ConservativeTM is my personal blog on a variety of conservative political issues.

Please contact me at if you have any questions or comments. Thanks.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

5. Hollywood, An Attainable Utopia!!!

Wouldn’t it be great if you had the power to create a world that matched your political beliefs? Wouldn’t it be great if you didn’t have to worry about which political party won the next election, that everything you believed could be implemented right now? For all of the money the Hollywood power brokers spend each year to get their liberal candidates elected (or not elected) why don’t they just turn Hollywood into a mini-socialist state? Their budgets exceed those of small countries. They don’t need to wait for legislation. They don’t need to wait for Hillary in the White House. They can do it right now!! They can live their liberal dream. They can show the entire world that they are right and we conservatives are wrong.

So, how could Hollywood transform itself into a socialist mini-state? Actually, it wouldn’t be that difficult. Let’s look at this point by point.

1. Create one “Mega-Studio.” Let’s call our new studio Utopia Studios (US). The left has made it clear that competition leads to corporate greed so US will be structured as follows:
  • US will recognize all employee-members (EM) as equal.
  • US will be owned equally by all EMs of the studio. No one person will have controlling ownership.
  • Each member-employee will have one vote.

2. Unions. EMs will be unionized – workers versus management (but all employees are equal). Unions will be able to strike at any time for any reason. After all, it is their right. All movies will be made at US. Movies now filmed or post-produced in Canada or other foreign countries to avoid union wages will be eliminated.

3. Benefits. Health care will be granted to all employees through the US health benefit plan. This plan will be set up to mirror HillaryCare – the left’s health care plan of choice. EMs may only see doctors within the plan. Any member seeing a doctor outside of the plan will be immediately terminated from US.

4. Free Labor. Unlike current studios, US will not use free labor under the guise of “paying their dues.” Currently actors and those trying to get into other aspects of the industry often work for nothing trying to establish a foothold or make necessary connections. Within the industry, this is called “paying your dues.” This forced or slave labor practice will be eliminated.

5. Economic democracy. US will have a strict distribution of wealth policy. Of the 100,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the average income is less than $5,000 a year (source: With leftist stars commanding over $10 million a movie it seems the rich in Hollywood are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. According to the New York Daily News, Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, and Will Smith all command $25 million per picture. Under US, if each of those six stars made only one movie a year, US would fairly and equitably distribute their $150 million fees between the 100,000 new US EMs so each would receive $1,500.

6. Diversity. US will ensure that Asians, Latins, Blacks, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, etc. will be equitably (based on United States census numbers) represented in all aspects of acting and film making. In looking at the website under the “Coming Soon” heading I checked the first 10 films due to open. In all cases but one, the stars were white – only one minority was represented in a starring role. This is obviously racism and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED (Bill Clinton-style fist-hitting-the-podium emphasis added).

7. Poverty. There will be no poverty or homelessness at US. US will provide for EMs regardless of their talent and marketability. As one leftist told me, “Any country that cannot provide for its people is a failure.” There will be no such failure at US.
Inheritance tax – When EMs die any remaining money will be brought back into US to either distribute among all other EMs or to finance movie ventures.

8. Education. US will provide education by a diverse mix of teachers. Private schooling of children of EMs will not be permitted. After all, school choice (such as vouchers) only weakens the school system.

9. Global Warming. This is probably the most important issue US will face. Leonardo DiCaprio will head the “Carbon Neutral” division of US. High rise housing will be built on the US lot. Apartments will be no larger than 1,500 square feet. Since many Hollywood types will be forgoing their 10,000 to 50,000 square feet homes, a tremendous amount of energy will be saved in heating and cooling. Since the apartment complex is on the US lot, SUVs, limousines, and private planes will not be needed. Anyone owning or using one will immediately be terminated. Bicycles will be available to all EMs. For those needing to leave the US complex, shuttles and hybrid cars will be available on a first come, first serve basis.

10. Immigration. With such a utopian community, one so heavily blessed by God, it is completely understandable that hard working souls seeking a better life will want to also become an EM. EMs with full voting privileges and the desire to share in the bounty that is US. Anyone at anytime and with no restrictions of any kind can become an EM and share in its riches. Any other attitude is morally wrong.

So – how likely is this to happen? How likely is Barbra Streisand to give up her mansions in Holmby Hills and Malibu? About zero. For all the talk of the Hollywood left you would think that they would do something within their own community. But they do none of these things. But it isn’t their fault. It’s the fault of those mean, nasty, greedy conservatives. That’s why there are so many social problems in this world. Isn’t it?

