My Pro Alarm

Do not do business with a company called ProAlarm! Please learn from how stupid I was! They lied to me, they broke promises they made to me, they broke promises to the Better Business Bureau, and I don’t think they should get away with it. One Saturday, a young man came to my door. I thought when I answered that he might be a Mormon missionary. He introduced himself and said he represented ProAlarm. His sales pitch was two lucky families from each neighborhood would receive a free burglar alarm/monitoring system. In exchange for receiving this free system, all you had to do was allow ProAlarm to put their sign in front of your house as free advertising. I actually fell for this (even though I’d been raised to believe that you never get “something for nothing”) and agreed to let them install their alarm system. The first clue I should have had that something was not right was when the nice young salesman told me, “Please don’t tell your neighbors you’re getting this for free. They might be one of the families who would have to pay full price, and we don’t want them to know there are families that are getting it for nothing, so please don’t say anything about it.” I realize now that probably EVERY family would get a ProAlarm system for nothing, thinking they were one of the “two lucky families” to get it for free. It’s all part of the sales pitch. The salesman told me I had three days to cancel if I changed my mind, and he showed me where it said that, in print, on the contract. He said that if I did choose to cancel, ProAlarm would send a technician to my house to take the system out so “you won’t be stuck with a burglar alarm you don’t want”. Keep in mind that he promised me this; it’s very important! Within an hour, a technician named Darrell came to install the system. Just as Darrell was about to leave, he told me that I should check with the city to find out if I needed to obtain an alarm permit. (I had no idea there was such a thing as I had never had a burglar alarm before, and gee, how nice of Darrell to wait until AFTER he got the system installed before he brings this up, right?) He gave me his cell number and told me if I had any questions to call him. A couple hours after he left, I did think of a question, and I called Darrell’s cell and got voice mail. I left him a message with my question. He never called back. The next day, I finally did my homework and did some checking. (Told you I was stupid.) The company that performs monitoring services for ProAlarm is Monitronics. I found this very web site and saw all the complaints about how horrible Monitronics is, and then I checked the Better Business Bureau web site and saw they had literally HUNDREDS of complaints about Monitronics, which isn’t even a member of the BBB. All I could think was, “Dear God, what did I get myself into?” I tried to call the salesman and got voice mai, left a message with the urgent delivery option that I wanted to cancel. Tried to call ProAlarm at their 800 number. They had five voice mailboxes, three of which dumped into the same voice mailbox (five options and thee of them were the same mailbox. Interesting.) I left messages on all the voice mail options, with urgent delivery, that I wanted to cancel and for someone to please call me to confirm. It was Sunday so I didn’t expect to hear right away, but I thought they would call me Monday morning. All Monday morning I didn’t hear anything. I called several times and kept getting voice mail. I was panicking, wondering if their little game was to simply not answer the phone and that way you wouldn’t be able to cancel. So I decided to fax them my cancellation, in writing. I attempted to fax a letter requesting cancellation to the fax number on the contract. And guess what? The fax number on the contract was not a real fax number! It was another number that dumped into the same voice mailbox as their 800 number! Isn’t THAT interesting? I wonder why their fax number on the contract is not a real fax number? So I found their real fax number on the Better Business Bureau website and got the fax to go through. I also sent them a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, demanding to cancel. I also used the “Contact Us” link on ProAlarm’s website to send them an email requesting cancellation, and I found two other email addresses from the BBB website for them and sent emails requesting cancellation. I had no response to the fax or the three emails. Finally at lunchtime, I was able to reach their Accounting Department and talked to someone named “Nate.” I demanded to cancel and Nate said he would get the process started and would call me back with a phone number so I could contact a technician to come remove the alarm. He actually did call back and gave me a cell phone number for a technician named (fill in). The weird thing was, this cell phone had an area code for somewhere in the Carolinas (I checked online to find out where it was, since the area code was obviously not an Arizona area code). How was someone in the Carolinas supposed to come to Arizona to remove a burglar alarm from my house? I attempted to call this cell phone several times and left messages, but the technician did not return my calls. Gee, I wonder why? So I called ProAlarm again, and got hold of someone named James. When I told him about the cell phone having an area code that was not in my area, he stammered and stuttered and said, “Uh, uh, I THINK that should be in your area.” (Like I wouldn’t know the area code for my own city.) At 5:00 that afternoon, I got a call from a different person who identified himself as “Nathan” (not the same guy as “Nate”) and he came across about as slick as a snake-oil salesman. First he tried to argue me into not canceling, and I told him about Monitronics and how I wanted nothing to do with Monitronics because that company had hundreds of complaints with the BBB. He told me that ALL monitoring services have hundreds of complaints with the BBB, and not to let that bother me, and I told him that if that is the case, I would rather take my chances with the burglars!! I told Nathan how angry I was that I had been calling all day and except for one brief return call from Nate in Accounting, giving me a cell number for a tech who was on the other side of the country from me, nobody had given me the courtesy of a return phone call. Very soothingly, Nathan pointed out that HE had called me back. (Keep in mind he said that; it’s important too.) He promised me the contract would be cancelled and a technician would come to my home to remove the system, and set up an appointment for Darrell to come back the next day at 5:00 to remove the system. Five minutes later, Nathan called me back. He said, “Did you know there are actually two companies with the name Monitronics? The one that ProAlarm uses is not the same one as the one with all those complaints.” I totally blew up, because I had checked on the Internet, and could find only ONE company called Monitronics, and it had the same address and phone number as the Monitronics on the paperwork that salesman (blank) had given me, so it was indeed the same Monitronics. Nathan had just told me a barefaced, out and out LIE. I told him that this was NOT true and that it WAS the same Monitronics and there is only one company with that name, so don’t give me this garbage. Realizing his little lie wasn’t going to work, snake-oil Nathan ended the call after again promising that Darrell would come to my house to take the alarm system out. Next morning at 6:30, I went outside and discovered the ProAlarm sign was gone. Boy, it sure didn’t take them long to get that sign out from in front of my house, did it? Within about 12 hours of my cancelling with them, the sign vanished. They were sure in a hurry to get their sign back! At 5:00 that afternoon, Darrell did not show up. I waited till 5:15, called Darrell’s cell, got voice mail, left a message. No return phone call. 5:30, no Darrell. Called him again, again got voice mail, again left a message, and again no call back. Called Nathan’s cell, and when he answered, I told him Darrell was half an hour late. “He’s just stuck on an installation, he’ll be there,” was Nathan’s response. 5:45, no Darrell. Called him again, left another message (because Darrell never, ever answers his cell) and then called Nathan, got HIS voice mail, left a message that Darrell was now 45 minutes late and I was getting upset. No call back from Nathan either. At 6:00, a full hour past the time that Darrell was supposed to be there, I called him again, again got voice mail, again left a message, and then called Nathan and got HIS voice mail and angrily left a message wanting to know if he was suddenly avoiding my calls, and that Darrell was now an hour late. Two minutes later, a snotty-sounding Nathan calls me back and says, “I was in a meeting, I was not trying to avoid your calls.” I told him Darrell had not shown up, and I got the same song and dance that “he’s doing an installation, but I just text-messaged him and told him he needs to get over to your place.” (That’s a word-for-word quote.) I asked, “So he will still be here tonight?” and Nathan said, “Yes, tonight.” Rest of the evening went by, no Darrell. Next morning, called Nathan’s cell, got voice mail, told him, “Your technician did not show up last night. You need to call me and set up a new appointment.” I also tried to call Darrell, who again did not answer his cell, and left a message for him as well. You guessed it, no call back from either of them. I tried Darrell’s cell a couple more times, and I tried Nathan again at lunchtime and got his voice mail again, left the same message again, and again no call back. I tried one more time that afternoon, still got Nathan’s voice mail, and left him the same message. The next morning, called Nathan’s cell again, again got voice mail. (What happened to the soothing “Now, I called you back,” that I had gotten before?) I said, and I admit I was sarcastic, “I’m going to assume you were in a MEETING yesterday and that’s why you didn’t return my calls. Darrell has never yet showed up. Call me to set up a new time because I don’t want this system in my house!” Nathan didn’t call me back. Isn’t it funny that after he got mad at me for accusing him of avoiding my calls, he suddenly seemed to be doing just that? He never did return any of my phone calls after Tuesday. He just stopped calling me back. I couldn’t get anyone from ProAlarm to call me back either. And Darrell NEVER calls anyone back. I even tried salesman (blank) again, and HE didn’t answer HIS cell or call me back. Hmmm, interesting. 10 days later, they charged my credit card!!! I actually managed to get hold of someone named Reina at ProAlarm, and she promised me she’d remove the charge from my card and that a technician would come to my house to take out the alarm system. Later, another person named Courtney called me at work and left a message with one of my co-workers who took her call saying that the charge had been removed from my card, and Courtney also promised that a tech would come to my house to remove the alarm. I called my credit card and put a dispute on the charge, just to be safe, and then filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. I was obviously being given the runaround as far as having the system removed, and I wanted them to make good on their promise to send someone, ANYONE, to remove it. I was not using it, had it turned off, had cancelled the contract, and I had promises from all these people that a technician would come remove it, and they hadn’t followed through on that yet. The BBB forwarded me a response they received to my complaint from (blank) saying that the contract was cancelled, they were “trying to get technician Darrell out to the customer’s house, and will continue to try to do so until the problem is resolved.” (That’s an exact quote of what (blank) told the BBB.) Yet nobody showed up. I called Reina three times over the next week, and each time she promised they would have someone come out to remove the system. The third time I called her, she said she “just didn’t understand what is going on, I put pressure on the right people. I will call them again as soon as I hang up with you and put pressure on them again.” But again, nobody showed up. So I had promises from salesman, Nate, Nathan, Reina, Courtney and (blank), six different people from ProAlarm, promises made to me AND made to the BBB, that the system would be removed from my house, and these promises were NOT KEPT. They were LIES. To my relief, the charge WAS removed from my credit card, but I told my credit card company that they ever tried to put a charge on my card again, it was to be red-flagged because I was NOT authorizing any charges from them. After a month, the BBB closed my complaint, without my permission, saying that it had determined that even if I disagreed, they felt the company had made a “good faith effort to resolve the problem” and that the company “had not responded to the last few contacts from the BBB.” Interesting. So now ProAlarm was just totally ignoring me, and also was now totally ignoring the BBB, in essence thumbing their nose at both myself and the BBB. And how is it “good faith” if they had been promising to remove the alarm from my house and had never done so? Broken promises and lies are “good faith?” So now you can see ProAlarm’s game. This wholesome young salesman, as part of his sales pitch, promises that if you cancel within three days, they will take the system out of your house at no charge so you aren’t stuck with something you don’t want. ProAlarm is gambling that most people will not cancel, and as a result won’t find out that ProAlarm has NO INTENTION of removing the alarm. They figure nobody will call their bluff. If you DO cancel the contract and call their bluff, they put plan B into action. A lackey like Nathan will call you and try to argue you into keeping the alarm, and if you insist on canceling, he will tell you lies in an effort to keep you from canceling, such as the lie he told me about there being “two” Monitronics. If that doesn’t work, he will then stall for time by giving you all these promises about how the technician will come, don’t worry, he’ll be there, etc. After that first day, you won’t hear from their lackey again. He’s done his job, served his purpose, bought some time for the company, and you will never be able to reach him again because he just ignores you from then on. You will never be able to reach the salesman again after he leaves your home. You will never be able to reach the technician again after he eaves your home. You will get empty promises from the people in the office, IF you can successfully reach a living, breathing person and not voice mail. If you file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, ProAlarm will make the same empty promises to the BBB, but nothing will ever actually be done as far as keeping those promises. They stall for time and drag their feet until the BBB closes the complaint, and then they figure they’re off the hook, and you’re stuck with an alarm system you don’t want. You’ll never hear from them again, and they will never keep their promise to get the system out of your house. They’re either liars or totally incompetent. They manage to get someone to my house to install the system within an HOUR of signing the contract, but they don’t get someone to my house to remove the system after a MONTH of promising they would. They can remove their stupid sign from in front of my house within TWELVE HOURS of my cancelling, but a MONTH of trying to get them to keep their promise to take the system out as well results in NOTHING. Bottom line – if some young guy from ProAlarm comes to your door and offers to give you a free alarm system in exchange for putting their sign in your yard, SLAM THE DOOR IN HIS FACE AND RUN OUT YOUR BACK DOOR AS FAST AS YOU CAN. These people are liars from the word go! They have lying down to an art form!!!

