a little bit of admiration looks at Senator Obama the same way. He's gotta do what he's gotta do, and we'll judge him by his actions, rather than his jewelry.

Oh, Larry...

We're not going to dwell on Senator Larry Craig and his...issue. We here at BDC support everyone's right to be just as gay as they might want to be. It's a big lonely world and if you find something to get you through it...who are we to judge?

But if you're one of those "traditional values" Republicans and you get busted looking for love in a public men's room....

Well, then we feel okay about making fun of you.

But Senator Craig announced that he would resign, which is really the only thing to do under the circumstances. Heterosexual rent-a-friends (ala Sen. Vitter)can be overcome. The gay kind on the other hand...not so easy to move past for a Republican politician.

Then he hired Michael Vick's lawyer, which, if you asked us, is...a move that certainly indicates something, even if we're not sure what that something is. We'd tend to consider it the move of a shifty weasel, not an utterly innocent man.

Then again, I wouldn't think an utterly innocent professional lawmaker would think that pleading guilty to this particular charge would not "suppress a story."

So now the good Senator is apparently hedging? Perhaps, his people say, he may not resign after all.

Please, Larry. A bit of advice - go away. There is a time when the best thing to do is exit stage left. This, Senator, is one of those times. Take what little dignity you have left and hit the road.

Giggling...

Y'all know I just love this kind of thing.

We've politicians, folks, who are Defenders of the American Family (voting NO on spending federal money on anti-teen-pregnancy education). They stand for all that is Right and Good For the Moral Fiber of America (YES on a consitutional amendment to prohibit "flag desecration.")

These are men who know about Family Values (NO for American women being allowed to pay for abortion services in overseas military hospitals).

I just love it when one of these guys gets busted with hookers.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said in the statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them..."

You know, I'm not 14. I didn't learn the term "hypocrite" three days ago, and a little bit of failing to live up to one's rhetoric doesn't shock and offend me.

But listen - there's a hierarchy of bad form here. Running around on your spouse is a Bad Thing. Running around on your spouse with your interns or subordinates is Slightly Worse. Running around with WHORES (that is, hookers, escorts, dancers, etc) is Worse Yet. From there it's a quick slide down to sexual assualt of juvenile kittens.

Hey - Sen. Vitter, I wasn't going to judge. But once you claw your desperate little way up on that pedestal and try to legislate your judgement onto my choices...well, you're fair game.

Loser. Your wife oughta leave you and take all your shit. Then you can try to get a real job to pay for the ass that apparently nobody is willing to give you (seriously - if you're a Senator and still have to pay for it, that says something about your skills).

The 51% minority

I grabbed a hard copy of the Fort Worth Star Telegram today to take to dinner. On the front page, a story about women in this next election. Women running for things, women voting, etc.

Hmmm, thought Abby. That might be an interesting read.

Interesting, yes. Interesting in an intelligent, thought-provoking sort of way? No. Seriously - somebody better tell me this newspaper hires "journalists" through some sort of help-the-special-kids program, otherwise there's no excuse for this shit.

Read the story in its entirety here. I, of course, shall selectively excerpt and rant.

Real quick, though, we're going to visit the U.S. Census Bureau for some 2005 numbers. At that point, we had 295,734,000 people in the U.S. 150,425,000 were female, and 145,309,000 were male. That's 50.86% of our population that's female. [please see note at end of post]

They are mothers, daughters, sisters and wives.

We can tell from the lead that this is going to be precious, can't we? They are also grandmothers, aunts, nieces, waitresses, actresses, people who are referred to "she," "her," and a variety of other feminine pronouns... Wading on through the curdling bits of triteness...

...candidates are already creating campaigns to woo the female vote and strategists are tailoring campaign issues to focus on women's concerns, including health care and education. [just for fun, I'm going to ask you to imagine some sort of dramatic flare of brass orchestral sound every time you see the word "women" in bold type - like Storm Trooper music]

Yeah! Nevermind security and immigration and government spending and the environment and civil rights and all that. Women don't care about any of that.

They will do whatever is needed to gain support with the one demographic large enough to swing the election, political observers say.

This is the part that makes me insane. Women are not "one demographic." Well, not anymore than...hell, tall people. We are slightly more than half the country, and there is some slight variety of opinion amongst us. Among the issues "we" care about, that is. You know, health care and education.

