Lost In An Existential Moment

by Justin La Grange

As someone whose sense of calm has rested upon planning, regularity, and certainty, it seems everything in my life has been anything but certain. It should be easy when society and those around you are usually so willing to box you into a definition, a label, as you progress throughout life and you can evolve with it and continue to define yourself along the way. For me, there's been absolutely no consistency in anything about me -- race, socioeconomic status, weight/body type/attractiveness, personality, religion/God, house, parents, friends, interests, athletic abilities, how much of a man I am, confidence, complete personality, identity, etc -- and no one willing or around long enough to box me into anything. I start to wonder exactly who I am, and life is scary when it always presents itself as an open slate. People say they hate labels -- I yearn for a label.

People wonder why I'm such a packrat sometimes -- I need to hold on to something, to keep it fixed, to keep it there.

My friends wonder why I'm so nice or go out of my way sometimes -- I guess I make the extra effort to hold onto them, for fear of having their stability slide away. I love them for being there when it seems like nothing else is.

People wonder why I love to go on a plane and float throughout airports and cities across the country and the world -- I embrace the idea of elegantly crossing paths with thousands of other people who for just one day are anonymous blank slates with no known or assumed fixed path in a safe bubble along with me. And I'm desperate to flee a locality where everybody around me seems to have an identity and a path they will follow through life until they die.

I didn't grow up in households that assured me God was there or had a plan for my life, and to this day I struggle with God. It's scary thinking life is nothing more than a violent sea of colliding molecules and atoms that can take you anywhere and never protect you.

I don't understand people that "know" me, because I barely "know" myself.

Have you ever felt that the more you've seen, the more you realize you haven't seen much at all? Likewise, have you ever felt that the more you seem to know yourself and the more experiences you have down this road called life, more questions and elements of uncertainty are raised in an exponential fashion? Answers that you might never have -- about life, existence, and yourself -- as time escapes from us like sand through an hourglass.

I hate age and time because it changes on me in ugly ways. Only roughly nine periods of how far I've already lived will bring us back to the Revolutionary War. My parents and my quasi-parent aunt are all pushing 70, and time killed all my grandparents long ago. Damn you time.

And that brings us to love. I can't promise my best friends and family that I'll be exactly the same tomorrow, but I can promise that I will love them -- you. And when all else fails and I'm drowning in a sea of uncertainty, sometimes it's all I need to keep me going. Knowing that if there's anything good or consistent about me, it's that I can love even when I don't show it or am too afraid to.

Love is something I can be confident about as life buckles me through its sandstorms in an everchanging amount of directions.

And when I think about hating a world filled with so many people that I love, I remember that the world around me and people all share the same molecules and atoms, just rearranged in a different fashion. All beautiful in the miracle of our existence if you're willing to look closer and see -- love and beauty are everywhere if you want to find it. Time can never change that.

Serendipity

by Justin La Grange

I've learned that life is extraordinary. Really, that's kind of "duh", but it's amazing how little -- at least, I -- stop to think about it.

At lunch my dad and I discussed the incredible and nearly impossible serendipitous path through an incredibly random series of events that led to my creation. And how for some people more than others, their life would have been incredibly different had one domino in the great adventure that is life fallen a different way, and how much of an impact other people have in shaping one's life that's completely out of that person's control.

Too many events that led to my parents meeting or even having a child were completely based on other people's arbitrary decisions or serendipitous communications with strangers. If one of a series of random events had gone the other way in an eenie-meenie-miney-moe teeter tot superfluous decision, life would have never happened for me.

But here's an incredible story of how the stars aligned:

At the ripe age of 24, my mom worked for New York Airways, what I suppose to be a little company that shuttled people around in helicopters from JFK to Manhattan, around Manhattan, and the like. On one serendipitous trip she happened to be working, she ran into an executive from Pan Am who apparently was impressed with her and recommended she interview for Pan Am at his invitation. Under no other circumstances would she likely have ended up at Pan Am.

About the same time my dad worked for North American Rockwell Aviation in Downey, CA and met a crazy, outgoing almost "sociopathic" guy named Richard who was a mathematical consultant on one of his projects. So, serendipitously, they went to lunch over a few projects and ended up becoming friends. As you will learn later with my mom, my dad loves to associate with "interesting" people.

Quite a few years later, Richard was trolling around in New York for whatever reason. While he was there he saw an advertisement from Pan Am in the paper for volunteer passengers for what was described as either "an evacuation test" or "a safety video". Thinking that this was a creative way to add to his conglomeration of chicks, he thought if he had time he might just sign up for the hell of it -- for me, it was the most important thing anybody will have ever done.

While on the aircraft, a saucy flight attendant came to his attention. From his aisle seat he tugged on her skirt, to which the saucy flight attendant told him loudly "I don't like that!" and lightly slapped his hand away. Richard, being a grand sociopath, was undeterred by this and grabbed her skirt the next time around and refused to let go until my mom dispensed of her number. At that point, my mom could've yelled or become violent -- two things she has a high propensity for. Instead, she caved and dispensed of her number. They began dating, happily, in New York until...

My dad arrived in New York to hang out with Richard in the early 70's at his invitation. They were scheduled to go out for a night on the town with my mom (who my dad had never met), and Richard suggested my dad escort my Aunt Aly "Pay". Needless to say, for anyone who knows these two characters, my dad and Aunt Pay's date went horribly (and there relationship is still contentious to this day), but my dad was pleased with my mom. As they became friends, my dad told my mom that she was one of many in Richard's female entourage. My mom, who doesn't play second fiddle to anyone, dumped him like a hot potato, and Richard dumped my dad's friendship (likely he was also displeased that when applicable, my Aunt Pay would insist upon sleeping between he and my mom to assure they didn't have relations, and slap whomever decided to reach over for hanky panky).

My parents began dating throughout the early to mid 1970's, and married in 1978 -- during that time my dad created a missile testing company called Xeta Corp with offices in Washington DC and Camarillo, and my mom was still glamoring it up at Pan Am, spending all of her cash on Salvatore Ferragamo shoes and Gucci handbags. They had about 3 miscarriages from that time to the early 80's, and finally gave up on having their own kids, resigning themselves to being a couple who spent their large disposable income on traveling, property, and frivolous Gucci shoes/handbags.

On a particularly usual day in November 1984, my parents decided to go to Bangkok for a vacation. Thanks to one extra person -- my apparent guardian angel -- that decided to buy a ticket from Tokyo to Bangkok, there was only one seat leftover on their Tokyo-Bangkok sector and they were left stranded till the next day's flight in Narita. Since my dad had never been to Tokyo-proper, he demanded to go into the city but my mom was tired and refused -- serendipity. And apparently my dad's energy had not subsided in Narita, so they ended up, uh, shacking up (which apparently they didn't do often). Gross, but serendipitous.

Anyway, at 43, my mom ended up getting pregnant with me. It was both a blessing and a curse; at that age after having three miscarriages, my parents thought it was likely I was either going to be another miscarriage or end up retarded (which apparently was going to have the same result of a miscarriage because they would have aborted me), and they would end up devastated again.

But as fate would have it, I made it out on a beautiful August day in 1985: not miscarried, and depending upon whom you ask, not retarded. And as serendipity would have it, I made it out with blue eyes to the shock of my parents who figured that was probably a one in a thousand chance with my mom's dominant brown genes. They figured they would change to brown at some point in my childhood, which they never did. Also, I was born with a couple other rare non-anatomical irregularities, which I won't discuss on a public forum, but are truly serendipitous.

So to recap: if my Dad and Richard had never been partnered on a random work assignment in Downey, if my mom had taken one different trip on her New York Air schedule, if Richard had never opened up one certain newspaper, if Richard had been just a bit less of a persistent sociopath on that day, if my mom had been in a worse mood on that day or not herself participated in the safety exercise, if Richard had never invited my dad to hang out in New York, if Richard had never been such a philanderer -- my parents would've never met and I would have never been born.

From that point, if my parents didn't perfectly execute a series of events throughout the 1970's and 1980's that led them to being bumped off a Narita-Bangkok flight because one extra person that day had to buy a seat, I would have never been born.

But God, luck, serendipity -- whoever or whatever was in control of this particular sequence -- let the dominoes fall in a perfect sequence.

But such luck doesn't come cheap. Both my parents raising me and my growing up was a difficult and challenging experience -- that sadly hasn't really ended -- but in all our dysfunction there's something unique and special -- you might call it serendipitous -- and I'd never trade it in for anything.

What seemingly superfluous step did you take today that will drastically alter your life or the life of those around you?

It's Time To End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

by Justin La Grange

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an antiquated policy which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has long lived past its shelf life in the 21st century and should be repealed. In an ironic turn of events, the very people I generally don't support in Congress are on the correct side of this issue. And indeed, certain elements that I'm more likely to support are seeking to block its repeal, insisting it would somehow disrupt the proper functioning of the military. The question before us is: Does a non-existent to small loss of military cohesion compensate for the egregious violation of civil liberties that shutting down free speech rights presents?