Identity theft, meeting Jack Kelly, Little Debbies, and being clueless

Can someone steal your identity if all they know about you is your first name and where you lived years ago?  I used to know a girl who thinks so.  For the sake of protecting her identity (!), we will call her "Lisa."  She lived in Garden Grove, California. 

In the summer of 1980, Lisa and another girl, Rachel (also not her real name) and I were fans of the actor Jack Kelly, who played James Garner's brother Bart on "Maverick." Jack Kelly was on the Huntington Beach City Council at that time, and Lisa and Rachel and I went to a council meeting and were able to talk to Jack and get his autograph

Flash forward to the year 2002.  There was a website devoted to the TV show "Maverick," and the lady who ran the website, upon learning that I had met Jack once upon a time, asked me to write up a narrative about having met him.  So I wrote my story, including that I had gone to Garden Grove, California and stayed with Lisa at her home.

When Lisa read the story on this website, she proceeded to, quite frankly, have a cow.  She emailed me and flat out just short of ordered me to have the website owner delete all references to "Garden Grove" from the story.  "I'm worried someone will read this and steal my identity," she explained.  "If you just put 'Lisa in Orange County,' that's fine, but 'Lisa in Garden Grove' narrows it down too much.'"

To say I was dumbfounded is putting it mildly.  This girl really seriously believed that someone could steal her identity just based on knowing that someone named "Lisa" had lived in "Garden Grove, California" way back when Jimmy Carter was still president??  I hadn't given a last name - I hadn't given if she still lived there or not - I hadn't given if she had ever gotten married - had moved away - anything except her first name and the city she lived in during 1980.

What Lisa was asking me to believe was that an identity thief  "out in cyberspace" would have NO WAY of knowing that ANYONE with a very common first name like "Lisa" had EVER lived in Garden Grove, California, UNLESS that thief read those two pieces of information in that story I wrote about meeting Jack Kelly for the "Maverick" website.

