Jamiel Shaw-Another Victim on the Altar of Political Correctness

Last month, a young man named Jamiel Shaw was gunned down in Los Angeles for no other reason that he was assumed to be a member of a rival street gang. Shaw, an African-American high school student, football star-and not a gang member, was shot down by an (alleged) member of the notorious 18th Street Gang, a Mexican gang that is considered one of the most vicious in Los Angeles. The suspect had been recently released from jail and was apparently, an illegal alien. This, of course, raises the obvious question: Why, if he was an illegal alien, was he not deported upon release from jail? Here is your answer: Los Angeles is a "sanctuary city" that does not turn over illegal aliens-even criminals-to the Immigration authorities. This per the wishes of the mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, the police chief, William Bratton and the LA City Council.

Who was Jamiel Shaw? He was a young man with a future. He was a football star at his high school and had at least two universities interested in recruiting him, Rutgers and Stanford. His mother was serving in the US Military in Iraq at the time of his death, while his father, Jamil Shaw Sr. was raising him. Throughout Jamieel's short life, father did everything he could to keep his son out of trouble. He enrolled him in every sports program possible. At the time of his death, young Jamil was preparing to take the SATs so that he could academically qualify for whatever college recruited him to play football.

Yet, some scumbag, who was not even in the country legally, just out of jail, approached him and asked him where he was from. Not getting the right answer, the gunman shot him dead thinking he belonged to some rival black gang-which he did not.

So, once again, someone has to die on the streets of LA because the city will not do its duty and cooperate with federal authorities in ridding itself of the criminal element that exists among the illegal alien community. To be sure, not all illegal aliens are criminals, but some are, and we must deal with them. Yet, Los Angeles, like San Francisco, Denver and many other cities, will not act against this plague for reasons of political correctness.

Today, Walter Moore, a former candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles and Jamiel's father appeared before the LA City Council to plead with them to allow the LAPD to sidestep LA's Rule 40, which designates LA as a sanctuary city, when dealing with gang members. As yet, we don't know what the decision will be. Knowing the makeup of the leadership of the city, I don't have high hopes.

This is just another cost of this insane philosophy of political correctness that has infected our society. People actually have to die.

Jay Rockefeller's Comments About John McCain

No matter how much the Democrats state that they love our troops, periodically, one of them comes out with some statement that demonstrates that many of them (not all) actually have disdain for the institution of the American military. In recent times, we have seen Democratic members of Congress compare our military to Nazis, Soviets, and Genghis Khan in their conduct of the war in Iraq. Names? Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. (Murtha and Kerry are combat veterans themselves, which must be pointed out.)

The latest is West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller. This is what he stated this week about John McCain:

"McCain was a fighter pilot who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues".

Here is the response from the McCain side:

"Senator Rockefeller's statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America's military. Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn't dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967."

Today, Rockefeller issued a statement saying, "I have deep respect for John McCain's honorable and noble service to our country. I made an inaccurate and wrong analogy and I have extended my sincere apology to him.

While we differ a great deal on policy issues, I profoundly respect and appreciate his dedication to our country, and I regret my very poor choice of words."

So, Senator Rockefeller, what was your innacurate and wrong analogy, plus your very poor choice of words? Was it the fact that laser-guided bombs were not used until after McCain was a POW? Was it the fact that he was shot down at 4,500 feet, an altitude used in order to decrease collateral damage? Was it the fact that on the last occasion, McCain was not "long gone", rather was shot down and taken prisoner? Or was it, perhaps that you condemned McCain for merely carrying out his duty as a pilot?

As has been pointed out, Rockefeller, who is almost the same age as McCain, did not serve in the military during that era-nor any other era. (He was in the Peace Corps.) Yet, he joins oher prominent hypocrites like Michael Moore, Bill Maher and Howard Dean, none of whom ever served in the military, yet had the gumption to call President Bush words, like "draftdodger", "deserter" and "AWOL" because of his National Guard service.

It is fine that Rockefeller apologized, but is this what he really feels about military pilots? Why did he say this to begin with? I hope the voters of West Virginia remember this statement the next time Rockefeller runs for re-election.