In an appearance on FNC's Sunday Morning Show, General Mike Mullen claimed to support the legislation, but then in wishy-washy fashion claimed the repeal needed a gigantic review in order to move forward, whatever that means:

"Ideally, I would like the legislation to wait until we've completed the review so we can look at how to implement it."

What is there to figure out how to impliment General? Are you going to institute "coming out" guides for military personnel compliments of the US Government? Are you going to create a new bureaucratic entity to ensure that the housing units of same-sex families have multicolored drapes? It's only now that the Republicans decide that a prolonged government taxpayer wasting sideshow is appropriate.

To repeal the prohibition of free speech takes no complex legislation or government largesse. It simply requires that every soldier be treated like any other under US law.

When this legislation was enacted under Democratic President and Resident Sex Offender Bill Clinton, it was thought that elements in the military were apparently too stupid, low class, and redneck to deal with another soldier's different sexuality. And wouldn't logic tell you that it's not like any homo soldier that was one to go into the military would be a Betty cross-dresser anyway?

In other words, Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes the military look barbaric and intolerant. The legislation degrades and insults our armed servicemen by making them sound like drunken boobs who would be inclined to assault "homos" for no good reason in an intolerant and misplaced rage.

Obviously, there are a few homophobic and vehemently anti-gay elements in the military that are going to create some problems. And yes, we are fighting two wars where full attention to duty is of the utmost importance, and the last thing we need is any disruption of military cohesion and "readiness".

The cost of keeping DADT, however, is far greater. What is the point of fighting for our freedoms and the freedoms of others around the world when they are not free in our own peacekeeping force? We fight to keep women out of the shadows in Islamic countries and yet we stick our own servicemen into the shadows in an ugly reverse parallel.

I know a lot of you have differences with the acceptability of homosexuality, and that is completely your right in the exchange of ideas in a public marketplace. However, DADT is about far more than just sexual preference -- it is about the outrageousness of the government legislating morals and prohibiting certain speech. Can you imagine the outrage if the government decided to prohibit the open worship of the Muslim faith in the military for the sake of unit cohesion? I can see it now, Don't Ask, Don't Allah. It is an extremely dangerous precedent for the government to silence speech and ideas in the public sphere.

Three quarters of the American population support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In nothing short of a gigantic irony, the extremely badass Israeli Defense Forces allow gays to serve openly. But this is not only about what is right, here, for this particular group. The New World and America was built upon the free practice and exchange of ideas, values, and goods -- and it is now, at this time, we are still fighting for those values. In America, those values must win.

Two Cheers For Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer

by Justin La Grange

In an epic political month, Gov. Jan Brewer has surpassed Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Bachmann as the premier female superstar of the Republican Party with her courageous -- or should I say "con cajones" -- passing of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law SB1070, and HB2281, another bill that restricts certain outrageous "anti-American" vile ethnic studies courses in taxpayer funded institutions of learning. These bills, which the idiotic left has blantantly distorted and mischaracterized for their own political gain, are really actually quite tepid and boringly commonsense. However, the left's panties (which both men and women on the left wear) are in a flaming twist because they loathe three key ideas: 1. the constitutional requirement of the federal enforcement of our sovereign borders 2. the rightful deportation of unauthorized illegal aliens and 3. when decisions do not come from Supreme Leader Barack Obama (centralized federal authority, which ironically was not to their liking during the Bush administration).

Fortunately, there are a few reasonable outlets including this blogpost to tell you what the mainstream media and your idiot friends refuse to tell you, chiefly being: 1. SB1070 is not a racial profiling law and 2. the "ethnic studies" bill does not ban ethnic studies classes. But if you're a La Raza nutcase, let's not let facts get in the way of your histrionics. In fact, if you're the attorney general, let's also not let facts get in the way of radical amnesty propaganda fit for the Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann. I'm of course referring to Eric Holder's beyond ridiculous admission yesterday that he had made a public judgment denouncing SB1070 before he had actually read the bill, which up to this point in time he has not. Yes, you have that right, Obama's chief federal attorney has not read the bill that he and his entire administration have vowed to assault. Wow.

SB1070: Illegal Immigration Crackdown Law

However, I have read SB1070 and would like to tell you a little about it.

Let's start out with why this immigration bill was even brought to the table. At the turn of this decade Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the US, crimes committed by illegal immigrants are pervasive, gangs and drug activity involving illegal aliens are terrorizing Arizona's citizens, and illegal aliens are a net-net drain on public resources (usurping far more state/federal costs than they bring in in terms of per capita revenue production/utility). Many cities are de-facto sanctuary cities that prohibit the easy deportation of illegal aliens who were found to be without the appropriate documentation. And most importantly, Arizona is acting to protect itself as the federal government is neglecting its duties in article 4 of the constitution, which stipulates that it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the states from invasion and violence. Make no mistake, Arizona has been invaded, and there is violence -- in fact, one citizen dead at the hands of an illegal immigrant is one citizen too much and the only evidence required to showcase that the federal government has neglected its constitutional duties.

In response, we have SB1070 which in essence puts into motion the ability of any state authorities to question the immigration status and request documention of anybody they come into contact with -- for a regular enforcement or other general administrative reason -- that they would suspect to be in the country illegally, and then contact the appropriate authorities (ICE/INS, whatnot) to arrange for deportation. Now, if you read that over carefully, you'll see two myths being debunked:

1. Police can just question anybody they find on the street -- patently false. SB1070 clearly specifies that the only time an individual can be interrogated about their immigration status is when they come into contact with state government or state authorities and the reason for the contact is completely unrelated to immigration status/race, for example a traffic violation, applying for state benefits, unlawful criminal behavior including unlawful labor, etc. Again, the only way someone can be question or detained is if they have reason to come in contact with state authorities for unlawful behavior unrelated to their immigration status.

2. The law is racial -- it's clearly not because anybody having to come into contact with the authorities at any point for any reason (that would be an acceptable detainment point) is generally required to furnish some kind of documentation anyway (ala for a traffic violation, to receive state benefits, if you commit a crime, etc), so no matter who you are (white, brown, yellow, black) you will need to furnish your papers/documents anyway. If you're without documents and happen to be Hispanic, then whoops. If you're a Chinese national smuggled in through a cargo box from Shanghai, then whoops. In addition, an amendment that doesn't change the legal mechanics of SB1070 but was put in for show specifies that race cannot be a factor in any detainment or law enforcement stop. Fundamentally, SB1070 is a very sound bill in terms of civil rights, despite the histrionics of the bedwetting far-left and race baiting Raza groups who make such outrageous civil rights violation claims when most -- including our US Attorney General -- have not read the bill.

To be clear, the following scenario between law enforcement officers is not applicable: "Hey Bob, look at that Mexican over there, kinda tiny and kinda brown and doesn't look like he speaks English. He's probably an illegal. Let's take him away." This kind of nonsense is not anywhere remotely close to any kind of reality in this law but you wouldn't know it from the histrionics of self-serving anti-American Hispanic segregationist groups, self-righteous white liberals who enjoy marinating in their superiority, and the mainstream media who intentionally cloud the mechanics of the law, give airtime to histrionic groups, and have not read the law themselves.

And the public has spoken -- in every nationwide poll they approve of SB1070 by a considerable to vast margin, even with the media's gross mischaracterizations.

HB2281: Ban of Extremist Ethnic Studies Courses

HB2281 -- another grand example of a reasonable law subject to mainstream media histrionics! They would have you believe that this law bans "ethnic studies" courses when it does not do anything of the sort. HB2281 prohibits courses that: "promote the overthrow of the United States government," "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treatment of pupils as individuals" (In other words, "the history of Mexican immigration throughout the 20th century" is still an acceptable course, whereas "Chicano Empowerment Against an Imperialist US Power" is not). All of these criteria are not suitable for an impartial taxpayer funded public institution that is supposed to be a steward of everybody's viewpoints...and being a steward of everybody's viewpoints include making sure classes don't come in with authoritative viewpoints, delivering a revised opinion of history as fact via a professor/authority figure who is supposed to be a factual authority. It is the responsibility of professors to bring facts and non-biased data to the table and let students develop their own worldview and opinion on the issues as they see fit -- the ethnic studies courses that are being banned bring a forced exclusionary worldview (which necessarily exclude and intimidate students who don't share that worldview) to an academic setting which is not only anti-academic, but grossly inappropriate for a requisitely non-biased institution funded by the taxpayer.

But fundamentally, why must studies be "ethnic" anyway? It's ridiculous. It's divisive. The existence of classes like these and fringe groups like La Raza, Mecha, and Black Power groups in public institutions just serve to drive ethnicities apart rather than bring them together.

To end then, with a primary focus on SB1070, these laws are not about racism or the lack of understanding of why many law-abiding hard working illegals come to America. Fundamentally, these laws are about just this very word: the law. It's about people desperately seeking the tangibility of their laws meaning something. It's about people saying two cheers for a law on the books that is actually able to be enforced. It's about people needing to know that the law that makes their state a sovereign state free of illegal intruders of any origin is actually a law they can trust and believe in. It's about people agreeing that fairness dictates whomever breaks any law in America is necessarily punished, and people who violate the laws of our sovereign borders are no exception.

