Jet Packs for LA Police

At dinner Friday night, one of my friends told me this story. Seems the LA Police has ordered jet packs for their police to a tune of about $1BILLION. Seems a little strange, but hey, this is talking about California, land of fruits and nuts. The left coast.

We thought of a lot of problems, those things don't last that long, what happens if you go up for 30 seconds and then run out of jet fuel, the criminals are all on the ground, what good does it do to be up in the air, they can't afford to pay teachers, yet they spend this kind of money (when you live with a teacher, every subject turns to education) etc.

I looked for information about the story this morning and found this item. Seems the story is FALSE. First reported by the Weekly World News (we all know that's a reliable source), then picked up by Fox News. The Fox anchors said they doubted the story, to which I have a question - WHY DID YOU REPORT IT? This doesn't help your credibility at all. Oh, sure, you said it was questionable, but a lot of the folks watching didn't hear that part.

Fox knows the audience and knows that conservatives love stories like this. It's a great chance to make fun of those from "the other side". But this just makes Fox look just as bad as the other networks. I thought Fox wanted to try for a higher standard? I guess I was mistaken.

A leg up vs. a hand out

I recently read the biography of blogger who is all for government assistance for people who need it. He said "you see, I believe in the power of the Federal Government to help people help themselves – as it helped me." (See his full post here.)

It struck me that this person and I are very similar in a lot of ways. You see, I received federal government assistance when I needed it. The Basic Education Opportunity Grant paid for a lot of my college for three years (my senior year, I made too much in my part time job to qualify). I've also received government help in other ways that I can't detail here.

But even though he and I have some similarities, we're still different in our approach? What then, is the difference?

My first thought is that I am always willing to give someone a leg up, but don't want to give them a hand-out. But then, the question remains, what's the difference between this other blogger and me?

Well, part of it may center on our definitions, but I'm not sure that's all that different either. I think both of us would want to help those who truly need it and I don't think either of us would want to help those who are just to lazy to work.

I guess the net of this post is that we truly aren't that different. We may have differences in the ways we wish to help, or we may have differences in our priorties. No, I'm not losing my conservative bent and no, I'm not rearranging my priorities. But I do believe we have to work together.

The Family Man

Last night the movie The Family Man came on and my son (age 17) wanted to watch it. I think he had it confused with another movie, but he watched it anyway. I think I had seen it before on VHS tape.

The movie is a twist on "It's a Wonderful Life" or "Scrooge" and made me wonder exactly how many movies are made with that general theme - - give someone a glimpse of what their life might have been. In Science Fiction, we'd talk about a parallel universe or time travel. The movie gave Jack Campbell (played by Nicholas Cage) a good view of what might have been. It reminded me of Jimmy Stewart's character in a way, Jack Campbell was an enormous success who prided himself that he could buy anything he wanted. The alternate lifestyle Jack was in the center of middle class, two kids, a mini-van and 10+ years left on a mortgage. Without giving away any secrets, Jack does come to realize the difference between the two lives and is faced with some difficult decisions.

Jack's wife is played by Tea Leoni. I am amazed at how little this beautiful woman has done. I thought I had seen her in several movies, but looking at her filmography on www.imdb.com shows surprisingly few movies. I guess she just stands out so much.

The Family Man is a good movie. It's rated PG-13, the TV version was of course much tamer. The website www.kids-in-mind.com gives the movie a profanity score of 5 out of 10, a sex/nudity rating of 4 and a violence/gore rating of 3. Overall, I'm surprised it was rated PG-13 instead of PG.

Overall, the movie is very good and rates high with me. It's not deep or anything, just a good flick.

P.S. For those who've never used www.kids-in-mind.com, I highly recommend the website. They give a very accurate representation of most movies and give a consistent score. While I feel like they are somewhat strict (this coming from a conservative), they explain their ratings and give details of why they are valid. You, the reader, can decide to agree or disagree. For example, they will explain the number of times you see cleavage (or more) and decide if it's important. Much more details that MPAA ratings.

When is a library not a library?

When you can't check anything out! See the article here.

Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.

The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.

Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...

P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.

Obama speaks at church - Updated

Last Thursday, I posted a blog showing that Sen. Obama intended to violate the constitutional [sic] requirement for a separation of church and state. Since I'm sure most of my readers don't read the local newspaper or listen to local newsradio, I thought I'd update here.

The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."

A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".

This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.

My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.

Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?

NPR is not known as the most conservative radio station in the US. That's why I wanted to reference this program titled "Cautious Optimism on Behalf of the Iraq Surge". You can listen to it here.

I heard other references to writer Kenneth Pollack's op-ed in The New York Times, titled "A War We Might Just Win." (bytheyway, he had trouble with the word "win"). Pollack spoke out against the war early on, but in his editorial, he argues that U.S. troops are finally making progress in Iraq.

If you don't want to listen online, you can read some of his comments in an article titled "Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq" at this webite.

Interesting reading...

Proof that the right saves more gas than the left

With gas prices (back down for the moment), everyone wants to save gas. And some are concerned about global warming and all should be concerned about polutting less.

So if you knew a way to save gas (and $$) an pollute less that didn't cost you anything, would you listen?

Seem UPS has found that making right turns instead of left turns saves gas. Company reps say it decreases the amount of time idling, which will, in turn, make each vehicle more fuel-efficient. On an individual truck-by-truck basis, the difference in fuel efficiency is minimal, but on a fleet level, the increase in fuel economy becomes quite significant.

Additionally, making right turns leads to less accidents than making left turns, thereby increasing your life expectancy and reduces the need for goverment sponsored health care.

So, UPS has given us proof that the right is better than the left.

See the article here.