"These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them."

The preceding quote is a line from the classic David Mamet play, and subsequent film, Glengarry Glen Ross, a story which is pivoted around the sale of real estate. The Glengarry leads are sales leads for a new property, and to the agents who are trying to sell real estate, they are gold. The new property is valuable, and the leads are fresh; they are the names people who are interested in spending money, and would likely bear fruit and net the agents actual commissions. The problem is, the agents can't get those sales leads until they sell off worthless property to a bunch of dead sales leads.

Does this sound familiar? If you've been following the current oil crisis and the debate about offshore drilling, and drilling in Alaska, it should. The oil companies have a bunch of existing leases which are not very promising in the prospect of actually obtaining any oil. Democrats in Congress are insisting that they will not open up any new land to oil exploration and drilling until the oil companies drill on the land they already have. It doesn't matter that the actual leases the oil companies have are poor prospects, and the actuality of recovering any oil is negligible. Rather than letting them drill in areas where we know there is oil, they want to punish the oil companies by making them spend their profits in a search for fool's gold. Nobody wins.

The continental shelf and Anwar are the new leads. They're the oil-rich leads. And to the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) they are gold. And the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) don't get them.

H. has appropriated the official Presidential seal and has made a parody of it for his own use. The fact that he does not understand how offensive that is to many Americans calls into question his overall judgment once again.

What is really ironic is that his appropriation of the image shows a complete lack of respect for the office he is seeking. If one believes that the Presidency is truly a special office of ultimate sanctity, one does not make MAD magazine style parodies of the official icon of that office.

Obviously this is the work of a promotional expert who believes that perception becomes realty. By placing H. with something that looks like the Presidential seal, it plants an image of H. looking like the President. But this just shows that H. is not a new kind of politician at all. It betrays the fact that he is a packaged politician like any other. This is pure Madison Avenue, not Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a jingle.

What really burns me is the way the apologists look down their noses on those who do find this offensive. To them, it is a "non-issue," and they keep telling us so. If you find this to be the issue, you should get over it and focus on the Chicken Little mantras of the liberals, such as the sinking economy or the "mess in Iraq." if you think this is important, you're wrong. This Presidential Seal thing is not an issue, you should focus on this other stuff. It's funny that they keep having to deflect attention from issue after issue by saying that it's not really important. You would think they would get the message that maybe these things are important. Actually, they know that these are important issues and the only way they can deal with them is to remind us that we're wrong.

I saw Susan Estrich on Fox News this morning, another in a line of "What's The Matter With Kansas," liberals reinforcing the view that this isn't an issue. After hearing her spew the same tired old issue redirection, I was compelled to send her an e-mail:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:50 AM, pBlakeney wrote:

Dear Ms. Estrich,

I heard you on Fox News this morning, and I am increasingly offended by you and other liberals calling things that may be important to us as "distractions" or "non-issues." You seem to insulting a large segment of Americans with your dismissive derision. Who are you to tell us what issues we should find important?

Issues such as the underlying core sense of patriotism of the presidential candidate is an important issue to many, and just because you don't see it that way, you need to understand that others do. The judgment as to how delicately the candidate handles his campaign in regard to the very valid patriotic feelings of millions of Americans is an issue. Of course, other issues such as the economy and international relations are important to us as well, but that doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of issues of patriotism and respect for the symbols and icons of our country.

Your attitude reflects the viewpoint and enforces the perception that liberals are elitists who look down on those who don't agree with them.

pBlakeney

The AP has gone over the top with their scheme to bill bloggers for excerpting their news stories. Throwing the concept of "fair use" in the trash, they are trying to charge bloggers, or anyone else who quotes one of their stories on a website, $2.50 per word. Of course, that's ridiculous, and I'm sure most bloggers are going to ignore their request completely. They've even gone so far as to set up a shoppingt cart with a calculator so you can pay for your quote and be "in compliance."

Michelle Malkin has more complete coverage and a lengthy list of trackbacks, so I suggest you visit her site to learn more.

I do have a question, though. It appears that in Michelle's post, she quotes some AP stories that contain quotes from her website. That got me to thinking - under AP's scurrilous pricing plan, is Michelle Malkin expected to pay AP the per word rate when the words in the AP story she's quoting are from her own website?

I suspect they would expect payment, and that just shows how completely ludicrous this is.

The verdict is in -- the jury has acquitted the pustule known as r. Kelly in the perverted singer's child pornography trial. I was a bit aghast when I heard the news, and will continue to believe that the jury did the wrong thing. If there is anybody that should be put in jail for his sick and degrading crimes, it is r. Kelly.