Further, the above is an entirely inaccurate statement. The margin of victory in the 2004 Presidential election was...3,012,497. But that's nationwide, and it's generally accepted (I think), that since Ohio was the last state to come in, Ohio was the deciding factor. Bush took Ohio by 118,599 votes.

So, looking at some Ohio demographics (from 2000), we can see that yes, seeing as women consitute 51.4% of the population, they could indeed "swing the election." However, since we assume monolithic demographic voting habits when we write for the Fort Worth paper, so could:
A) black people (1,301,307 of them)
B) asian people (but they'd all have to show up - there are only 132,633)
C) hispanics (easily - 217,123 of them)
D) the always-wild-and-crazy 85+ age group (176,796)
E) the "institutionalized population" (172,368), although I suspect that group is largely made up of those who may have lost their voting rights.

Yes - women can swing an election. But these days, so can pretty much any group. You get the over-90 crowd and the Pacific Islanders, and you're probably in.

Back to the World's Most Atrocious News Story.

"Women will have a critical role in the upcoming election," said Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "They are a huge segment of the public."

Please tell me that this doubtlessly bright man didn't say anything this inane. Yep. Hugest segment of the public, really. Moving right along...

Although some may be influenced by their sex and thus likely to vote for a woman on the ballot, others are just as likely to vote for a man, observers say.

I can't really figure out the meaning of this sentence, which is never a good thing in a "news" story, but no matter how I look at it, I want to pound my head on the table. Notice there's no mention of anything other than gender that might influence the voting choices of women.

Then come many, many paragraphs of "you go, girl!" type stuff. Suffice it to say that while I'm sort of neutrally pleased to see women in government in increasing numbers, it's the same sort of pleased I am to see someone from Michigan become a stunning success. Yeah, it's the home team, but...there are other, stronger allegiances. At least there should be. One would hope. [shudders]

I'm almost too irritated to continue with this, but there is one really choice quote from Sen. Obama's wife.

"My husband is a man who understands the struggles of women and families," Michelle Obama has said. "This campaign believes in the women of this country and envisions a government that doesn't just encourage women to dream big, but to know they have the support and the resources to pursue those dreams.

"I want that for my daughters. I want that for your daughters. And I want that for this country."

You know what I want for all our daughters? I want them to have opportunities. And I want them to have encouragement. I want them to have options. I do not want them to have the sort of "support" and "resources" we saddle every "disadvantaged" group in this country with, the sort dooms them to generations of suspicion about whether they attained their positions through talent or through unearned handouts.

I'm all about women. I is one, you know. I like us (in theory. In practice, I find many of us catty). However, I resent any attempt, at any level, to treat us as one giant single-minded Borg. I also resent any attempts to put half the damn country in the "oppressed minority" bin.

And this sort of drivel in a major metropolitan newspaper...as well as making it seem as though they're letting high school sophomores write A-section stories...it's just idiotic.

Phaaa...[spit]. I'm done.

** NOTE: Incidentally, this appears to be a fairly natural distribution, and hold true in much of the developed world. It seems, however, that China's "one child" policy has skewed this distribution slightly in recent decades. Interesting, but not germane to today's discussion. **

Fabulous political ad

No shit. I'm not kidding.

Of course, it's an issue ad - no candidates for anything involved.

I just caught this on the Glenn Beck show. An organization called Grassfire.org is running a spot called "Where's the fence?" that features old ladies and illegal immigrants. And it's funny.



Obviously a ripoff from the old "Where's the beef?" ads, but hey - I don't care. I'm all about the humor. Beats the Hell out of that awful scary music they always lay over the my-opponent-is-Satan-incarnate candidate ads.

AARP and its vile new ads

I'm going to walk out on a limb here. Y'all seen these new AARP commercials?



The theme, apparently, is "I'm too young to vote..." but, we're told, if these children could toddle down to the ballot box, they'd support fabulous health care for older folks, not altering the Social Security system, and offering free liquor and nude dancers to people over 55.

"I'd vote for the candidate who'd support Social Security!"

That seems...sneaky. I think most of us know how this is really taking shape, right? The biggest voting bloc in the nation is beginning to retire now, and there aren't enough of us "younger workers" to support these "Boomers" through their golden years in the style to which they've come to expect.

I sympathize. They paid into Social Security for years to support the Greatest Generation and those who preceded it. And they supported Medicare for years when people didn't live anywhere nearly as long, and before every single American over 60 took $47,000 worth of prescription drugs every month.

