My Review of Moose Creek Thermal Sweatshirt - Hooded (For Men)

Originally submitted at Sierra Trading Post

Closeouts . From Moose Creek, this hooded thermal sweatshirt gives extra warmth for whatever you're doing in cold weather. Waffle weave lining holds body heat. Handwarmer pockets Full front zip Drawstring hood Length: 27" 65% cotton, 35% polyester Lining is 65% cotton, 35% polyester...

Moose Creek Thermal Sweatshirt - Hooded (For Men)

Great winter sweatshirt for the money

By Scott from Raleigh, NC on 11/30/2008

 

5out of 5

Chest Size: Feels true to size

Length: Feels true to length

Sleeve Length: Feels true to length

Pros: Warm, Comfortable, High Quality

Best Uses: Everyday, Office

Describe Yourself: Comfort-oriented, Practical

Even before opening the package, you know this sweatshirt is quality; it is HEAVY, and that is a good thing. This is hands-down the best sweatshirt I have owned. The lining keeps me warm whether I'm hanging around my house, at work, or running a few quick errands in the 50-degree outdoors. The weight helps it drape well and not bunch up around my waist. The cuffs on the sleeves are nice and snug, keeping the wind from creeping in. The only less-than-perfect thing about this sweatshirt is the mediocre zipper. A nice YKK would be better, as this one requires a bit of finesse to close it up without a minor jam. Would order another of these in a heartbeat.

(legalese)

Post-Election 2008: Some thoughts

I have not posted since the election. Up until that point, it seemed like one every 2-3 days (probably just seemed like it though). It's not easy putting this together. One of the reasons I'm doing this is so that I can become more practiced at expressing myself coherently and concisely. (I can already express myself, but it's usually just a long string of grunts and other sounds...neither coherent nor concise.)

I felt like I put a good amount of effort into my last several posts. As D-Day grew nearer, I found that my passions became more clear and the need to get them down was more compulsive. Alas, it didn't go my way. But I will press on...Unless President Obama surprises the hell out of me and ends up being the polar opposite of who I think he is, I will continue to fight the good fight and defend my country and her constitution in the way that I best know how.

But that is for later. First, some thoughts on the election:

(1) America elected a black man as president for the first time in its history. This cannot be minimized; this is a truly monumental occasion, and should be celebrated. I was not even born when the Civil Rights movement was in full swing and MLK Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech or wrote his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," both of which I have read numerous times. But that was still only about 40 odd years ago. Blacks went from simply winning the right to vote to seating an American president in two short generations. Amazing.

(2) As amazing as it is, though, now that Obama is in office, the media should abandon its love affair with him and get on about treating him like any other president. Signs of that happening are scant, though. Chris Matthews of "Hardball" declared that he views it as his job to "do everything I can to make this [presidency] work...to make it succeed." Yes, the same Chris Matthews who "felt this thrill going up [his] leg" when Obama spoke.

Also you can read of MSNBC is producing a commemorative DVD called "Yes We Can! The Barack Obama Story." And, not to be outsold, ABC news is hawking their own "America Speaks: The Historic 2008 Election" book and DVD set, with Barack Obama livin' large on the cover.

(3) The rest of America should abandon their love affair with Obama, or at least suspend it until the guy actually takes office and does something! I mean, for the love of Pete, look at what is going on out there, a full 2 months before Inauguration Day:

• In Long Island, NY, a student-led movement has succeeded in renaming Ludlum Elementary to Barack Obama Elementary.
• Washington D.C.'s subway system is producing Barack Obama rider passes for the thousands of thousands expected to be on hand for Inauguration Day.
• And Obama himself has just approved the plans for his own Presidential Library, for which they will be breaking ground late next year.

OK, so that last one was made up (I think, maybe I should check?) but get real people. If you can't even entertain the possibility that Obama could be a wild screw up, and look at him with a modicum of critical thinking, then we really are doomed.

(4) For whatever reason, those who voted for Obama feel the need to implore everyone else who didn't vote for Obama to now come together in unified support for our 44th president. Unified support? I guess like the unified support that they gave our 43rd president? Yeah right. Kumbaya.

