Back to Work

I feel like I've been out of touch with the world for the last month, as we spent time in Tucson, AZ and Park City, UT. It was really the first time I've done any major travelling since a trip to Hawaii a few years ago, and I'd forgotten how tiring it can be. It's taken a while to get back on schedule, and making time to post on here has been even harder, but I'm finally getting back in the groove.

We've had an interesting couple of weeks leading up to the inauguration, and I have to admit that I'm getting a little bit nauseous at the giant collective joygasm over this guy. So many people are going to be so very disappointed...

It's been very enlightening, watching the media and others fawning over our new president, and I'll be very interested to see how everyone views him this time next year. My instinct is that our new president is "too big to fail." We've been hearing that a lot in the last few months, mostly concerning banks and other financial institutions, but I think it certainly applies to President Obama (see that...I referred to him as "President Obama", even though I disagree with him...I refuse to descend into the kind of dispicable, immature behavior we've witnessed from the left over the last 8 years).

The media has far too much invested in the phenomenon that is President Obama to ever allow him to fail. No matter what he does, and I honestly believe he will make some very big mistakes over the next four years, his tenure in office will never be portrayed as anything other than a complete success. The left has too much to lose. A lot of folks will laugh at this, but look at our outgoing president. The man was able to keep America free of terrorist attacks after 9/11, got our economy going after inheriting a recession (you won't convince me the current recession can be laid at his feet), and stood resolute in the face of some of the most childish and inane criticism any president has ever faced.

And yet, what is the general opinion among the ignorant masses? Everything from global warming to Katrina to the credit crunch is "Bush's fault." He's seen as the "Worst President Ever", thanks in large part to the media. Don't get me wrong. President Bush made many mistakes, and his refusal to stand up and defend himself was one of the most frustrating. He tried to govern as a "Big Government Conservative", an oxymoron to any true conservative, and he certainly deserves criticism for many bad decisions. But I for one believe that he will be remembered as a courageous man who was willing to be the villian, if it meant keeping us safe.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but in generations to come, he'll be remembered as he should be. Besides, he can't hold a candle to Jimmy Carter when it comes to "Worst President Ever", and judging by our new president's affinity for Carteresque policy, we may have a new benchmark in a few years time.

Thank you, President Bush.

Must Read of the Day

From the Times:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

...

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

Read the whole thing. It really is a clever little piece from our friends across the pond, and it lets us know that there are some in the media who have managed to maintain their composure, even in the very presence of His Highness, the Obamessiah.

Shocker...

For anyone who somehow continues to doubt the liberal bias in the news media, well, just follow the money.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

The author also provides a handy chart containing the contributions made by "those who reported being employed by major media organizations."

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.