He would have NO WAY of knowing that someone with a very common first name like "Lisa" had EVER lived in Garden Grove, California, UNTIL he read those two pieces of information on the "Maverick" web site.  UNLESS and UNTIL he read those two skimpy pieces of information on that website, he wouldn't know.

But then AFTER Mr. Identity Thief reads those two skimpy pieces of information on that website, not only would he know now for the FIRST TIME that somebody with a common first name like "Lisa" lived in Garden Grove, California in 1980, he would ALSO somehow, someway, be able to know WHICH of ALL the women and girls named "Lisa" who have EVER lived in Garden Grove that I was talking about, and just based on those TWO pieces of information, he'd somehow be able to get her Social Security number, or her checking account number, or other pertinent information he'd need to be ABLE to steal her identity.  In order to get the identity of the Lisa I was talking about, he'd have to wade through ALL the women and girls named Lisa who EVER lived in Garden Grove.  So does that mean I endangered the identity of ANYONE named Lisa who EVER lived in Garden Grove, just by writing a story involving ONE such person with that name?????

And Lisa was asking me to believe that Mr. Identity Thief wouldn't be able to figure out that anyone with her first name had ever lived in her town ANYWAY.  That an identity thief wouldn't be able to simply pick a common first name, arbitrarily match it up with a city or town anywhere in America, and score a hit. 

And if someone can steal your identity if all they know about you is your first name and the name of any city you've ever lived in, no matter how long ago, how's come identity theft isn't even MORE prevalant than it already is?  EVERYBODY has a first name, and EVERYBODY has lived SOMEWHERE.  If all an identity thief needs is your first name and the name of any city you've ever lived in, nobody would EVER be safe from identity theft!

Lisa also ignores the fact that radio talk show hosts (such as Rush Limbaugh, whom she and I both love), regularly identify callers by first name and CURRENT city of residence without ever worrying about giving away their identities in the process.  "Phil from West Palm Beach, you're next on the EIB network."  "Thank you, Rush, mega dittoes."  This is available not only to hear when you listen to Rush on the air, but in the transcripts of his shows on his website.  Lisa would probably respond, "Oh, I would never let Rush identify me by city of residence if I called in to his show."  But what about all the other people who DO?  Is Rush endangering all THEIR identities by saying, "Our next caller is Phil from Portland - Phil, you're on the EIB Network."  "Mega dittoes, Rush.  I'm calling about..." 

Lisa can be pretty clueless anyway.  When she and I were first corresponding in the early 80's, we got to discussing one of our favorite foods, donuts.  She talked about Winchell's Donuts, and I mentioned Dunkin Donuts.  Her response was, "Oh, I don't think we have that chain here."  Well, when I visited her in Garden Grove, we went to Disneyland.  Lisa was working at Disneyland that summer.  And guess what?  There was a Dunkin Donuts RIGHT ON THE WAY TO DISNEYLAND.  Which meant she drove by it TWICE A DAY, on her way TO and FROM work!  And somehow, she NEVER NOTICED IT.  Not even AFTER we had discussed Dunkin Donuts, which you would think would have made her more APT to notice it.  As in, "Oh, look, there's a Dunkin Donuts right there, that's what she was telling me about in her letter!  I'll have to write back to her and tell her we have them here after all!"  Nope, she didn't notice it until I POINTED IT OUT to her.  Then as we drove around Orange County and went to Los Angeles and so on, I noticed Dunkin Donuts all OVER the place.  "Lisa, look - what's that?  Oh look, what's over on THAT corner?  Oh, look, there's ANOTHER one.  I thought you said that chain wasn't here in California??"  Her response was to just giggle like it was silly she hadn't noticed before.

Well, now she's doing it again, all these years later.  She writes a blog, a very well done blog (much better than my pathetic attempt at blog-writing seen here in The Rambler), and when Hostess recently went bankrupt, someone asked her about Little Debbie snacks.  Her response was that her family had never tried Little Debbie and she didn't think they were even available in California.

Head pounding on desk, I went immediately to www.LittleDebbie.com and typed in zip code after zip code in the "Find a Store" section of their website.  Lo and behold, there are NUMEROUS stores all OVER Orange County that sell Little Debbies!  Apparently Lisa (who my mom used to say "walks around in a happy fog,") has probably strolled by Little Debbie displays in the snack food aisles of various stores in Orange County and never seen them.  I wanted so badly to get on a plane, fly to John Wayne Airport, go to her house, drag her to whatever supermarket she frequents most often, take her to the snack food aisle, grab BOXES and BOXES of Little Debbies, wave them under her nose, and say, "Lisa, what are these?  Do you see the little girl on the box?  Do you see the name 'Little Debbie' on the box?  How could you NEVER EVER have NOTICED these before?  Yes, Little Debbies are sold in California!!!!  Wake UP!!!"

To think she is 50 years old and has never known the bliss of biting into a Little Debbie Swiss Roll....sigh...

Oh, by the way, back to identity theft for a second - Lisa never puts familiy photographs in her blog.  She put a picture once of her younger son, but he was standing in the rain with a huge umbrella, and all you could see were his feet.  She put a picture of her husband and two of their children and the family dog walking on the beach, but it was taken from such a distance that they were stick figures.  So her fear of identity theft must extend to putting family pictures on her blog, too.  BUT - BUT - BUT - her older daughter (let's call her "Katie") went to London a couple years ago and kept a blog of her activities there, and put HER picture AND pictures of Lisa and her husband "Dave," who had flown to London to visit her, on HER blog.  Why didn't Lisa order her daughter to take those pictures down?  Or did her daughter tell her, "Mom, go pound sand.  I'm leaving the pictures, including the ones of you and Dad, on my blog, and that's that."

Dave, Katie, and two of Lisa's other children ("Jason" and "Samantha,") have Facebook pages with their PHOTOS, LAST NAMES, and CITY OF RESIDENCE all given on their Facebook pages.  Lisa's mom "Donna" and her brother "Mike" also have Facebook pages with all that information on there.  Why isn't Lisa raising the roof and insisting that her family, at the very least her husband and children, not be on Facebook because they are giving away FAR MORE information than I did in my story about our meeting Jack Kelly?  Why isn't she bossing them around the way she bossed me around?

The kicker, too, is this - back in 2002 Lisa demanded that I get in touch with the lady who ran the "Maverick" web page and have her edit the story I had submitted about our meeting Jack Kelly and remove all references to Garden Grove.  Which I did, and the lady told me she had done so.  But later I went back and looked, and that lady had MISSED some of the references to Garden Grove, which were STILL IN THERE and had NOT been removed.  Lisa, for all her panic about her identity being stolen, had not bothered to go double check, triple check and quadruple check to make SURE those references to Garden Grove were removed, but just sanguinely took my word for it that the lady had removed them.  So I never TOLD Lisa those references were still there, and that website stayed up for two years before it disappeared, apparently having been taken down by the lady who ran it, and in that entire two years, Lisa didn't know her name linked with "Garden Grove" was still on that website!!! 

The flu epidemic and calling in sick to work

With the current flu epidemic, we are being told that if you are sick, you should stay home from work so as not to infect other people.  What is not being talked about is what do you do if your employer is someone who discourages use of sick time?

Some years ago, I worked for an insurance company, and I will name them as they are no longer in business - Prudential Property & Casualty.  Their sick policy was stringent, draconian, asinine.  You got 10 sick days per year, in addition to your regular vacation days (it wasn't like today, where most companies just give you one overall bank of earned time off to use for any reason, be it sickness or vacation time).  But you were allotted just two sick "occurrences" per 12 months, and the 12 months wasn't necessarily a calendar year.