(5) As I said in the beginning, I will wait and see what my president does. As someone who believes in the genius and strength of our minimalist Constitution, reserving true power for the people in order to keep the elected (and temporary) powers in check, it troubles me when Obama calls the Constitution "lacking" or suggests that it needs to change in order to meet the needs of our modern society. I will give him a chance, and I hope that I am surprised. But if he goes after my basic rights as an American, I will speak out against him, just as his supporters spoke out against Bush when he tried to weaken that document. Hopefully, I can move one or two of you to my side as well.

Election 2008: My Final Comments

With the election a mere 3 days away, I honestly find myself a bit torn on which way to go. Obviously I have three choices:

Bob Barr (Libertarian): This is how I would vote if it would matter. I agree with the Libertarian platform on just about everything except the legalization of drugs. Of course, if you leave the door open to government control over that, then the door is opened wide again for everything else. But that's a different topic. While Barr is certainly a possibility for me, I won't spend any more space on him here.

John McCain (Republican): I've voted Republican all my life. My parents were both Republicans, so I've pretty much followed suit. I believe I broke rank in 1996 (or was it '92?) and voted for Ross Perot, actually. What's good about McCain?

1. While the "maverick" moniker has become a bit overused, it is an accurate portrayal of the guy. He has broken suit with his party on a number of things, notably campaign finance reform and immigration reform. I mean, any Republican who can join forces with Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is bound to upset his colleagues on the Right. Yet he did it anyway.
   
2. He most surely has the foreign policy credentials to keep the hostile parts of the world, those who wouldn't mind seeing harm coming to America, on their toes and trigger shy. I think one of the reasons we haven't seen more anti-America attacks in the past 7 years, nor more wars or regional conflicts in which we're involved, is because other leaders think Bush is a wee bit loco. He doesn't listed to the U.N. He doesn't take as gospel the advice coming out of the E.U. nations. He's not afraid to stretch the limits of his Constitutional power to go to war without support from Congress. Other heads of state may see McCain as just as volatile, which may keep them second-guessing any notion they might have to rattle his cage.
3. McCain believes, in most cases (see below), in the strength of the Constitution in its current, and intended form. He understands the role of judges. He understands why the Second Amendment is there. He understands that, fundamentally, large government is to be avoided.

What's not to like about McCain?

1. Though he is a "maverick" and breaks from his party on a number of issues, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency to his support, or underlying set of principles that guides his decisions on what to support and what not to support. Take campaign finance reform. To many Conservatives, who believe that the First Amendment allows for the public to exercise their right to speech by proxy through financial support to a given candidate, setting such limits is an abridgement of this free speech. Is he a Constitutionalist or not?
2. Sort of an extension of (1), above, McCain seems to fly by the seat of his pants (or following the perceived will of the voters), when it comes to certain ideas. He says he wants smaller government, but he proposed a $300 billion plan for government to "buy out" the underwater mortgages from strained homeowners. There is nothing "small government" about that. If it's difficult to identify a distinct undercurrent that guides someone's beliefs, based on the past, then it'll be difficult to predict what they'll actually do in a given situation.

Barack Obama (Democrat): Believe it or not, I do have some good things to say about Obama. My mother taught me to look for the good in everyone (or was that a TV show?). It's not that hard to find it in Obama. The good:

1. Obama is not a career politician. He is not someone who has been in the seat of power for decades. He spent all of three terms in the Illinois State Senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He is still very much a Washington outsider and someone who can potentially bring a lot of fresh ideas to the game. I suppose this is the basis of his "Change" slogan.
2. The guy is obviously intelligent and quite articulate. This is a pretty good contrast to Bush, who does come across as a bit of a moron at times. Then again, that contributes greatly to Bush's strength. For being a complete idiot, as many on the Left would conclude, Bush has done a pretty impressive job of thwarting the majority Democratic Congress over the past 2 years. Appearing dumb is disarming, and sets the expectations low. Barack does not appear dumb in any way. Sure, he has his gaffes, just like anyone who speaks publicly every day of the year, but his language and manner is a refreshing change.
3. Back to change. Obama recognizes a need for it. He's not the only one, but he sure seems to be sincere about his intentions to bring it about. The current system sucks. It's a good ol' boys club with the people in power looking to do anything they can to stay in power, with money doing all the talking, and where the voice of the true owners of government (you and I) is being ignored more and more every day. Change is needed, and desperately, Obama gets that I think.