New York City is often referred to as “The Last Bastion of Liberalism.” Yet, NYC has one of the worst homeless problems in the country. Why don’t they just address that one simple problem? They could build more homeless shelters and feed those people. What you say? Not enough money – no problem, with the average apartment in NYC now worth $1.2 million they could easily raise property taxes and cover the cost. At $1.2 million an apartment we certainly aren’t talking about taxing the poor here. They’d be taxing those that are rich and greedy and don’t want to share. But does that “Bastion of Liberalism” do that? No, they blame Ronald Reagan, George Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and all those other, evil, repugnant, reptilian conservatives that Julia Roberts loves to hate so much. Here, it is within their power to change things and instead they do nothing but bitch and complain.

But, like every liberal I’ve ever met, they don’t. The liberal ideal is just that – it’s an ideal, an ideal for someone else to implement, someone else to live under. Hollywood wants to talk liberalism and live capitalism. They want someone else to be the practicing social liberals.

Yep – when I meet a liberal that lives the life that he or she wants to impose on me through legislation, I’ll take him seriously. But, I’m not worried, because it will never happen.

Monday, August 27, 2007

4. Who You Calling Rhetorical?

In a recent interview with “The Progressive,” Elizabeth Edwards, wife of candidate John Edwards, declared a divide between “actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats.” Says Ms. Edwards, “Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it’s like a Hollywood set: It’s a façade and there’s no guts behind it.”

Good point Elizabeth.

With that in mind, I’ve decided to create the Elizabeth Edwards Rhetorical Democrat Award (EERDA). Drawing partly from Peter Schweizer’s book “Do As I Say” here are my nominations for this coveted prize.

1. Senator Ted Kennedy, liberal icon and safe driver. Ted has never met a tax increase he didn’t like, unless, of course, it’s his family who has to pay those taxes. Ted’s family trust was set up in Fiji, not the US. In Fiji the trust is far away from IRS scrutiny. In the 1970s, Ted led the charge to tax the “excessive” profits made by oil producers. Ted’s legislation made a distinction between large and “small, struggling” oil producers, one paying more taxes and one paying less. Guess which side of the fence Ted’s oil profits come from? Yep – the “small, struggling” companies.

2. Al Gore, Guru of Global Warming. Al wants you to take a pledge to reduce your use of energy and the amount of carbon dioxide you generate. Al won’t take his own pledge even though his house in Tennessee (one of several) uses 20 times the energy of the average US home. Does Al have solar or wind panels on his house? Nope – nothing.

3. Robert Kennedy Jr., Kennedy scion and champion of the green. Bob follows in Al Gore’s footsteps, he loves to talk green but hates to take his own advice. Not only does he prefer the comfort of private jets he also fought against the erecting of a wind mill farm near the family estate. Ted joined him in this fight. Bob said, “I definitely support alternative energy, but the wind farm plan makes no sense for the public because the cost it’s going to impose on the people of these regions are so huge…. Probably larger than coal.” I guess alternative energy is a really good thing, as long as it isn’t in Bob’s neighborhood.

4. Michael Moore, average working-class nice guy. Mike is appalled at racism in the US and especially in the corporate world. Mike declared in “Stupid White Men” that he would “hire only black people” to prove he’s taking an active step towards racial equality. But of the 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers and production coordinators Mike hired for his movies, only three were black, a rate of only 2%.

5. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, proud liberal, pro-union and pro-environment. Nancy hates outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries yet invests heavily in corporations that do just that. Nancy hates threats to the public school system but invests heavily in Beacon Education Management, a contractor that provides services to charter schools. Nancy hates greedy corporations that are not unionized but does not hire unionized grape pickers to harvest her vineyard in Napa. Nancy also doesn’t want to be bothered with union workers at her exclusive hotels, the Auberge du Soleil in Napa and the San Ysidro Ranch in Santa Barbara.

6. Hillary Clinton, Village Queen. Hillary wanted to impose her health care system on all of us – no choice, no opt-out option. If implemented, like in Canada, and you tried to circumvent the system because, well, you didn’t want to die, you and your doctor could be prosecuted and serve time in prison. But Hillary and Bill felt that they should not have to be part of such a grand and glorious plan – they were exempt for life.