There are many situations in life where the balance of what would be common sense or practicality is thrown out in favor of the law and what is fundamentally right. If we live in a state where the law is not our government's word, we have nothing.

Is Harry Reid Right? An Essay Exploring Whether or Not President Obama is Black

by Justin La Grange

A lot has been made of Barack Obama being the first black president of the United States. From rappers celebrating through song to Campbell Brown tingling in her notoriously wet panties to Keith Olbermann savoring the shirtless images of the president on his ceiling, folks all across the US have been rejoicing in this fact. But is it true?

While the birthers are wasting their time digging a shallow hole to nowhere, nobody has bothered to question what might be the biggest misconception in the American sphere of thought, evading even the most brilliant minds of Keith Olbermann and Geraldo Rivera: President Obama may not be black.

But don't take my word for it. The answer comes from Harry Reid, who claimed Obama was able to win the presidency because he is a "light-skinned African-American with no negro dialect". I'll take it a step further: President Obama cannot simply be appropriately labeled "black". That of course requires me to make assumptions on what it is to be "black".

I think all would agree that a suitable litmus test for being "black" would include association through "racial identity" and "cultural identity".

In terms of racial identity, it is already questionable whether a half-white ethnic composition composes a "black person". Isn't it convenient that certain elements will utilize the underdog or "victimized" race to suit a political convenience? Why can't President Obama be called a "white" president when he is as white, ethnically and even moreso culturally, as he is black? Why do the country's "African-Americans" feel as though they can take more associative ownership of President Obama, even though he's as much "Irish like me" as "black like they"? I'm here to say that the "one drop" let me be a minority rule is no longer legitimate. If for that, I'm a Arab and a Jew, using my flying carpet to mosy on down to Wall Street. As my title picture would imply, there's not much of a racial barrier separating Barack Obama from, say, Charlie Crist.

But the Obama racial puzzle digs even deeper. As we all know, Barack Obama's paternal ancestry hails from Kenya, a region of East Africa that straddles Somalia, Sudan, and the Middle East. In addition to heavy Muslim influence, the region shares substantial Arab genetic composition with the Middle East. Admittedly, that composition and influence is far more substantial on the coastal region of Kenya -- Barack Obama's father was from an inland region and is quite African to say the least (it is important to note that he was Muslim). However, he likely has more than a slight helping of Arabic material when compared to West Africa and deeper west into Sub-Saharan Africa (such genomic information is helpful in tracking the origins of disease and fighting disease, etc).

And in there lies the core of my point. President Obama, as part of the aforementioned ancestry of his father, cannot identify ethnically and racially with those of West Africa, the near-exclusive origin of African slaves brought to America during slavery. You might ask how that is different from all kinds ethnic groups all across West Africa. I would say it's analagous to Northern and Southern Europe and the two different subgroups of white-Anglo and exotic-white that tend to subscribe to varying racial identities in both Europe and the United States. At the end of the day, you can call a near-albino Swede and a Greek Cypriot "white people", but there is a substantial difference in genetic material and dare I even say race. Obama Sr.'s moderate sprinkling of Arab ancestry is quite substantial in differentiating himself from the West African blacks who form the core of American black genetic material.

In terms of cultural identity, let's not pretend that President Obama's complete identity was not born and fostered in Honolulu, where you can go for days on end without seeing a black person. And there were not exactly Miles Davis jazz/soul bars in Indonesia, where President Obama's was dragged by his mother for a period of time so she could engage in more multicultural relationships with Muslim men. He was also raised by his white grandparents in Honolulu, who from what I've seen were not exactly the purveyors of black culture to President Obama.

But don't take my word for it. Rod Blagojevich had to recently apologize for asserting that he was "blacker than Barack Obama". And while Barack Obama was busy hitting up high profile dinners for the liberal elite, this was not a problem. It was only until he made campaign trail stops at large inner cities or black organizations that he began hocking a fake Jesse Jackson-like black accent with some strings of "negro dialect" (as Harry Reid would put it).

However the most important part of American black cultural identity is certainly a communal identification with slavery, as the practice was instrumental in forming the past and present social, economic, and political context of black life in America. If necessary, nearly every part of American black life can be somehow tied back to it, and President Obama has zero associative identity with this history.

To turn the tables for a sec, why not ask the question, how white is President Obama? Racially, we can start at 50% and then ask whether someone who is 50% white or 50% black deserves to be called or have ownership of one label or the other? Furthermore, how much Caucasoid Arab origin genetic material can we add to that 50% which is unique from the majority West-African American black origin? Then adding in the fact that President Obama's cultural origins are nearly completely white, it can be argued that President Obama has a minimum simple majority white identity, and therefore cannot legitimately be called one or the other.

But at the end of the day, who cares. Probably half the people I regularly associate with have some kind of polar split racial or cultural identity of some sort, and in modern day America, it's no longer a big deal. However, elements of the radical-Black left and radical-white right either seek to exploit the President's racial identity or use it as a fear tactic, and I would respond to those people that President Obama is neither black nor white, but a nice melting pot of American, and it's easier to leave it at that. Let the issues be the issues.

To President Obama and the Republicans in Congress: Throw Pelosi/Reid and Leftism Overboard

by Justin La Grange

After President Obama's productive interlude with Republican members of Congress, I cannot help but believe the President found it refreshing to engage with rational intelligent congresspersons with policy heft and suave, unlike the irrational SP nutcases in his party such as Barbara Lee, Henry Waxman, and Nancy Pelosi, all of whom are dragging him down like an anvil in quicksand with their polarizing hard-left ideologies. Secretly, President Obama and the Republican Congress can build synergies if they align now rather than after what will be a backbreaking defeat in 2010 which will render Democrats in Congress politically useless.

As they say, if you can't beat them, join 'em. If your friends in Congress want to jump off a cliff, are you going to join them just because they're your slightly slow secular-progressive Starbucks latte drinking friends?

At this point, President Obama knows he has two options with 2010 looming: Option 1 -- Create synergies with Republican members of Congress in order to build a successful trans-government coalition that will catapault President Obama to electoral success in 2012 or, Option 2 -- remain with Democratic allies through 2010 who will go firebombing in defeat, stubbornly refuse to build a coalition with the ideologically conservative majority, and continue to be a man on fire until extinguished in 2012.

Politics above all is a game of survival. When Option 1 is your only game of self-preservation, you better darn well take it, botox lady be damned.

Politics is also a game of political calculus. There are two key words to describe the political calculus in this country: center-right. What do 1976-1980, 1993-1994, and 2009-2010 have in common? They were not center-right, were dominated primarily by left-wing elements, and firebombed magnificently.

President Clinton was determined not to firebomb, and as the Clinton machine is based purely on political opportunism and political calculus, he swerved to the right, implimenting center-right legislation from the spring of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, and rewrote history by calling it his own. To no one with a brain's surprise, this trans-government center-right coalition was magnificently successful, propelling him to a second term in 1996 (in no small part thanks to the grouchy Bob Dole) and a record as one of history's better "operational" presidents (minus Juanita Broadderick, Monica Lewinsky, impeachment proceedings, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Marc Rich, disbarrment from the US Supreme Court, renting the Lincoln Bedroom, etc).

So you see, President Obama can adopt the Clinton model, and even be completely smarter about it and redirect a centrist course now. Actually, it is imperative. To complicate things for Mr. Obama, he faces a larger credibility and suspicion gap than Mr. Clinton did, largely because of the complex far-left mystery that was his past inner-dealings, from Reverend Wright to Indonesia to Michelle Obama to community organizing to Van Jones to healthcare, et. al. He has to make a more concerted effort to prove he's not a manchurian candidate for the radical Chicago hard-left, and he needs as much time to prove himself as possible. He has to somehow rectify his radical divorce from his campaign promises for centrist government and political unity.

First and foremost, Mr. Obama needs to understand that Republicans bearing the doghouse label "party of no" is what is propelling their popularity. One needs to look no further than Scott Brown. Scott Brown ran explicitly on being the candidate of "no": "no" to a massive fat bureaucratic regulatory overhaul of healthcare and "no" to a supermajority that allows Democratic Congresspersons to engage in economic busting taxation and spending binges unabated. And what do you know, he did what man was never thought able to accomplish ever again: take Teddy Kennedy's senate seat in a state that is historically to the left of mid 20th century China.

President Obama needs to realize -- and articulate -- that the best kind of government is a government that sits on the sidelines and lets innovators and entrepreneurs structure society and its market order, remaining a skeletal enterprise that overseas legal fairness and societal justice. MSNBC commentators have often complained that the Republicans have no ideas, while everyone besides MSNBC and Hugo Chavez are sitting aghast, thinking to themselves "a government with ideas is a dangerous government".