The Prison Overcrowding Problem-What Problem?

"Heigh ho, heigh ho-it's off to jail we go. Seven to a cell?"


How many times have you read or heard about criminals being let out of prison early because of "prison overcrowding"? How many times have you heard about murders and rapes being committed by violators with long records who were let out of jail because of "overcrowding"? Getting a little sick of it?

First of all, we as Americans must admit that our society has a problem with violent crime that is a disgrace to any civilized nation. Consequently, we have a prison population that is embarrassingly high. Of course, to liberals, that is a problem in itself because they don't like to see people go to prison in the first place (I realize that is a bit of an over-generalization, but you get the point.) Add to that all the liberal judges who hate to send anyone to prison. Bill O'Reilly has pointed out the on-going problem of liberal judges who routinely give slap-on-the-wrist sentences to convicted child rapists-who go out and repeat their crimes. The states of Vermont and Massachusetts are the most notorious in this regard.

Many of the early releases "due to overcrowding" are the result of mandates by judges that order prisons to keep their populations below a certain level.

Certainly, prison guards and officials would benefit from lower inmate populations as a way to diffuse tensions. Nevertheless, the cost of sending dangerous criminals back onto the streets before their sentences are up is unacceptable.

So what is to be done? Considering our crime problem, it seems obvious that more prisons must be built. That is certainly a responsibility of government-either at the federal or state level, and I would support the spending for that purpose.

In some cases, it can even be done on the cheap. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona (a retired DEA agent-I might add), has set up enclosed tent camps for certain inmates. What's wrong with that?

But in the interest of full disclosure, I am just a simple right-wing hardliner, especially on law and order. I am retired from law enforcement, don't have a PHD, but do I have a rather simple philosophy: Lock em' up and throw the key away. I would rather see overcrowded prisons than streets overcrowded with dangerous criminals.

Of course, if my desires came to pass-with stronger judges and longer sentences, then the prisons would become more crowded. Then we must make hard choices on building more facilities and hiring more guards.

If not-let them sleep on top of each other. (They do anyway.)

LA City Council on the Job

"Wait! Didn't you guys hear about the moratorium?"


America turned a corner on crime and violence this past weekend, at least in the City of Los Angeles. To observe the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, the LA City Council passed a resolution last week calling for a 40 hour moratorium on violence (the period running over the weekend). Apparently, there was a lot of give and take on the wording in order to get the necessary votes. For example, the word, "murder" had to be deleted in favor of more moderate language. It was hoped that the symbolic resolution would have a positive effect in LA, where gangland murders are running rampant.

The result? Three murders and 13 wounded.

Well, you can't fault the City Council for trying. But these are the same folks who just passed a rate hike for the Department of Water and Power-even though that entity has enough of a surplus to kick back 175 million dollars to the City and is able to offer its employees and dependents lactation classes.

This is also the same bunch that was going to cave in and award multi-millions to Tennie Pierce, a black firefighter who brought suit against the city after his colleagues put dog food in his spaghetti, which was just one of countless pranks carried out in the firehouse. (Pierce himself was one of the leading pranksters.) That led to two supervisors being disciplined-who turned around and successfully sued the city. Cost to taxpayers? millions.

So the latest venture by the LA City Council has only added to their reputation for incompetence. Perhaps, they would achieve greater results if they acted to reverse LA's status as a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens, and if they gave more support to the police in cracking down on street crime and gangs. But don't hold your breath.

Baseball Parks-The Best and the Worst

L-R, Wrigley Field, Chicago Hubert Humphrey Metrodome, Minnesota




I feel like taking a break from the presidential race, politics and all the ills of the world. In this post, I thought I would reflect on one of my favorite topics-baseball stadiums.

