Police say four children returning home from school found their mother dead in the kitchen, and then paramedics found the father dead in what police are calling a murder suicide.

But when it touches a friend…

For as long as I can remember, Sherry was my brother’s friend, and she was one of the sweetest people in the world. Whenever Sherry called the house, she always took time to talk to me and never treated me like the annoying kid sister of her friend that I really was (I’m six years younger than my brother, which is a huge gap when the elder sibling is a teenager). Everyone who hung out in in my brother’s crowd loved her, and my parents loved her too.

Sherry’s children are now orphans, and they will have to live with the horror of what happened forever. The kids are being cared for by relatives now, and a trust fund has been set up to help them. What has happened to these kids is beyond what anyone should ever have to endure. The relatives who are grieving for Sherry are now the guardians of four severely traumatized kids and will be dealing with the consequences of this real life nightmare for many years to come; you can help to at alleviate one burden for them – money – by contributing any amount you can spare to the address below:

The Hayes Children Trust

P.O. Box 644

North Bellmore NY 11710

Please lift this family up in your prayers along with all of Sherry’s friends who are mourning their beloved friend, and please help to spread the word about the trust fund to help Sherry’s innocent children at this incredibly heart breaking and difficult time. Thank you.

Rest In Peace, Sherry. May God wrap his loving arms around your loved ones and give them comfort and strength.

Can't you see the sexism, you disgusting pigs? CAN'T YOU?!!

I don’t spend a tremendous amount of time perusing MSM-promoted or hosted opinion columns, primarily because they seldom have much to offer. However, on occasion they are rich sources of entertainment, albeit unintentionally.

A prime example of this is the latest post by one Margot Magowan, authoress of the ReelGirl blog (you all have it bookmarked, right?) whose writings are also promoted as part of City Brights, an area on the San Francisco Chronicle’s website featuring “prominent local citizens and experts with a unique Bay Area perspective that is often enlightening, sometimes infuriating and always thought-provoking.” City Brights boasts a lengthy list of contributors, household names one and all. At least in their own household. In fairness’ interest it also promotes numerous conservative authors, provided zero equals numerous.

Back to Ms. Magowan, whose latest exercise in deathless prose explains why her daddy Peter sold the San Francisco Giants rather than pass it along to the next generation. Ms. Magowan, feminist hackles raised to DEFCON 1, fumes and fusses about the latest blast against sisterhood and all things equal by that most dastardly of oppressors…

… M&M’s.

You just thought they were innocuous chocolate candies in a candy shell that melt in your mouth, not in your hand, didn’t you? HA! Shows how brainwashed you are. Thankfully, Ms. Magowan is here, leading us to the light:

It’s been a while since I blogged about the intensely sexist marketing of M & Ms candy.

So sorry we’ve missed that.

But then, someone posted about the new Coconut M & Ms on my Facebook page, and I was so disgusted by what I saw.

Um… a bag of candy? Lighten up on the puritanical diet, dearie.

By now, we’re all familiar with Ms. Green, her high heeled white go-go boots and spidery eyelashes.

And how she’s always depicted as too cool for school and smarter than all the boy M&M’s put together. Well, we’re familiar with that. Ms. Magowan, alas, not so much.

Now she’s got a pink flower pasted on her head.

Good thing for Ms. Magowan it’s not a pink triangle, or her head might explode.

And there is Yellow (Mr. Yellow?) above her, falling out of a tree while trying to catch his binoculars.

Yes, Yellow is a boy. And, as repeatedly depicted in M&M’s ads, a loveable albeit clumsy and none too bright doofus.

In this picture-narrative we also see John’s Berger’s classic analysis of historical sexism in art-life: Men watch; women watch themselves being watched.

Oh, really? That’s what we see? Silly me. I thought it was Green and Yellow being… well, Green and Yellow.

But these are M & Ms, you say. Why care about this picture?

Tell us, sister! TELL US!!!

First of all, these cartoon images appeal to kids.

What’s that then? Cartoon characters appeal to kids? The devil you say! And, by the way, most all of the M&M’s ads are aimed at adults.

Why sexualize them?

To make silly liberal heads explode.

Why sexualize candy?

Because sex sells. And M&M’s routinely lampoons the whole sexy aspect. Think about this: M&M’s? Sexy? Don’t be silly. Oh, wait, you’re already being silly. Please, carry on.

Secondly, the images promote gender stereotypes that are insidious, ubiquitous, and in this particular scene, actually dangerous.

Yes, it is dangerous for dumb clumsy guys to facilitate sightseeing by climbing palm trees.

The first anti-stalking law wasn’t passed until 1990 and the crime is still only slowly gaining recognition and credibility as a serious infraction. Obviously, M & Ms thinks it’s a joke.