The most interesting thing to note about the jury's comments on their verdict is that they acquitted Kelly because they said there was "no victim." They agreed that r. Kelly was the man on the tape urinating on and raping a 13 year old girl, but they couldn't positively identify the child, so they felt they had to acquit. Yes, you heard right - they all agreed r. Kelly was raping a child, but they voted not to convict him. What a miscarriage of justice.

From the CBS 2 Chicago website:

CBS 2's Dorothy Tucker reports the jury said Friday afternoon that they did believe Kelly was the man on the tape, but could not be sure the alleged victim was the girl on the tape, because she never took the witness stand, so they felt they could not convict Kelly.

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. The man then has sex with and urinates on her.

Of course, he can never be prosecuted for this particular incident ever again (except for maybe a civil suit). But it is my guess is that this isn't an isolated incident. There's got to be more video tapes floating around. If anyone ever finds one, they should turn it in immediately. There still may be a chance to nail this pervert...

It sure looks like its going to be John McCain vs. H. in the forthcoming Presidential race. Hillary is still campaigning, but H. is readying himself for the general election, and many pundits think the primary race is over. Unfortunately for H., in the battle between him and John McCain, McCain is currently the one who is controlling the debate.

Over the last week or so, H. has continually had to react to comments by McCain or his supporters, and even change his behavior on foreign policy by responding to McCain's remarks about not being in Iraq since 2006 by planning a trip there. Whether the trip was already being planned isn't known, but H. sure is doing a lot of reacting. And, as they say, if you're reacting you're losing. The winner is the one who controls the debate, and currently that's John McCain.

And while he's got H. suckerpunched, the pastors that keep on giving are also taking some shots, and while they are not directed at H., H. is the one getting hit by them. Last Sunday's rant by Chicago's Father Pfleiger is just the latest in a long run of questionable religious associations for H. Michelle Malkin has a complete list of the dangerous religious mentors that H. has cited. We've already seen that H. has a bit of a glass jaw when it comes to reacting to these associations.

The race has barely begun, and H. is already on the ropes.

* Update Below * John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, will be speaking in Wales this evening, and George Monbiot, a self-righteous peace activist, says he has plans to perform a "citizen's arrest" on him. The Dyfed-Powys Police have been in contact with Monbiot and are aware of the planned action, and supposedly are actually considering the arrest, although I can't believe they actually will. Monbiot calls himself a "journalist," and "activist," but I think he is nothing more than a left-wing publicity hound with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

It appears that Britain actually has a law that allows for one citizen to detain another without a warrant or police involvement. The law is part of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Thankfully, others believe that Monbiot's attempt to arrest John Bolton would not be legal:

Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said Mr Monbiot's attempt at a citizen's arrest would be "completely unlawful".

He said: "The Hay Festival has sought the advice of both police and lawyers, and has been unequivocally assured that a citizen's arrest, or an attempt to instigate a citizen's arrest, would be completely unlawful in these circumstances.

"The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker."

Mr Monbiot was blocked by two heavily-built security guards at the end of the one-and-a-half hour appearance, before he could serve a "charge sheet" on him.

After being released by the guards the columnist - a fierce critic of the 2003 American-led invasion - made a dash through the rain-soaked tented village in a failed attempt to catch up with Mr Bolton.

The Surge Is Working, and not just in Iraq, reports an editorial in Investor's Business Daily.

Victory can be achieved.

A deep and sincere thanks go out to all of our soldiers, veterans and all who have served in our military. Your service to our nation is the greatest gift we have.

Thank you.

American Thinker has a good article entitled Your Energy Future Under the Democrats by Larrey Anderson, but in addition to the critical look at Democrats energy plans, there was another thing that caught my eye. In a quote of a statement from the DNC website, writer Anderson had to point out that the bad grammar in the statement was not a typo on his part, but that the offending grammar exists in the source statement.

From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:

"We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology."

This shows a disturbing tendency I have been seeing more in more in younger people, especially those on the left. The "intelligentsia" of the liberal left seems to have given up on the discipline to precisely and correctly communicate. And their ideology is buried so deep in their psyche that nothing is just plain black or white or right or wrong. Feelings becomes fact, and actual facts are secondary to feelings. Details like conjugating a verb or communicating in complete sentences are secondary, as long as the point gets across.

What kind of slackers are our colleges graduating these days? The white collar work place is full of fresh faced young graduates who have been indoctrinated in the liberal mind-set at their respective universities. They spout high-minded ideals, and swagger with the smarm and confidence belying the intelligence their sheepskin confers upon them. Except that they can barely spell. Universities nowadays are more concerned with teaching children what to think than how to write or communicate decently. And it shows.

The irony of this is that they so deeply believe that they are the intelligentsia, and that conservatives are the clueless automatons who have been brain-washed by the Bush administration and aren't intelligent enough to vote in their own interest. But we are the ones who pay attention to details, and string facts together into intelligent arguments. And we are the ones who can conjugate a verb.