Who else loves this show? I'm sure pretty much everyone loves Extreme Home Makeover. They find a family that really needs an update, send them off to vacation for a week, and then when they get back they have a brand-new, spiffy home to call their own. They are always very good stories, cancer survivors, people who give of themselves, the kinds of people we love to see happy.

I heard something on NPR this morning on the way to work that made me very upset. Did you know that when someone gets an extreme home makeover, their new digs are considered "winnings" as if they won a lottery prize? Did you know that as a result the IRS comes to these people with their hands out, saying "where's mine?" That's right folks, the lucky new homeowners are presented with a big fat tax bill, and if you know how much a house costs the tax bill definitely ain't gonna be cheap. I wonder if after the cameras turn off a bunch of suits go up to the lucky family and ruin their day by notifying them of their five figure obligation to the IRS.

......Served hot and fresh, like crumpets and tea, based mostly on some links I found on Drudge this morning.

The Democrats have tried hard to sell "new direction" as their slogan, while at the same time denying what that new direction really means. The newly elected leadership has said that it is not the Democrats' intention to cut-and-run, or surrender, or to leave Iraq in a state of chaos, nor is it their intention to cut off funding.

Only a few bold souls have been willing to be honest with us about their intentions, and while I may not agree 100% with them, at least they are not trying to bullshit us.

Kucinich proposes removing the funds for the military operations (from The Dennis Kucinich web site):

Carl Levin proposes near-term troop withdrawal (Breitbart):

Mitt Romney, detestable to liberals because he is a Mormon, and detestable to evangelicals because, well, he's a Mormon, opens up on the Boston Media for having two points of view - the liberal view and the progressive view (paraphrasing, from mediabistro):

Nanny state politics are alive and well, and someone recently laughed at me when I said that eventually smoking will be banned in general, sooner than later being very likely. Laugh no more! Here we have the first American city to ban smoking. All I can say is that at least it isn't criminalized (for now).

Smoking Ban Article on San Mateo Daily Journal:

Al Gore just can't stay out of the spotlight, can he? He's recently said that he might not go into politics again, because he is very comfortable and happy being an environmental activist. Hmmm. I don't think you can be an activist and NOT be political. That's kind of the point, isn't it Al? I think he's really enjoying the attention he's getting. Personally, I think he's more effective doing what he's doing now than being part of the government.

Al Gore calls Aussies and Americans "Bonnie and Clyde" of Global Warming:

Aussie PM John Howard Hits Back at Gore, Promotes Nuclear Energy: 't-panic-just-wait-for-a-more-convenient-truth-urges-howard/2006/11/13/1163266484014.html#

Lastly, a comment based on some things I read in the Jerusalem Post last night. The left here and in Europe may not be taking Ahmedinejad seriously, as proven by that unwatchable Mike Wallace interview, but I'm going to tell you right now that Israelis have had enough. They've also had enough concerning the Palestinians. With Europe being completely unsympathetic, with Iran's nuclear games only being given lip service, and with bodies piling up on a daily basis on both sides of the border with Gaza, I've been hearing many Israelis stating that they want this nonsense to END, period, and what does that mean? It means this shit is going to come to a head very soon. When told that it would end if they could just give up more land, they say "We gave them Gaza and now it is only more or less a staging ground for attacks." If there was ever a time to prove to people that diplomacy is the only solution, it is now, but I have my doubts.

And I'm not using those words lightly:



Jason

Not to break up the rants or parties you guys are enjoying, but I have to ask you all something. You're all just talking about the national elections, and you're happy that the "corrupt, unethical" Republicans no longer have control - yet we just elected two real gems to Albany, and I want to know why nobody is talking about it. I suspect it's a case of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, or a case of just looking the other way. I hate to be so cynical but that's the way it looks.

Alan Hevesi (D) - An out and out THIEF of taxpayer dollars for his own personal purposes, and a repeat offender to boot. Famous for doing the same thing in the city. Oh, what a guy, he repaid it after he got caught. Unethical, inappropriate, and apparently completely acceptable to Democrats. I heard a good comment on the radio yesterday. Someone said "Who better to look after thieves than a thief? Who knows them better?"

Antoine Thompson (D) - This notorious yes-man, and proponent of the casino ran UNOPPOSED, which speaks to our local apathy and carelessness when it comes to local elections. Can you believe that people who will be harmed most by the Casino voted for this guy? And here we have to deal with the tired, incorrect rhetoric about Republican voters not voting for their own interests, which makes 750 howl with laughter. What a joke, an absolute joke, and nobody is talking about it. Why?

Oh, be happy that the Republicans no longer have national power, but hang your heads in shame and self-loathing after you learn that we continue to move backwards locally. The local elections are what matter the most to us on a day to day basis, and we are asleep at the wheel, mindlessly turning the (D) option in support of people who never should be in office.

The Democrats have, as expected, taken at least one portion of Congress away from the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, because I think replacing a group of far right wingers with a group of far left wingers will not result in anything useful for the majority of people.

We will still have minority beliefs and values forced upon us, but they will be of a different nature. I don't think having one party in control of the legislative and executive branch is helpful, so in a way I think it is better overall that things have gone this way, although nothing of any consequence will be done in the next two years.

I will guarantee you one thing - all of the talk of fraud, trickery, illegal activity, so on and so forth, all of this stuff is going to disappear into thin air, and why? Because in the end the left got their desired result. As long as they get their result the rest is sort of insignificant. When Democrats win, obviously nothing out of the ordinary happened. The one liner is "No loss? No problem!" I doubt we'll ever read another Niman rant about this, nor will it be plastered all across the mainstream press. It appears to me that it was all faux outrage. I hope that I'm wrong, and that there are a lot more DCoffee types out there who really give a shit about something other than victory for their party.

Rummy is now gone, and I don't think anyone would disagree at this point that it's the best thing for everybody. I would hate to work for a boss like that.

Congress is going to be locked in investigation hell, and every kook conspiracy theory is going to be given the kind of respect they should never receive. This is going to get very boring very quickly.

The Democrats won in part by courting moderate candidates. This is interesting to me because the House leadership will now be comprised almost entirely of far-left liberals, not moderates. Pelosi (if you believe Time magazine) is infamous for bending people to her will who disagree with her. America voted for Moderates, and that's not the kind of leadership we are going to receive.

I know there are those of you who are begging to have your taxes raised. Pelosi and Schumer have said repeatedly recently that they are not going to raise the rich's taxes, or anyone else's taxes! Do any of you really believe this? Will the Democrats wait until 2010 for Bush's tax cuts to expire? Absolutely not. Not a chance.

How many of you want Bush to be impeached? First of all, if you are thinking seriously about this, you do not know what it is you are asking for, because if you did you would understand that 67 senators need to agree on it. Pelosi and Schumer and the rest have also repeatedly said that Impeachment is off the table. Either they are lying or they are going to disappoint a lot of liberals.

What of Iraq? This is what voters went to the polls to protest. They say they will not "cut and run," but I don't see how moving our troops out of Iraq is indicative of any other attitude. Anyway Bush is still at the top of the military food chain. I see no significant changes in America's Iraq policy. If anything, people are going to vote to cut the funding of the war, in lieu of sticking their necks out for a major policy change.

How will the Democrat leadership do its job? It is going to be gridlock. All that is going to happen is a push for the '08 elections, and the Democrats aren't going to be active enough to hang themselves, if they are smart. They will leave the decisions concerning America's foreign and domestic policy to the UN, or to Paris.

I'm not happy, but then again there wasn't a result of this election that I would be happy with. I feel like it was a choice of bad or worse, and bad is still bad, you know?