Or, M&M’s is foolish enough to think there is sufficient intelligence among the Ms. Magowans of this world to figure out that Yellow is there not to stalk Green, but rather like her is on vacation, climbed the tree to go sightseeing and has managed to be his usual self by falling out of the tree. Big mistake in the M&M’s/Mars marketing department, believing people have a clue beyond the sphere of their outrage at anything and everything they’re too damn stupid to understand.

Do you think there could be a correlation between people not taking the crime seriously and that it’s women who are the victims in disproportionate numbers? (Source: National Center For Victims of Crime)

No, but you do. Bet you believe there’s a Republican war on women too.

Parents, do you really want your daughters and sons to see a “sexy” female getting stalked on an M & Ms package as if it’s funny? As if it’s normal?

As if the kids don’t get what’s going on, thus placing them far ahead of Ms. Magowan on the intelligence scale?

And why does M & Ms persist in a sexist marketing strategy that continually degrades, humiliates, or stereotypes its female characters? If M & Ms promoted racial stereotypes, would that be okay?

Oh… you mean like this?

Luckily, Coconut M & Ms is a limited edition. I wonder what they’ll come up with next. Any guesses?

I’m thinking something cute and amusing. To everyone besides Ms. Magowan, that is.

Ah, the joys of San Francisco Bay Area living.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Stacy McCain, Roxeanne de Lucia, Dan Collins and John Hawkins for the links.

Your Facebook status updates note your intense displeasure over North Carolina voters approving Amendment One. Since as a North Carolina resident you had some actual say in the matter, and to your credit you put boots on the ground by manning the phone banks urging your fellow NCers to vote no, I suspect the last person you want to hear from right now is your überconservative California uncle. However, since as you know I seldom do what people prefer, and considering how I am perhaps the only Republican Deadhead on the planet, my take on things thus leaning toward the individualistic, I’ll chime in.

First, it’s important to note, as you have, that Renee Ellmers, who I hold in the highest regard as a solid conservative who lives in the real world, opposed the amendment. Her stated reason that, while she is opposed to gay marriage, the amendment overreached by also banning civil unions is significant. I know there are those on the right screaming Ellmers should be thrown off the tea party train for this alleged crime against humanity, but since there are always purist zealots ranting about how the slightest variance from their definition of The Way Things Ought To Be is cause for political excommunication it’s no big. I imagine you get the same loose marbles on the left. Well, even looser than the usual loons, a/k/a 99 44/100% of all liberals. (Just making sure you haven’t forgotten I’m your uncle. But I digress.)

It’ll doubtless be no surprise to you that you and I hold different opinions on gay marriage. What may surprise you is the difference. You support gay marriage. I don’t support it. Don’t oppose it either. When it comes to gay marriage, I’m pure honey badger: don’t care. Deeply, profoundly, overwhelmingly don’t care.

My opinion is the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business period. It should issue civil union licenses, without which a couple cannot marry, solely to those who qualify; again in my opinion it should be two consenting adults not from the same family and over twenty-one (I’ve never met a nineteen year old who was ready for that marriage thing which usually takes place after the wedding… and yes, I’m still Uncle Grump). Marriage should be strictly a church issue with zero state participation. Obviously San Francisco’s Metropolitan Community Church would have a different marriage policy than the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption. That’s all right. There is a difference between legal status as a couple and being married. The former is a state matter; the latter a church matter. If a denomination doesn’t believe gay marriages are legitimate, that’s their right. And vice versa. Marriage should be in the eyes of the church. Period.

Note I said two consenting adults, from which one might infer I support gay marriage. I don’t. To me, marriage is one man and one woman. I have gay friends. I pray they find successful relationships, and I’ve counseled more than one on their relationships; not in an effort to dissuade them but rather in the hope of helping them become a stronger couple. That doesn’t mean I believe they have the right to marry each other. If what I suggest above were to become law they could, and I’m fine with that. But not in my church. That doesn’t make me a hater. It makes me a believer in traditional marriage, and it’s my hope that belief will be respected.

Which leads me to the next point: respect. I hope you don’t fall prey to demonizing people who see things, and vote, different than you. I doubt you will; you’re a smart kid (and you’ll always be a kid to me even though you’ve hit the big 4-0). It’s a repulsive thing when people go off the deep end and go off personally on those who see things differently. Don’t go there. Stay calm; stay respectful. Use logic and reason to make your point. If someone continues to disagree, let it be and move on to someone else. Always, always be the better.