But the winner of the EERDA this year does not go to these six worthy recipients of the Democrat Party. The winner this year is Elizabeth herself. Liz is deeply concerned about the environment and global warming. Distressed about the carbon footprint she leaves she decided to take action. Not rhetorical action but real action. No, Liz didn’t put her 28,000 square foot house on the market because, no doubt, that would be an empty gesture – a Hollywood-type façade. Liz, at great personal sacrifice declared that she would give up tangerines.

Congratulations Elizabeth. Go get ‘em!! I feel the earth cooling already!

Thursday, August 23, 2007

3. Save The Planet

In the 1980s as AIDS became known as the plague of the gay community, that same community blamed Ronald Reagan for inaction. If he had done something sooner, far fewer people would have died.

What exactly Reagan was supposed to have done facing a then unknown and previously unseen killer, I don’t know. But clearly, according to the Left, his alleged inaction was the reason for the devastating consequences of AIDS.

Now the Left has their current crisis. It’s called Global Warming. It makes every plague in history look like mere chest colds. According to the Left, it will destroy, devastate and kill untold millions of animals, humans, eco-systems and plants. It is the greatest looming disaster in history. It has already started and it is clearly our fault. If we change our energy use, the disaster will be averted. If we don’t – we are doomed.

So, how seriously is the Left taking this issue, I mean, besides flying around the world and talking? Nothing really. Are there serious bills in Congress, introduced by the new “green sensitive” Democratic leadership dealing with this impending disaster? No. Just talk – lots of talk and lots of money going to “research.”

Well, I don’t buy into Al Gore’s argument, but let’s say that I did. Let’s say I am the Speaker and have control of the House of Representatives. What bills would I introduce to reduce our “carbon footprint.” Here are the first seven:

1, Tax Credits (not deductions) for homeowners purchasing and installing energy producing and saving systems. This would include both solar and wind energy as well as other energy saving upgrades. Currently, homeowners are reluctant to install these expensive systems because the pay back period is 10 to 20 years. Through tax credits, let say for 90% of the purchase price spread over two years, this would make these systems affordable. As more and more systems are purchased the prices would drop as more competition enters the market to meet the demand of this exploding industry. Would tax revenues to the federal government also fall? Possibly, but these are dire times and maybe the government should tighten their belt a little. Isn’t that the least they can do to save our planet and to protect our children’s future?

These tax credits will be available to all tax payers, regardless of income. So, who would be most likely to take these tax credits? The middle and upper classes. This would no doubt create a conflict on the Left as the “rich” may pay fewer taxes, but then, isn’t saving the planet the main objective here?

2. Tax Credits for fuel efficient and hybrid cars. Much like the above example, the additional cost of the hybrid cars negates the savings they create in fuel efficiency. Bridge that gap with a similar tax credit and sales would soar. Although there is currently a tax deduction in place, it exempts higher income car buyers. Since they are often the car owners most likely to commute and most likely to buy large SUVs, don’t we want to do everything possible to encourage them to buy a more green friendly car?

3. Wind Farm Expansion. Throughout suitable regions such as the plains states and coastal regions, offer generous incentives to industry and power companies to create wind farms. This would include such areas as Cape Cod, in spite of protests from Senator Ted Kennedy. Yes, they are not attractive, but they, along with solar energy, are the cleanest fuel alternatives.

4. Solar Array Expansion. With so many regions in the South and Southwest bathing in sunshine so much of the year, these areas would seem perfect candidates for massive solar array systems. Again, tax incentives or outright grants to build and tie these systems into the power grid should quickly stimulate their construction.

5. Nuclear Power Plant Expansion. This suggestion may not fully please the green crowd, but the reality is that there is little or no carbon footprint. With nuclear pebble bed reactor technology, these plants are far safer than previous designs These reactors would also pave the way for hydrogen production as an alternative and cleaner burning fuel.

6. Elimination of Car Pool Lanes on Highways. As a resident of Southern California, I know all too well about cars sitting idle on freeways burning fuel and spewing carbon dioxide while the car pool lane sits empty. From my limited knowledge of queue theory, I would suspect that opening those lanes to all traffic would greatly increase the flow of traffic and reduce the amount of fuel burned and carbon dioxide emitted. There are those that would disagree with me, but this is a rather easy theory to test. Measure the amount of fuel purchased in Los Angeles and Orange Counties over a three month period. Make a serious effort to alert the public that for a comparable three month period that all carpool lanes will be open to all traffic. Measure fuel usage and traffic flow for both periods. The data will determine the correct path.