Say you got sick in March, and called in, and were out just one day.  You come back to work, and everything is fine.  You catch a bad cold in November, call in sick, go back to work, and everything is fine.  But then say you catch cold again in January.  You figure no problem, it's a new year, I have a new bank of sick days, and I only used two sick days all of last year.  Wrong!  You now have a third "occurrence" within 12 months (you didn't get a clean slate just because it's January and a new year), and the Human Resources guidelines called for you to be "counseled" by your supervisor, meaning the supervisor reprimands you for having had too many "occurrences" within a 12-month period of time, and a warning is given to you.  Now the next time you call in sick would be your fourth occurrence, and if you keep having "occurrences," even if they're spaced way apart and are only a day each time, you can get written up for it, and perhaps even terminated.  It was almost impossible to get a clean slate, because who can go 12 months without getting sick?  And if you do get sick, you're put in the impossible position of trying to decide if you're sick enough to get an "occurrence," how many "occurrences" have I already had, what if I get sick again six months from now and am forced to use another "occurrence," etc.

As far as I was concerned, if you got a new bank of 10 sick days when the calendar year changed, then all your "occurrences" from the previous year should have been relegated to the past as well, and you should have a clean slate.  And if you missed only two days total for sickness the previous year, that to me is excellent attendance, not poor attendance.  (What was also bad was suppose you called in sick on a Tuesday, felt better Wednesday and went back to work, then realized you'd gone back to work too soon and felt awful and called in sick on Thursday.  Whammo, you've used two "occurrences" in one WEEK because you had that day back at work in between, so now you're sunk for the next 12 months!) 

My supervisor, Margaret (I wonder what ever happened to her, where she is today, if she's even still alive - she'd be in her 80s now, I think) told me, "It's not that we don't believe you're sick, it's that we need warm bodies at the desks doing the work."  That's an exact quote.

That was a horrible place to work anyway.  I remember one of my job duties was distributing the mail to the claims examiners each day.  I was also training a new lady named Alice.  One time I was walking around with the mail folders in my arms, distributing the mail as per my duties, and Alice stopped me as I walked by so she could ask me a quick question.  I stopped for all of 30 seconds to answer her question.  Later, Margaret reprimanded me, telling me I was supposed to be getting the mail out to the employees and not chit-chatting with co-workers.  I looked at Margaret and said, "I am also supposed to be training Alice, and she had a question for me, and I stopped for all of half a minute to answer her question; I'm sure taking 30 whole seconds to answer a question from a trainee did not impede the mail getting distributed!"  (I took that tone because by that time, I knew I'd had enough and was so fed up I was going to quit my job soon anyway.) 

Diane Rehm, you are a hypocrite

Diane Rehm on her daily program on NPR this morning was discussing, along with her guests, the comments Rush Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke last week in which Rush called Ms. Fluke a "slut." Diane's comment was that "As a woman, I am appalled" about Rush's comments. One of her callers came on the air and said that a lot of people are wondering why more isn't being made of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "cunt, twat, and bimbo." The caller went on to say that this is because Sarah Palin is a politician and is therefore in the public eye on purpose, or words to that effect, while Sandra Fluke is a private citizen who was merely testifying before Congress, not making her life as a public figure. Ms. Rehm said, "Yes, there is a big difference."

Seriously, Ms. Rehm? In your eyes, there is a "big difference?" Are you flat out kidding me? Let me pose two hypothetical scenarios for you, Ms. Rehm, and your answer to these scenarios will reveal whether you are truly a hypocrite or are just so dense you don't recognize your own hypocrisy.

First scenario: If a commentator, be it Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, or anybody else, were to call a female Democratic politician (Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi just to name a couple) anything like "slut," "twat," "cunt," "bitch" or "bimbo," would that be ok in your eyes because after all, that woman is a professional politician and is therefore in the public eye on purpose? What would be the difference between calling a Democratic female politician such names, and calling Sarah Palin such names? Do you think it would be ok?

Second scenario: If Sandra Fluke were to run for public office and win, and become a Congresswoman or a Senator for example, would it then be all right in your eyes for Rush Limbaugh to call her a "slut" because now she's a professional politician and therefore is open for verbal attack?

Seriously, Ms. Rehm, your blindness and hypocrisy are what is "appalling." Get a clue, please.

Gay mom who embarrassed her son

A few months back, a gay mom had her little boy approach Michelle Bachman and forced him to tell the Congresswoman that "my mom is gay and she doesn't need fixed."

First of all, what kind of mom does that to her little boy? That child was so uncomfortable and embarrassed, that mom ought to have been ashamed of herself for doing that to a child, especially her OWN child.

Second of all, the Bible very plainly teaches that ALL of us are broken and "need fixed." This applies to gay, straight, man, woman, old, young, everyone across the board. We are ALL broken and need fixed, and Jesus is the one who fixes us. And yes, homosexuality is a form of brokenness. And there are MANY people who have successfully come out of the gay lifestyle and found freedom in Christ, just as there are people who gain control of alcoholism through AA, or drug addiction through places like the Betty Ford Clinic, etc. To refuse to seek help is to continue to turn a blind eye to your own problem. But when you involve your child and embarrass him to tears at a public event, that's incredibly low and appalling. For that alone, this mom "needs fixed."

Signing contracts under duress - Obamacare loses?

I love that the Institute for Justice has filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court pointing out that contracts signed under duress have never been legal. Forcing people to buy an insurance contract they may not wish to buy, and forcing insurance companies to insure anyone, no matter what pre-existing condition they may have, is putting both parties in the contract under duress by the government. Anthony Kennedy, you're the swing vote - are you listening? How can the Supremes uphold Obamacare in light of this salient fact?

Rush Limbaugh is right! The Sandra Fluke controversy

The attacks on Rush Limbaugh and his comments on Sandra Fluke (who as far as I am concerned should be Sandra Flake) are uncalled for and worse than anything he said about her. Does no one understand the true meaning of "separation of church and state?" (A phrase, by the way, which does NOT appear in the Constitution.) This is meant to protect religious institutions from the government, not to protect the government from religious institutions!! Duh!!

This young woman chose to go to a Jesuit college. They have strongly held religious beliefs, and it is NOT the federal government's place to be FORCING a religious institution to go against their religious beliefs and pay for or provide something to someone that the religious institution feels is morally wrong. If Sandra Flake (Fluke, whatever) chose to go to a Jesuit college, she implicitly is choosing to abide by the belief and value system of that college. If she is not willing or able to abide by their belief system, she is free to choose a different college. No one is forcing her to go to this college.

Is she going to this college to get an education, or so she can sleep around with all the fellas on campus? Is she going there to hit the books or to hit the sack with the guys? She could choose to spend $3000 a year on things that would help her with her education, not on birth control that would, as our President would say, "help her to avoid being punished with a baby." Our taxpayer dollars should not go to help someone avoid the consequences of sexual promiscuity, or, as Rush so aptly put it, "being a slut." Abstinence is not impossible, it costs nothing, and it doesn't get you talked about on the radio. Nobody ever died from abstinence, nobody ever got an STD from abstinence, and nobody ever got unwantedly pregnant from abstinence. You're going to school to get an education, not to be sexually promiscuous at taxpayer expense. Grow up, Sandra.