But those in my age bracket - we'll call it 20-40 - well, some of us have done the math. If we can somehow manage to sustain the Social Security system for the Baby Boomers, there won't be pocket lint left when we get to 65, or 70, or 75, or whatever age they've raised the bar to by the time we retire (and trust me, "supporting Social Security" as it stand is going to be a lot lower priority once the members of this giant voting bloc all feel they can safely be grandfathered).

I've resigned myself to planning for my own retirement. I'm trying to do the right things, although I'm sure I'm not doing them at the right level. I keep an eye on the "pension issue" as I wander along my weird little career progression path.

These ads just chap my ass because they're so simpering and dishonest. C'mon, AARP, if the 9-15 age group actually knew what was going on, they'd probably say, "hey! Grandpa! Can't you keep your greedy, golfing, sailing, nicely tanned hands off the Social Security cookie jar for a few more years?"

Some age group is going to take it up the ass with the pending Social Security meltdown. We can probably guess where that's gonna fall, and sometimes things just work out badly. But these ads - they're just wrong.

Thoughts provoked

I'm watching the Democratic candidates debating. There was significant discussion of whether or not Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were wrong in waiting until the last minute to vote AGAINST the recent re-vamped military spending bill.

Then I watched Bill Richardson do the world's most awkward tapdance around a question likening the Darfur genocide to what we could see in Iraq if we pulled out precipitously.

And now I'm watching the candidates talk about Iran and how they'd handle a nuclear weapon there.

It got me thinking about seriousness.

I tend to think most of these candidates are, in reality, serious people. The problem is, a significant portion of the Democratic "base," to which they must appeal in order to win their party's nomination, are not serious people.

I don't really think any of these candidates would yank us out of Iraq if elected (and let me point out that when I say "candidates," I'm not talking about the nutjobs. I'm talking about the real possibilities). They might run things differently, they might distribute forces differently, but I don't think they'd pull us out and let everything go to Hell.

But - and this is the awkward part - they have to pretend they will. I think that's a lot of what we saw with that war funding bill. It was always going to pass. It was always going to pass without timelines.

A couple of total whackjobs aside, most of our national leadership realizes we are in a situation we can't run away from in Iraq. However - since there really are powerful forces in the Democratic base that believe we can bring all our folks back from Iraq and that country will immediately have a collective Coke-and-a-smile, Democratic politicians have to make meaningless gestures - voting against a funding bill after they've run the numbers and know it's a lost cause.

"See! I voted against the bill (even though I knew it was going to pass but I figure it'll fool you idiots with your paper mache puppets)!"

Would a Democratic presidency mean a foreign policy based on capitualation and feel-good dreams, or does the Oval Office force a certain gravity on the decisions an individual makes?

I tend to think it's the later. But maybe I'm just being hopeful.

Bill Richardson might actually try to hand Iraq over to the UN. Bad idea. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden would keep working the issue, I think. I can't quite get a read on Barack Obama, but we're not going to elect him, so it doesn't matter.

I wish the primary process worked differently, so we could hear more discussion of how these candidates would actually handle problems, rather than simply wasting months listening to them pander to the ANSWER crowd.

Republicans

So it appears that Fred Thompson is super-definitely going to join the race. That's nice, but I'm not one who has been rabidly awaiting the announcement of the pending announcement. I do find Fred appealing, but there are months yet for all these guys to melt down, freak out, and have evidence of their youthful dalliances with livestock surface.

So I'll wait.

But I do get a kick out of the fact that it appears that the morality-and-goodness wing of the party is just going to have to suck up a sinner this time around. Unless they want a Mormon. Which, Hugh Hewitt aside, I don't they do.

Heh. Sorry guys - the party of small government is not entirely the party where everybody is a deacon in the local Baptist church. Abortion, making fun of gay people, prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments in local government buildings are not the big issues facing our country, and it's about time the Republican party started selecting its candidates appropriately.

Immigration bill details

So, apparently, when an illegal is trying to get one of these "Z visas," after being here for a while, there's an automated background check. 'Cause you know, the government is here to protect us - ensure these folks aren't terrorists or anything.

I know I got me some gun nuts out there. We gun nuts know a little bit about these automated background checks, don't we?

Now, please consult a lawyer before you head out to buy a gun, but I've done this a few times and I think I've got a pretty good handle on it. This also varies from state to state.

