I bet you thought this post would be about the great industrial complex and oil and how it runs our lives and how we can’t live without oil and President Bush is evil. But you’re wrong, it’s not.

A buddy at work and myself bought tickets to Sunday night’s World Baseball Classic game at Angel Stadium. This was at about noon today when we thought the USA team would win their pool and play Korea in the 2nd round. Unfortunately about 4 hours later the USA team lost to Canada. Now our chances of seeing the USA team beat on Hee-Seop Choi seem much less likely. Canada has to lose to Mexico, the USA has to beat South Africa, and then it comes down to runs allowed or something. Luckily Canada let South Africa score a bunch of runs, so if they do end up with the same record as the USA, we should have the edge. On Thursday I will be rooting for Mexico.

That was the Canada part…but you’re still thinking "what about the oil?" When I got home from work there was a small amount of steam emanating from beneath the hood. While I thought "crap, not good" I opened the hood to take a look. The radiator took a lot of water, and the dipstick read "zilch." I then went and bought a big 12 case of 10w-30, of which my car drank 5 quarts. Is that normal? 5 quarts? I bet I could put another one in, but I was starting to wonder…can you put in too much oil? All you oil experts, please lend me your advice.

Hopefully my car doesn’t blow up tomorrow.

So I found this picture on Foxnews, and realized it was the perfect subject of my second "That Doesn’t Make Sense" column.

So I don’t know what’s going on here, but I think it’s pretty clear: George Bush is hanging out with some guy who thinks he’s Genghis Khan. First of all, the guy playing Genghis Khan is clearly Russian, not Philipino. Second, the guy on the right is waving the Romanian flag, and he’s wearing different colors than Genghis Khan. If they’re supposed to be mortal enemies, they don’t look like they’re in perpetual violence fighting for the survival of their tribe. Third, the girl to the left is wearing a metal bra.

Now for George Bush, he’s clearly trying to barter with Genghis. He is saying "If you let me join your dojo, do I get a cool horse like that? In turn I will trade you this schmuck behind me that can’t stop smiling about the metal bra joke." The guy playing Genghis Khan can’t stop laughing and he keeps muttering something about meeting James Bond. I think they are going to jump President Bush into their gang now.

Just browsing the some blogs I came across a few great stories about President Bush that show what an honest and real person he is. He seems like a very down to earth and caring guy, something that doesn’t always come across in the media. Check these couple stories out.

Waiting on the Prez. (from 2001)

Molly Kate

Since every talk show host has been talking about “scare tactics” lately, I guess I’ll throw in my two cents.

The Kerry Campaign is doing something so transparently wrong: they are claiming positions for Bush that he is not taking! Here are some key examples that explain what I mean.

1) A Draft – They Kerry Campaign is “warning” that President Bush is going to reinstate the draft. The problem with this statement is that he’s NEVER said he will! He’s never even suggested such a thing. Troop levels in Iraq are sufficient, and with technology we can fight wars with less troops than we’ve ever needed. So why is the Kerry camp making this up? (hint hint, to scare you.)

2) Privatizing Social Security in January – Another “issue” Kerry is spouting is that Bush is going to privatize social security, probably around January. When Bush does this he tells all the senior citizens they’ll lose benefits. The problem with this? It’s completely made up! While Bush is for privatization of social security, claiming some made up change will occur in January is a bold faced lie. Simply not true.

3) Voter Supression – Back in 2000 there were many Democrats who felt cheated because their guy lost. There were reports of “widespread voter supression” and “disenfranchised voters” everywhere. Now some Democrats are using this as political fuel, claiming Bush is going to do the same thing. The problem with this? There was not ONE validated claim of voter supression last year. Not a SINGLE case brought before any court. No law suits were filed, and no people found guilty. NOTHING. So now the Democrats are trying to scare people with something that never even happened.

These are non-issues, because they are NOT TRUE. The problem however is that the media gives them equal time despite the ridiculous claims. Hopefully people are smart enough to find out both sides of these issues….err, I mean to figure out they aren’t issues in the first place.

I’m going out with Stacie and some of her friends from school tonight, but I’ll be sure to catch a video feed of the debate later tonight. I think President Bush will do better in this format, and since he “lost” according to some people in the first debate, I think he’ll come out extra strong tonight. I’m sure much time has been spent on his appearance despite how unimportant it really is.