LEAVE RUSH LIMBAUGH ALONE.

"The Black Stallion and the Lost City"

Another new "Black Stallion" book by Steve Farley is coming out next summer. I've been a loyal fan of Alec and the Black since I first discovered the books at age 9, which was 40 years ago (no, I don't care who knows how old I am.) But Steve Farley's last book as he attempts to follow in his father's footsteps, "The Black Stallion and the Shape Shifter," was just WEIRD, and the plot of this book as outlined on Amazon sounds even weirder. (Alec and the Black find themselves about to be sacrificed to flesh-eating mares in a city lost in time???)

Why does Steve Farley write weird fantasy plots? His father did a science-fiction plot in "The Island Stallion Races," and he himself got into weird fantasy in "The Black Stallion's Ghost" (Alec lost in the swamp in Florida, and were his encounters with this weird Kovi just hallucinations or real? That book creeped me out as a 1o-year-old and to this day it's one of my least favorite of the senior Mr. Farley's books) and "The Black Stallion Legend," which was just bizarre. I would rather read more traditional horse stories involving Alec and the Black, not weird fantasy tales that are totally improbable and off the wall.

That being said, I will, of course, be dumb enough to buy this book and add it to my collection simply because it is a Black Stallion book, but I have a strong feeling I'm not gonna like this one any more than I did "Shape Shifter." Please, Steve, write a book that is more plausible and less science-fictioney (did I just make up a word?)

Sorry, I have to be grammar cop here

It drives me crazy to hear people say "in regards to" or "with regards to." The correct phrase is "in regard to" or "with regard to," singular, no "s" on the end.

And please, remember the apostrophe does NOT mean something is plural. The plural of "Smith" is "Smiths," NOT "Smith's." The plural of dog is "dogs," NOT "dog's." Etc.

Thank you. I feel better now.

Leave NPR alone!!

Ever since Juan Williams was so ridiculously fired by NPR for comments that were taken out of context (the people who run NPR can now challenge the people who took Miss California's crown away from her for "hypocrites of the year"), there has been a loud outcry for NPR (as well as PBS) to be defunded. There is a loud cry as well by people who seem to think NPR is a "left-wing commie network" that shouldn't even be on the air in the first place. My admittedly disgusted reaction to this is - have these people even bothered to LISTEN to NPR???

I don't approve of the way Juan Williams was fired or even THAT he was fired - taking comments out of context, and then insinuating the man needs to see a psychiatrist, is totally appalling. As I said, the people who made this decision are hypocrites who were obviously looking for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams because he (gasp) does commentary for FOX News. (Which proves FOX News is fair and balanced, because he's extremely liberal in his viewpoints, and they have him on regularly and allow him to have his say, along with other liberals like Bob Bechtel.)

But the NPR network itself is hardly as terrible as the people who seem to want it, not just defunded, but taken completely off the air, would think. Very little of NPR's programming is even political in nature at all. Most of it is "slice of life" stories, "Americana" stories, "everyday lives" stories.

In recent weeks, I have heard - Scott Simon interview Michael Caine on "Weekend Edition" about Caine's life and career - Scott Simon also interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, who wrote the book about Seabiscuit a few years ago, about Zenyatta - A story was done about Mark Twain's autobiography being published this year 100 years after his death, as he had requested - Alan Alda was interviewed about his career and his famous dad Robert Alda - "Storycorps" on Friday mornings is simply Americans talking about their ordinary lives - "Science Friday" has something for anyone who is interested in any form of science, from stories about trying to find a cure for diabetes to stories about the Mars Rover, the Hubble Telescope, etc. - "Car Talk" on the weekends features the always entertaining brothers Tom and Ray giving advice on car repairs with a generous dose of humor - the game show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is fun to listen to - "A Prairie Home Companion" features Garrison Keillor's wonderful and humorous tales of "my hometown, Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

Yes, some of the programming on NPR is political, and leans left. Diane Rehm on Fridays does her "weekly news roundup", usually with a panel of liberal commentators, and Diane herself is obviously liberal judging from her own comments. But so what? I'm a conservative bordering on libertarianism, but I don't think a radio network should not be allowed to have liberal commentary or liberal talk-show hosts! I listen to Diane Rehm's show, and most of the time her subject matter isn't political at all, and when she DOES have political topics, I'm capable of listening to her liberal point of view, even though I'm a conservative, without thinking she or the network should be taken off the air! There is room on the radio airwaves for BOTH a Rush Limbaugh AND a Diane Rehm.

Point is - NPR's programming is about 90% NOT political in nature. The vast majority of their programming has nothing to do with politics and is, to me at least, very interesting and mentally stimulating to listen to. Should the network be defunded? Well, when we are so deeply in debt as a country, and we need to cut spending wherever possible, the answer is probably "yes." But should NPR be taken off the air because they're "liberal," as some conservatives are angrily demanding? My answer is a resounding "no!" Not any more than FOX should be taken off the air for being conservative!!!

Leave NPR alone! Defund it if we must (if they have to sell commercials to stay on the air, so be it), but stop criticizing it for being something it's not.

The American people are about to be raped

The Democratic senators are refusing to listen to tea parties, town halls, callers to talk radio, letters, emails, phone calls to their offices, the march on Washington on 9/12, the rally at the Capitol a few weeks ago - they are determined to rape the American people by foisting this health care bill on us tomorrow morning. And Merry Christmas to you too, Senators!

What does it take to get them to listen? What does it take to get them to understand their job? And what will it take to stop this? I think this should go to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court will consent to hear it, because it absolutely is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to buy something (such as insurance). If ever there was a need for the Supreme Court to fulfill the role of checks and balances, this is it.

Are "birthers" just crazy conspiracy theorists?

Some explanation is in order before I get into the heart of my post today. I live in Phoenix, and I listen to talk radio, primarily KTAR 92.3 FM, which is a highly conservative station. (Most talk radio is highly conservative - the liberals can't seem to be successful with talk radio shows of their own.) The morning talk show host on KTAR is usually Darrell Ankarlo, but he has been off the air for several months following a bad car accident, although he is expected to return soon. A number of hosts have been filling in for him over the past several months. One of them is Austin Hill, who has a web site at http://www.austinhill.net/. Now, most of the time, I agree with Austin Hill's point of view. But he and I diverge completely on the issue of the so-called "birthers."

"Birther" is the derogatory name given to those of us who believe that President Obama is being less than forthcoming with releasing his birth certificate, and have questions as to whether or not he was born in Hawaii or somewhere else. Most of us who think there might be any credence at all to this opinion are looked upon as kooks, "just a bunch of conspiracy theorists." But for a conservative talk-show host like Austin Hill to have the same mindset really bugs me!

He was discussing this topic on KTAR this morning, and his attitude and tone of voice left no doubt that he feels nothing but scorn for anyone who dares broach the idea that Obama's birth certificate needs to be released. According to Austin Hill, this is "a waste of time," "irrelevant," and "we need to concentrate on more concrete matters." He says that if we expect the President to release his birth certificate, we are "asking him to "disprove the hypothetical," whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

One caller was trying to argue in favor of the birth certificate being released, and Mr. Hill, in a voice brimming with sarcasm, asked him, "Where do you think Obama was born?" When the man replied, "I have no idea," Hill took off with that and proceeded to ridicule the man with more of this "disprove the hypothetical" nonsense. How is producing a birth certificate "disproving the hypothetical?" Rather, is it not just simply proving where you were born in the first place? And no, Mr. Hill, he has NOT produced his birth certificate already. He has produced a "certificate of live birth," which is not the same thing at all and does not carry the legal weight that an actual birth certificate carries.