There is another aspect to respect. Namely, respecting the people’s will. North Carolina’s voters have strongly stated their preference in defining marriage. So be it. That doesn’t mean resigned acceptance; that response to elections is reserved for when officials are chosen for office. In that case, you shrug your shoulders, analyze where things went wrong and start working on doing better the next time around. You know, like I did after 2008?

Back to Amendment One. I know there will doubtless be court challenges. Don’t support them. Why? Even if they succeed, nothing will be accomplished. A similar measure will be back on the ballot, and a whole lot of ticked off people will vote for it, angered that some judge or judges ignored their previously stated will. A legal win that alienates a majority of the people is as Pyrrhic a victory as possible. You don’t want that win. You want the real deal. That will come by going Marines: winning over hearts and minds. Certainly it will take longer than legal challenges. But it’s the right way.

Those are my thoughts on the subject, dear niece. As I said when I first started blogging, it’s one man, one voice, one opinion; conside it as you will. Take care. My love to you, the hubby and rugrats.

P.S. A side note. Couple of quotes for you:

“In an August 2008 vetting session, we talked about gay marriage. That’s when I told them about Tilly, my junior high friend and college roommate, who, after college, decided to openly live the lifestyle she chose with her partner. To me, she was still Tilly. I loved her dearly — loved the whole Ketchum family. I explained to Schmidt that I opposed homosexual marriage, but that didn’t seem too controversial in the campaign since the Democrat candidate for president held the same position.”

And:

“I had been in office two weeks when the Supreme Court required us to offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

“I support the traditional definition of marriage. One man & one woman to make a marriage. And I don’t support efforts that can lead to changing that definition.

“But on this issue, the court was the lawful interpreter of the state Constitution. The promise I had made when being sworn into office was to uphold the Constitution. That meant I would be bound by the judiciary’s ruling. So when conservatives in the legislature passed a bill that would prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples, the court ruled it unconstitutional, so I vetoed it.

“A few angry lawmakers visited my office, outraged that I hadn’t bucked the court. A couple of them said I should have been willing to go to jail over the issue.

“And if the people want to amend the Constitution via referendum, I told the lawmakers, they have the right to battle it out and do so.”

You know who said these things, right?

Sarah Palin.

And you know Dick Cheney is an open advocate for gay marriage, right?

People can surprise you when you let them.

Earlier this week, the Romney campaign along with Republican National Committee chairperson Reince Priebus held a meeting with assorted high flyer conservative bloggers. Presumably to avoid the appearance of collusion (like you could ever get two or more conservative bloggers to collude on anything… but I digress), attendees were requested to keep the meeting contents, as well as the meeting itself, under their fedoras. This secrecy went away faster than summer snow as the Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, neither exactly known for their warm feelings toward conservatives, both reported the get-together.

Since the cat was out of the bag, Stacy McCain saw no harm in having a little fun with the whole thing. Please note he was invited. I wasn’t; a status in which I was not alone. And me with a Romney support icon on my blog since the day Rick Santorum withdrew from the race. Harrumph! But again I digress; back to Stacy’s post.

Now, bear in mind by the time Stacy wrote his post, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, the meeting had everything but a transcript available for all to see. Other attendees, such as Ace, had written about it. Therefore, nothing to get worked up over, right? If the left should try to revive the Ted Nugent tack by attempting to smear Romney by associating him with one or more of the invited bloggers and any outrageous thing they might have said in the past, insinuating Romney supported this and demanding he denounce the blogger in question for being an extremist wacko whatever, it would be very easy to remind one and all that President Obama has met with leftist bloggers and media before, and Media Matters routinely met with White House officials, so do you really want to go there? Bit of a mutually assured destruction scenario, where the only winning move is not playing the game at all.

Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped people from piling on Stacy as though he broke the sacred seal and/or code of silence, which as already noted worked about as well in this case as the cone of silence. It seems odd to assail someone for talking about something everyone already knew, apparently for the sole reason of it having been initially designed to be a secret, long after the secret has been spilled. But there it is.

I’m wondering if the real reason for people’s high dudgeon is because the invitee’s list left them high and dry.

Actually, I’m not wondering that in the least.

P.S. Maybe next time Stacy should try this approach:

This night never happened
If it’s all right with you
Not a word of our weakness
So much as a clue
There’s a place outside
I’m glad to play no part
The fairest arms can tally up the faintest stars
Wash away my weekend
Shatter my sight
C’mon sweet amnesia
You’re needed here tonight
Take a seat in the shadows
Forget it as it goes
Dissipate in the morning air
All you know
If you find out
You’ll find every lie you might
I was nowhere near last night
Whitewash everything in sight
These suspicions have been long drained dry
Our persistence holds them here
A maze of bars and rented rooms remain
Enough to make you almost look away
This night never happened
If it’s all right with you
Another for the collection of things we didn’t do
That private party is over
Thank God we get new starts
The fairest arms still tally up the faintest stars
When it comes down
In a clear and certain light
I was nowhere near last night
I was nowhere near last night
Whitewash everything in sight…

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Stacy McCain, Zilla Stevenson and Paul Lemmen for the link love.