The whole Iraq issue has been beaten beyond recognition. Bush is doing it one way, Kerry would do it “better,” but nothing new has been said in weeks. Sean Hannity suggests Bush focus on Kerry’s senate record tonight. Kerry has years and years of voting a certain way and for certain things that can’t be erased by a couple debates, or shouldn’t be anyways. He loves tax increases, he’s voted against defense and intelligence bills numerous times, and he voted against the first Gulf War. John Kerry can talk tough in the midst of a debate, but it doesn’t change his record. What the Bush camp needs to do is effectively remind the public that he is indeed a flip-flopper.

The debate wasn’t too exciting. Kerry attacked Bush the whole time for waging the “wrong war at the wrong time,” and Bush stuck to his “stay the course” type message.

What really bugged me were all the dopey media people afterwards. Oh how I long for cable TV and Foxnews. ABC had a “quick poll” that showed about 15% more people thought Kerry won the debate, but that President Bush’s lead on Kerry held (they both received 1% more vote than pre-debate). Then of course the crazy media people went on and on how it was some big win for Kerry, but completely ignored that it didn’t change anyone’s mind. I’m not really sure why they think Kerry was the winner…because he was on the “offensive” more? So whoever criticizes the other more wins? John Kerry doesn’t have any plan for Iraq except that he would do it “better,” whatever the heck that means, and he wins?

I love talk radio and the blogosphere, and not so I can here opinions and points of view that are similar to mine, but so I can hear some sanity in the midst of such doofs.

This recent story about John Kerry really struck me as odd. If you read it, you’ll see that John Kerry is claiming President Bush will call up more troops after he gets elected in November. The article goes on to show several people who have no idea what he’s talking about, and one person who claims he’s heard about this. Not surprisingly that person is a Democrat, but we’ll come back to that.

I’ve found it to be a constantly recurring theme that I must decipher and critically think about everything people say this election year. If John Kerry says President Bush is fighting the “wrong” war, what does that mean? John Kerry supported the war at one point, so does he just not like the way it’s turning out? Or is he trying to separate himself from Bush? What the evening news doesn’t tell you is that Kerry has had a 100 stances on the war in Iraq. It stems all the way back to the Democratic primaries. Good ‘ol Howard Deam was completely anti-war, so to distinguish himself from Dean, Kerry was pro-war. Well, Kerry won that battle…but now he’s got a problem: Bush is pro-war…and he can’t have the exact same stance on one of the most important issues to voters. Therefore, like he did in the Democratic primaries, he’s trying to find a new stance to “market” himself. If you don’t believe me check out www.kerryoniraq.com.

Something else in that article that blows me away is when Kerry says “Doesn’t George Bush watch the evening news?!” In other words, doesn’t President Bush see the body count reported every night?. This is an important point, because I think it’s what separates Liberals from Conservatives. Liberals think primarily with their emotions, and Conservatives think primarily with their brain. A Liberal can’t look at Iraq, see a death toll, and then decide “is it worth it?” Instead they just gawk and wail that a US Soldier died. I’m not demeaning the value of life, and in fact I’d say that is what the liberals are doing. I say when a soldier dies they have served their country and worked to secure freedom in Iraq. A liberal on the other hand will say they died fighting a pointless war and it’s all President Bush’s fault. They can’t even support our troops now because that’s indirectly supporting Bush.

Ultimately I think the majority of voters will be able to decipher all the coded messages being transmitted this election year. Democrats have been hoping for Iraq to turn into Vietnam, but that’s not happening. Republicans have been wanting the economy to boom like crazy, but I’d say it’s just in a regular recovery. In the end, look at what people say and decide for yourself if it’s the truth. You’ll be smarter for it.

If you’re like most people and depend on the mainstream media for information, then you’ve probably never seen this. I didn’t even know much about Bush’s service, but this article details it well.

Bush’s National Guard Service

Instapundit brought up a great point: “Isn’t strange that the biggest difference between the Bush National Guard stories and the Kerry Vietnam controversy is that, in the President’s case, it’s the major media dogging the story to death?” I haven’t seen the mainstream media accurately report President Bush’s service, have you?

I feel enlightened.