To begin with, I consider myself a baseball purist when it comes to baseball fields. In my view, the old baseball parks that were built pre-World War I were the best. They were small, intimate and each had its own distinctive character. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, they still dominated the scene. There was not only Wrigley Field and Fenway Park, but Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, the Polo Gounds in New York, Connie Mack Stadium in Philadelphia, Yankee Stadium in New York, Crosley Field in Cincinnati, Forbes Field in Pittsburgh, Municipal Stadium in Cleveland, Sportsmans Park in St Louis, Comiskey Park in Chicago, Tiger Stadium in Detroit, Griffith Stadium in Washington, (have I forgotten any?) When we think of Wrigley and Fenway, any of the above would be today thought of as just as old-style and nostalgic (possible exception of huge old Municipal Stadium in Cleveland).

Today, only Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park remain from the old ballyards. (Yankee Stadium opened in the early 20s and is enjoying its final year.)

Things changed with the move of the Dodgers and Giants to the West Coast in 1958. A new style of ballpark emerged-Dodger Stadium and Candlestick Park respectively. They were bigger and more modern. Dodger Stadium, which is to this day, remarkably well-kept, is still considered "beautiful"-though I would disagree. One needs binoculars to see the action from the 5th deck.

From there in the early 1970s, the old parks started to fall one by one-replaced by the all-purpose stadiums that had artificial grass and could be used for football and baseball. These were the massive stadiums in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St Louis, Anaheim, Oakland, Minnesota, Houston, Atlanta and so on-concrete donuts with symetrical dimensions, outfield walls, 4 or 5 levels of grandstands-and zero character.

Now we are in the third stage-the so-called retro ballparks, which began with Camden Yards in Baltimore, an effort to go back to the individual, more intimate style of ballpark- definitely an improvement, but considering the realities of economics (corporate boxes, etc), not a complete return to the good old days of the old ballparks. Certain stadiums have been more successful than others in bringing back the traditional flavor of the game. What follows is sort of an attempt to rank all the stadiums according to my own taste.

The Old Ballparks

Best- Wrigley Field, Chicago.

I first visited Wrigley in 1963 and have been a Cub fan ever since, so this appraisal may be biased. Though I have not been back since before lights were installed, I have always felt that going to Wrigley was like stepping into a time warp back to the 1930s. It is true that under recent ownership, the ballpark has been somewhat compromised with lights, electric signs and a few other innovations designed to increased attendance. Nevertheless, the innovations have not destroyed the old-time character of the park. It is still, in my view, the best place to watch a game.

Fenway Park

I rank it slightly below Wrigley, but definitely number 2. The fascinating thing about Fenway is that it is so closely packed into a downtown commercial area that except for the lights, one could literally walk around the park and not realize that it is a baseball park until one walks through the gate. It could actually pass for a collection of brick storefronts.

Yankee Stadium

My only visit to Yankee Stadium came in the late 1980s after the renovation of 1964, which changed the character of the park into something more reminiscent of say, Dodger Stadium. In spite of its more modern look, it will be sad to see it pass simply due to the great history it represented. It looks like the new Yankee Stadium is pretty much a copy of the old-minus Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey mantle, et al.

The Middle Era

Dodger Stadium

Though well-maintained and impressive from the outside, I never liked the place and often felt like I was indoors. Most seats require binoculars, and to me, the place is very sterile. Yet, many disagree with me. Vin Scully, the legendary Dodgers announcer, ranks it right up there in beauty with Wrigley Field. I disagree.

Shea Stadium

I regard Shea as a downscale version of Dodger Stadium, though I have only seen it from the outside. The Mets are soon to move into a new ballpark, which can only be an improvement.

There were also places like County Stadium in Milwaukee (1953-) and Metropolitan Stadium in Minnesota, small parks converted from minor league parks, nice, but nothing spectacular.

The "Modern" Era (1970s-1990s)

This represents the worst in the ballpark style as represented by the donut-style stadiums of Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland, St Louis, Anaheim (opened in the1960s)and so on. There was virtually no difference among these stadiums. They were round, without character and a bore for fans to visit. Thank God, these places were or are being replaced. The worst? Has to be that monstrosity in Toronto-a theme park, but not a baseball stadium (still not replaced). Or maybe the Humpty Dome in Minnesota. What can you say about a baseball field with trash bags for an outfield wall?> Then there is Tampa Bay-yuk! As for Anaheim Stadium, it has gone through numerous renovations over the years, including the installation of those ridiculous boulders in the outfield. (I actually touched them once to see if they were real-they were.) Oakland's stadium is one of the last used for both baseball and football. On TV, the stands seem to be packed in everywhere.

