I hope the House meets in a wheel-shaped building, because with all the spin going on that's the only way they're going to get anywhere.

Just now as I watch Fox News Sunday with the Chris Wallace, the great Charlie Rangel made a statement that was pretty stunning. Chris started with a question about a previous statement by Rangel where he said that the troops were poorly educated and were coming from mostly the very poorest areas of the country. Chris showed a set of statistics revealing that about 13% of recruits are coming from poor areas (below average in the US) and that 97% of them were high-school graduates (as opposed to the national average of about 80%). And so naturally Rangel answered by affirming his earlier statement, even in the face of facts that proved him verifiably wrong.

He went beyond this, however. Remember John Kerry's suicidal pre-election comment that insulted the troops as being "stuck in Iraq"? Remember the even earlier comments Kerry made about them being in the military because they couldn't cut it in the real world? Rangel has apparently taken up the mantle of continuing this tradition. He continued his fact-defying statement by saying that the only reason people volunteer to fight and die for the US is because they don't have the choice between service and a real career.

I found this to be just as offensive as the comments John Kerry tried to play off as a bad joke. I found this statement to be one more piece of proof that the liberal Dems do not understand or have any love for our troops. I also found this statement to be more proof of the liberal political ineptness which stumbled into the majority this month.

And I found it to be one more step towards a red Congress and Presidency in '08.

According to Fox News, 69% of Americans are "somewhat concerned" or "fairly concerned" that the new Democratic congress will prevent Bush from "doing what needs to be done" in Iraq.

There are few times that statistics make me blurt things out loud but this was one of them. "WHAT?!?" I still feel a bit disoriented, so help me out here. This is the same America that just voted those same Democrats into power, right? This is the same America that wept tears at the sight of the Twin Towers and silently cheered Bush as he announced the coming justice from atop the rubble, or am I wrong?

The only sense I can apply to this is to believe that a lot of Joe Americans voted in a way that mattered most to their own corner of the country. That isn't how things work, folks. When you vote for your state legislature or governor, the results stay (mostly) local. The Senate and House are national. They don't have anything to do with bringing business into your state or city, they don't decide your state minimum wage or whether you pass a stem cell research bill. Those Senators and Representatives decide where we, the United States, will be going as a nation.

The sheer irony here is that the Dems were trying to nationalize the election. Somehow they managed that while distracting from what people thought they would do in the most pressing matter of national policy. I would never have given them credit for such political finesse. Must have been luck.

A few disturbing thoughts have occured to me as well, and though I am a pessimist about human nature I don't want to believe them. One is that my fellow citizens have decided that "cut and run" is the best idea after all. Another is that an enormous number of conservative voters decided not to do their civic duty. Even my pessimism rejected those thoughts however.

I certainly don't have this situation thought out. I find it very confusing that voters would elect those they thought unlikely to fix the most important problem in our country. The other issues on the table right now are weighty, true, but I doubt the Dems would fare much better in a survey on their ability to solve those either. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments to help me wrap my brain around this.

Tonight I was listening to an eBook tonight about argumentation and later decided to check around Town Hall, where I found this video:

http://www.townhall.com/blog#9911d946-989c-4231-ad3e-1d4a505c40b7

Both of those tie into my question. Do people believe in truth anymore, or is it all about perspective and assumptions? For those who have not seen the movie Office Space, it is a lighthearted comedy about the stress of working in a corporate office. You'd never get that from the edited video.

Election seasons are known for things like political ads, campaign stops, and the debates. What is the purpose of these things though? Are they used to create impressions, perspectives, and connotations? Or are they used to get the truth out, broadcast values and positions, and take a stand on issues? The answer of course is that both happen. The problem with the former goals is when they are the main thrust of a campaign.

Since 2000 I have been paying close attention whenever a Democrat engaged in debate to find exactly what their values and positions are. John Kerry epitomized their behavior with his 2004 "I have a plan" speeches. Call me crazy but I like to hear the details of a plan before I vote for it...

To this day I still have not heard a Democrat mention a specific approach to a specific issue (with the exception of Ford - he supported the awful "three nations solution" for Iraq). All else has been "Bush sucks, he's corrupt, he's dumb, he failed in Iraq, his cronies have failed, coverup, lies, conspiricy, failure, racism, partisanship!!!" My observations are based on the 24-hour news channels so maybe I just had a bad sampling of their public appearances (though I doubt it). Their approach has been aggressions, attacks, accusations, and when possible arrests. Make no mistake, this venom and bile was motivated by a mixture of shame over their defeats and hatred for the party that did it to them.

So where are the forward-thinking ideas that are going to keep the US on the road to prosperity? Where are the minds that are supposed to be representing our ideals and desires for our nation and society? This brings me to one of my life discoveries: people do everything for a reason that seems good to them. In this case, the Democrats have decided that getting power and prestige is more important than doing their jobs. If they truly thought of Iraq, Osama, and the border as higher priorities they would be addressing them. They aren't.