Another caller made the mistake of referring to someone who had called Darrell Ankarlo, the very host for whom Mr. Hill was filling in, as "a chick named Orly or something like that," and right away, because the caller phrased it that way, Hill refused to give him any credence. Would it not be the remotest bit possible, Mr. Hill, for you to ask the producer of Ankarlo's show to pull the tapes of past shows and find the conversation this caller was referring to, and listen to it yourself, to determine if "this Orly chick" had any credence, instead of instantly dismissing it with derision?

Mr. Hill's take is that birthers pay too much attention to what they read on the Internet, adding sarcastically that "we all know that everything on the Internet is absolutely true and can be believed." So I guess we all are just getting our information from wacky Web sites and we aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's legitimate and what isn't.


Yet another caller referred to having seen Obama's grandmother interviewed on CNN (is CNN a wacky Web site, or a legitimate news organization?) and she had said she was present at her grandson's birth in Kenya. Hill ridiculed this too (I guess he figured the caller, who by the way identified himself as being African-American, can't tell the difference between CNN and a wacky Web site, or that he just dreamed he saw this on CNN.) The story about Obama's grandmother claiming he was born in Kenya has been around for quite awhile; can't anyone simply check it out and see if his grandmother ever actually did go on record as claiming this? Or is she just a crazy old lady who can't remember where she was when her grandson was born?

It's not just the birth certificate, Mr. Hill. "Birthers" also want to know why ALL of Obama's records - school records, high school and college transcripts, everything - are sealed and not available for public perusal. He claims that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have investigated all this if there were anything to it. How could McCain or Hillary have investigated ANYTHING if it's all sealed and under lock and key, not being released to anyone for any reason???????

He wants to know if we think the election should be overturned, and wants us to consider what the result would be to the country if we went down that road. My response is - yeah, if the election was fraudulent, then it HAS to be overturned. You can't just shrug off someone who is not legitimately president! You can't just sweep it under the rug! Would it be highly traumatizing for this country? Yes. But are we a country of laws or not? If it's "irrelevant" that Obama is or isn't legally qualified to be president, then the section of the Constitution that dictates you must be a natural-born citizen is also "irrelevant" and should be removed from the Constitution! (That darn Constitution - what a pesky thing!)

By the way, Congress could not impeach him, because if he isn't legally President, then they have no legal right to impeach him. Think about THAT one.

I would email Austin Hill with all of this, but he is SO closed-minded to the idea that there could be any SHRED of legitimacy to what the so-called "birthers" believe that even if he were to read my email, he would disregard it with the same sarcasm and derision with which he was dismissing the callers on his radio show this morning. It's like he locked himself inside a soundproof vault where he can't (or won't) hear anything anyone says to him because we're all "conspiracy theorists" who don't know our heads from a hole in the ground.

Mr. Hill, you are being an idiot about this. Get a clue.

Miss California loses her crown

Well, the gay rights movement gained a very hollow victory when The Donald decided to deprive Miss California of her crown after all. However, Miss California is the real winner. Her bravery in standing by her comments about gay marriage, her refusal to back down in the face of overwhelming pressure, her courage in taking a stand for Christian values, have made her far more admirable than I can put into words. And she has a crown waiting for her that nobody, no gay judge, no multi-billionaire, nobody, can ever take away. Read 2 Timothy 4:8:

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not only to me but also to all who eagerly wait for His appearing."

Nobody will EVER take THAT crown away from her. And THAT is the crown that counts!

By the way, when Conan O'Brien joked about this the other night on the "Tonight Show," and he started off by saying Miss California had lost her crown after all, and the audience *cheered* and *clapped* - I think every single one of those people who applauded ought to be *ashamed* of themselves. You would CHEER for a beautiful, decent, moral young woman losing her crown because she dares to stand up for moral values against those who are utterly lacking in moral values? You think this is something to APPLAUD? Every last one of you ought to hang your heads in shame.

Four by Four

I saw this list of questions on the Internet and decided it would be fun to answer them myself, so here goes:

Four Movies You'd Watch Over and Over Again

The Music Man
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Field of Dreams
Superman

Four Places You Have Lived

I have only ever lived two places - Pennsylvania and Arizona.

Four TV Shows You Love to Watch

Maverick (always and forever)
The Waltons
Centennial
Wanted: Dead or Alive

Four Places You Have Been on Vacation

Hawaii
Scotland
Dallas, TX
De Smet, South Dakota

Four of Your Favorite Foods

Cheeseburger
Turkey
Pepperoni Pizza
Chocolate shake

Four Websites You Visit Daily

Bloodhorse.com
ebay.com
IMDB.com
Wikipedia.org

Four Places You'd Rather Be Right Now

Heaven
De Smet, South Dakota
a Diamondbacks game
and finally, right where I am - at home!

Four Things You Want to Do Before You Die

Marry a wonderful Christian man
Take a riverboat trip down the Mississippi River from Natches to New Orleans
See the Kentucky Derby in person
Visit all 50 states

Four Books You Wish You Could Read Again for the First Time

Any of the "Little House" books
Any of the "Black Stallion" books
"A Man Called Peter" by Catherine Marshall
Any of the "Mitford" novels


There you have it!

Nostalgia for old school days

School ended this week (at least they've gone back to ending it in May; for awhile there, it was ending in June, which just seemed WEIRD.) Every year when school ends, it makes me nostalgic for my own school days, back in the "dark ages" of the 60s and 70s! I have no children of my own, but I still live next door to the school I attended when I was in elementary school (my parents picked this house to buy precisely because it was right next door to the grade school I would attend).

I miss things like "Weekly Reader." I used to really enjoy reading that, and I remember one summer, I think the summer between third and fourth grade, or maybe between second and third grade, I had a summertime subscription to "Weekly Reader," because they were offering it to parents who wanted their kids to be able to read it over the summer.

And I really miss ordering Scholastic Books! They used to have a flyer in the "Weekly Reader" (if I remember right) every six weeks or so, and you'd fill out what books you wanted, get a check from your parents, and bring it to the teacher so she could send it in. Then, a few weeks later, your books would come, and she'd give them to the kids that had ordered them. I loved to read, and while the other kids might order one or two or three books, I usually wound up ordering seven or eight at a time! I still have a few of them, too, that I ordered in those long-ago days.

I miss films. Do kids today even SEE films anymore, or is everything on DVD now? You'd go into your classroom, and sometimes on the teacher's desk was a round metal cannister. "We get to see a film today!" everyone would exult. (It meant you didn't have to listen to the teacher drone on and on; the film HAD to be more interesting than a boring lesson from the teacher!) If the cannister was big, it meant the film would last all period; if it was small, it was only going to last about 10 minutes. (Aw, rats!) Some teachers knew how to thread the film onto the projector, and some had to have one of the boys do it (why do boys always know how to do stuff like that?) Someone would pull the screen at the front of the classroom down, and it made a "shoop" sound as it was pulled down. After the film, the kids would beg the teacher to let us play at least some of the film backwards, and everyone would laugh because it looked so funny to see everything going in reverse. Today's kids are probably so used to picture-search on DVDs and videotapes, it would never occur to them that once upon a time, watching something backwards seemed laugh-out-loud funny.

