Within the same week that Nancy Pelosi calls the surge a "failure," it is reported that seized letters from Al Qaeda in Iraq state that the organization is in a "total collapse" and is suffering an "extraordinary crisis." What planet is she, or the other Democrats who keep decrying the efforts of our troops, living on? Another example of liberals who continue to deny reality because it does not fit their ideology.

pBlakeney.com is beginning to expand beyond politics, and in that interest, I would just like to salute Vince Gill for his put-down of Kanye West at the Grammys. After Kanye's self-indulgent, mentality of a 5-year old boasting after receiving his Grammy, Vince Gill was presented with a Grammy from Ringo Starr. Gill, acknowledging that he was being presented with a Grammy by a Beatle, smacked Kanye down with the line, "have you done that yet, Kanye?" Good for him, and no good to Kanye, who is an egotistical hack whose music will hopefully fade faster than a cheap pair of jeans.

The Grammy redux; Herbie Hancock wins album of the year, and Usher slaps down Kanye again with this line, just before the announcement: "remember, there are no losers," and directs it to Kanye West. Do you get it Kanye? You are officially a joke.

Ha HA.

As a website developer, I am always looking for new clients, and recently I decided to start combing Craig's List. At first, I thought I had found this great resource and I would be able to locate new clients without having to advertise, cold-call or be referred by an existing client.

In the end, that does not seem to be. For contract developers not seeking full time employment, Craig's List is a vast wasteland of cheapskates and people who want the world for nothing. I have answered hundreds of postings, even offering my services at cut rates which I would never normally charge, and I still end up losing out to some high school hack designer with no experience because they'll offer to do it for almost no pay.

Or there are the people who have an exxagerated sense of self-importance. Take for example, the guy who offered $1000 for a fairly complicated and large website that he could update himself. It was the type of job I would usually do for around $2500-$3000. He loved my portfolio, I agreed to his price, I gave him a lot of technical knowledge about how this website could be built for that price and still be updatable, etc. and we were in final stages of closing the deal. He then informed me that it was between me and two other people - that's usually par for the course, mind you, so I wasn't surprised by that. Then he asked all three of us to do a mock-up of the home page so he could see what we might do with it. I told him no, that if he wanted to see what I would do he could look at my portfolio, and if that wasn't sufficient, good luck with his project and have a nice day. I had been burned before by spending hours on a mock-up and not getting the job, so I wasn't about to again - at least not for a measly $1000 job that would take many hours to complete beyond the price he wanted to pay. He said he understood, then continued to try to shoplift my ideas on building the site after we had already decided I wasn't going to do the job.

It doesn't help that there are always people who will do the job for whatever someone will pay. But you get what you pay for, and I have seen a lot of postings and talked to a lot of people who have said that they have been burned by flaky designers they found on Craig's List. Well, if they went with the lowest price instead of the most skilled designer with the best portfolio and references, they got what they paid for.

In the end, I have decided to stick with what has worked for me for the last ten years, which is word of mouth references based on my current clients satisfaction. There are more no-talent web jockeys or programmers who think they are designers because they can use Photoshop than ever before, so the web development industry is getting crowded. That's why I will continue to get my jobs from current clients reccomendations, and will stop wasting time on Craig's List competing with the unwashed masses.

Barack Hussein Obama seems to be taking the lead in the Democratic Primary race. His message of hope and unity seems to be resonating among the Democrats, even though he really doesn't say anything of substance at all. I agree with Bill Clinton when he uses the term "fairy tale," to describe Obama's approach to the presidency. It reminds me a little of the TV show Sesame Street. You know, the show that begins with the song "Sunny day, sweeping the clouds away..."

Well you can "sweep the clouds away" all you want, but that isn't going to solve any problems. You need to have real solutions, and from what I've heard so far, Obama has little in that department. In a recent interview, he was asked what he was going to do to solve a particular problem, and he responded by saying you have to elect someone who believes in solving the problem. That's not an answer to the question at all.

The Democrats and liberals who support Obama don't want substance. They want to just wish problems away without any real solutions. They think they can end the War On terror just by saying it's over. Well, somebody better tell the terrorists. They want a Sesame Street candidate who will "sweep the clouds away," and nobody fits that bill better than Barack Hussein Obama.

The President signed the economic stimulus plan into law today. This plan is a bipartisan effort that will put $150 billion into the liquid economy by sending anywhere from $300-$600 to every tax paying American. You would think that a check from the government would make people happy, but never have I heard more criticism of a program that gives away money, the loudest from people who don't really understand how this could help the economy.