Kansas City-an in-betweener. Attractive, with its greenery and waterfalls, but that's as far as it goes in terms of character.

Miami- a football field serving as an interim baseball field. Hopefully, it won't be around for baseball much longer.

The Retro Era

The first was Camden Yards in Baltimore, at the time a revolutionary and welcome change. Modeled to some extent on old Ebbets Field, the park features Eutaw Street, which runs behind the right field wall in front of an old brick railroad warehouse and contains pubs, restaurants and souvenir shops. The biggest drawback (in my view) is that has a triple-deck grandstand. (In my purist attitude, there should be no more than double-deck.) The warehouse provides a great scenic backdrop.

The next retro park to open was Jacobs Field in Cleveland, built by the same company that built Camden Yards and constructed in much the same style. When I attended a game there, I was much turned off by the triple-level luxury boxes that resulted in fans (like me) sitting in the clouds of the upper deck.

The Ballpark at Arlington (Texas)- I have not been to a game there, so my opinion comes from seeing it on TV. It appears very attractive, with right field bleachers (double deck) reminiscent of Tiger Stadium and attractive office buildings in the outfield. Again, triple deck grandstand is a minus.

The Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. Not bad, bleachers on the edge of the Ohio River nice, but still has triple deck.

PNC Park in Pittsburgh- One of the best of the new. Great location on the riverbank, with view of bridges and downtown and not overdone with grandstands. Double deck is just right.

Atlanta- not bad, seems symetrical in the outfield dimensions.

Comerica Park in Detroit-Along with PNC, one of the best, double-deck, nice bleachers, great outfield view. Sorry to see Tiger Stadium go, but a good replacement.

The new Comiskey Park in Chicago (Fed-ex Field?) one of the worst of the new parks-not retro, rather an imitation of Dodger Stadium. If you suffer from vertigo, don't get a ticket on the upper deck.

San Francisco (whatever its called now). Looks great with the right field wall backing onto the bay. It would be nice if they got rid of the big glove and coke bottle. Again, triple deck is a detriment.

Busch Stadium, St Louis- a vast improvement over the its predecessor, but the triple deck is a minus. It looks like they have symetrical outfield walls.

Philadelphia- Again, a big improvement over the previous donut, but same criticism as St Louis. The triple-deck bleachers is too much.

Wahington- Ditto.

Denver- Ditto though the pines and waterfalls in the outfield look nice-at least on TV. Center field bleachers look like they sit on top of the Rocky Mountains.

San Diego- Again, big improvement over its predecessor, which is still used for football, but the bleachers rise into the clouds. Too many designed idiosyncracies, but the old brick building in the left field corner is its most attractive feature.

The worst of the so-called retros

Milwaukee, Seattle, Phoenix, and Houston.

What can I say? With the possible exception of Houston, there is an overemphasis on quirks to the point that they look like erector sets. Plus, they have retracting roofs. (Update on 4-20-08). Just returned from a trip to Phoenix and took in a game at Chase Field. Yee gads! From the outside, it looks like a cross between the world's biggest blimp hangar and a place where they hold cattle auctions. Inside, you are bombarded with neon ads everywhere. It seems like a giant food court at a shopping mall. Before and during the game, the "fun coordinators" organize fan contests, guess the attendance, you name it. Mascot? Of course. His name? No, it isn't Jake Snake. It's D. Baxter. What a joke.

To each his own. I am sure many will disagree with me, but for me, Wrigley and Fenway are the best places to watch a game. Here's hoping they both survive many more years.

Another Hillary Clinton Fairy Tale

"Once upon a time, there was an evil hospital in Ohio......"


It's getting pretty hard to take a day off around here. Good old Hillary Clinton keeps feeding ink into the old pen as they used to say. Fresh on the heels of her Big Adventure in Bosnia proving to be a hoax, now it turns out that one of the key parts of her stump speech is also a bunch of hooey.

