Global what?

Isn’t it supposed to be a “global” thing? Whilst up North I faintly recall an insignificant story about all of the freaking SNOW and overall nasty cold winter weather causing havoc in Denver and surrounding environs. Yes, the Northeast corridor has had little seasonal precipitation to date, and since the entire world revolves around the Northeast it of course proves that the fiery death of the planet is nigh.

Please treat the news reports today about the monster storm that began in Denver moving eastward as blasphemous to the religion of the environmentalists – unless it happens to reach New York.

Translation: It’s winter. Snow happens. It gets cold. Every year some places get MORE and other places get LESS.

Could it be the ice-age hysteria of the 1970’s rearing it’s ugly head again? Oh no, the humanity!

She turned me into a newt!

Ding, Dong, the Witch is DEAD!

Sometimes it’s easy to forget that the rest of the world consummates court ordered punishment a HELL of a lot faster than our ACLU controlled legal system. Let’s compare shall we:

Iraq – Sadam convicted on November 5, 2006 and hanged on December 30, 2006. According to my rudimentary calculations, that’s less than 60 days!
USA – 20+ years per and counting...

I’d tell Sadam to enjoy his eternity in Hell if I believed it actually existed.

Back and white

No, I’m not going to add another inane best/worst list of 2006 to your reading list. There are plenty of those in circulation already. Nope, just a short and sweet missive about me and my recent whereabouts and adventures.

We spent the holiday up North and just got back yesterday, the same day that our new house closed. We’re getting the keys today. Although this is my fourth home purchase, this one almost seemed to be processed from a distant, surreal existence. I know it probably doesn’t make any sense to anyone else besides my wife, so don’t try.

Pop the corks, white burgundy preferred.

Happy New Year’s to everyone. Here’s to a year better than the last.

Will someone please take charge?

"Consensus? Consensus is the negation of leadership!"
- Margaret Thatcher

I remember reading an interesting article in Reader’s Digest during the 2004 election comparing what Democrats and Republicans desire in their political representatives. Out of the differences listed, one characteristic in particular stood out to me - style of leadership. According to the article, liberals generally prefer those that lead/govern by consensus, and conservatives generally prefer those that lead/govern by taking charge, such as “this is what I think, and this what I’m going to do.” After reading this I started to pay attention for instances of this whenever reading, watching, or listening to current events.

This preference isn’t strictly limited to politics. I can see that it’s more a foundation for conflict resolution. I’ve noticed that liberals (including the press of course) love the “uniter” type of leaders and groups (i.e., Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Robert Gates, United Nations) and loathe the “cowboy” unilateral types (i.e., President Bush, President Reagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld). I can now understand how that makes them seethe with hatred for President Bush, simply because he doesn’t ask the world’s (and their) opinion and permission before he formulates policy and acts accordingly. Good and bad.

I can also understand conservative opposition to solving problems (running a war) by committee. They view that resolving conflicts in this manner appeases the enemy, doesn’t actually solve the problem, only mitigates the current flare up, and pushes final resolution later on down the road for someone else to deal with. Personally, I would prefer someone to take charge and complete the task, rather than in an effort to please everyone (you won’t) compromising to the point that the solution is just a temporary band-aid. Only defeat of the enemy (like Japan in WWII) gives the victor dominion to dictate policy. In the long term, diplomacy works better only after one side actually wins.

When taking leadership styles into consideration, liberal and conservative approaches to issues begin to make more sense. It doesn't mean that one is necessarily better than the other, it means that they are easier to comprehend.

Cynically speaking, I think that liberals feel that as long as everyone can get together, smile, shake hands (with their fingers crossed behind their backs and a wink), and sing a few stanzas of Kum-ba-yah (secular lyrics only of course) the world will be at peace. No one likes war, but history shows time and time again that this idealistic and symbolic approach hasn’t worked either. Remember Neville Chamberlain?

Woohoo

The house sold! The waiting is now almost over and the next chapter can begin with a "more better" start.

It's easy to get lost in the turmoil and tumult of the buying/selling process and forget that we're still making a profit, one that easily kicks the crap out of any mutual fund or blue chip stock.

And the best part of it all is - I can use my dishwasher again!