Yesterday, as I was scouring the job boards looking for positions within my realm of work experience I came across one — a marketing position, to be precise, since that’s what I do along with social media and PR — for a cell phone and service provider, located in San Francisco, that aggressively promotes progressive/activist/various other code words for leftist agenda action items.

How could I resist?

Below is the actual cover letter I sent; this in addition to my resume:

Why should you hire me as your (position title)?

Three reasons:

1) I’m not you. By that I mean I’m not an activist. To me, progressive means progressive rock bands from the 1970s like Yes and Jethro Tull. I’m a registered Republican. I listen to Rush Limbaugh. My motto on foreign affairs is “peace through superior firepower.” I’m pretty much everything you detest and oppose.

Naturally, most of my dearest friends are as liberal as they come, or gay, or both.

You see, I’m not hidebound by my ideology. I believe in people. I believe in the common good. I believe in working together to promulgate equitable solutions. I don’t isolate. I don’t hate. I’m pretty much everything the standard progressive-held image of a conservative isn’t. I’d challenge you. Sharpen you. Focus you. I would make you better.

2) I’m very, very good at my job. Company slogans? Wrote ‘em. Marketing campaigns? Did everything from pre-planning to creative to market research to media buy to monitoring results. In multiple media formats — print, radio, television. All for maximum impact at minimum price tag.

3) I’m a nice guy, the kind you like to have around the office. I keep things loose and morale high with humor. When it’s time to get down to it I’m all business, always striving to improve everything over what I did last time. I encourage and build up people.

That’s why you should hire me. Because I’m not you. And I will make you better than you’ve ever imagined.

I’ll let you know if I ever hear back.

Some say he was an outlaw, that he roamed across the land,
With a band of unschooled ruffians and a few old fishermen,
No one knew just where he came from, or exactly what he’d done,
But they said it must be something bad that kept him on the run.

Some say he was a poet, that he’d stand upon the hill
And his voice could calm an angry crowd or make the waves stand still,
That he spoke in many parables that few could understand,
But the people sat for hours just to listen to this man.

Some say he was a sorcerer, a man of mystery,
He could walk upon the water, he could make a blind man see,
That he conjured wine at weddings and did tricks with fish and bread,
That he talked of being born again and raised people from the dead.

Some say a politician who spoke of being free,
He was followed by the masses on the shores of Galilee,
He spoke out against corruption and he bowed to no decree,
And they feared his strength and power so they nailed him to a tree.

Some say he was the Son of God, a Man above all men,
That He came to be a servant and to set us free from sin,
And that’s Who I believe he is cause that’s Who I believe,
And I think we should get ready cause it’s time for us to leave.

A car burns at the scene of a bomb explosion at St. Theresa Catholic Church at Madalla, Suleja, just outside Nigeria's capital Abuja, December 25, 2011. Five bombs exploded on Christmas Day at churches in Nigeria, one killing at least 27 people, raising fears that Islamist militant group Boko Haram - which claimed responsibility - is trying to ignite sectarian civil war.

I have no dog in the Dana & Chris Loesch vs. Twitter fight that boiled over yesterday and carried through into today. Several writers such as Stacy McCain and the Lonely Conservative have already extensively written about the matter, and I defer to them.

This duly noted, an article Ms. Loesch wrote attacking an article written by Yahoo! News reporter Chris Wilson (no relation) warrants commentary. In Mr. Wilson’s article, he surmised the reason, or at least part of the reason, for Mr. Loesch’s Twitter suspension was detailed by the message Twitter sent him when his account was first suspended, that being his sending multiple unsolicited mentions to other users. In English, that means you’ve sent too many tweets to other people who don’t follow you with links in them in too short a period of time. Ms. Loesch, despite this being the initial message sent to her husband by Twitter, asserts this had nothing to do with the account suspension.

Really?

A first hand story. Several weeks ago I was doing some freelance work for a third party, creating their social media presence on different platforms including Facebook and Twitter. The client had numerous clients of their own, each with their own Twitter account. Shortly after I had created the account for my client, which being brand new had no followers, I started sending messages to the aforementioned accounts containing links to the Facebook posts I had done earlier featuring the businesses in question. Four posts into doing this, Twitter dropped the account suspension hammer, stating that I was sending — you guessed it — multiple unsolicited mentions to other users.