And no, the people can see right through initiating a "spending freeze" on top of a vast heap of already proposed spending -- just like the get revenue but wait 4 years for the cost accounting procedures of the healthcare bill, Obama's numbers on the "spending freeze" make Enron look good. The Obama Administration is presiding over the largest ever federal payroll of 2.15 million government workers with gigantic salaries, hefty benefits, huge retirement packages, and the inability to be fired -- and next to no results to speak of. Meanwhile the private sector's average salary is 40% less with 80% greater productivity, delivering innovation and productivity on the most incredible scale.

America is drowning in economic calamity and you have the payrolls of the fat useless lazy incompetent bureaucrats expanding at the expense of suffering businesses, corporations, and the taxpayer. If liberals want to complain about a corporation, try complaining about the federal government for a change, delivering next to nothing on a $3.4 trillion dollar budget, putting any ideas of efficiency and results to shame. In response to the idea that it is just okay for people and businesses who produce over $250,000 a year to be the ones getting a hike, I have a very simple law of American economics to present to you: these people are the ones with the intelligence, fortitude, wherewithal, and acumen to create or expand business and commerce in America. It's that simple. When you hammer this group, you directly hammer economic production and job growth.

President Obama -- people want to see these government workers take the same haircut that the American people have been taking in the private sector. Former Oakland Mayor Willie Brown recently admitted on Fox News that the redistribution of productive private sector wealth to line the coffers of unproductive federal and state employees was destroying the economy of both California and the United States, and people are starting to realize it. They see two things: economic collapse and massive spending/debt; they're beginning to steadfastly tie those together in their minds and punish those who foster a big spending big government agenda. The tide is shifting, and one can only hope to God it will shift permanently.

President Obama, I will leave you with three simple policy propositions that will assure you a win in 2012:

• Silently work to defeat Pelosi's majority in Congress, rendering her the new House Minority Leader, silently dispose of Harry Reid, and realign with Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, etc. In other words, remove obstructionist obstacles to centrist government and align with elements who are part and parcel of American political ideology. Remember, it's all about the political calculus.


• Drive business and jobs into America with the reduction of the corporate tax rate -- give global and American corporations incentive to either setup or keep shop in America. Maintain the capital gains tax at 15% and keep the top tax rate at 35% -- the American Productive class doesn't keep money under their pillow. Insist upon massive bureaucracy/federal employee reform which includes a massive reduction in federal compensation and packages -- get the center-left to the right onboard to pass it.


• Insist upon tort reform and market solutions to healthcare which include selling insurance across state lines and lifting regulations for mandatory size fits all packages. In every other unregulated industry -- from computers to food to car insurance -- consumers get to choose the size, color, and attributes of the products they buy in the marketplace. It's time to sell lots of disaster only packages and dispose of a system where everybody is exploiting their insurance for counseling, acupuncture treatments, and hypochondria related excessive doctor visits. You're sure enjoying that 52" Sony TV and that trip to Cabo, so how about paying for your own restless leg syndrome treatment, acupuncture, and marital counseling while you're at it. With this model of health insurance reform -- implimented in both the private sector and public plans -- costs will drop precipitously. Tort reform can potentially save $600 billion dollars over 10 years. Work in a voucher related model for lower income folks who absolutely can't afford insurance. But don't, don't, don't create a model that creates up to 75 more government bureaucracies that we don't need to enforce unneeded regulations and expanded welfare programs that would make Stalin cringe.

This policy is the center-right political calculus that equals an American majority. That's where we as an American populace are, and Scott Brown's brilliant unprecedented win in Massachusetts proves it.

But the big question that is causing the American people to sit on the edge of their seats, waiting to be answered is: Does President Obama subscribe to political pragmatism and self-preservation, or is he do-or-die entrenched in the community organizing secular-progressive left? Will my previous warnings of a nefarious agenda by President Obama be validated? Get out your popcorn people, cause I think we're getting to the juicy part.

It's The People's Seat: How A Simple Man With a Truck and a Dream Will Take Coakley, Obama, and the Far-Left Down

by Justin La Grange

Let's face it, Martha Coakley is a disaster. From opining that devout Catholics should not be allowed to work in emergency rooms to calling the Red Sox's Curt Schilling a "Yankee", you have to wonder what is going on with this crazy person upstairs.

But this race is not even about Coakley -- it's about the ugly Democratic machine. The machine that took Bay State voters for granted as schlubs who would vote for whatever foolish liberal the Democrats deigned to put out there for them, as if they were a formality who services their entitlement monarchist appointments.

But as Scott Brown proudly proclaimed: "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat", he took over the race in that moment. He became the classic story of the good natured underdog with a dream working against an ugly machine, and he deserves the happy ending that will rock modern day American politics to its core, starting with the proud blockade of one of the most corrupt political machinations to come out of American politics in generations, the bribe-laden backroom fiesta of Obamacare.

Massachusetts is a blue state, but people often forget that the kind of Democrat that exists in Massachusetts is a different kind of Democrat than that in California, ala the secular-progressive California nutcases like Barbara Boxer and Cindy Sheehan. Massachusetts Democrats are by and large cool pro-American people who value integrity and honor, and who you can sit down and have a beer with. They value their longstanding traditions with their unions, the Catholic church, and the Democratic Party.

But going back to their smashing Tea Party, they also value the freedom to set their own destiny in motion and value fighting for the underdog. That narrative has caught on in Massachusetts like wildfire, and is resonating in every recent poll that has Brown surging ahead of Coakley. Democrats are reported to be going for Brown 1 to 5, and independents are going for Brown in numbers as low as 2 to 1 and as high as 6 to 1.

If you do the math on those numbers, chances are Brown will come out for the win, taking down Coakley, Obama, and the Democratic machine in what will be one of the most profoundly impossible rises in political history. Even if Martha and her cronies pull it off by a squeaker, liberal Democrats need be running for the hills in 2010.

The Numbers That Lead to Brown's Win

Let's start out with some basic numbers and assumptions. The Massachusetts electorate is reportedly composed of numbers near the following: 37% Democratic, 13% Republican, and 49% Independent, and where the leftover 1% went is anyone's guess. Estimates from recent polling show the following: Democrats coming out for Brown at 1 to 5, which means about 20%. Independents/unaffiliated coming out for Brown at anywhere from 2 to 1 to 6 to 1, but I'll use the lowest 2 to 1 (about 66.66%) to be conservative, and registered Republicans coming out for Brown at least at a 94% rate, although I'm guessing that's even higher. In regards to Joseph Kennedy, people will not turn out to a special election to vote for this guy. For the 1-3% who apparently will, they are reportedly siphoning off votes equally from Brown and Coakley.

Model 1
My first basic model will operate under the assumption that the composition of the electorate will be the composition of the turnout (which is probably flawed and underestimates that Democrats will have suppressed turnout as a percentage, which I'll account for in my next models) and that being very conservative with my numbers, Scott Brown picks up 10% of Democrats, 66% of moderates, and 94% of Republicans.

BROWN
37 D -- 3.7%
13 R -- 12.22%
49 I -- 32.66%
TOTAL: 48.6%

COAKLEY
37 D -- 33.3%
13 R -- 0.78%
49 I -- 16.33%
TOTAL: 50.41%

Coakley wins 50.4% to Brown 48.6%, using a model which is quite favorable to Coakley.

Model 2
My next model makes the extremely probable assumption that the Republican and Independent turnout will be somewhat higher (in real life, probably substantially so) as a portion of their total registered voters than the Democratic turnout, which means we need to change the turnout models by percentage of party turnout. Republicans and Independents are fired up about this election now, and the Democratic machine is desperately trying to get its unenergized disaffected faithful to come out at near acceptable numbers.

I think it’s fair to say that these are fair models for a real percentage of turnout by party, and in my opinion this is still quite conservative in favor of Coakley, who seems to excite no one:

32 D --
15 R --
53 I --

Now lets operate this model with the same assumed percentage of voting patterns by party: Scott Brown picks up 10% of Democrats, 66% of moderates, and 94% of Republicans.

BROWN:
32 D -- 3.2%
15 R -- 14.1%
53 I -- 35%
TOTAL: 52.3%

COAKLEY:
32 D -- 28.8%
15 R -- 0.9%
53 I -- 17.49%
TOTAL: 47.2%

In this very likely scenario, Brown wins 52.3% to Coakley's 47.2%, which is very close to Suffolk/News7's latest poll which says Brown will win 50% to Coakley's 46% (which is essentially the same with the I-Kennedy factor, which it would seem siphoned off an equal amount of votes from both candidates much like my assumptions).

I consider this the most accurate model.

Model 3
Many polling agencies have now reported that independents are going for Scott Brown in numbers as high as 6 to 1, but let’s be conservative and say that the latest polling with independents is 3 to 1 in favor of Scott Brown (75% to 25%). If we assume that turnout by party affiliation is going to be the same as my previous model, then we get the following:

BROWN:
32 D -- 3.2%
15 R -- 14.1%
53 I -- 39.75%
TOTAL: 57%

COAKLEY:
32 D -- 28.8%
15 R -- 0.9%
53 I -- 13.25%
TOTAL: 43%

This model demonstrates that there is a distinct possibility that not only could Brown win, but he could have a blowout win.