7. Ease Building and Environmental Impact Restrictions for Construction of Energy Saving Systems. These alternative energy systems are far too important to get bogged down in the current red tape and over-regulation. Obviously, nothing should be built or operated unsafely, but streamline the bureaucracy and get these systems on-line!

Although I disagree with Gore’s hypothesis, I do agree that reducing reliance on foreign oil and seeking cleaner fuel sources is an excellent goal. But instead of just talking about it, I’m willing to back either party in stimulating real change. In fact, I’m willing to back almost any logical proposal as long as it does not include such words as “new taxes” or “new government agency.”

But what legislation has been introduced by either party under any administration? The only serious example I can recall were tax credits under the Carter administration. These credits proved to be effective and stimulated the solar energy markets. What have Clinton, Gore, Pelosi and Kennedy done? Well, I don’t recall anything other than Pelosi suggesting we make the Capitol Building “greener.” Yes, that’s a bold step forward.

It’s difficult for me to believe that such a crisis actually exists when those who profess the crisis as genuine take no real action to avert it. Noah took the crisis seriously and built an ark. Gore, on the other hand, won’t even take his own pledge and reduce the amount of energy he consumes in his own mansion. Maybe with tax credits, even he will make his mansion more energy efficient.

The left claims that President Bush’s lack of sensitivity toward this looming disaster is proof that he is in bed with the oil companies, that they, not Bush pull the strings. Based on the Left’s inaction, aren’t they too in that same bed?

If Reagan is at fault for AIDS then the looming global warming disaster is clearly on the hands of the Left. All talk and no action.

Monday, August 20, 2007

2. Thank You, Whoopi Goldberg

Dear Whoopi Goldberg,

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You’ve taken a huge load off of my shoulders. I was beginning to wonder if something was wrong with me. You see, I’m not able to understand the logic behind the views of most liberals. Now, I’m no genius, but I’m no idiot either. Liberalism is the political persuasion of the vast majority of college and university professors yet when I listen to liberals justifying their position on issues, I simply can’t follow their logic. With so many self-proclaimed intellectuals holding such views, I figured that something must be wrong with me that I still see the conservative approach as the most effective and rational.

But last week you changed everything for me. You were good enough to be interviewed by “The O’Reilly Factor.” During the interview, Bill told you that his staff had tried to get an opinion from Tim Robbins regarding the war in Iraq. One concern in pulling out of Iraq too early (well, at least a concern of mine and many fellow conservatives) is that Iran, seeing the weakness in Iraq, will immediately invade the country and slaughter millions of Iraqis as well as take control of their oil resources. This would be similar to what happened when the US pulled out Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered over 3 million Southeast Asians. When asked “Listen, what about Iran? If we get out of Iraq and they come down and they cause trouble what do you do?” Tim Robbins replied to the reporter, “Why don’t you enlist.”

Now Whoopi, before watching your interview, this would have puzzled me. Tim’s answer just didn’t make any sense to me. But you seemed to sum up the left for me when you said, “… when I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about is how I feel about it and why. And I don’t have to justify it.”

So it’s simply how we all feel that should set policy. That would explain why logic, facts, science, and empirical data are irrelevant to liberals. Only feelings count. That also explains why whenever I ask a liberal to back-up or support his or her opinion on Iraq, or Bush, Cheney and Reagan, they are almost never able to give me any hard facts. They don’t need to in their minds, because their minds are not even part of the equation – only their feelings and their emotions are what matter.

So Whoopi, thanks for clearing this up for me. One last thing though. I mean, I hate to cloud the issue, but maybe President Bush simply felt that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Aren’t his feelings alone reason for the action? I mean, didn’t you just say that you don’t have to justify your opinions? If you don’t, why should anyone else? You have a podium, a microphone, and you get air time whenever you want. In fact, you will be the new co-host for ABCs “The View.” You will have the opportunity to influence people throughout the United States. But you still see no need to justify your opinions – how you feel is all that matters. If this is the case, why does the left continue to call Bush such terms as “stupid” and “an idiot?” If feelings and emotions should drive national policy why should anyone be attacked for their intellect or lack thereof?

Oh no – I’m confused again. Whoopi – help me!! I need you back on “The O’Reilly Factor!!”



Thursday, August 16, 2007

1. War Is Not The Answer?

"I have learned nothing in twenty years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar." - M. Scott Peck

The bumper sticker on the car in front of me read, “War is not the answer.” Unable to interview the driver, I felt confident that “War is never the answer” would more completely reflect his views.