As part of her talk on the need for universal health care coverage, Hillary has, for the last few weeks, been recounting the sad story of a woman in Ohio who got pregnant, had no insurance, went to a hospital, was turned away when she was unable to pay $100, and then miscarried and later died. Hillary had heard this story through hearsay and never took the time to check her facts, following in the footsteps of ace reporters Dan Rather and Rita Cosby.

Though she never mentioned the hospital by name, it was determined that the place in question was O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. Once the hospital got wind of the story, they asked the Clinton campaign to please stop spreading mis-information. According to the hospital, the woman in question, Trina Brechtel, did indeed have insurance and was not turned away. She did, in fact, later miscarry at another hospital, 2 weeks subsequent to which, she died. Further, the hospital complained that no one in the Clinton campaign had contacted them to confirm the details.

Now the Clinton campaign has announced that the story will be dropped from any future speeches.

And they will live happily ever after-until the next fabrication is revealed.

Absolut Vodka's Ad in Mexico

Subliminal message perhaps? Try this for a subliminal message:

BOYCOTT

Name This Picture

This is a picture of:

a a spider web
b Clinton Campaign Web Site
c three spiders trying to make their way to Denver
d the Republican Attack Machine (Who says I'm not fair and balanced?)

Can't Get Much Uglier Than This

Just like an infected sore, the Democratic Primary continues to get uglier by each passing day. From Hillary to Jeremiah Wright to Harold Ickes to James Carville, this should serve as a lesson to voters who would turn the country over to this motley crowd.

As we get closer to the end of the primary season with Hillary still trailing Obama by about 130 delegates, it appears she will pull out all the stops to try and steal the nomination from Obama by somehow convincing the Superdelegates that she should be the choice. Just today, it was revealed that she is asking Obama's pledged North Dakota delegates to switch to her-even though Obama won that state's contest handily.

As if the Superdelegate system is not confusing enough, it appears to be even more complicated than we common folks thought. Today's Orange County Register reports that some of the Superdelegates are more Super than others, having the ability to name even more Superdelegates. For example, old-time pol Art Torres (D-CA), who is chairman of the California Democratic Party, is in the position of being able to name 5 additional Superdelegates. He says he will do it in a fair and diplomatic way, selecting them in a ratio proportionate to California's Primary vote, which went to Clinton. Torres also plans to select them in accordance with "the state's goals of affirmative action". (I figure that will come out to one prison inmate, 2 mental patients, 1 illegal alien and 1 normal person-reflecting the state's diversity, of course.)

Of course, let's don't forget the on-going struggle for endorsements. The Clintons, especially Bill, are still steaming over Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama, calling it, in the words of James Carville, an "act of Judas".

Meanwhile, Harold Ickes, one of the Clintons' more odious attack dogs, is reminding everyone who will listen that poor old Obama, with his baggage of Jeremiah Wright, will never be able to stand up to the "Republican Attack Machine"- a most convenient way to bad mouth your opponent and point out his flaws while making someone else look like the guys doing the bad-mouthing.

Then there is Mark Penn, Hillary's chief campaign figure outer. He is in hot water this week (at least with Democrats)since it has been revealed that his PR firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, of which he is CEO, is representing two interests that Hillary is vehemently opposed to; the Government of Colombia and Blackwater. Just in the past few days, it was revealed that Penn met with the Ambassador of Colombia to consult with him over the pending Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which Hillary opposes. Penn has profusely apologized for this break with the party line. Why is Hillary opposed to the Colombian trade pact? Something to do with union interests in Colombia and President Uribe treating the FARC guerrillas too harshly. (I personally support Colombia, so the trade pact doesn't cause me any heartburn.)

Of course, the name Blackwater is anathema to Democratic ears since they happen to be in Iraq and firing guns at people.

We are still waiting to see what the long-term reaction will be to the Clinton tax returns. Will they raise more questions-especially as to who all these people are that are paying millions of dollars to Bill-and what services they are getting in return? Will anyone want to ask more questions about Bill's relationship with Dubai? I see that happening only if the mainstream media decides it is crucial to ensuring Obama's victory in the nomination process. Beyond that, I see the MSM losing interest.