Conclusion
I'm going to be conservative and predict the actual results will be between my first and second Model with Brown edging out a 51-47 win. Even if Brown loses, this race wasn't even within earshot of anyone's imagination a few weeks ago, and will still roil the political establishment. Minus healthcare, the damage will still be done down the road for 2010. But on behalf of all that is still good in this country, Brown deserves to win.

Hodgepodge: NWA 253, 2010 Academy Awards, Perez Hilton, Gym Stuff, Berkeley, Nat Hentoff on Bush/Obama

by Justin La Grange

Terrorism on Northwest 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit: The Straw That Broke The Camel's Back For Profiling?

After the recent failed terror attack on NWA253 and the subsequent traveling nightmares that Sally Sue Alabama and Joe SixPack Kentucky will have to endure, it's time for us to get our letter write on to our Congresspersons and DHS Big Sis Napolitano to demand the institution of racial profiling at airport security checkpoints. Every hijacking, plane bombing, and terrorist attack has been committed by someone who fits into a profile, and instituting additional security screening via full body scanners for those people will save most of the other two million Americans who fly every day a lot of headaches.

Whether or not to institute more invasive secondary screening measures should be decided at two key points:

1. At purchase/check-in: A computer should determine whether or not a series of the following data points match the profile of a suspicious person: name analysis (maybe Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab perhaps?), age, sex, nationality, ethnicity, birthplace (foreigners from Nigeria, Egypt, Yemen, etc), type of ticket purchase (aka one way from Nigeria with cash), time of ticket purchase, a cross-reference with any malicious activity in US databases, and travel history (ala Ryan Bingham 10 million miler from Up In The Air is probably not gonna take down your plane). The computer should then use any potentially suspicious data points arising to mark the ticket as requiring additional screening.

2. At screening point: Let's be frank here, you know who is not going to blow up your plane. Granny Eunice flying from Nashville to Orlando on a ticket purchased six months ago is probably not gonna bomb your plane, yet the fools at the TSA give her a search to the vag while blowing a kiss to folks like Mutallab as they blow past TSA in the name of political correctness. This must end. If any of the aforementioned suspicious data points upon ticketing did not tip off extra screening, then simple judgment and common sense profiling based upon looks, behavior, accent, and -- for lack of a better word -- "Americanness" should be employed.

The folks that meet these extra-screening criteria can go through the 20-30% of checkpoints with full body scanners. If they don't like that, they can submit to an invasive screening patdown and strip search like we all have gotten. If an Arab-American is traveling a lot, he can get a CLEAR card. I got a full body scan in Salt Lake City and it's absolutely no big deal, but then again, we know I'm no stranger to showing off my delicates with zest.

But why, oh why, must two million Americans be subjected to these new onerous procedures when its obvious Joe American or Granny Smith aren't gonna be committing any acts of terror? We know who blows up planes, and it's better to be more invasive to those who fit the profile than to be needlessly invasive to everyone. Again, if you fit the profile, like maybe I do, but are a good honest American who travels a lot, get a CLEAR card.



2010 Academy Awards

I've only seen 50% of these movies, but from what I've compiled in reading reviews, etc, I'll put my money on these 10 movies being the next Best Picture nominees:

1. Inglorious Basterds
2. Up
3. Invictus
4. An Education
5. A Serious Man
6. The Hangover
7. Precious
8. Avatar
9. Up In The Air
10. The Lovely Bones

I subbed in Inglorious Basterds forNine because Nine just doesn't live up to the hype, ala it's no Chicago. Nine is a great movie, and I guess its incoherence can be purposeful ala channeling Fellini, but it just doesn't work for me, and I don't think it's gonna work for the academy either. But Daniel Day Lewis was great, and Penelope fired up...never mind. Kate Hudson was just a misplaced disaster.

Up is one of the best movies I've ever seen, by far -- it was just so well done and the story was so profound.

Dear Academy Awards, if you snub Clint Eastwood again I'm gonna be pissed. Gran Torino was by far one of the best movies last year, and Changeling was equally fantastic.

An Education was good -- a little too British for me, but I liked it. A Serious Man -- never count out the Coen brothers.

Despite being raunchy self-indulgent entertainment, The Hangover was an extremely well done movie -- kind of like what Seinfeld comedy was to good TV. The Academy too often ignores fine comedic works for a bunch of secular-progressive tearjerker nonsense.

As far as Precious is concerned, Mo'nique looks to give a powerful performance. I'm always up for a good flick where Mo'nique tells her 500 pound daughter to "get her ass down to the welfare". Unfortunately, I haven't seen it yet, but I hear it's pretty good.

Avatar and The Lovely Bones seem to be good bets in the more thriller/dramatic action category.

And of course, George Clooney gets his dumb ass in every year for something. I'm sorry to say however that I really liked Up In The Air, and I for a minute forgot that George Clooney was, well, George Clooney. The storylines and emotional premise were basic but powerful, and it's nice to see a story of the airline industry told in such a high profile fashion.


Perez Hilton Deserves to be Commended

Perez Hilton gets a lot of shit -- obviously -- for being an overdramatic Hollywood troll. However, I think he deserves to be commended for not being on the Glover/Clooney far-left and not being another moral relativist guttersnipe. He has always made his preference for Hillary Clinton clear, and has never been afraid to lash out against Barack Obama for his excess and hypocrisy when the braindead Hollywood left refused to do so. As a Cuban, he has roundly condemned Fidel Castro, spoken out about the damage and dispair Fidel's Communist/Socialist regime has created, and celebrated reports of his death. He has also taken to condemning scumbags that the moral relativist left has conveniently turned a blind eye to -- John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Roman Polanski are rightly savaged, often via the "Icky Icky Poo" segment.

That being said, on a douchebag scale of 1-10, a 6 is always better than a 8. It's sad that someone has to get props solely because he is a douche but not a humongous, relative to his Hollywood colleagues. Perez, you're still a flamboyant retard and a casual know-nothing fashionable liberal, and your attack on Carrie Prejean was hypocritical and infantile.


Berkeley's Wild Emissions Hypocrisy

We all know that the idiots running Berkeley will lecture you about resource conservation and the horrible emissions your car upheavals upon the planet. What if it is the most violent hypocrisy you will ever encounter?

Let me explain using the predominant transportation staple, "the car".

Berkeley Urban Planning's efforts are supposed to be directed towards designing a "sustainable" footprint, however the design of Berkeley is anything but. If you've ever driven a car, you know its most efficient state is a constant cruise of 50 mph or so, where fuel consumption and emissions outputs are optimal. When you stop and start and stop and start, the extra energy/work required to accelerate the car from zero to your permitted speed burns a proportionately large amount of fuel and emissions relative to the low speed and distance you are covering for that fuel output. In other words, the energy/fuel you used to accelerate from 0-40 might be equivalent to the energy/fuel required to transport you at a constant speed of 75 mph. Hence the much revered "highway driving" versus "city driving".

So now that we've established that constant starting and stopping yields horrible fuel consumption and ghastly emissions, why is it that Berkeley Urban Planners have designed streets that make you stop every couple hundred feet with an obnoxious crosswalk (with Berkeley's infamous pedestrian Nazis) or a traffic light on every block (while limited to 25 mph in between)? It's literally stop start stop start, and as Berkeley drivers well know, it takes about 5 minutes or more to travel a mile in your car, spewing emissions and consuming copious amounts of limited gasoline resources on the way (and while a lot of Berkeley douchebags have Priuses, the vast majority of automobiles are standard gasoline powered). Where in contrast my much hated Republican bastion of Thousand Oaks allows me to travel about 4 miles in 5 minutes through major arteries with limited traffic lights and high 55 mph speeds, with lower emissions and lower use of precious natural resources. What irony.

Fortunately, I'm a huge SoCal automobile proponent who decides to put matters into my own hands and ignore the unfounded traffic laws of the most communist government in the Western Hemisphere. If pedestrians think they're going to interrupt my sweet cruise they have another thing coming -- they are greeted with my high speed and a warning honk informing them they better not get into that crosswalk.


Gym Episodes, Of Course

So on a good note, I was really pleased the other day when -- for the first time -- this meathead asked me to spot him doing 95 barbells on incline. You see, you just don't trust any squirrely fool when hundreds of pounds of weight could crush your thorax and lungs, which means you have to select another fit bro you in essence trust with your life. In fact, I was a little concerned that I would drop the weight or screw up, essentially ruining my first spotting invite. Fortunately, all went well. So despite my consistent trashing of meatheads, I was actually quite hypocritically pleased with being kind of invited into their meathead spotting club.

Speaking of trashing meatheads, oh boy! So there was this meathead -- not particularly an attractive person, in my opinion -- who was absolutely lusting after himself in the mirror the entire time. Flexing, posing, and just admiring himself with lust at every exercise. It was disgusting, and quite frankly, his big ass ego is just making him look kind of gay. To elaborate, I present one of my previous notes:

http://justinatcal.blogspot.com/2009/04/24-hour-bi-curious-fitness.html

Let me also take this opportunity to lash out at the idiot who spent 40 minutes at the decline press, using it as a lounge chair, curl station, and venue to look like an idiot.