Self-proclaimed intellectuals and other “enlightened” individuals see no need for war. War, they say, is the response of those that look at the world in black and white. Enlightened intellectuals are able to see life in “shades of gray” and in doing so feel that war is avoidable and unnecessary.

So what are their alternate solutions to extreme conflict? Their first response is often “Negotiation.” Negotiation is the art of compromise, of finding common ground by which both parties may benefit. Negotiation is fine when determining the price of a car, but in many real-life situations, deals cannot be reached. If a child molester enters your home and takes your two children what is the compromise? Can he keep one and return the other? When Iraq invaded Kuwait would it have been acceptable for Hussein to keep part of Kuwait? Would any citizen of the US find that acceptable should we be invaded? Doubtful.

Negotiation under the threat of force is called extortion. North Korea has found it quite profitable to continue their nuclear program. As nations protest, North Korea is only too happy to negotiate. During the Clinton administration, Jimmy Carter negotiated a Neville Chamberlain-type end to their program. The agreement included giving North Korea hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. In spite of North Korea later admitting that their program was never halted, many leftists still pine for the foreign policy days of Clinton. Apparently, the illusion of negotiated settlements is preferable to the dangerous reality of the situation.

The second non-war solution offered by the intellectual and enlightened crowd is “dialogue.” Shortly after the US led allied forces began bombing Iraq in 1991, I happened to be walking across the campus of my college. A staff member had a sign posted in her office window reading “Stop the bombing! Start talking!” The view is that all issues can be resolved peaceably if we can just get all parties to sit down and talk. Again using the above examples, what can be said to change the mind of a child molester? Can we make him see the error of his ways? Considering that psychologists see child predators as “incurable” I am unaware how anyone, even someone that is enlightened, can create a dialogue to change the predators mind.

Look within our own country, how successful have the pro-abortion intellectuals been at changing the views of those who are pro-life? They can criticize the anti-abortionists as being simple minded idealists or religious zealots, but then, couldn’t those same labels be used to describe those we have waged war against in the past?

The United Nations has shown itself unwilling to use military force to resolve issues. It continues to negotiate, impose sanctions and pass resolutions. So far, neither Iran nor North Korea has yielded to such efforts and their nuclear programs continue. But still, says the left, if we talk with them just a little longer, somehow, someway the issue will be resolved.

The goals of Iran are clear – the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. The goal of Islamist extremists is the destruction of all non-believers, of all non-Muslims. Do we wait until Israel is destroyed before acting? Do we wait until New York City is nuked before doing something? Or do we join hands, sing songs, pick flowers and just hope that the problem will go away?

If the intellectual left holds the keys to the art of compromise and negotiation, why were our countries interests attacked five times during the Clinton administration by Middle Eastern countries? Why was Jimmy Carter unable to secure the release of our hostages in Iran in 1980? Both men are viewed as intellectual and enlightened. Both are viewed as being able to see both sides of an issue yet both men were unwilling to use military force when negotiation and dialogue were unsuccessful.

There is one more option from the left – to blame ourselves. Many in our country have decided that we are at fault, that we are to blame. This is as rational as a judge blaming a rape victim for her attack or Hitler blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

Is it possible, just possible, that there are issues to which there is no middle ground, issues that truly are “black and white?” Is there a gray area regarding slavery? Is it acceptable in some circumstances but not in others? Is there a gray area regarding ethnic cleansing? Would it have been acceptable for Hitler to kill only one million Jews instead of the almost six million that were slaughtered? Or are there only right and wrong sides to each of these issues? If so, and negotiations and dialogue cannot end these situations, what exactly do we do if force is not an acceptable alternative?

After being elected president in 1980 Ronald Reagan made it clear that should Iran not release our citizens he would order the military to begin bombing Tehran. The day of his inauguration, the hostages were released. In 1986, Reagan had proof that Libya was behind the bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by Americans. He then authorized the bombing of the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Since that time, Gaddafi’s Libya has stayed out of the terrorism business. No amount of negotiation, appeasement or dialogue yielded such results.

Our opposition in the Middle East has been clear – anything other than force is viewed as weakness, a weakness that can be exploited. According to Bin Laden, the weak response by the US for the attacks in the 1990s emboldened the Taliban to go forward with 9-11.
To those that say “War is not the answer,” our opposition is telling us that war is the answer – any other response merely strengthens their resolve that the fight is theirs to win.