But here in Florida, it works like this. I troop down to Guns N' Joy, pick out a firearm, and fill out the paperwork. I have a concealed weapons permit, so there's no waiting period for me. The dude behind the counter calls in the background check. If I pass instantly, I can leave with my gun. If I'm a convicted felon and it's clearly on file, I don't get my gun but perhaps I get a ride in a police car. There's a third possibility, and it's not uncommon. Perhaps there's something wrong with the system, or there are two Abigails out there with my last name and one is a convicted felon.

Under those circumstances, I can get delayed (also called "conditional disapproval" here in Florida). Then what? Well, I don't walk out with my gun. Then...

If you get a "conditional non-approval" or a "delayed" response and there is no additional response from the system, the Brady law provides that you may transfer the firearm after three business days have elapsed. However, under Florida requirements you must contact FDLE prior to transferring the firearm if the initial check went through the FDLE. [emphasis is mine]

In short, if there's confusion, and after three business days there's no clear resolution, my dealer may be able to transfer me the firearm.

I used to deal with the "delay" response all the time. Mr. Abby has the most common name on earth. He always gets the gun, but it takes 24 or 48 hours.

Now, why the long discussion of the pain-in-the-ass part of buying a firearm in an immigration post?

Well, because that plan also involves one of these super-dooper guvmint background checks. Same idea, apparently. You can either be good, bad or delayed.

If Jose J. Reyes triggers a "delay," becuase, oh, I dunno...someone else has the same or a similar name, the process is a little different. If there is no absolute resolution pointing out that Mr. Reyes in an evil bastard, he must be given the visa. And how long does the system have to figure out the reason of the delay? 24 hours.

Ladies, and gentlemen - the chapter and verse.

(1) IN GENERAL- An alien who files an application for Z nonimmigrant status shall, upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs (f) and (g) and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks, to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible -

(A) be granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application;

(B) may in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to re-enter the United States pursuant to existing regulations governing advance parole;

(C) may not be detained for immigration purposes, determined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alien is determined to be ineligible for Z nonimmigrant status; and

(D) may not be considered an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3))) unless employment authorization under subparagraph (A) is denied.

That is, as near as I can tell, section 601 (h).

Now, yes, they call that "probationary Z visa status," but...well, look what it gets you.

We, as a country, apparently need to be less concerned about unknown persons who've wandered over the border than about me buying another .22.

Bad idea. Back to the drawing board, gang. Lots of "temporary workers" like to bring their extended families across the border. Perhaps we could agree to maintain possesion of one child or elderly family member while such "delayed" reponses were worked out? I like the idea of having some leverage if we're going to turn loose folks about whom we have serious questions.

The immigration thing

I came home the other day and noticed that this immigration bill issue is the big news.

I read Hugh Hewitt's breakdown by section.

Complex does not even begin to describe it. Hugh points out, among other items of interest, the vast amount of paperwork mandated by this bill and the distinct lack of funding or personnel increases to handle it. That's always a recipe for stunning, spectacular failure.

The immigration debate makes me scratch my head. I cannot fathom why we haven't secured the southern border - it strikes me a basic responsibility of government and I'm quite certain that it's another one of those problems that should be solvable if we used the throw huge amounts of money at it solution.

The Border Patrol is woefully understaffed. It seems there's authorization and money for it to grow, but it's just not happening. I wonder why not...

There's a helpful online outline of the Border Patrol Agent hiring process. An excerpt:

If you pass the written test, your name will be placed on an inventory. The inventory is maintained in score order by geographic location regardless of when you took the test. Referral for a position in a selected geographic location is dependent on the scores of the applicants that are available on the inventory when a list is issued. If you are selected, you will be sent a tentative selection package. That package will explain the further requirements for forms submission, the oral interview with a panel of Border Patrol Agents, medical and vision examination, drug test, background investigation, etc., which will need to be satisfactorily completed before a firm offer of employment can be made.

I'm counting about 14 weeks to get from Step 1 through Step 4 of the process as they outline it. And there are more steps. I'm thinking that might be part of the problem. How much time do you want to put into getting hired into a position that pays $35,595 and for which you have to relocate (with no reimbursement)?