I mention this to point out that maybe, just maybe, regardless of all the hype and hyperbole and bluster and such over Mr. Loesch’s account being suspended, the reason this happened isn’t solely due to some dark leftist conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, he tripped one of Twitter’s automatic triggers. Perhaps other tweeters out to “get him” did file a multitude of spam and block reports. But that would not have generated the original message he received. It would have stated his account was suspended due to a high number of spam reports.

And maybe, just maybe, people are flying off the handle for no legitimate reason.

Maybe.

Final note: If you’re more worked up over Mr. Loesch’s Twitter misadventures than twenty or more Christians in Nigeria being murdered by Islamic terrorists yesterday…

… you’re doing it wrong.

I could tell you there is no troll in the valley
No tricky ghoul behind the trees
Yeah, I could tell you there is no molester
In the alley
To take a lead pipe to your knee

But you won’t believe it ’cause it ain’t true
You won’t believe it ’cause it ain’t true
Rivers flowing through your precious body blue
Trickle crimson when the chicken claws you

I could assure you
You could not be swallowed by the ground
Since we’ve moved away from L.A.
And I could tell you no child of Jesus will be found
Under rubble somewhere today

But you won’t believe it ’cause it ain’t true
You won’t believe it ’cause it ain’t true
Rivers flowing through your precious body blue
Trickle crimson when the chicken claws you

Yes, I could swear it
I will not betray another friend
I’ve found true love and I’ve lost an eye
And I might promise never to hurt you again
Cross my contrite heart, hope to die

But you won’t believe it ’cause it ain’t true
You won’t believe it ’cause it ain’t true
Rivers flowing through your precious body blue
Trickle crimson when the chicken claws you…

These days, the term trolls is more commonly associated with those who hang out on the Internet for the seemingly sole purpose of harassing others and general haranguing than the word’s original association stemming from assorted ancient Norse and Scandinavian yarns about decidedly antisocial mythical creatures, although anyone familiar with the Norwegian black metal scene has good cause to doubt the mythical part. But back to the Internet variety.

It’s long been a source of contentious debate as to whether people should engage trolls in any fashion, with the general consensus being no. At least in a blog’s comments area this is the general rule of thumb. However, on Twitter the rule seems to be not only engage them, but repeat what they’ve said to you for everyone to see. This started, as near as I can tell, with the late Andrew Breitbart who routinely retweeted most every bit of vile bile hurled his way by assorted cretins. When questioned as to why he did this, his response was he was exposing the left for what it was by displaying its own words to dismiss any veneer of civility it might claim for itself.

That said, while Breitbart often interacted with the name callers and others, he seldom devoted much time to any given individual, content to level one or two blasts back and then move on. Instead of feeding trolls, he’d flamethrower them. Which, if you’re going to bother with these people at all, is the way to go, methinks. There’s a difference between exposing idiocy and engaging it. A huge difference.

Enter the troll dolls.

Now, troll dolls are usually adorable. The problem is they’re not genuinely getting anything done. There’s no need to expend any great amount of time, energy or effort in exposing trolls. We know they exist. They can neither be changed nor reasoned with. The sum total of their existence comes from being obnoxious online. So why engage them? Why stoop to their level? Aren’t we better than that?

Some, but not all, troll dolls are like trolls themselves in that their either live, or give every indication of living, online. Therein lies the problem. Twitter and the like can be great fun, but they’re not very good at giving someone a good night kiss.

Being a troll doll will score numerous brownie points online from fellow troll dolls. But if those brownie points are all someone is accumulating in life, they’re doing it wrong. Everyone needs to get out of the house once in a while, meeting and mingling with friends in person. If they’re single and none too keen on their status, they should at the least ask their circle of friends for recommendations, place themselves in reputable groups and organizations that offer the chance to meet new people or even look into a trustworthy dating service. The trolls will always be there. No one can change that. People who know better can change themselves for the better.

Remember how Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me?” It’s the same deal with all people everywhere. Is someone with clear mind and heart not worth more than many trolls? No. They are worth more. And they should treat themselves, along with the finite amount of time they have available, accordingly.

Trolls should be left to forever live underneath bridges, forever railing against the wind for having the temerity to not ask their permission which way to blow. People who know better have a choice. They can walk across the bridge to a better tomorrow for themselves, and those with whom they associate in a genuine manner as opposed to arguing with idiots.

Online friendships and relationships are as real as ones conducted in person. But they can’t replace the joy of one on one, face to face contact and communication. Nothing can. Getting together with the online gang at special events two or three times a year ought to be, and can be, great fun. But at the end of two or three days, everyone packs up and goes home. It’s good to have a life and friends not solely part of the online world; people to hang out with whenever the mood strikes.