Nat Hentoff on President Bush, President Obama, and the Hypocrisy on the Left

I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.

In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.

So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.

Nat Hentoff hit the nail on the head. The reason America now roundly dislikes President Obama is not because of any effective right wing machine -- it's because the supposed transparency and disposal of Chicago political machinations that Obama promised have not only not been delivered, but the promise completely reversed. Not only do Americans hate the healthcare bill because it is a big pork-laden entitlement that really does nothing to reform healthcare, but because it represents government at its worst, using bribes and non-transparent backroom deals that needlessly screw the taxpayer over to arm twist otherwise decent politicians that really don't want to vote for a flawed bill into voting for it. It's about Congress and President Obama ignoring every polling and verbal apparatus the American people have to tell them we don't want this pork-laden entitlement redistribution of wealth bill. And for those who say it is not a "socialist" bill, let me tell you a little about it: the creation of 70 new bureaucracies and the redistribution of taxpayer dollars to fund the growth of government required to "insure" 30 million people and hijack 16% of the economy through massive regulation is not only socialist, but can aptly be quasi-communist.

And while we're on the subject of transparency, the only area in which President Obama has been remotely transparent is in International Relations/Diplomacy, and that is with leadership of countries that sponsor terror. So how's the new fresh era of Obama diplomacy working out for you guys? All that "talking" and "diplomacy" towards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez is really working wonders. Yeah. Uh huh. Right. It turns out Americans are no longer so bullish on Obama's pansy new ineffective era of international relations, another blunder any idiot could see from the get go.

[Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?]

Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense, "evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.

[Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is that?]

I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course, that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change. Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."

[Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?]

That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them. The death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.

The left mindlessly complains about people of faith being led around by the nose by a flying spaghetti monster, yet it turns out the left were the ones being led around by their own flying spaghetti monster. Myself and other conservatives have long warned about the deification of President Obama -- the stupidity of American youth and the American left/moderate-left in simply buying into, like dufuses, what any intelligent person could see as a shameless multifaceted spin PR job. The left was duped into Obama's moveon.org "keywords" while moderates were at the same time duped by Obama's moderate entreaties, newfound promised transparency, and political unification overtures. And ironically, both groups are wildly disappointed. And those who are not yet disappointed still have their lips comfortably sealed to their flying spaghetti monster's ass.

Image Source:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/12/27/alg_airport_security_checkpoint.jpg
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2dmduz8&s=5
http://a11news.com/images/perez-hilton-heidi-montag-heidiwood-clothing-launch.jpg
http://revdcars.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/prius_driver.gif
http://cdn.zeatle.com/upload/743fa0c6330545fcdce176bcd3644086.jpeg

Nat Hentoff article/background:
http://www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/Articles/Interviews/oldspeak-Hentoff_2009.htmlby

Exploits and Travails of a Dirty Gym Rat

by Justin La Grange

There's a certain point when you've been going to the gym long enough that you know you're a dirty gym rat, a dirty gym whore. It's like when you car doesn't feel new anymore or when you finally set into that comfortable zone with a friend/girlfriend that's no longer awkward -- that's not to say it still doesn't piss you off. It's the point when people who weren't made for the gym finally quit and those who were made for it get their Hollywood star and move fervently onward. It separates the men from the boys. It's when you own it, when you finally feel comfortable, when it's finally your place, when you're big enough, when your life begins to revolve around the gym, when you're pissed if you didn't have a premium session, when you're finally no longer a newbie. It's a point at which you become intensely neurotic and obsessive. It's when you can bench or curl next to a dumbass meathead and not feel uncomfortable -- prejudiced and loathing maybe -- but not uncomfortable. This acceptance into the gym elite club is unspoken by but known among its members, almost in a telepathic sense.

And pardon my sexism, but women are not entitled to this status (it's a guy thing), unless it's one of those one in a million muscular chicks or one of those chicks that can kick my ass. Fortunately, those exist on the Discovery Channel and not in my gym.

Anyway, there's a certain demeanor required for this status -- a certain way you get to comport yourself in a privileged fashion. But I've come to experience that this privilege comes with a few roadblocks. It's said that with great privilege comes great responsibility. And great responsibility requires dealing with major issues and said "roadblocks" along the way.

Roadblock 1 -- When your best is never enough.

God knows I've been pleased benching 45 plates on either side of the incline, benching 185 a few times, curling a 75 bar, and doing 45 Christian Bale gyro-situps. But along comes -- as usual -- some juiced hamhead doing double the weight right next to me, leaving me nonplussed. Leaving me with the realization that my performance is really just mediocre. And it's a vicious cycle, as I felt that way when I just started out looking at someone with my current performance, feel that way now, and will feel that way when I turn into a meathead and some Arnold mofo is there deadlifting 700 pounds. Again, it's a vicious ugly cycle that never ends.

Roadblock 2 -- Dealing with showers and locker room nudity.

So while my mom is sunbathing and carousing in Maui for what seems like weeks on end, I'm left tending to the house all alone (apart from my pervasive sexual exploits). Naturally, the water heater aqua-explodes and begins spewing water all over the place, and fearing that a gas explosion was next, I shut everything down manually in dramatic fashion, leaving me with no heat and hot water. One of you might furnish a solution involving taking a quasi-shower with cold water, but I do not live in a first-world country to take showers with cold water.

So, in a plotline that makes the desperation on Desperate Housewives look replete of non-desperation, I'm becoming desperate to take a shower and will go to desperate lengths to do so. Unfortunately, there's only one simple option -- the gym. The showers in the gym are configured in such a way that maximum exposure occurs, with tiny one-foot protruding stallwalls and showerheads lining the main walls on either side.

I'm not a prude -- if dared I'll run on a beach nude or to do something else outrageous. But when trolling around others nude is voluntary, it just seems so déclassé. The way that some guys shamelessly through their junk around is simply in bad taste. It's something the disgusting secular-progressive free-loving déclassé hippies of the 60's would do. If there's something that God spoke about more highly than being "natural", it was being modest.

There's this unwritten rule of gym etiquette that says when you're going to take a shower at the gym, you have to take it full monty from the lockers (which I don't like to use) into the shower area -- as much as I think this is a massive conspiracy devised by NAMBLA members, it must be followed nonetheless.

Why is there any construct -- outside of a bathhouse -- where male nudity is accepted and fostered? To be honest, I wouldn't be so bothered if there was an age and BMI limit, but that reality just doesn't exist. Actually, it's not too bad at 10-11pm when I go as some of the most hardcore guys go to work out at that time -- they just can't handle the amateurism and bullshit of the gymbeciles during the day.

As I've written in my previous gym posts, what's going on with other guys in the locker room doesn't go unnoticed, and it's not gay -- it's just guys trying to stack themselves up to the next guy. These dog-eat-dog comparisons create competition, and competition fosters insecurity. However, competition also fosters improvement. If Joe Meathead's biceps are making mine look doubly crappy, it's double the bicep workout next time. In other words, nudity has its plusses and minuses...but mostly minuses.

I'd talk about my shower, but let's leave the panties dry for now, shall we? Especially you Timone.

Roadblock #3 -- How smooth is too smooth?

Have you ever noticed that some of the best gym rats are smoother than a baby seal? That is no genetic accident. I admit there is some strange allure to this, and I'm not going to lie, but I'm somewhat a fan of manscaping, and openly endorse it for other guys too. As for the haters, all I can say is I've learned it comes with the territory and you need to shutup. You say no-scaping makes you a real man, but it just makes you irritating at the beach and in the showers, and probably with your chick. If you have to look at something -- and make the aforementioned roadblock #2 comparisons -- at least be somewhat ergonomically sound and presentable for others around you.

Yet, there is a perplexing point at which so smooth can go too far; when going too smooth just seems to remove your masculinity. And yet it is still so tempting. The devil inside your head goes, "Boy, my legs would look amazing and defined if there wasn't this hair visually distorting its contours. Everything would be so nice, clean, smooth, and symmetrical." Us OCD folks are big fans of symmetry.

However, if I had to choose between naturally being Mr. Bigglesworth Asian or Mr. Joe Monkey, I'd rather be Mr. Joe Monkey as you have the option of getting rid of what you want. There's nothing a razor or Vietnamese lady at a wax salon will not do. However Mr. Bigglesworth Asian has to relegate himself to a lifetime of hairless mediocrity and masculine estrangement -- there's nothing more creepy than an Asian guy who can't grow any hair on his legs. And then when Asians do happen to grow hair, it just doesn't come out right. It will always perplex me that a people sandwiched between India, the Middle East, and Russia cannot grow any body hair.

The point of my incoherent ramblings is that reaching gym rat status portends certain complexities arising -- physical and mental introspections, if you will. You learn more about yourself and your character through the nature of your gym life than you will anywhere else. You learn that the funny things and the outrageous things are life, and that's just how it goes.