I don't have a idea for fixing the entire immigration problem. I recognize we've got people in this country illegally, and we need to find ways to either normalize their status or get them out. Although it's convenient for business and, at the far end, consumers, to have a pool of super-cheap labor, it's not worth the cost in security, and it's not right to place desperate people in a position of doing our nation's bitch work for far less than we'd pay Americans.

It's not right to put anyone through what some folks I know went through to get here illegally. The "coyotes' who smuggle people across are vicious, evil people. The crossing is not easy - people die lost in the desert. Getting here is not cheap - these immigrants sell everything they own, sell their bodies, sell their futures into indentured servitude, to get here.

We have to find a way to do this better. Step one is closing that goddam border. Step two is unfucking the process to come here and work legally.

We've got to hold our representatives' feet to the fire on securing that border. There's money involved - so they're not going to want to do it effectively or decisively. But we have to remember that the border isn't just a "Mexican issue," it's a security issue. Undocumented workers are a problem that pales in comparison to what we need to worry about coming across that border.

Our elected officials chuckle about our provincial concern with undocumented workers and take campaign contributions from companies and people who profit from that cheap labor. They spend months crafting bills that placate us and provide loopholes big enough to drive a Ryder truck through. At the same time, the next group of terrorist savages may well be slinking across that stretch of empty desert, from Nogales up to Tuscon, from Tuscon into Vegas, with far worse intent than picking oranges and sending money back home.

Just another day

Well, the stucco project from Hell continues. From the rate of progress, it appears I can expect large groups of strangers to be lurking around my house well into next week. Fabulous. Wouldn't be so bad, but they wander in and out of the back yard and leave the gate open, so I have to remember to check before I let the dogs out.

Took Jack to the beach, Casey for a brisk long walk and Sparky for a stroll. The youngster enjoyed himself - too bad it's his last beach visit for a little while. Tomorrow he's headed to the V-E-T.



I'm a big believer in spay and neuter, but that's gotta be uncomfortable. Particularly since I expect the other two to harass him mercilessly.

I later watched the Democratic candidates debate. Good lord, there's some weirdos in that pack. Then again, the same can be said on the Republican side. I was underwhelmed, except when Hillary went on a bit of a tear about killing the shit out of anyone who attacks us. I have always believed she's a little meaner than she lets on - gotta play to the base. I'm not about all the rest of her positions, and you know I'm sick of the Clintons, but I don't think she'd be one to fuck with, in the military sense. That retired Senator from Alaska, Gravel, stole Kucinich's "crazy cred," though. Wow.

I have to have Jack at the V-E-T at 0730 tomorrow, so a smarter woman would hit the rack. I, however, just cracked open a frosty cold A&W rootbeer, so that's not gonna happen too soon.

The new "F" word

We noted Ann Coulter's latest controvery with much amusement here. I'm not a big fan of Ann Coulter, but she does occasionally make me laugh.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions,"

Well, that's a little socially unacceptable. Then again, that's what Ann Coulter does. Says socially unacceptable things that are occasionally very clever.

I'm not into PC - not at all - but that sort of remark strikes me as very rude. John Edwards, even though he has remarkable hair, is pretty certainly not a faggot, and so I find the use of a very "high school" term a little puzzling.

Now we have to listen to the talking heads wring their hands and natter on and on about how it's not nice to call people "faggots." As though a "shock factor" pundit calling a politician a very rude name requires more social navel-gazing.

I think "candyass" would have been a better choice. No sexual politics, and I'm thinking that was where she was going. Plus, "candyass" is a great term that doesn't get the use it deserves.

And then, of course, we have Edwards' response:

"Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible," Edwards said in a posting on his Web site, www.johnedwards.com.

"In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.

"I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."

That's just about the most simpering, sniveling, sanctimonious response I could have dreamed up. C'mon, John! You're a millworker's kid - you can do better.

I would have committed to vote for John Edwards if his reponse would have been something like along the lines of, Ann Coulter is a snarky bitch, and she can kiss my zillionaire "faggot" ass.

If we have to listen to this polical crap this far before the damn election, they all ought to at least make it entertaining.

Unburdening ourselves

Oh, good lord. In today's pointless news that's supposed to make us all feel good (or perhaps, bad) about ourselves - Virginia expresses 'profound regret' for slavery

This has got us all in the mood to apologize for sins we have not committed, but which have been committed by someone somehow related to us.

I am profoundly sorry about all the trees my logger Grandpa cut down.

Mr. Abby is profoundly sorry about all those conquistadors his ancestors killed.