We all mean very well. Troll dolls mean very well. But when someone spends the bulk of their online time crossing swords with those who will never be swayed by reason, in the course of doing so neglecting or ignoring folk of like mind, heart and soul to theirs, they’re doing it wrong. And that’s a shame.

We all mean very well
Sometimes it’s hard to tell
We mean to live as brothers
To love and help each other
But the vision can be lost from time to time

With a well-meaning heart
We reach out for love
But still we drift apart
And seeking after pleasure
We can overlook the treasure
Our lives fall out of step and out of rhyme

If it’s hard to be yourself with me
If it’s hard to live in harmony
Then together let’s find the wall
Let’s break it down and watch it fall
Watch it fall
After all

We all mean very well
But there’s go to be a better way to dwell
Yes and this can be arranged
Oh but something must be changed
Something that lies deep within our hearts

If it’s hard to be at peace with me
If it’s hard to live in harmony
Then together let’s find the wall
Let’s break it down and watch it fall
Watch it fall
After all

We all mean very well
We all mean very well
Sometimes it doesn’t seem
That we will ever reach our dream
But we keep on trying
‘Cause we mean
Don’t we mean
Very well?

ADDENDUM: Not related to this post, but a huge thank you to Pat Austin, who writes the most excellent And So it Goes in Shreveport blog, for the kind words.

The Canadian rock band Saga. If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

Yesterday I mentioned in passing the Rolling Stones, currently rumored to be planning a sort-of tour with which to celebrate the band’s fiftieth anniversary. The Beach Boys are already on tour to celebrate their fiftieth anniversary.

With the exception of those who have discovered either their parents’ CDs or grandparents’ records, chances are good to excellent there aren’t a lot of kids out there who would get excited at the thought of the aforementioned artists coming to their town. How many Maroon 5 fanatics who lustily sing along with “Moves Like Jagger” while lusting after Adam Levine have the slightest notion who Mick Jagger is, let alone why anyone would want to move like him? (For the record, I linked to the video’s uncensored version so you parents out there will know what’s currently on your kid’s iPod. Adele this is not. But I digress.)

There comes a point in most artist’s career when it’s time to call it a day. Not all; some continue to create top-notch work well into their latter years. However, for many musicians the day comes when their craftsmanship begins deteriorating. Sometimes the inspiration and creative fire are no longer present. Sometimes people simply run out of ideas. Sometimes they’re no longer physically able to perform, play or sing as they once did. Sometimes people prematurely burn themselves out with too much time on the road and/or chemicals consumption. Whatever the reason may be, the times comes when they should stop. Unfortunately, very few do. The result is an exercise in sad nostalgia for what once was; a whispered “please go home” in lieu of a warmly welcomed visit.

This came to mind earlier today when contemplating how often the mainstream media, even the more neutral and/or conservative outlets, trot out the same tired and tiring faces whenever it’s analysis time. Election forecasting? Hey, look, it’s Karl Rove and Dick Morris (again)! Need a token liberal? Call Alan Colmes (again)! Cutting-edge controversy on tonight’s agenda? Cue Ann Coulter (again)! You get the idea.

It’s regrettable that in a world replete with high quality citizen journalists who routinely turn out superb original reporting and/or commentary we are routinely subjected to the same people as if by rote… which is probably the case. It’s easy to fill air time with the tried and true regardless of whether said tried and true is still relevant in terms of being connected to current events. It’s also lamentable that seemingly little, if any, effort is being made toward determining whether the same ol’ same ol’ are indeed still relevant, still connected to today’s movers and shakers. Or, for that matter, today’s headlines.

Certainly age is no disqualifier for speaking out. A veteran’s perspective is always welcome. This duly noted, there are so many voices out there deserving to be heard. It’d be nice to hear them. Yes, everyone can have their say online along with podcasting and/or live streaming audio (I can’t call it radio, because it’s not). But it’d be nice if the mainstream media would occasionally throw some love our way.

P.S. Something I seriously doubt is on your kid’s iPod even though it ought to be:

Good afternoon!
May I introduce myself?
With a story to be told you may need help
I know you were a headline for some time
But now you’re part of a motionless mime

Lights have dimmed and times have changed
And the world is watching a different stage
Don’t you think it’s time we had a younger face?
You can slip away with no disgrace
So tell me…

How long should we wait around
Don’t you understand, when you’re down we’re down?
The memory of a lasting fame
Is better fed on reruns, no shame
So tell me…

There’s one thing I must know
Tell me why you can’t let go
There’s one thing we must know
Tell me, why won’t you let go?

How long do you think we’ll last
Living with a continuous past
As you stare at us we say
“You’re looking less like me each day!”

And there’s one thing I must know
Tell me why you can’t let go
There’s one thing we must know
Tell me, why won’t you let go?