If you allow people to manipulate you by posting the numbers of dead daily or blugeon you with "culture of corruption" and "vote for change" then you will empower these people, the ones who are putting their own political ambitions ahead of the safety of us and our children and grandchildren. They want you to see their "perspective" on Iraq, one of hopelessness and defeat and tragic yet meaningless sacrifice. Remember the Office Space video and ask yourself what the perspective really should be.

The amendment to our Tennessee state constitution that defines marriage as specifically between a man and woman passed with around 80% of the vote. Before you go into shock at the idea of anything, much less something controversial, passing by that kind of margin let me explain what made that possible.

The threshold that an amendment must meet in our state is equal to half of the votes cast in the gubernatorial race. I would guess that the logic there harkens back to when everything had to be counted by hand with a small electoral staff and they sought ways to reduce counting time. They assumed that they knew what peoples' behavior would be, and as with most such assumptions they were wrong.

This creates a few very interesting possibilities. Fundamental to this is that for every vote cast for any gubernatorial candidate, the threshold an amendment must reach is raised by a half vote. Remember, the number an amendment must reach in TN is half of the total votes for governors, so any vote for any governor makes it harder for an amendment to pass.

If you are strongly in favor of an amendment passing, you will abstain from the gubernatorial race because it makes your vote twice as effective. Not voting for governor lowers the number of gubernatorial votes by one and thus the threshold an amendment must meet by a half vote. When the vote is then cast in favor of an amendment, it moves the amendment closer to passing by an entire vote.

On the other hand, if you are against an amendment you have an easier choice to make. You vote for whatever governor you want, putting the amendment a half vote farther from passing, and then simply vote against the amendment.

Honestly I don't know what would be done if the amendment reached the number needed and yet did not gain 50%+ of its own vote. Theoretically it would be possible if more voted on the amendment than for governors.

This also casts a shadow on Bredeson's victory to retain his governorship of the state. Did the amendment lure conservative votes away from his oppponent? While Bredeson's margin of victory was very comfortable, we come back again to the 80% passing of the amendment. Exactly how many Tennesseeans abstained from the gubernatorial vote? Bryant was not favored to win and after the Sundquist fiasco Bredesen had a lot of slack with which to work. Still, without the amendment this election may have been very different.

Although this is a bad turn of events in the House for us Conservatives, there is one aspect to it that, while not necissarily positive, is definitely satisfying for me. The Dems, with their say-nothing "Vote for Change" campaign, have to actually do something.

The idea of them doing anything is probably pretty scary, I know, but just picture the quandry they've created. The immense amount of pressure they've thrown on the "wave of change" they've promised is now an immense amount of pressure to perform. If they "stay the course" then they have failed, and if they "cut and run" they've also failed. Think about it (in glee if you like). This party, the party of war protesters and troop insulters, now has to execute a war better than the Republicans.

And "Vote for Change" on the economy? The economy is booming. How can you top that? On the other hand, if the tax cut meets its sunset date jobs and productivity and everything else are going to plummet.

What about "Vote for Change" on homeland security? There have been no successful attacks since 9/11. Again, how do you do better than that? On the other hand, if their premise that "Bush is creating more terrorists than he's defeating" (I disagree) then there's a good chance another attack will get through in the next few years.

What does "Vote for Change" mean on illegal immigration? The wall is going up, but that was pre-election. What can Democrats do that will be an improvement while at the same time not anger their way-left base?

Here's the point that leaves me with a nice warm spot in the middle of my stomach tonight. The Dems cannot "stay the course" because of their campaign, and yet they cannot do better on any of the issues that matter. That, I think, is a formula for disaster. I'm looking very fondly at 2008.

Ah, the ACLU, the best act in town.

This *wonderful* organization dedicated to creating hilarious acts of social sarcasm (I mean really... THEM? Fighting for civil liberties? Hah!) has been traipsing their troupe of lawyers around the state. They've come to this wonderful state, what I like to call "the buckle of the Bible belt", to fight against prayer in public schools. I mean really, what could be funnier than that?

The Lord knows we need to be protected from our own religious beliefs. After all, my belief in God is like implying that the guy next to me is wrong! What kind of institution would allow someone to say that the next guy is wrong in his beliefs? Would allow people to display any belief that could cause discomfort to another? Would allow people to express any belief at all that was controversial?

Actually I should apologize for that last comment. Or rather, it was a joke. That seems to explain everything these days. The truth is that way-left organizations do fight for beliefs that deny those of others and are discomforting or controversial. Evolution, abortion, heck bring out the whole laundry list.

The truth lies within one of their better comedies: "Pro-Choice". Apparently that summarizes down to "We approve of you doing anything we choose for you to do." Getting an abortion makes a couple brave, progressive, and noble, but getting a handgun for self defence paints you as a bottomfeeder. Don't try to express this way of thinking in geometric terms; you'll strain your brain trying to visualize any one-dimensional object.

What else can you call the actions of the ACLU in this state but intolerant? What could drive an organization to spend the effort they do other than a hatred of that with which they disagree?

Liberals and loan sharks. What do they have in common?

Loan sharks put people in a position where they lose more than they get and can never pay their way out of the financial hole in which they find themselves.

Liberals and their programs create a dependence on the government so that some people can no longer support themselves, much less support the programs.

Am I missing something?