What good is this going to do? The complainers have been saying that the small amount of money they get is not going to do anything to help the economic situation. They say people will just spend it on goods made in China and send it out of the country, or just put it in their savings. The language they use to complain usually contains the words "stupid," "idiotic," etc. Many ask, "why not just give us a tax credit instead of sending us money?" This question, more than any other, shows how little they understand why this is being done.

It's really simple economics. It's not about your measly $600, it's about the whole amount of money that is being injected into the economy. It doesn't matter who the money is given to to use - it just matters that 150 billion dollars is suddenly put into our economy. It just so happens that they decided to send it to every American taxpayer. Whether the money is spent on a product from China or something made in the United States, the only thing that matters is that the money will move from one entity to another. That is the key.

How is wealth created? Money doesn't just get printed when it's needed. That's what countries used to do (some still do) to alleviate strains on their economy. Your economy is going into recession? Well, print more money. The problem with that is while that may cause a short-term alleviation of recession, it also raises inflation, as the money becomes worth less. If our government simply printed 150 billion dollars and injected it into the American economy, inflation would rise, and we'd have a disaster.

Wealth is created when money moves. Even if a portion does eventually end up in China, it will pass through several hands before it gets there. And every transaction will stimulate growth and create wealth. Think about it. You get money, you save some and you spend the rest. Some of that money is taxed, some earns interest, etc. In the end that money that came to you has gone to someone else, but you have gained something in the use of it. The same amount of money, as it goes through each pair of hands allows the acquisition of something, the payment of something else, the reward of a day's work, etc. On top of it, taxes and interest are paid, depending on its use. Wealth was created each time that money moved.

So what happens when the government injects 150 billion in cash into the economy? It is important to note that the government is not simply printing this money because it suddenly needs it. This is money that already exists, but is not moving in the economy, so inflation is not really a concern. What happens is that money will be put into motion and create substantially more wealth than would have been created had the money not been made available. That's why a tax credit would not create the same effect, as a credit puts no money in motion, it just saves people some money.

So, in the end, I think the economic stimulus plan is a good idea, and I will welcome my $600 check when it comes. To those who still think it's a dumb idea, send your check along to me. I'll make sure it's used to create wealth, and be happy to do so.

All day long on the news today, they have had coverage of the Roger Clemens baseball scandal. Aren't there more important things for Congress to be worrying about? How much of our tax dollars are at work investigating something that may or may not even be a crime in the first place? Who even cares about this, other than liberals who are too distracted to raise their children themselves and are worried about "the village" members taking steroids?

If Congress paid this much attention to terrorism, we would be winning the Terrorists' War On Us.

Jane Fonda said the "C-word" on NBC TV on Thursday - how ironic. That's the word I usually think of when I hear mention of Jane Fonda.

All kidding aside, I think it's ridiculous that she said that word on national TV. A few weeks ago, Diane Keaton made a similar slip when she let slip the f-word on Good Morning America. But unlike Fonda, Keaton's utterance seemed more like a genuine mistake, for as soon as she said it, she seemed flustered and looked like she realized she made a mistake. Fonda let loose with her profanity in an almost calculated effort to shock.

Whether it's a mistake or not, people swear all the time, but most of us know when to keep it in the back room or to do it when you are with the appropriate people. One of the reasons there are no comments on this blog is that the general tone of discourse on the Internet nowadays has grown increasingly vulger, and I'm not going to pay for web space and have it filled up with people who contribute to that. If you have an opinion about what I've written, put it on your own web server, and you can use all the expletives you want, but I'm not going to publish it.

Many people feel that the reaction to celebrities using vulgar language on national TV is overblown, that people use these words all the time and we're making to much of it. Maybe so, but I don't have to agree. To me, it is evidence that many of today's celebrities are so self-centered that wherever they are, they believe it is all about them, and the rest of the world be damned. It also shows a lack of intelligence when you can't find a balance between expressing yourself and using a careful and appropriate choice of words for the venue you happen to be in.

Here's my contribution, the cartoon by Kurt Westergaard that is at the center of the current controversy.

We will not surrender. We will not submit.

Newspapers in Denmark Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people who allegedly were plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, one of the cartoonist behind the drawings.