You learn to balance self-worship and self-loathing.

You learn that at the end of the day, don't be a sellout, don't be a gymbecile, don't be a gym snob, don't be a gym queen. Be a gym rat.


Photo Source:
http://www.powershotsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tc-mom-260108-2463.jpg

The UC Regents Did The Right Thing

by Justin La Grange

The UC Regents made the right decision in approving the 32% fee hike, a necessary move to protect the integrity of the university system amidst massive budget shortfalls and reflective of the real market realities for an education of the UC System's caliber, specifically for UCLA and UC Berkeley. In fact, there are next to zero similar institutions in the world that offer Berkeley's quality of education at the post-fee raise price.

Despite elitist Berkeley and UCLA students snootily declaring themselves more "educated" and "aware" of the world around them than the common folk, the Regents and common folk happen to be grounded in practical and economic reality. Meanwhile, the spoonfed socialists at Berkeley are under the assumption that money to fund their high caliber education is just magically pulled out of thin air.

So what is the economic reality?

With the current fee structure (pre-32% increase), massive government funding, and ample donations, incoming revenue to fund the University's operations is not sufficient to cover costs.

In order to correct that imbalance, you are faced with three options: reduce operating costs, increase government funding, or increase the below market value tuition.

1. Reduce Operating Costs: As it is, the University's compensation for professors is well below market value and below that offered by many comparable institutions. If you continue to decrease that compensation as well as the compensation of other professionals at UC, you run the risk of losing more talent to other universities with better compensation, devaluing the quality of a UC Education. Where the UC System could reduce costs is by slashing their incompetent bureaucracy and overpaid unskilled labor -- but the UC system is a government system, after all. It's gonna be a cold day in hell when the bureaucracy is reduced, and hell on earth with the violent public sector unions if anybody tries. The ugly irony in that all this is the nutheads that complain and protest about their fee increases are likely to be the same ones who complain and protest about the unionized state gardner being compensated poorly at $25/hr with a hefty retirement package at 45 (also see attached article about Berkeley students protesting laid off janitors).
2. Increase Government Funding: In case you haven't noticed, the state of California is faced with the largest budget shortfall in its history, thanks to Democratic-liberalism run amok. The hallmark of liberalism, a massive scope of social programs with unproductive wildly overcompensated incompetent bureaucrats overseeing them, has finally catapulted California into a near state of bankruptcy. As a result, there is no state money left to be further alloted to UC. Try and cut another state program and move that funding to UC, and watch the fight the unions and interests of that cut program will put up. Of course the question becomes, "How about raising taxes?" When companies and high income earners are fleeing California at an alarming rate, you cannot afford to continue driving them away. The whole crux of conservative economic reasoning is that when you drive too many people away with massive taxes and regulation, you no longer have a tax base to draw from and the system collapses -- including the UC System.
3. Increase Below Market Value Tuition: As it stands, the 32% higher tuition is far below the market value of the education provided. Assuming the raise would make a Berkeley (or UC) education unsustainable for at most 1-5% of prospective students, just slot the next 1-5% on the admissions/waiting list in. It's the price the system has to pay to preserve quality and not reach a state of utter financial collapse. To note, there are folks that would pay $100K a year for their kids to go to Berkeley and donate a building on top of that. Yes, that's the exception and not the rule, but $7,500/year versus $10,000/year is not really going to break anybody's back. Will the loans become larger and will you or your parents have to give up a little something more if finances are tight? Sure, but that's life. If you get into a car accident and pay $2500 more per year in insurance, will you go protest outside the insurance company? No, cause that's life. We live in the United States, where nothing is free and nobody is entitled to anything -- and coincidentally, we have the greatest standard of living and quality of life in the entire world among all social classes. Oh, the injustice! And in case you didn't figure it out, option three presented here is indeed the only feasible solution.

Despite overwhelming evidence that this fee raise needed to happen, economic reality is not something UC students are concerned with in their socialist utopia. I would ask them to step out of their bubble and furnish solutions to the massive UC budget crisis that does not involve raising their tuition. Let me tell you, there are few realistic ones that accomodate their leftist worldview. There is one tax I support however, and that is a 95% tax on left-wing activist celebrities to fund the UC System -- somehow, I have a feeling a lot more movies would be made in Louisiana.


Context Article from the AP:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C3DOT00&show_article=1

Image Source:
http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/ucprotests.jpg

The Obama Administration to Fox News: How Dare You Deliver Our Transparency For Us!

by Justin La Grange

November 4, 2008 -- the sun shone brighter that day. As the seas parted and the clouds opened, the long awaited delivery of our savior, the anointed one, was finally here. Rejoice! A new era of moderate open government and transparency had begun.

One year later...

We've all found that this saying is really true: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

In what has been the most grotesque display of arm twisting vile backhandedness, the Obama Administration has mixed its far-left radical character with the forceful machinations of Chicago style politics to violently push through an unwanted agenda of an un-American nature by -- as Alinsky would describe -- any and all means necessary.

And in what is no exaggeration, Fox News is the guardian of your liberty during the Obama era. In what can be described as nothing short of corruption of the most epic proportions, Fox News is the only organization that is willing to take a critical look at the Obama Administration. That is beyond dangerous. How can anyone villify the only news media organization that dare ask questions? It is beyond comprehension, which is why, not coincidentally, Fox News has the audience of MSNBC, CNN, and HLN combined, and has occasionally beaten broadcast Katie Couric's CBS Headline News in the ratings.

One saw this coming -- no pun intended -- when Campbell Brown could barely compose herself during the Democratic primary debates or when photoshopped nude pictures of then Senator Obama were found on Keith Olbermann's bedroom wall.

The White House criticism of Fox News is outrageous. Fox News is a privately owned media organization that the White House has no business attacking, whereas The White House belongs to the people, not the Obama Administration, and therefore the people have a right to scrutinize it all they want. Instead of attacking the investigating organization, it is the responsibility of the people's house, The White House, to openly address those queries, not to have some half-witted cherubic fool making snide sarcastic "it's a war" like remarks in response.

And let's say Fox News is presenting a right-leaning opinion -- mostly on primetime -- on certain issues. So what? Are you interested in robust debate President Obama, or must you play the games of the Chicago style machine when it's more convenient to attack, dismantle, and falsely discredit your so-called opponent? Much like a five year old, it's apparently just easier to say that "you're wrong", instead of bothering to explain why your wrong, and hope enough folks are watching organizations like MSNBC and the Daily Kos to buy into the liberal cornfed stereotype.

In an era where the federal government is all too consumed with power, Fox News is the only organization that understands the role of the media is to be a ferocious watchdog, not a lapdog. Well, one can forgive Anderson Cooper, who really wants to be Obama's lapdog.

At least CNN is willing to admit it is such in what was a heroic triumph on the part of Campbell Brown in confronting the duplicitous and sniveling Valerie Jarrett who refused to call MSNBC a biased news organization while making those same pronouncements about Fox News. How convenient to not complain about fawning coverage and then complain bitterly when facts and sound reasoning are presented to controvert your ugly agenda. For example, the Obama Administration bitterly attacked Edmunds for their unbiased and completely logical report that stated the true taxpayer cost of each cash for clunker was $24,000 per turn in. The administration also attacks anyone of the opinion that the government can't run anything, which it factually can't -- if the government ran as a business, it would near immediately go out of business.

Oddly, the Obama Administration is willing to admit they're corrupt in strange overseas meetings, such as the one Anita Dunn had at a Dominican Republic government conference where she admitted the Obama strategy towards the media was to in essence "control" it as opposed to the press controlling it themselves. The administration/campaign would set the narrative and tone of the news, and the lapdog media would in essence run with how the White House put it out there. In the most clever and elegant ways, the mainstream media has this fabulous knack at building an agenda and skewing in a position in what sounds like hard news to the general public. Primetime at MSNBC is basically a regurgitation of White House press releases and a debutante ball of surrogate debaters for the Obama Administration (that's Keith Olbermann over there in the pink gown).

Meanwhile, let's discuss the administration's so called enemy territory. Glenn Beck has replaced Sean Hannity as enemy #1 and the White House has made no secret of it. As a consequence, Glenn Beck's ratings on his Fox News program have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, and Obama-exposé marketshare is epically increasing. The Obama Administration is worried about certain stunning facts Glenn Beck presents, such as the government's new marketshare of control in the private economy (from the banking industry to the car industry to the student loan industry) or videos of his czars -- who are public stewards and have salaries payed by the taxpayer -- exhibiting radical behavior. As much as folks want to discredit Glenn Beck, he broke major major stories that the mainstream media flatly ignored, such as the radical videos of green jobs czar Van Jones, ultimately resulting in Jones' resignation after huge public outcry. And that outcry was not a result of any bias or any of Beck's opinions, but a result of Beck sitting pertly in his chair, consuming an ice cream sundae as he and the public watched undoctored videos of Jones making radical pronouncements that caused the public to ask why such a extremely far-left and dangerous person is serving in a capacity that represents, again, the people's house, not Barack Obama's house. In the outrage of the century, Jones had the audacity to say he was a victim of slander, which apparently was defined as having been slandered by having the slanderer simply play back videos of the slanderee. But back on point, Beck's breaking of these stories make him a hero in looking out for the mainstream public's interest by critically evaluating policy and policymakers in the Obama administration -- that is the media's job, and non-coincidently he is rewarded for doing that job by averaging an unprecedentedly large amount of viewers.