Tell me
Why can’t you let go?
Tell me
Why can’t we let go?

In addition to being the biggest rock band on the planet (with the possible exception of the Rolling Stones, who hardly qualify as a band anymore), U2 and in particular Bono are known for active stances in social causes. In Bono’s case, his primary focus is debt relief for, and alleviating suffering from AIDS in, Africa. To accomplish this, Bono works with politicians and leaders from both sides of the aisle. This has raised many an eyebrow, but to Bono his causes are not bound to any ideology save that of shared humanity and its corresponding requirement to address the needs of others.

Back to Elizabeth Emken. Her story, as told on her website:

For over a decade Elizabeth Emken has served as an advocate for developmentally disabled children, most recently as Vice President for Government Relations at Autism Speaks, the Nation’s largest science and advocacy organization devoted to the public health emergency of autism.

Before becoming active with the autism issue, Elizabeth served in management, financial analysis, and corporate operations at IBM. As an efficiency and cost cutting expert, Elizabeth utilized activity-based cost analyses to identify administrative savings across IBM U.S. – helping streamline operations, eliminate waste, and save the company millions of dollars.

Elizabeth graduated from UCLA in 1984 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Her studies included course work at Cambridge University, where she focused on political and economic issues in China and the Middle East.

Elizabeth began helping families of children with autism, like her son Alex, more than a decade ago when she learned how little was being done to help individuals and families with disabilities. Elizabeth became a citizen-advocate, and as a Board Member, handled legislative advocacy for Cure Autism Now. She coordinated advocacy for the first major piece of federal legislation addressing autism, the Advancement in Pediatric Autism Research Act, ultimately becoming the lead title of the Children’s Health Act of 2000, which authorized programs totaling more than $200 million over 5 years at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and Health and Resources and Services Administration.

A vital element of this accomplishment, Elizabeth led the charge to ensure transparency and accountability on how the NIH would spend autism research dollars. For the first time at the NIH, her efforts produced a portfolio analysis of autism spending that would have to withstand public scrutiny – a policy Elizabeth believes should apply throughout the entire government.

Elizabeth led autism community advocacy for the Combating Autism Act of 2006 on behalf of Cure Autism Now, Autism Speaks, and 17 other leading autism organizations. The Combating Autism Act of 2006, which passed in December, 2006, authorized nearly $1 billion over 5 years to combat autism through research, screening, early detection and early intervention.

Elizabeth joined Autism Speaks in March 2007 where she immediately launched a multi-state campaign to secure insurance coverage for autism-related services. Since then, 29 states have enacted autism insurance reform laws, saving participating states millions in taxpayer funds that would otherwise have been directed to state health care and special education services. This groundbreaking legislation, aimed at ending marketplace discrimination against individuals with autism, passed into law in California on October 9, 2011.

Elizabeth has worked extensively on behalf of military families, advocating for support totaling $24 million at the Department of Defense since 2007, and supporting health care coverage for autism related medical services in TRICARE, the health care program for active duty service members and retirees.

In 2008, Elizabeth secured, for the first time, placement of autism as a Presidential campaign issue with mentions at both party conventions and debates. This was followed by a first ever commitment for autism funding in a President’s full year budget proposal.

In the past few days, much has been made of a photo making the rounds showing Emken with President Barack Obama. The photo was taken in 2007 when she and other autism activists visited Washington to meet with members of Congress including Obama, who was at that time the junior senator from Illinois.

According to her opponents, the photo not only proves Emken to be someone who will consort with “the enemy,” but also one of the most eeeeevil kinds of people there are — special interest lobbyists. Because, you know, only a self-seeking, self-serving, socialist selfish pig would ask the government to devote research dollars to finding the cause or causes for, and from there more effective treatments of or perhaps a cure for, an emotional and mentally crippling condition presently estimated to affect one out of every eighty-eight children born in the United States. You know who will bear the brunt of paying for continued care for these kids throughout their lives, right? You saw him or her in the mirror this morning.

Sarcasm aside, just when did asking the government to put an effort into doing something that will benefit the public as a whole, and should its efforts be successful ultimately save the American taxpayer money, become a heinous crime? Whatever happened to the notion of honoring someone who gave up a very lucrative career to not only care for her son, but actively work toward raising awareness and the necessary funds for research? There’s no ideology here; no political party affiliation. There is a mother’s love for her son, and her work to bring hope to other mothers of autistic children that one day they will be freed from their emotional and mental hell.