But let's don't forget what's going on in Obamaland. The Rezko trial in Chicago still has to potential of bringing out more embarrassing details about Mr Rezko's relationship with the senator. (Reportedly, the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, is sweating like an overworked mule these days, his name having come up in the proceedings.)

Then there is Jeremiah Wright, now back from hiding out in Africa and causing more bad news for Obama. The loving pastor is now sweeping up honors from Chicago churches including the St Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago, run by radical leftist priest, Michael Pfleger, who used the occasion in front of his flock to scream damnation to the likes of George Bush and anyone daring to criticize Wright-or Minister Louis Farrakhan for that matter. Pfleger is a story onto himself. Reportedly, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago would like to get rid of him, but is too scared to try. (There sure are lot of angry people in Chicago these days. Maybe it has something to do with the Cubs.)

Pundit Rush Limbaugh is taking a lot of credit these days for his "Operation Chaos", designed to keep the primary going as long as possible. Actually, I think he is taking too much credit. The entire Democratic Primary could be termed "Operation Chaos" without Mr Limbaugh's participation, thank you.

Today's Current Events Quiz

Who are these people?

a far-right conservatives
b Muslim protestors
c frustrated Cub fans
d Democratic delegates to the Denver Convention

Does the Left Hand Know What the Right Hand Is Doing?

Can you say, conflict of interest?


News item:

Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist, is CEO of PR Firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide. His company represents the Government of Colombia in the Colombia Free Trade Agreement pending in Congress. In that capacity, he has recently met with the Ambassador of Colombia in connection with the pending agreement.

(Hillary Clinton opposes the agreement.)

News item:

Mark Penn's company also represents Blackwater.

(Hillary Clinton has fiercely condemned Blackwater.)

Ah yes, experience, competence and ready to lead on Day One.

Obscene Profits? What About the Clintons?

"My plan? Eight years in the White House, a library, a few lousy books, hundreds of expensive speeches, big deals with the UAE....easy!!"


It is easy to see why the Clintons were so slow in releasing their income tax returns. Now that they have been released, we know that Bill and Hillary have turned a nice income of some 109 million dollars since 2000. And we should condemn the oil companies for their obscene profits?

Of that 109 million, almost half came from Bill's speaking appearances, some 51.8 million paid by various groups to listen to him tell them a bunch of BS. Book deals also brought in millions, a joke in itself, but that's the market. The books sell-I don't know why-but they do.

Taxes paid were apparently in order-some 31% plus about 10 million given to charity, including, apparently, free speeches "donated" by Bill. That's charity? Are they actually claiming those? Well, this is the same pair that wrote off Bill's donations of his old underwear to Goodwill or somebody like that.

All this coincided with Hillary's latest campaign promise to install a "Poverty Czar", a cabinet-level position that would report to her every day what he/she was doing to eliminate poverty in America. (That 109 million might come in handy.) Obviously, the czar will be figuring out ways to redistribute income from those who earn it. While that won't hurt the Clintons, it will effect everyday folks like me.

Honestly, I have no objection to the Clintons making an honest buck-even 109 million of them. That is part of our free market system, although it does strike me as unseemly for former presidents (not just Clinton) to cash in on their public service. If it is legally earned, I am ok with it. (Actually, I am far from convinced that all the Clintons' money is legal, but that is another story.) Yet, doesn't this make one wince when we hear Hillary condemning CEOs and corporations for all their "obscene profits" and complaining about the "income gap" in America? A little hypocritical, perhaps?

Another big source of income is represented by big business deals. It has been reported that the Clintons have important business connections with the Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Strictly legit, perhaps, but it would be nice if the mainstream news media, with all their investigative resources, were to look into those connections. (Well, I can dream can't I?)

Even if every penny the Clintons have made since leaving office is legitimite, doesn't it strike you as odd that these are the people supposedly looking out for the "little guy"? True, Washington is full of opportunists like the Clintons, but since Bill and Hillary were known to be in financial difficulty when they arrived in the White House, this sure illustrates that something is wrong in our political system.

Perhaps, even obscene.