Now the bad...the reasons below are some that I've given before. They all are based on one underlying opinion of mind: Obama is not the change we need. The change that Obama wants to bring about, his "complete" change, is most frightening.

1. Obama does not believe in limited government. When talking about the $700 billion "bailout" package, and his support of it, he said something to the tune of "of course I don't like giving $700 billion away to these financial institutions. Think of all the things that could be done with $700 billion: better funding for public schools, fixing our national infrastructure, etc." Notice he didn't mention not spending it at all; leaving it in the hands of you and me, the real owners of that money. Asked numerous times in the second two debates which of his proposals he would cut in order to help keep the national debt (and the size of government) in check, he balked; he did not give an answer. That's because he wouldn't cut any of his proposals. He believes that the "rich" in this country (currently that level is defined by him as those making more than $250K/year) can spare enough to support his proposals. He's wrong, especially when the shock of the decreasing tax revenues we can expect in the coming years are coupled with increasing debt service. "Rich" will be a floating term, and will quickly expand to include the middle class.
2. Obama has very little real experience in governing. While he is not a career politician, he certainly appears to be a career campaigner. He began his Illinois Senate first term in 1996. He was re-elected to that seat until he moved up to the U.S. Senate in 2005. During this 8 years he spent in the state legislature, Obama ran for the U.S. House of Representatives (2000, he lost) and for the U.S. Senate (2004, he won). Assuming each campaign/election cycle lasts 2 years, Obama spent half his time in the state legislature running for a higher office. He began his bid for President in 1996, less than 2 years after serving in the U.S. Senate. So out of 12 years in office, he will have spent 6-7 years campaigning for a higher office. Ambition or hunger for power? Either way, he has equal experience campaigning as he does actually serving.
3. While Obama did not declare that any of his proposed programs would get the axe (or the scalpal, as he likes to say), he did declare his intent to cut spending on the military. Providing for a national defense is the first and foremost responsibility of government. His intention, combined with his lack of foreigh policy experience, would almost certainly invite a challenge to America's power and influence, and threaten our security. Biden was right when he predicted a major challenge to the new Democratic president within the first 6 months of his administration. It happened to Kennedy and it will likely happen to Obama. He does not have the experience to deter such a challenge in the first place, nor does he have the experience to deal with it should it occur.
4. A hint of the "fundamental change" that Obama would bring to the country can be gleaned from his ideas on the function of judges on the Supreme Court. During the third debate, when asked who he would appoint to the Supreme Court bench, he said that it would, in essence, be someone who "has compassion for the daily struggles of the common man." That is not the function of the courts, especially at that level. Their function is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative Branch and weigh them against the allowances of the Constitution. "Compassion" in the courts for a particular class of people is essentially removing the blindfold off of Justice and making decisions based on elements that should not be considered. Further, Obama has stated that he would have liked to see the Warren Court, which presided during the Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century, be able to do more to affect distributional change. Again, not a function of the courts. If Obama had his vision, he would effectively deconstruct the Constitution in this regard.
5. The company he keeps. Obama and his campaign have been as dismissive as possible about his questionable associations throughout his career. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, etc...These are all people that Obama has associated with to a greater or lesser degree as he rose through the ranks of politics and during his formative years. These associations are important. The press certainly thought so, when Obama was campaigning against Hillary. Now that he's the nominated candidate, they are pretty much giving him a free pass on these matters. I happen to believe there's enough evidence to prove that his associations with these people are more than passing and that he needs to answer some very tough questions about them.

Come Tuesday, it is quite likely that I will vote for either McCain or Barr. Obama's vision of change for America is not one that interests me (and frankly, it should not interest you either). Voting for either of the other two would be a vote against Obama, in my book. Voting for McCain is unpalatable, but that may be what's needed to keep Obama out of office. It's unfortunate that there is no perfect candidate (again). For those of you who think Obama is it, you're in for a huge shock.