What ever happened to blackboards? At the school next door to me, they've all been replaced by the newfangled dry-erase boards, those white plastic things that you write on with Magic Marker or whatever and not with chalk. Why are blackboards outdated? Does any school anywhere still have blackboards anymore?

And does any school district anywhere still start the day after Labor Day and end a couple days after Memorial Day? It used to be when you saw the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon, you knew that was your last day of summer vacation. You always got a couple days at the end of May, then ALL of June, ALL of July, ALL of August, and if you were REAL lucky and September 1st was a Tuesday, you got the entire first week of September as well before the fall semester began. Now most schools start in August, and some here in Phoenix even start in (gasp) July! The kids get a week off in October (we just got Columbus Day, which nobody except the post office pays attention to anymore), two weeks at Christmas (we got that too, but we called it "Christmas vacation" and not "winter break" as they do now), and a week in spring (I don't think we even got Good Friday back then). Why do they need so much time off during the school year?

I miss field trips. It used to be so much FUN, to get out of school for most if not all of a day, get onto the school bus, and go somewhere! I have wonderful memories of going to the Mineral Museum at the State Fairgrounds in 1972; you wouldn't think a museum dedicated to a bunch of rocks would be fun to see, but it was.

I miss assemblies (yay! we get out of class for an hour to go to an assembly!) And I miss the yearly ritual of buying books at the campus bookstore in high school. It was always interesting to bring the books home and sit down and look at them to see what we'd be studying that year.

I do NOT miss P.E. (the idea that we need P.E. in schools because it helps kids not be obese is ridiculous; if you're a chubby child, P.E. will not help you lose weight; trust me, I know, because I was a chubby child, and I was NOT athletically gifted, and I stunk out loud at everything we did in P.E. - basketball, softball, running laps, dodgeball, soccer, gymnastics - P.E. was endless torture and misery for me, and I hated it so much that to this day, I'm grateful I don't have to do it anymore!) I don't miss math class (I stunk at math, still do, and I hated that "lost" feeling of sitting in math class, not understanding a word the teacher was saying, because math was like a foreign language to me, and seeing all the other kids "getting it" while I still had no clue how to do the problems and come up with the right answer.)

I often think about all my old teachers and wonder where they are now, and how many of them are even still alive. Most have probably passed away. One of my old history teachers, long since retired, attends my church, and I saw him just a week or so ago and got to speak with him; of course, he doesn't remember me, but I remember him. Although seeing him looking 30 years older is something of a jolt because you remember people the way they were the last time you saw them, frozen in time in your memory.

Jay Leno's last "Tonight Show"

It's unreal to think 17 years went by so fast! Was tonight really Jay Leno's last "Tonight Show?" Wow! I know it was, of course; it just seems so strange that it's been 17 years since he took over.

I am the biggest Johnny Carson fan in the world; I literally grew up watching Johnny, who began hosting "The Tonight Show" when I was a year old. I remember when Johnny did the show from New York, and I remember he used to come to Los Angeles for two weeks every May to do the show, and I remember in 1972 when he moved the show permanently from New York to Los Angeles because it was easier to get guests in L.A. than in New York (or so he said, although today David Letterman seems to have no problem getting guests, and he's based in New York.) I remember when he cut back from five nights a week to four, and then to three, and I remember when the "Tonight Show" was 90 minutes long, and the last 15 minutes were usually reserved for interviewing some author whose book had just come out. I miss Carnack, Aunt Blabby, the "Stump the Band" segment, and Art Fern with Carol Wayne and the "Teatime Movie". (I remember how much I laughed the first time I visited Southern California and found out that there really is a Slauson cutoff! "Stop, get out, cut off your slauson!" And remember "the fork in the road!")

When I was in grade school, I used to beg my parents to just let me stay up long enough to see Johnny's monologue (the "Tonight Show" airs at 10:30 in Phoenix). And they did! (Thank you, Mom and Daddy!) Fridays and summer vacations were extra special simply because I got to see ALL of the show and not just the monologue!

So I vividly remember Johnny's last show, and then the following Monday, after the local news at 10:00, when 10:30 came, I just kept thinking there was no way we wouldn't hear the familiar "bah bah bah BAH bah" theme and see Johnny come out from behind those multi-colored curtains, same as always. And instead we got this "hipper" sounding theme, and there was Jay Leno with a garish new set, and I watched about 10 minutes and had to turn it off. I had NOTHING against Jay Leno himself; I just couldn't stand seeing the new version of "The Tonight Show" and I missed Johnny desperately!

And it's only been in the past couple years I've been able to watch Leno's version at all. I do enjoy the "Headlines" segment he does on Mondays, and every once in awhile he'll have a guest on I want to watch (Robin Williams, Steve Martin, a few like that). I can't stand "Jaywalking" because I, for one, don't think it's funny that we have that many stupid young adults in the world who apparently slept their way through at least 12 years of school. It makes me cringe.

And now, suddenly, just like that, whoosh! 17 years is gone, and Jay's stint is done. It honestly feels to me like he's only been hosting about five years, like Johnny just retired a few years ago. (My brain just does NOT process the passage of time well at all!) It's not even remotely possible to me that Johnny Carson could be GONE.

Maybe this seems less real because unlike Johnny, Leno will be back this fall with what they're saying will be a very similar show, "The Tonight Show" with a different name and an earlier time slot, but otherwise very much the same show.

Will I like Conan O'Brien as the new host? Heck, if I still miss Johnny Carson, I don't think I could ever fully embrace anyone else as the host. But it will be interesting to see how Conan does. (They're doing the show at Universal and not the Burbank Studios where it's been done since Carson moved to L.A. in 1972? That's unreal too!)

Open message to Leonard Pitts

Mr. Pitts, I read your column fairly regularly. It's always good for a laugh or two. Sometimes it's good for raising one's blood pressure as well. Case in point, today's column.

Let's see - you make comments in today's column such as "The loose cannons on the right thrive from feeling put upon - last month, they took to the streets en masse, and the governor of Texas raised the specter of secession because it was tax day, for goodness sake!" And you also referred to "extremists littering the streets with tea bags" and compared this to "temper tantrums." As well as the obligatory liberal columnist slam at Rush Limbaugh by referring to "his head exploding on a daily basis."

Ok, have you ever heard the old saying about "better to keep silent and be thought an idiot, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"? This applies to you, sir. In the first place, the people who participated in the tea parties last month, and those who wanted to participate but couldn't attend, are not "loose cannons" or "extremists," nor were we/they "throwing temper tantrums" like a bunch of recalcitrant children. What you are seeing is much, much more than "temper tantrums." This is an ever-increasing number of everyday citizens who are sick and tired of too much government and too much taxation, and are fed up to the point of wanting to do something about it. I would compare it to the rumblings of a long-dormant volcano where you know it's getting ready to explode and spew lava all over the place. And Tax Day was chosen for the tea parties, and the governor of Texas threatening secession, because what better day to protest having our money taken away by the government than on....Tax Day itself?