When there is common ground, refusing to set foot on it because of belief doing so would taint your ideological purity is foolishness. It gives the other side the upper hand. Of course the government shouldn’t fund the unaffordable designed to perpetuate a lack of self-sufficiency by those seeking to skate through life. But when an investment that promises to both enhance the lives of many of its citizens along with offering future savings due to lowered publicly-borne health care costs is available, seize the opportunity. That’s what Elizabeth Emken has done. That’s what Bono does. And we are all the better for it.

Period.

P.S. As long as we’re talking U2:

Yup, that's where I worked for fifteen years.

Back in my retail days, a lesson oft taught was what really hurts in terms of losing customers. It wasn’t the chronic complainers and yellers, always ranting and raving about how they’re never coming back and they’re going to tell all their friends (like they have any) to do the same. Annoying to be sure, but despite their loudly voiced threats they always came back. Always. No, it’s the people who say nothing, yet never return, that do the most damage to a store’s bottom line. That’s the truth.

Nothing hits harder than the truth. It knows no agenda, serves no one’s purpose and pays no attention to any side of any given issue. It’s the truth. It stands on its own, unapologetic and unafraid. Either we get with it, or we get lost.

This came to mind a few days ago when Mitt Romney was severely criticized in conservative circles for saying that President Obama was a nice man. Here’s the full quote:

Now I happened to have met him four or five years ago at a dinner in Washington DC where we were both invited to tell some jokes about our respective parties. And I found him to be a nice guy. I think he’s a nice person. I just don’t think we can afford him any longer. I don’t think the American people can afford to have Barack Obama as their President.

Now, he points out he did not cause the recession. But, he did made it worse. And he says, “Well, look; things are getting better.” And I sure hope they’re getting better. Gosh, I hope they’re getting better. But that’s not because of him. That’s in spite of him. He has made this recession harder to come out of.

And for people who say, “Well, why do you say that, Mitt?” Well, you go through his so-called signature achievements and ask yourself which of those that are causing employment to rise right now. Gosh, I hope it’s right. But what are the things that would encourage employment? How about his stimulus? Well, that was three and a half years ago. Remember that stimulus, where he borrowed all that money and said he would hold unemployment below eight percent with that stimulus? Hasn’t been below eight percent since? Thirty-eight straight months? If we’re seeing any job increase now — and I sure hope we are — and a slow reduction in unemployment — I hope it’s coming down — it’s not because of the stimulus that was three and a half years ago. It’s in spite of that stimulus, and it’s thanks to the entrepreneurship of the American individual.

And then look at the other pieces of legislation. Does anyone really think Obamacare has encouraged businesses to hire people? Just the opposite. I go across the country. I get the chance to talk to small businesspeople. The number one thing they mention time and time again is their fear of Obamacare. It’s one reason why businesses have held back on hiring.

Then there are his labor policies. Does anyone think that stacking the National Labor Relations Board with labor stooges encourages businesses to go out and hire people? Just the opposite.

There was much more to the speech, but you get the drift. Romney was detailing Obama’s policy failures. Other than the people in attendance, no one seems to have heard that. The couple of sentences when he didn’t personally demonize Obama? Front page news.

Why?

What possible benefit is there in personally attacking your political opponent? Now, remember that this is something Obama has done in past campaigns, albeit through surrogates and not personally. When he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois, his campaign managed to convince the courts to unseal his opponent’s divorce agreement. Recently we saw Democratic power player Hilary Rosen say Ann Romney, a stay at home mother of five who raised her children without a nanny or other assistance, had never worked a day in her life. When that backfired big time, everyone from Obama on down ran for cover. There is no reason to think Obama, through his surrogates (i.e. the media), will not personally attack Romney on everything from his religion to whatever else they can invent… er, drag out of the swamp.

Romney isn’t going that route. He’s staying on message, that message being Obama’s policies are utter failures.

So how do conservatives respond?

Correct. Hyperventilation because he didn’t wield a flamethrower with one hand while tossing raw meat into the audience with his other.

Really, people? Really?

Perhaps Romney believes in treating others as he himself would like to be treated, although he did run brutal attack ads on his primary opponents.

Or, perhaps Romney is of the mindset that the Prince of Peace trumps politics every time, and that perhaps if you treat other people properly it’ll assist in reaching them with Christ’s message of salvation and changed lives.

Or perhaps he honestly thinks Obama is a nice guy, which is why he said it.

In any case, why are we screaming about it when 99 44/100% of what Romney said is dead on accurate? Why aren’t we focusing on that? Why are we letting the media drive the agenda by highlighting one thing Romney said, knowing what it would make hit the fan so once again we conservatives can be portrayed as hate-filled knuckle-draggers and in all likelihood raaaaacists?

C’mon, people, Quit yelling. You’re scaring off the shoppers we need to win this election.

P.S. Yes, we did use to go around the store singing this, albeit somewhat sardonically: