There's more to life than living more

Taco Bell has a new campaign geared towards young people that uses the tag line, "Live Mas," or Live More.  Great.  Just what a generation centered on experience rather than substance needs to hear.

I like Taco Bell, though I like Chipotle much more, and can certainly appreciate a marketing campaign focused on aspirational life style.  This new slogan is probably a little better than "think outside the bun" in trying to encourage people to try new things, such as new Mexican fast food products, I presume.  But I think their new ad for their "loaded grillers" is horrible, suggesting that the primary benefit of the product is that you don't have to share them.  Yes, selfishness is something we want to promote and encourage in young people.  Like so many aren't spoiled and self-absorbed enough now.  Or maybe this is a brilliant plan to kill the selfish people of the world by feeding them products filled with fat, carbs, and salt.  

By the way (and none of that btw stuff, you've got a couple of extra nanoseconds to read the actual words), it's a little known fact that after the results of focus group tests MacDonald's shortened their current slogan of "I'm lovin' it" from the original "I'm lovin' it now but paying for it layer" theme, which itself was a shortened version of "I'm lovin' it now that the kids are feeding their huge fat faces instead of driving me crazy but I'll pay for it later when I'm cramping on the toilet looking forward to death which doubtlessly and mercifully will come shockingly prematurely from the diabetes and heart disease engendered by this overpriced poison."

image from www.officialorange.com

Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. [Merriam-Webster]

Freedom is a holy word to me.  I love this country, and what I love most about it is the core value of liberty and justice for all.  While there is a natural tension and necessary balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society, we are incredibly privileged to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Too many people have died to make it so.  

So why is it, then, that We the People must pledge allegiance to this great, albeit imperfect, land?  The sight of a classroom of children standing by their desks and reciting as one a pledge of allegiance conjures some scary fascist images.  Freedom carries important responsibilities, but is "allegiance" to the state beyond not engaging in activities that are harmful to the freedom, in a broad sense, of others part of that responsibility?  Now I suppose that one could argue that the allegiance is not so much to the manifestations of the existing state as to the principles that are the foundation of the state, so that the allegiance is to the obligation to be constantly vigilant against "any Form of Government [that] becomes destructive of these ends."  But I doubt that the first graders pledging allegiance are being schooled in the principles promulgated by the Declaration and the Constitution, nor are they being encouraged to be critical thinkers in such matters.  How could they be?  They're little kids.  So for a six year old is pledging allegiance to a flag encouraging thoughtful understanding of the principles and obligations of freedom or the unquestioning obedience to the state?  And if pledging allegiance isn't enough, it must be done as a group, with all of the social and authoritative coercion of the group and its leader (the teacher).  No pressure to conform there, but isn't this a typical technique of indoctrination?  

OK, it's probably a little weird to be against the Pledge of Allegiance.  It just seems that the love of freedom and this great land should be the product of understanding and thoughtful choice rather than forced rote learning.  Nor should one be forced to give public proclamation.  And while I'm on it, what's with the "one nation, under God?"  I thought we- rightfully- have separation of church and state.  Kids must publicly proclaim allegiance to a state and affirm that they are, as part of that state, under that god.

With liberty and justice for all.

image constructed from kylegriesinger.com and www.dailykos.com

Tooth and Nail

OK, so here's a little tip:  don't aggravate your dental hygienist.  Today I arrived exactly on time for my cleaning, according to my appointment card.  Unfortunately, the hygienist believed I was 15 minutes late, as apparently the appoint book and card were out of sync.  Not only was she a bit miffed, but seemed to think that she had to make up some time.  I'm not saying that she wasn't taking ordinary care, but I believe she may have been digging a little deep and punctured a lung.

image from www.altfg.com

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Part of a letter to a friend that was depressed about the election results:

...The country pretty much runs itself, though a president can have some impact (e.g., war).  The divided Congress is going to make it hard for anything to get done anyway.  I was disappointed a bit but not at all surprised by the results, and am mostly over it today (not crazy about the stock market today, though- ouch)  You asked why I don't like Romney.  I do like many things about him, such as his positions on health care, education, taxes, trade, immigration, Israel/Iran, and probably more if I thought about it, and I don't like some things, like his positions on defense, gun control, the environment, abortion, and parts of his energy policy (coal? really?).  I also wasn't crazy about his choice for vice president, a superficial ploy to win your home state and try to appease the very conservative wing of the party to solidify the base and get them out.  Ryan's economic plan was OK, but he's just way over the top on religion, and I don't trust religious fanatics.  On the other hand, Biden is pretty creepy and worse.  But really, VPs don't matter too much to me.  And while I was enthusiastic about Romney's emphasis on cutting the deficit, I was discouraged by his singular inability to articular where the 7 trillion was going to come from, as he seemed quite vague and naive about that.  Still, even though Romney was a mediocre governor, as memory serves, President Obama really didn't do anything in 4 years and there is no reason to think that the next 4 will be any different or think that he deserves another term.  So I voted for Romney (which was the kiss of death, as I've only voted for one winning presidential candidate ever), but wasn't excited about him.  But then, there haven't been too many candidates in my lifetime for whom I have been excited (the one's who win are the ones who are good at campaigning, which is an entirely different set of skills than those for doing the job).  As for his personality, he was a little slick, and the "self-made man" got tiresome for a guy with a rich father who was governor that opened a lot of doors for Mitt.  Also, he tried way too hard to appear to be a "regular guy" and just couldn't pull it off.  Not wearing a jacket and tie and rolling up the sleeves for the photo ops didn't look genuine; he reminded me of Dukakis pandering for the average guy vote.  Overall, though, he's OK as politicians go, and probably of better character than most.  I wish he won but it's not as depressing as the Patriots losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl or anything (yeah, I'm really deep)...

image from jobs.aol.com

Just turn away; nothing to see here

With yet another Halloween coming soon it makes me think of some of the costumes I've been seeing around, and by that I mean people dressing up for others to create images of themselves.  Some call this fashion.

Lately I'm seeing a lot of skinny jeans around.  I believe this may be associated with the new standards being invoked for light bulbs, as the government is requiring that the light bulb market be dominated by low wattage offerings.  This, in turn, must be leading to lower light households, so that people can not accurately see themselves in mirrors.  How else can you explain people wearing skinny jeans in public?  I don't think I've seen anyone look good in these jeans.  Even my wife, who is a beautiful woman, is not at her best in these jeans, though she looks great in pretty much anything.  And men?  Forget it- they look like they lost a bet.

And of men, there is now something even worse called "meggings."  What is going through the minds of those men who are wearing these leggings?  Most women don't look good in leggings (think fuzzy spandex), but most have the decency to wear leggings underneath skirts, which is fine though not particularly flattering, and makes perfect sense on a cold day.  So if men want to wear leggings underneath their pants, fine with me.  We used to call those long underwear.  But wearing meggings alone (which are pretty much just pantyhose), that's like wearing Speedos on the street, and it's either cruel or crazy to subject innocent bystanders to such distasteful and generally unsightful narcissism.

image from businessinsider.com

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

When our kids were very little I used a phrase enough that it became a family motto that went beyond the commonly held belief that you get what you pay for.  That phrase was "cheap China toy," which is now the code for anything that is so poorly made or conceived that it is not worth owning or doing. It originated with the observation that toys, especially electronics, that are made in China are almost always substandard at best and dangerous at worst.  But it's not just toys, as I talk to a number of people in various industries who tell me how poor Chinese goods are, such as the poor quality of steel, the poor the quality of clothing and accessories, the poor quality of manuals, etc.  And to top it off, so much of this stuff are illegal knock-offs.  But so many suppliers and retailers carry this cheap "stuff" because it's cheap.  I'm a pretty cheap so-and-so, but I'm making an effort to avoid Cheap China Toys, but it's often hard to do, as they're everywhere.  I hope whomever is elected helps solve this huge economic and moral problem (though I doubt any of our "leaders" "tener cojones" to do so), as it just isn't worth our collective souls to consume inferior Chinese goods and the accompanying lack of manufacturing standards, poor treatment of workers, disregard for laws and property rights, unjust trade policies, and more, just to save a few bucks.  It costs us a lot more than we think.

image from http://www.grand-china.com.cn/eng/images/factory_3.jpg

Words to Live By

Everything in moderation, including moderation.

Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots

The election is about a month away, so the ads and debates have begun.  I'm very impressed and excited with how much these politicians are fighting for me.  I think that just about every one of them is or will be fighting for me.  With all these people fighting for me, the next few years are going to be great!  Oh wait, didn't they tell me that last election?  And every election?  I can't remember, really, as the only time I see my elected representatives is when they want to be elected, but that's probably because they're all very busy fighting for me.

image from scoop.diamondgalleries.com

What do you want to be when you grow up?

First of all, nobody knows the answer to this, no matter what age you are.  We're all wondering what we should do, feel restrained that we have to be tied down to a single professional interest, spend so much time working, and want to enjoy what we do for a living.  But why do you think they call it "work?"  For college kids, this is especially intimidating, as the decisions in college and upon graduation impact the rest of one's life.  That's the perception, at least, though not entirely the truth; most people will change jobs and career paths from that which was started or intended, and I've read that the average person changes jobs five times.

For older folks, the stereotypical middle-aged crisis comes as one crosses 40 and finds mortality on the other side, then realizing that a lot of life has gone by without much to show for it (and later comes the "bucket list" for some).  The younger generation, though, seems to be hitting its middle-age crisis around 30, which is ironic as they'll probably live longer, maybe a lot longer.  Many young adults have been told all of their young lives that they can do and become anything they wish, and of course they deserve it because they're special.  And so you dream, only to become disillusioned, if not bitter, when you finally discover that life doesn't owe you a living.  Around 30 you'll probably think that you spent too long in college (accumulating too much debt), have wandered and struggled throughout your 20s trying to find your dream job that uses your education and unique skills, find the perfect spouse, have time for family, friends, and interests, and have a balanced and fulfilling life.  Things should have come together by 30, but when that doesn't happen, the real world will become too real.  

You're probably not going to be a rock star, a marine biologist working with dolphins, or make a million and be at the beach by noon. You won't start with a house like your parents have (which probably took them 20 years to get, following the two bedroom apartment and starter house), may be leasing a car (or still nursing that 7 year old car that costs you $600 for something every 6 months) and worried about your calling plan, and most likely will have roommates for too long and marry fairly late (I won't say that you necessarily "settled" but it's a coin toss that you'll stay together).   Oh, and now you see someone in the mirror who should probably start thinking about working out.  

Actually, most of you will be doing OK by 30, but you'll probably be disappointed because your expectations were so high you'll think that it wasn't supposed to be this way.  Life is hard, and it's hard to deal with that.  But the good news is that by 40 you'll probably figure it out.  Or maybe 50.  Or whenever it is that you start regretting those tattoos.

image from toostep.com

They shot John Lennon

Academia is filled with very liberal people, and yet in my personal life my family and friends tend to be conservative.  I'm usually in the middle, which I guess makes me a moderate, but in reality I probably lean right on economics issues and left on social issues, but the two are often in conflict.  The issue of illegal immigration is just such a conflict.  

If I had a family in a foreign country and had a difficult time supporting and even protecting them, I'm pretty sure I'd do all that I could to help my family, and perhaps coming to the United States would be a real option.  I really can't hate people for trying to better their lives, and in fact were I in their shoes I might also be here illegally.  I have no problem at all with the number of immigrants in the US.  Our country is a country of immigrants, and every one of us are or are descended from immigrants (and that includes "native" Americans, who just immigrated here earlier than most and then were unconscionably exploited and mistreated by many that came later).  I very much admire how many that immigrated to the United States have overcome so much, and frequently worked very hard to do so.  I am proud and in awe of people who have worked to become US citizens, people who actually chose to be citizens rather than just becoming one by birth.  I can further appreciate how difficult it is, particularly with quotas and the legal system, for people to immigrate here properly.  But what I see, often personally (especially when I lived in Southern California), is a large number of people who have made little or no attempt to obtain visas and later green cards.  But what really burns many people's cookies is when someone who is here illegally expects and even demands public assistance as their "right."

One measure of a society is the compassion that its people have for those less fortunate.  I agree with that, but like most things, putting the principle into practice is a complex exercise.  Yes, it would be great if we lived in a Utopian society.  "Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace."  But people are people, resources are limited and competing, and issues associated with illegal immigrants aren't always black or white.  Illegal immigrants are people and like almost all people deserving of compassion and respect, but illegal immigrants are criminals that by many measures are net economic liabilities, at least in the short term.

I think that most of us would agree in principle that in almost all cases a person bleeding to death should receive some basic level of care regardless of his/her immigration status.  But even in that instance, in a world of limited and competing resources, it's easy to construct scenarios that create moral and economic dilemmas.  And the questions get tougher as we move away from life-and-death emergency needs, and the allocation of scarce resources, along with often conflicting moral standards, make issues associated with illegal immigration controversial ones.  I think in general, though, when a person has made little or no attempt to meet the entry requirements of the host country, that illegal immigrant is not entitled to most of the benefits afforded that country's citizens.

So I was truly amazed if not dumbfounded when many of my colleagues were outraged that our state legislators would consider cutting payments for illegal immigrants to attend college (not even barring illegal immigrants from going to a state college, just not paying for them to do so).  Really?  I must confess that when I saw the TV video of illegal aliens protesting against the possibility that they would not receive this "right," that the thought crossed my mind that it seemed foolish for those who are by definition criminals to not only congregate but do so in a very public way, as it seemed to simplify the task of immigration officials to find, detain, and deport them.  I know that seems harsh, but there is something very distasteful about seeing those who do not play by the rules, even if there is some question about those rules, profit illegally, particularly to the detriment of those who do play by the rules.   But even if you argue that the rules are so severely flawed that the moral imperative outweighs the legal directive, we simply cannot afford to pay for everything that we'd like to have and do, especially when we are taking money from citizens (taxes), and then spending that money in a manner not necessarily favored by those citizens.  Maybe it's jingoistic, or maybe it's just hard choices, but I have not seen any particular outcry by the citizenry of the government of, for, and by the people to spend the money of the people in providing a substantial level of involuntary charity to those who are not of the people, especially those who violate the laws of the people.

More simply, we as a people believe that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But is it our obligation to sacrifice (and many would argue beyond our means- and therein lies the rub) to provide that right to others, and more pragmatically, can we afford to do so?  Some would smugly argue that we cannot afford not to.  But then, we've spent a lot of money and lives trying to impose our values in Iraq and Afghanistan, with dubious benefit (and how'd that Vietnam thing work out?), so maybe it's cheaper and more efficient to just let the people in repressed and impoverished countries come here.  Imagine that.

image from greatdreams.com

Over the River and Through the Woods

It's kind of ironic that as people live longer they seem to know their grandchildren less. Or at least the traditional baking cookies with grandma and fishing with grandpa seem to be just cultural idealizations.  It is still common for families to visit the grandparents on holidays and occasions, but even then this is often a complicated logistical endeavor, with multiple sets (often more than two with divorce so prevalent) requiring multiple stops or holiday trade-offs.

There are still some families geographically close enough for a lot of interaction, as there are still some people that live most of their entire lives near where they were born, but as a mobile society it is pretty common for kids or parents to move farther away.  And with how busy people are with the day-to-day of their lives, 20 miles might as well be 2000 miles anyway when it comes to visiting.  And I could be wrong about this, but it seems that today's parents are a lot more child-centric, and grandparents less grandchild-centric, as seniors in general are often in better health, more active, and have more options than in the old days.

So grandparents don't tend to spend a lot of time with their grandkids, except when they are surrogate caretakers, which isn't that unusual.  I do see some grandparents raising their grandchildren, and even know a great-grandmother raising a child, but more commonly local grandparents are expected to be free babysitters.  This is really pretty unfair, but often the grandparents help the single mom, the dual-working parents, and such.  You'd think there'd be a lot of grandparents as part of extended families in the household, which would lead to more interaction, but though there seem to be more "sandwich" families, where adults are taking care of both their children and parents, the norm seems to be that the kids are grown up by the time the grandparent(s) move in.  Grandpa doesn't retire at 65, die of a heart attack at 67, and then grandma moves in with the family so much anymore.  When grandparents move in, it's often later in life for health-related reasons where it is difficult for them to take care of themselves but too soon for more advanced managed care.

But here's the ugly truth.  Most kids don't really want to be around their grandparents, and are put out just to make the "mandatory" thank you call for a gift. Except for the presents they get, it's pretty boring for them.  For family gatherings, sitting and talking are not high on the fun list for kids, so if they're lucky, there are other kids to play with, and if they aren't lucky, then it's cell phones, Twitter, Facebook, and video games.  And there tend to be a lot of "don't dos" for kids:  don't touch this, don't make noise, don't, don't don't.  The Victorian "children should be seen and not heard" isn't a real selling point for kids.  As for the quality time with grandparents, there isn't much one-on-one, and if there is, not a lot of grandparents are great at playing, which is pretty much all kids want to do.  Most kids aren't big on quilting.  Most grandparents can't fluidly move from, never mind do, activity to activity every 20 minutes, which is about the attention span of most kids.  If they're lucky, there may be the occasional "golden moment," where a walk in the woods, a trip to a baseball game, a sharing of a coin collection, a talk about the old days, etc., becomes a cherished memory.  Most of the time, though, visiting the grandparents is more of an obligation for kids, except when the grandparents are in a relatively exotic location and become a "hotel" for facilitating travel and recreation activities.

And truth be told, most grandparents can't spend a lot of time around their grandkids, either.  Of course grandparents adore the grandkids, but how many times have you heard grandparents say that they love seeing the grandkids, and are happy that they go home. The kids are tiring, demanding, difficult to talk to, and have different interests (the days of the forty-something grandparents seem to be mostly behind us with people now marrying and having kids much later, on average).  And grandparents don't know where the boundaries are, meaning how much latitude does the grandparent have in making grandchild decisions involving going places, discipline, foods, etc.  How should the child be reprimanded when the parent is there, but it's the grandparents' house, for example?  A lot of parents are pretty particular about how the child should be treated, what a child can and can't do, etc., and some are pretty particular about ceding those decisions to others, even grandparents.  A lot of parents are raising their kids differently than they were raised by their parents, which is a product of the times, the spouse, economics, etc.

Does anyone really know their grandparents anymore?  I really didn't know my grandparents very well, and when I talk to people of my generation and each of the two generations below me (though I had kids fairly late so I kind of straddle two generations in this respect), it is very rare to find someone who was close to a grandparent other than someone whose grandparent was something of a "surrogate parent."  That seems a shame, really, but apparently the days of over-the-river-and-through-the-woods are gone, if they ever were. 

image from themeshack.com

Pet Costumes

Please, for the love of God, please stop dressing your pets.  They don't like it.  We don't like it.  It is not cute, it's just stupid and embarrassing.  Stop it.  Stop it now.







image from youareadog.com

President's Obama's Social Security Number- Really?

From the same friend:

HOW NO ONE GETS
A REASSIGNED SS NUMBER

An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama:

Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama's current SSN) on or about March 1977.

Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.

Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!

Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii , where he died.

Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.

The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.

The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama.

Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O's use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.

Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "natural born" there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.

Let's all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists. If the voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying, deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the biggest and best news in decades for our country and the world.

Response:

The death index shows that the SSA was informed of Ludwig’s death. The Jean Paul Ludwig referred to in the email — born in 1890, lived in Connecticut, died in Hawaii — looks to be the same one listed in the database (born on Feb. 17, 1890; SSN issued in Connecticut; death benefits issued in Hawaii).
But the Social Security number listed for Ludwig is 045-26-8722, not XXX-XX-4425.
Finally, since non-citizens can legally obtain Social Security numbers, Snopes.com points out, the issue is moot — even if you believe that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Having a Social Security number is hardly an indication of citizenship. [The attributed source for this is FactCheck]

 Well, then, if  the Globe published it, it must be true. 

 

President Obama Birth Certificate- yet again

Received this from a friend, as have so many others:

Very Interesting Bit of Detective Work

1.
Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American when the term wasn't even used at that time?

2.
The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern,except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years
after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the " British Eas Africa Protectorate".

3.
On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity Gynecological Hospital ". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani
Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had
not yet been applied to it until 1978?

Response:

Why are you  so wrapped up in this?  I  can’t say that I have any interest at all in this, and believe that with all the weasels in politics and law that if there were any real issue it would have been a real issue.  As for this latest Sheriff Joe conspiracist (made up that word, but note that it contains racist) witch hunt to make the rounds:

RE: “1. Back in 1961 people of color were called “Negroes.” So how can the Obama “birth certificate” state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time?”

ANSWER: First it does not say “African-American.” It says “African.” Only African. The explanation is simple. In Hawaii you were allowed to use any word you wanted to describe your race. There was no checklist, and no one stood over you saying what you had to enter. There are entries in Hawaii of people listing their race as “American.” So you were allowed to use any word you wanted.

And what was the word that African exchange students commonly used to describe their race in the 1960s? Answer: African.

Re: “… Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known then as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.”

Answer. You are out of date about the name. It stopped being called the British East African Protectorate in 1920. In that year it was renamed. What was the name? THE KENYA COLONY. In short, it was called Kenya, and it was in East Africa, so the entry Kenya, East Africa is correct.

Re: “3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. ”

Answer: No, you are referring to two other hospitals, the merging of two other hospitals.

Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital DID exist in 1961. How do we know? Well, on WND’s site there are birth certificates for the Nordkye Twins, born one day after Obama in the same hospital, and what is the name of the hospital on their birth certificates? Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

This answer came off the internet too, so while it makes sense, who knows what’s true.  The birth certificate “falsification issue” seems outlandish but conspiracy theorists will run with anything.  I don’t know much about Sheriff Joe, but if this is an example of his work, I’m not impressed.  The larger issue, though, is why are people spending time on this nonsense?  Why not focus on the President’s job performance, or lack thereof?  This is going to be another tough election for the voter.  President Obama hasn’t done a good job as president, and Governor Romney didn’t do a good job as governor.  Why can’t we have a good candidate from either party?