Yet while Fox News is not afraid to present contradicting opinons (to the White House), that's not to say that Fox is as biased as MSNBC. Fox is very balanced in its daytime programming, and even primetime is more balanced than MSNBC based on the hosts and percentage of commentators that offer contradicting opinions.

Contrary to popular opinion, The O'Reilly Factor is largely a balanced program. O'Reilly's opinions skew center-right, but nearly all the segments include an opposing commentator with whom O'Reilly has virile and robust debates. Mark Lamont Hill, Juan Williams, Rev. Sharpton (who regularly appears on Fox News), Alan Colmes, Phil Donahue, Medea Benjamin, Geraldo Rivera, Jane Fleming, and Robert Reich are just a few examples. He has also interviewed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom were surprisingly pleased with their fair treatment on the show. In contrast, Countdown with Keith Olbermann has next to 0 opposing commentators. And yes, I do watch the show, unlike you liberal folks who get your 1 or 2 selective out of context clips from Media Matters that you play over and over again.

But more importantly, The O'Reilly Factor delivers the kind of transparency and truthful analysis that is sorely missing from other media outlets that -- according to Anita Dunn -- the Obama Adminstration controls. O'Reilly broke wide open the story of the Obama Administration's wildly unethical non-transparent deals with General Electric, the parent of NBC Universal and MSNBC, for billion dollar contracts in green energy and technology R&D. Obviously, it would make absolute sense to question whether there's something going on when you have NBC/MSNBC's parent GE getting favorable government contracts and then GE CEO's Jeffrey Immelt is caught telling the NBC division to lay off the unfavorable coverage of President Obama (largely occuring on CNBC at the time with Rick Santelli).

If you are interested in knowing that Obama campaign advisor Robert Reich in essence confirmed a byproduct of universal healthcare was going to be what Sarah Palin surmised were "death panels" or that Obama's communications advisor Anita Dunn turns to Chairman Mao for guidance, you might want to pick up a showing of Hannity or Glenn Beck.

Among other critical stories Fox News broke was the politically earthshaking ACORN scandal in which government funded ACORN employees were caught advising a pair posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to set up their illicit business with trafficked 12 year old Salvadoran girls. You might remember Obama thanking ACORN for all the invaluable work they had done for his campaign, such as registering the dead and the homeless (often many times) to vote. While ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC were wallowing in coverage of Michelle Obama's wardrobe choices, Fox News was busy breaking ACORN stories. But what kind of value is coverage of ACORN, you ask? Well, when ACORN registers 13,000 voters in a Minnesota race that elected a Democratic Senator (God help us Al Franken) by less than 300 votes -- not to mention who originally lost by 700 votes -- you have a serious problem.

America is no doubt the greatest country in the world, but after being coddled with all we have, we have become complacent and globally unaware. We lull ourselves into thinking that because everything runs fairly smoothly -- now -- government is not brutally corrupt. But the truth of the matter is that government is slipping by the day -- everyday government seeps into the banking industry, the auto industry, the loan industry -- and you have to ask what is next (when Obama cuts deals with media parents). While the Obama Administration verbally attacks Fox News today, how do we know this "war" is not going to end up like Cristina Kirchner's attempt to regulate the Argentine media, specifically trying to force marketshare and influence away from the private Grupo Clarin, who have rightfully been critical of her corruption and economic, political, and social damage to Argentina. It's a slippery slope ladies and gentlemen. One day it's verbal attacks on Fox News, the next day it's regulating marketshare away (ever heard of the "Fairness Doctrine"), and the final day it's getting government run mobsters to shut down private media ala the crisis in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

In light of that, thank your every last breath that we the powerless have an organization like Fox News who is willing and able to scrutinize every last nook, cranny, and action of those in power.


Photo Credit
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/random/robert_gibbs5.jpg

2010 Senate Polling and Other Updates

by Justin La Grange

2010 SENATE

Right now the Republicans possess 40 seats in the Senate. Therefore according to the chart I will present, seats 40 and below are representing seats that Republicans must defend and seats 41 and above are representing seats that Republicans can potentially pick up. All the data is taken from the most recent available polls, mostly from Real Clear Politics and Rasmussen. Seats that have competitive primaries may be listed more than once if data is available for both candidates versus their challenger(s) in the other party.

SEAT #/.......................%REPUBLICAN....%DEM
CHALLENGERS

#37 BLUNT (R)...............46%.................46%
CARNAHAN (D)

#38 VITTER (R)..............46%.................36%
MELANCON (D)

#39 AYOTTE (R).............40%.................33%
HODES (D)

#40 PORTMAN (R)...........41%.................40%
FISHER (D)

#40 PORTMAN (R)...........40%.................38%
BRUNNER (D)

#41 LOWDEN (R).............49%.................39%
REID (D)

#41 TARKANIAN (R).........48%.................43%
REID (D)

#42 TOOMEY (R).............43%.................42%
SPECTER (D)

#43 SIMMONS (R)...........49%.................39%
DODD (D)

#44 NORTON (R)............45%.................36%
BENNET (D)

#45 GIULIANI (R)............46%................38%
GILLIBRAND (D)

#45 PATAKI (R)..............41%................44%
GILLIBRAND (D)

#46 CASTLE (R)..............47%................42%
BIDEN (D)

#47 BAKER (R)...............47%................39%
LINCOLN (D)

#48 KIRK (R).................41%................38%
GIANNOULIAS (D)

#49 FIORINA (R)............39%................49%
BOXER (D)

#50 INOUYE (D)/#51 DORGAN (D)
As I mentioned in my previous note, potential seats #50 and #51 are occupied by Hawaii Democrat Daniel Inouye and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan. Those races are not competitive right now and consequently no one has produced any data on them. However if current Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and North Dakota Governor John Hoeven decide to furnish a challenge to these Democrats, those seats become competitive.

We'll see how the political climate goes further into 2010, but the stars must be very much aligned in order for the Republicans to revolve into the majority in the Senate. Boxer will have to sink further, and Lingle and Hoeven must realize how important this life calling is.

2010 HOUSE

As you know, House to House races are far too difficult to reliably compile, especially because they're not terribly high profile at this time. However, prominent analysts are expecting Republicans to pick up at least 20 seats. Generic Congressional Polling also has Republicans higher than they've been for years, generally on par with the Democrats. Rasmussen has Republican up by 4% (43R-39D), and Gallup has Democrats up by 2% (46D-44R)

2009 GOVERNORS

The Virginia Governorship is in severe jeapordy for the Democrats, as Republican Bob McDonnell consistently continues to poll 7-12% above Democrat Creigh Deeds.

The New Jersey Governor's Race is tightening up significantly, partly because Independent Candidate Chris Daggett is a decent moderate candidate and partly because scumbag incumbent Jon Corzine is running ads attacking Republican challenger Christopher Christie about his weight. The most reliable polling still has Christie up by a marginal amount.

SOURCES:

VITTER/MELANCON: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/louisiana/election_2010_louisiana_senate
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Louisiana_721.pdf
AYOTTE/HODES:
http://www.wmur.com/download/2009/1005/21207993.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nh/new_hampshire_senate_ayotte_vs_hodes-1093.html
PORTMAN/DEMS:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/ohio/toplines/toplines_2010_ohio_senate_race_september_25_2009/
REPUBLICANS/REID:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/two-could-beat-reid-poll-finds-63955312.html
BLUNT/CARNAHAN:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/missouri/toplines/toplines_2010_missouri_senate_september_21_2009
TOOMEY/SPECTER:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1379
GIULIANI/GILLIBRAND:
http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/Parents_and_Community/Community_Page/SRI/SNY_Poll/09%20September%20SNY%20Poll%20Release.pdf
PATAKI/GILLIBRAND:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_york/election_2010_new_york_senate_race
SIMMONDS/DODD:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/connecticut/election_2010_connecticut_senate_race
NORTON/BENNET:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/colorado/election_2010_colorado_senate_race
CASTLE/BIDEN:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/delaware/election_2010_delaware_senate
BAKER/LINCOLN:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ar/arkansas_senate_baker_vs_lincoln-1102.html
KIRK/GIANNOULIAS:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/illinois/election_2010_illinois_senate_election
FIORINA/BOXER:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ca/california_senate_boxer_vs_fiorina-1094.html
GENERIC BALLOTS RASMUSSEN/GALLUP:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123497/Parties-Nearly-Tied-Congress-2010.aspx
PHOTO SOURCE:
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef01156f66ab66970c-800wi