Boy, you libs love to make fun of Rush, don't you! If Rush's head is exploding on a daily basis, it's from seeing what has been going on with our country and our government lately, and his is not the only head that is exploding on a daily basis, I assure you. And since his ratings are so high, there sure must be a lot of people listening to his head explode every day! Good! That helps get his message out! The more people there are who listen to Rush, the more people there might be who would realize he actually MAKES SENSE. (Yes, John McCain's mom, this applies to you too, and to you, Kevin Spacey, both of you sitting there on Jay Leno's show last week trashing Rush - Spacey didn't actually SAY anything, but he gestured with a grin to Mrs. McCain after she lambasted Rush, as if to say, "See, the old lady knows what she's talking about!" Sorry, she doesn't. I respect her, but I disagree with her. And Mr. Spacey, your politics suck canal water.)

The sleeping dog has been awoken, and the "loose cannons and extremists" are determined to *do something* about taking our country back before Socialism swallows up everything we hold dear.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Pitts.

The filly is for real

But I'm not sure Rachel Alexandra was as spectacular in winning the Preakness as the NBC announcers were gushing. It's intriguing to think that had she not been in the race, Mine That Bird would now be trying for a Triple Crown in three weeks. But that's horse racing. Makes you realize how special the Triple Crown winners of the 70's were.

I am so happy new owner Jess Jackson is running Rachel Alexandra against colts, when her previous owner was so determined not to. With all due apologies, the quote that "fillies should run against fillies and colts against colts," and that the Triple Crown races are to determine stallion prospects, is a crock of baloney. I much more agree with Mr. Jackson's assessment that "champions race against champions." Funny Cide wasn't a stallion prospect, nor is Mine That Bird (although I'm trying to remember, and I seem to remember, that once upon a time, geldings were not permitted to run in the Derby. I'll try to find that out for sure.) If you go with only running fillies against other fillies, we'd never have had Rags to Riches' heart-stirring victory over Curlin in the Belmont; we'd never have seen Genuine Risk or Winning Colors win the Derby. Rachel Alexandra has so dominated the females in her division, there was nothing left for her to prove there. She needed a new challenge, and today she had it, and she showed she was up to it. Now racing has a new superstar, which is what it needs every year.

I do think the race for Mine That Bird was lost at the top of the stretch, when he was behind horses and didn't have clear running room for about three or four strides, before Smith pulled him out around them and turned him loose. Had he been able to start his charge then, and not have been behind that wall of horses, he'd have caught Rachel Alexandra before the wire, I'm certain of it. Even as this was happening, I was in front of the TV set going, "He's going to lose the race right here; he doesn't have running room to get going." But that, too, is horse racing. If you have running room, you have a better chance to win. Get blocked, even if only for a moment, and you lose. It takes nothing away from the filly's effort and her glory in winning, that's for sure.

Jess Jackson is a great owner, too, because he allowed us to see Curlin run as a four-year-old, when the temptation for most owners is to rush a star three-year-old off to the breeding shed before the racing public has had a chance to fully enjoy their talents on the track.

I also don't buy into the notion that a filly is in greater danger of breaking down should she compete against the colts. Fillies break down running against other fillies, too - remember Go For Wand? Colts break down running against colts (Timely Writer, Barbaro, Charismatic, although at least they were able to save Charismatic.)

The Belmont, if both Rachel Alexandra and Mine That Bird return, should be very interesting!

Comments on the Diamondbacks

Some interesting, and troubling, developments with my beloved Diamondbacks over the past couple days. While the firing of manager Bob Melvin was sadly not unexpected, the heavy-handed way it was handled is reminiscent of the disgusting way the current management regime got rid of a classy man like former owner Jerry Colangelo. (I'm beginning to seriously dislike these people.)

Columnist Dan Bickley of the Arizona Republic had some interesting things to say in his column in this morning's paper. He suggested that GM Josh Byrnes was hinting around during his press conference yesterday that Bob Melvin "created a bad vibe, a negative energy in the room." Huh? Bob Melvin has to be one of the nicest guys not just in baseball, but in all of sports. I cannot envision him creating a "bad vibe" or "negative energy." If anything, perhaps "Bo-Mel" is TOO nice, not capable of kicking some butts the way a manager sometimes needs to do. If anything, he doesn't have a high enough intensity level to put the fear of God into some of his underperforming players. If that's "creating a bad vibe and negative energy," I just don't see it.

And the pretty much unrefuted allegation that Josh Byrnes is controlling the line-up, basically doing the managing instead of the manager. Ok, Mr. Byrnes, if you're the one who is dictating what the line-up should be, then YOU stink as a manager, because the line-up you're forcing the manager to put out there everyday is LOSING every day. Maybe you should fire YOURSELF and let your on-field manager do his thing without any interference from YOU? Or appoint yourself the on-field manager so you can put whatever lineup you please out there every day and see how YOU do.

And they told Bob Melvin a couple days ago that they planned to make a managerial change? See, this is where Bob is too nice. Had they told ME that they were planning to make a managerial change, and my job was now lame-duck status, I'd have said, "I'm sorry, you can't fire me, I quit," and I'd have resigned immediately. And I'd have been perfectly frank with the media and said, "Yes, I quit because they were planning to fire me anyway, and they told me so. Why should I stay for even a couple more games under those circumstances? If they have egg on their faces now, I didn't put it there."

I think everyone feels (outside of the D-backs front office) that the best choice to replace Melvin would have been bench coach Kirk Gibson. He could bring a fire and an intensity to the players that very few others could. Instead, he's still the bench coach.

And A.J. Hinch's comments in the post-game press conference (following another loss) were pathetic if not downright laughable. "I was proud of the guys for battling back and kind of answering the bell..." KIND OF answering the bell?????? You either answer the bell or you don't! There is no "kind of!" (Yoda from "Star Wars" would say, "There is no 'try,' there is only 'do.'") KIND OF? You're the new manager, sir; they are supposed to ANSWER the bell for you, not just "kind of "answer the bell!

"We came up a run short, which was unfortunate." Um, no. It wasn't "unfortunate." It was UNACCEPTABLE. You are hired to WIN. If your reaction to yet another loss, and the first under your guidance, is that it was "unfortunate," I wonder if you have the fire in the belly necessary to be a manager.

It will be interesting to see what transpires over the next few months. I'm not overly optimistic. Sigh.

Borel to ride Rachel Alexandra in Preakness - wow!

Calvin Borel has chosen the filly Rachel Alexandra over Mine That Bird for his Preakness mount, provided she runs. Amazing! I guess this means he doesn't think Mine That Bird has a good chance at the Triple Crown (I don't either, but anything is possible). I've never heard of such a thing as a Derby-winning jockey choosing another horse for the Preakness and passing up a chance at the Triple Crown. If Mine That Bird wins the Triple Crown by winning the final two legs under a different jockey, will that jockey feel like *he* has won the Triple Crown, or will it not feel the same as if he had ridden the horse in all three legs? The jockey's name would be in the record books, regardless, but it would have to feel kind of strange, not having been aboard for the Derby, wouldn't it? And how will Borel feel if Mine That Bird wins the Triple Crown and he had opted to ride the filly instead?

A very unique situation, one that I've never seen before!

BTW, I do think Rachel Alexandra is good enough to beat the boys in the Preakness. Whether she *will* or not, at least I think she does have the talent, provided she gets a clean trip.

This is proving to be a very interesting Triple Crown season!!