Casey is profoundly sorry about every rioter ever bitten on the ass by a police dog.

I'm sure the trees, conquistadors and rioter asses will feel as good about this as the slaves do.

Sorry, but I've never been sufficiently Catholic to see the point in self-flagellation.

Dispatches from a foreign land...

Or something like that. I guess.

I read Slate fairly regularly. Lots of good writing. But there is a trend I've found a little tiresome. Slate treats the midwest (and the south, but especially the midwest) like it's...Madagascar or something.

I'm kind of used to hearing people talk about the rural midwest like it's some sort of imaginary, idealized place. That always strikes me as odd - I don't know that many midwesterners who really think the major coastal cities are like...Saturn. In fact, I think most midwesterners I know have, at one time or another, been farther from home than their local VFW pancake breakfast.

Normally I think this is slightly amusing, in an eye-rolling sort of way.

"Yes," I'll say to my more urban, metropolitan friends. "My high school had a dairy farm next door. No - we didn't lock the doors. In fact, they propped them open in the spring. No - that didn't lead to a problem with gangs or crazed gunmen, but the school smelled like cow shit an awful lot."

And they'll chuckle. Oh, those quaint midwesterners!

But for some reason, this chapped my ass. The "Ain't that America" photo selection from Slate.

It's white people and farms and harvesting! Oh my! Come here, darling - observe these strange images from the hinterlands! It's as though this is some strange anthropological study from Papua New Guinea or some shit.

Dude! This is like...I dunno...normal pictures of a reasonably large portion of the country. Some people have cows. And they go to fairs. And they even have cars and driveways! And yes, the people who live on wheat farms harvest the wheat, because that's what they do for a living.

Jesus H. Christ.

Further (you could tell this was going to be long one, couldn't you?), why are like half the pictures from the 50s and 60s? The desperation to achieve a sense of provincialism absolutely reeks from this collection, but mixing in even grainier imagery of old people at gas stations in 1954...

What the hell is the point of this photo essay?

I don't know, but it pisses me off. I may have to rant more on this subject from another angle. There is a significant part of the country, and it's a statistical minority, that really believes its day-to-day experiences are some sort of "norm" for Americans. The only problem is, this minority lives in coastal enclaves and seems to think about things for a living.

That's not most of the country. And - here's a hint - it's not the important part of the country.

A roundup - Election '08

OK - this is too much fun. I've started bouncing around the campaign websites, and each and every one seems kind of entertaining in its own special way. So I'm going to hit some of the highlights for y'all.

Sam Brownback, wildly conservative conservative, brings us this gem, with which I think we can probably all agree:

We need a different income tax system altogether. This one, the Internal Revenue Code, should be taken behind the barn and killed with a dull axe.

Mr. Brownback seems like a nice enough man. If he'd just stop worrying about my morality. And yours. And that of your children. In fact, I wouldn't be offended if he thought about all our morality, but he's got the tone of someone who would like to legislate that I adopt his.
****************************************
Let's check on John Edwards, shall we? No - not John Edward. That'll get you to the home page for that weirdo psychic guy.

John Edwards' website is full of lots of earnestness and excessive use of the term "folks." It also has this picture, which proves that John's hair has always been...remarkable.


***********************************************
Dennis Kucinich has an entire page devoted to the importance of hemp. He also has a registered user on his site right now who goes by the handle "peacenik veggieman." Dennis Kucinich is someone I wish was my neighbor. But I have never ever wished he was my president.

Moving right along...
*************************************
Oh! Mitt Romney. We all known Mitt frightens me because he's a Mormon. Sorry - it's true. Here's a picture of Mitt standing in some poor family's living room in New Hampshire. Maybe. It looks more like one of those giant cardboard cutouts.



Okay...one more.
*******************************************
Mike Huckabee. I like to say his name. Say it with me now - huck-uh-bee. Doesn't that make you smile? Ol' Mike is a little too far out on the religious conservative edge for me, but he lost 110 pounds, runs marathons and is probably another candidate who'd make a nice neighbor. Also, he's the only person I've ever heard refer to gay sex in the following way:

"While I respect people having a right to be different and even engage privately in conduct I find unbecoming or even abnormal..."

Being gay is...unbecoming? Well, at least he's polite.

That's all I've got for you tonight, ladies and gentlement. I hope I've encouraged you to learn more about your candidates. It can be FUN!