Berlingske Tidende, one of the newspapers involved in the republication, said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Jane Fonda is unrepentant in her recent use of the "C-Word" on national morning television. When questioned about the incident, she matter-of-factly stated that she was just describing a true situation in which she was asked to participate in the Vagina Monologues, and that was the particular monologue she was asked to do. So, in her eyes, it was completely appropriate to say the name of the particular monologue, despite the fact that she was on a nationally televised morning show which may have been watched by children and adults who do not care to hear such language.

Standing next to her at the time of her "explanation" was none other than Eve Ensler, the creator of the Vagina Monologues, who further interjected that saying the C-Word was about "taking it back" - in other words, to make it more acceptable to say in mainstream society, and to remove the stigma about it, much the same way black people have tried to remove the stigma of the N-Word by taking it and using it themselves. She intimated that she was fighting a war to reclaim that word, and similar words, and that is what the Vagina Monologues is all about.

Now that may be all well and good, but why does she and Jane Fonda think it is appropriate to drag us into their battle? The audacity of their position is unfair to those of us who do not share her views, or at the very least, do not want this battle waged on national TV during family viewing time. If they want to fight their battle, they should pick a more appropriate venue to make their initial stands. In warfare, you don't parachute right into the center of a country without at first making some initial gains on the periphery. Similarly, they should choose to fight their battle in an adult venue, and if eventually the adults have decided to side with their position, then they can start involving the rest of the family. To spew forth with what a majority of Americans think is vulgar language on a daytime TV show is simply not appropriate, no matter what battle you think you are waging.

In addition, the self-righteous nature of their behavior is beyond audacious. Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler care little or nothing for anyone who does not agree with them. The fact that someone may be offended by their behavior does not bother them at all. They are self-centered limousine liberals who believe they are smarter than the rest of us and do not have to answer to you and I. Let's show them that their are two sides in every battle, and that we will fight back by refusing to acknowledge their position, and by taking the other side in the battle of decency versus common vulgarity. Their shallow disregard for how others may feel is transparently obvious. Let's show them that we feel the same way about them.

Previous:
Jane Fonda Drops A C-Bomb

Bob Geldof gave recognition to President Bush for giving more aid to Africa "than any other president so far," reports The Washington Times.

"This is the triumph of American policy really. It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion. What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing."

Of course, it's no surprise that the liberal main-stream media has ignored this. They are vested in seeing the Republicans defeated, and every bit of positive news that may come out of the Bush administration's policies is ignored or surpressed. At the same time, the slightest bit of positive news from liberals and Democrats is trumpeted loudly.

Are you listening, oh brainwashed liberals?

Michelle Obama made a bit of a gaffe recently by saying that "the first time in her life (she) is proud of her country." What was she before? One can only surmise that she was ashamed.

This is the would-be first lady of the Democratic front-runner? Do we want a first lady who feels no pride in her country for being at the forefront of securing liberty throughout the world for decades? Every country has its negative points, but to not feel pride for some of the many great achievements of this country is particularly telling.

Of course, many will rush in, and have rushed in, to her defense, pointing out that the experience of a black woman in the United States gives one pause to reflect that she has not been the recipient of fair and equitable treatment that would make her feel proud. But, at the same time, her experience is hardly similar to many blacks who may feel disenfranchised by this country. She attended both Princeton University and Harvard Law School, an opportunity beyond those available to Americans of any ethnicity.

Others will rush to judge us for forming an opinion about her statement. If we say we are offended, the liberals will belittle us and try to explain to us that we are the ones who are wrong. If we are offended, it is because of the smallness of our views and we are just not smart enough to understand the nuance of the statement. "She doesn't mean what she said," they will say, "she really means this other thing..." Barack Hussein himself is doing exactly that. On Tuesday he said this:

"Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn't at all what she meant. What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America. Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

In any case, this is not what many of us would like to see in a would-be First Lady of the United States. As official hostess of the White House, the First Lady is an ambassador of good will for the nation to all visiting dignataries, and it is hardly fitting for such to loudly proclaim shame for her country. Many will tell you this whole incident is being blown out of proportion. But I think the devil is in the details, and this one detail is particularly telling.

The old saying goes "gaffes are what happens when a politician tells the truth..." Michelle Obama may not be a politician, but she is helping one to campaign, and she was telling the truth. Barack Hussein Obama has already made a point of not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel, and now his wife says she has never felt pride for this country. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. The curtain has been drawn back, and it reveals both Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama to be less than forthright in their view of this country.